Saga Fursin kurssi huimassa nousussa sen jälkeen kun Yle eilen kertoi turkisten olevan taas muodikkaita ja haluttuja.

Vaatteissa on kyllä olemassa useita materiaalivaihtoehtoja kuten puuvilla, pellava, hamppu, bambu, korkki, rami (kiinanruoho), kangas, viskoosi jne.

Vierailija kirjoitti:

Ainoa ympäristöystävällinen valinta jossa ei ole mitään ympäristöön leviäviä mikromuovista tehtyjä yhdisteitä.

Turkikset ovat järkyttävän kuormittavia käsittelyaineiden vuoksi. Luuletko, että raato säilyy käsittelemättä niin, ettei se mätäne?

Tuo Kauppalehden uutinen liittyi kylläkin yhtiön omiin tiedonantoihin ja julkistuksiin, että miten niihin reagoitu. Pidemmän aikavälin kehitys ollut kuitenkin laskevaa.

Sehän on mätänevää orgaanista ainesta. Kun ihminen kuolee ja haudataan, se mätänee. Jos ihminen nahkottaisiin ennen hautaamista, niin nahkakin mätänisi. Nahkaa käsitellään myrkyillä, että sen mätänemis- ja hajoamisprosessi voidