Topic
Become a member to post in the forums.
A sidebar to the wool vs synthetic debate.
How flammable are our modern synthetic clothes? I know the old polyester clothes were a serious hazard. Once lit they would continue to burn vigorously.
Are there stats on this for the outdoor industry? Deaths and injuries per year? I’m assuming the new wools are much less flammable.
I like real fires and am purchasing a woodburner so this seems relevant.
Paul
The book “Lighten Up!” by Don Ladigen that several on here told me to read says that silnylon fabric is not flame resistant at all and will incinerate in a few seconds. Ladigen recommends NOT using any open flame around silnylon fabrics.
I have no experience with silnylon in the real world yet, so I am just going by what this book states. I have always relied upon flame resistant nylon tents and tarps in the past, flame resistant nylon pack fabrics like cordura, etc. So I never really thought about this subject until recently.
Just thought I should inject that here. Most other synthetics will melt hot before they actually burn.
Vlad
>silnylon fabric is not flame resistant at all and will incinerate in a few seconds
I used a lighter to singe the stray edge threads on silnylon when I was making a quilt and a hat; no problem. I just now took a piece of silnylon and applied a flame directly to it. It did not ignite, although it did melt. When there was a flame on a small amount of melted fabric, the flame went out on its own. However, once I had enough fabric melted to form a small ball, after the flame was applied for a few seconds it was able to continue to burn on its own. It burned in a similar fashion to a styrofoam cup, although without the cool ‘zip’ sound that flaming styrofoam makes when it drips.
Vlad et al,
If memory serves, the issue is not whether a fabric is flammable but whether or not it will self-quench if you light it on fire and THEN REMOVE THE FLAME SOURCE.
For a tarp, this isn’t too much of an issue, for a tent it’s more so (potential safety issue of being inside the tent).
Of course, if you practice good safety precautions, neither should be too much of an issue.
Simply making a fabric thicker with a tighter weave (aka heavier) is going to make it ‘more flame resistant’. Anything as lightweight as silnyl is going to burn if you keep a flame against it.
FYI – I’m worn my SilNyl windshirt while I tend a fire before and not had it light up… of course, I’m pretty careful when tending fires.
Synthetics and flame don’t mix at all. At best, you’ll get a hole burnt in your gear. At worst, the fabric will melt onto your skin. It’s my understanding that many military units have outlawed Underarmor and the like for this reason.
If you’re going to be around lots of campfires wool (or cotton) is best. Nothing like a quarter-sized cinder hole in your new Patagucci down vest to ruin your mood. Some of the hard-faced fleeces seem to be a little more resistant to burns but I wouldn’t call them flame retardant by any stretch.
sometimes you can pick up military nomex long johns
at the thrift store. They work pretty well
in cold and wet weather and don’t melt
to your flesh.
I once worked in the “melt shop” of a steel mill where we were only allowed to wear cotton or wool; since at the time I was allergic to wool, cotton it was (at least next to the skin). Staying warm was no problem, however.
I’ve no qualms about operating a campstove wearing clothing made in a test tube, however.
> How flammable are our modern synthetic clothes?
We do know that wool and cotton tend to char, while synthetics tend to melt. Most walkers will have had the experience of getting a hole or two in some synthetic clothing, either from an ember or touching a hot stove.
However, as far as I know (my knowledge is mainly limited to Australia), there are very few if any deaths recorded as being due to synthetic clothing being worn while walking or camping. Certainly, many of us will have spent decades walking in synthetic clothing with never an accident in sight.
Like Douglas Frick, I ran a flame test on some silnylon fabric, and I was very pleased to find the silnylon I had seemed reluctant to burn and indeed went out as soon as the flame was removed.
Maybe six-plus months ago, on another website, this subject came up. A poster there related his own personal experience with synth. non-flame retardant materials.
IIRC, he didn’t go into precisely how this problem came about other than to say a problem with a backwoods fire (stove??? campfire???). One of his synth garment’s sleeves ingnited(is that the correct term?) and melted to his bare forearm, nearly from wrist to elbow before he succeeded in extinguishing the process. The result: backcountry first-aid, followed by an excruciating walk out and treatment at a burn unit of a hospital for second and third degree burns which left much of his forearm severely scarred.
When I was on active duty I worked around fuel and armaments; we were prohibited from wearing any undergarments except cotton or wool, so I (stupidly) choose cotton. I have permanent chilblain injuries from two COLD winters in Korea, which doubling up on wool might have prevented. Too bad Vlad wasn’t my C.O.
Here is a report from Iraq on this subject*:
“..clothing containing synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said [the] head surgeon.
“We had a Marine with significant burn injuries covering around 70 percent of his body..the armored vehicle he was riding in struck an IED, causing his POLYESTER SHIRT TO MELT TO HIS SKIN..Navy doctors had to CUT THE MELTED UNDERGARMENT FROM HIS TORSO.”
I think Im going to accelerate my search for wool longjohns..!
*http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93820,00.html
my wife has had holes burnt and melted into her fleece from flying embers (once from fireworks).
my friend habitually takes a lighter to his wool jacket with very little effect. stray threads burn off.
i’ve often tended a campfire in wool gloves. i’d never do the same in synthetic gloves.
burnt goose down smells awful.
Thanks for all the info. The idea of a fused second skin does not appeal to me. I too am careful and have never had an indicent beyond pinholes, but I have ordered a woodburner..why tempt fate. I am going to switch my base layers to wool.
It’s not feasible to replace all my layers with natural fibers, however, I intend to make a quilt this winter and have determined to make the inner layer with thin silk, ala Bill F.
I will be CAREFULLY experimenting with woodburning under a high-pitched tarp, starting in the back yard. Fashioning a spark screen etc. We’ll see.
Off topic, I am finding a certain aesthetic gratification using more “natural” means and materials. All this has been discussed in other threads; woodburning (without ground charring), wool, bushwhacking vs trail. Even to the point of sacrificing a few ounces.
Paul
When I was on active duty I worked around fuel and armaments; we were prohibited from wearing any undergarments except cotton or wool, so I (stupidly) choose cotton. I have permanent chilblain injuries from two COLD winters in Korea, which doubling up on wool might have prevented. Too bad Vlad wasn’t my C.O.
Here is a report from Iraq on this subject*:
“..clothing containing synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said [the] head surgeon.
“We had a Marine with significant burn injuries covering around 70 percent of his body..the armored vehicle he was riding in struck an IED, causing his POLYESTER SHIRT TO MELT TO HIS SKIN..Navy doctors had to CUT THE MELTED UNDERGARMENT FROM HIS TORSO.”
I think Im going to accelerate my search for wool longjohns..!
*http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,93820,00.html
Sorry to hear about your cold weather injuries from Korea. I had two friends stationed there years ago. It is ironic that during the Korean war (early fifties) all of the “BDUs” or fatigue clothing systems were either made of various versions of really cool cotton, ripstop, twill, etc. Or for cold weather duty soldiers were automatically ISSUED heavy wool clothing.
When I started backpacking at age 14, one of my first trips was a winter 50 miler I mentioned in another thread. I wore these heavy duty wool GI issue long underwear along with OD GI issue wool pants and shirt. I never once got what could be considered to be cold, while most of the group dropped out.
I am amazed at how the present BDU’s are a cotton/synthetic mix. The old military fatigues used to be 100% cotton, with wool issued for cold weather duty. It began changing in the mid eighties. I remember exactly when it happened. First the military started issuing Gore Tex raingear, which wasnt a bad thing. Next, they started issuing this cold weather system called “ECWCS” which basically consisted of polypropylene long underwear with a synthetic fleece pants and shirt system. Field jacket went on top, with liner under the field jacket.
It wasnt bad, but it replaced those trusty old wool clothes that hadnt changed much if at all since at least the Korean war. And now, I dont know what the military is using, although I did read recently that USSOCOM chose some advanced all synthetic system. One of the insulators chosen by USSOCOM is Primaloft. I am not surprised by that one, as Primaloft is a very effective synthetic. Very light, very compressible, very warm, dries very quickly.
I am not at all against synthetics, I think many of them are fantastic and they are much lighter than wool. They definitely have their place. However, it s just a shame that those trusty old cold weather wool issue clothes and long johns arent available anymore.
Wool is good for the desert too…the British heavily relied upon wool clothing in North Africa during WW2. It gets cold in the desert, especially at night.
I just wonder if the concerns for synthetic fabric melting onto soldiers and Marines skins, creating severe burns, will make the Pentagon think about going back to all 100% cotton standard issue fatigues for general duty and hot weather duty and go back to those TRUSTY OLD and extremely effective wool long underwear and wool clothes that were issued up until the eighties. Probably not…its the U.S. military bureaucracy making those decisions afterall and I dont have much confidence in the high ups in the present day U.S. military.
The companies who make all these synthetic clothes for the military would climb the walls when their contracts were not renewed and told “oh by the way, we decided to go back to cotton and wool mostly.Its better for battlefield injuries.” LOL
Things used to be simple…you used cotton clothing for hot weather and wool for cold weather. Simple as that. Now there are all these choices, TOO MANY choices. Much of it is simply marketing driven to make money, nothing else. Quality and the basics go out the window.
I’m not surprised it was the Marines that led this “no synthetics” anymore order. The Marines are the only ones in the U.S. military with any backbone to stand up and say what needs to be said. The Marines have always been that way.
The Army wouldnt do it, maybe AFTER the Marines did it the Army would follow on. SOCOM does what it wants, doesnt care what anybody else does, they’re a bunch of pretty boys.
A certain, very independent and small unit of the U.S. Army learned as far back as 1980 that serious burns comprised of many of the serious injuries sustained in modern combat. And took action to deal with it, copying from NASCAR and going with NOMEX flight suits and NOMEX balaclavas for use in combat operations. Nomex is a unique synthetic, that like kevlar, wont melt and burn you. Nomex is used in NASCAR, fire departments, Navy fire fighting crews and others who have to deal with fire a lot.
I have no idea how warm NOMEX is, but I would guess its not warm at all as it has zero loft.
Vlad
> Off topic, I am finding a certain aesthetic gratification using more “natural” means and materials. All this has been discussed in other threads; woodburning (without ground charring), wool, bushwhacking vs trail. Even to the point of sacrificing a few ounces.
I understand, but please remember two things.
First, sheep grazing for wool has destroyed a lot of the marginal Australian outback, with massive loss of vegetation and top soil. Now vast areas of inland Australia are dead from the combined effects of that and the drought.
Second, growing cotton is equally destructive of huge areas of land, the water requirements are a huge problem in water-short and drought-stricken Australia, and pesticide use is enormous and damaging.
Life just ain’t simple.
> Off topic, I am finding a certain aesthetic gratification using more “natural” means and materials. All this has been discussed in other threads; woodburning (without ground charring), wool, bushwhacking vs trail. Even to the point of sacrificing a few ounces.
I understand, but please remember two things.
First, sheep grazing for wool has destroyed a lot of the marginal Australian outback, with massive loss of vegetation and top soil. Now vast areas of inland Australia are dead from the combined effects of that and the drought.
Second, growing cotton is equally destructive of huge areas of land, the water requirements are a huge problem in water-short and drought-stricken Australia, and pesticide use is enormous and damaging.
Life just ain’t simple.
What a subtle and off topic comeback. Where I live, cotton is grown within twenty minutes of me. It doesnt “destroy” anything.
Australia has never been known for having great agriculture, anyway. The country is mostly desert, duh.
And that is a sophist approach to bashing wool and cotton.
Vlad
Yeah Roger, just because you live in Australia and were a wool research scientist for decades doesn’t mean you’re an expert, or anything! And those d’Arenberg wines–phewwww!!!
Grazing sheep are indeed hard on the land, and need to be monitored carefully lest they strip the ground bare and beyond the point where it can recover by itself. (Backpacking tie-in) High Sierra Nevada meadows are still recovering from 19th century grazing that was halted only because the Cavalry was charged with driving the sheepherders out. From what I’ve read, the mix of plants in affected meadows has permanently changed.
Cotton takes a huge amount of water and considerable pesticides and fertilizer, compared to many other crops. Luckily it can also be grown sustainably, with companies like Patagonia helping create a viable market for organic cotton.
Better or worse than fabric out of a test tube? All depends on your mode of measurement, I suppose. I like the ability to choose among them all.
I wanna stick with Brett’s comment, since he responded to one of mine somewhere else and he obviously suffered injuries from a bad choice of gear, when in the military and not here.
Brett wrote: When I was on active duty I worked around fuel and armaments; we were prohibited from wearing any undergarments except cotton or wool, so I (stupidly) choose cotton. I have permanent chilblain injuries from two COLD winters in Korea, which doubling up on wool might have prevented. Too bad Vlad wasn’t my C.O.
When the U.S. military was there, in Korea during the early 50s, they wore really heavy gear, but it didn’t really help because their guns froze on em. The oil and greese just didn’t work in those temps for the guns to work. They actually used to sleep with the rifle in their pants leg, per my father, paratrooper-Green Beret’s statements. Thus, what I get out of this thread is the questions and issues change depending on the circumstances and gear available. That is what Brett’s post makes so clear to me.
So the choice of fabric can be important and worth debating, and nobody should have been wearing cotton instead of wool in Korea’s temps (no-brainer if you knew how to make a choice) … but the wonderful thing about this site is that if anyone bothers to read on it … they won’t make that or any mistake a second time. (Brett you can use my “other” REI UL 45 anytime.)
Vlad,
bd,
Thank you both for replying. To answer Vlad, nomex is hot in hot weather, and cold in cold weather. My fuel and armaments guys had to wear nomex flight suits and gloves due to the flash fire risk, and I did also when on flight status. The problem I suppose was what I layered under it, the cotton. Now that I think of it, a piece of gear I liked a lot was a military issue WOOL scarf which probably hadn’t changed since the 50’s (I was in Korea in the 90’s) That acted like a draft collar under my ECWCS jacket and added a lot of warmth. I think back then there were no real thin wool garments as are available now?
bd, with my recent knowledge of UL hiking I probably could get better use out of an REIUL45 without overloading it.. what pack(s) do you use these days? [feel free to reply on another post; I search for my name in the forums so I can try to reply to any comments directed at me]
Vlad, thanks for your concern; my cold weather injuries get better with time. Ironically, keeping warm with wool prevents the symptoms from returning in cold weather. So, better late than never. My chilblains are nothing really, and I hope you and bd finished your TOD with no serious injuries.
Rick, you write, “I like the ability to choose among them all.”
That about says it all. I’m choosing wool for base layers partly because I’m choosing woodburning. I’m choosing wood fires because fuel is readily available, reliable, no empty canisters, I can now do it UL without charring the ground, and something about it just appeals to me. And I don’t personally like alcohol stoves. I too like having the choice and am glad wool and wood fires are among them.
Notice I’m not choosing oiled canvas for outerwear and I’m glad for the WPB materials too.
As Roger stated, it is a complicated world out there. My own aesthetic is shifting, and ONE reason is that this style feels closer to the dirt of the earth. Am I saving the world? Nope. But I’ll hope the grazing is being managed well and trust it’s better than petro pumping.
And I continue to drive my too big, too fast car. It’s complicated.
Yeah Roger, just because you live in Australia and were a wool research scientist for decades doesn’t mean, you’re an expert, or anything! And those d’Arenberg wines–phewwww!!!
The hard facts about wool are common knownledge. Pencilneck geek explanations of wool will not suffice.
It is grown successfully and safely, right here and right now. I drove by a field with a huge cotton bale just the other day and didnt see any erosion or dead animals laying all over the place from pesticide exposure. I didnt see any defoliated vegetation from herbicide usage either. More the opposite…the image was a picture postcard perfect sight of rural America.
BTW, Patagonia does all that “environmental stuff” because it knows it will help their sales. Because they cater to a crowd of granola eating, tree hugging, left wing, hippy city folks who are “concerned” about the environment, they make sure EVERYBODY knows that they are “the most environmentally concerned outdoor gear company around.”
What a line of bs…
Anybody who can think independenly can see thru all that and know Patagonia is full of crap. If their botton line started to get too bottomed out, theyd abandon their environmentally friendly public image in a heartbeat.
One thing that Patagonia doesnt like to spread around is they have a sizeable military contract…all the tree hugging civilians they otherwise sell to wouldnt like to hear that afterall. Yeah, while Patagonia is selling that Micropuff jacket to treehugging, Miss Cupcake environmentalist, Patagonia also has a low profile contract it doesnt like to publicize much with the military. But thats not PC, so…
Sounds like you have fallen for Patagonia’s marketing line of bs hook, line and sinker.
But I also like to be able to utilize common sense, which I oftentimes believe has gone out the window in this modern outdoor gear and clothing market we have now.
Why, I bet if you used some Roundup, youd probably flip out. DDT was the best pesticide there ever was and in certain cases, they should bring it back. In areas where malaria and other waterborne, mosquito borne illnesses are still prevelant, they should still be using DDT.
My deceased Grandfather, tobacco farmer and greenhouse owner, used to tell me in the last years of his life. “That DDT stuff was the best stuff they ever invented. They should have never banned it.” It made his crops grow like mad. He also used to dust his tobacco crops with asenic of lead, wearing no mask protection whatsoever. He lived to his late eighties and never developed cancer and he didnt grow a tail or a third eye or anything either.
Vlad
Become a member to post in the forums.
Anniversary SaleMay 15 to 25 - REI's biggest sale of the year.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
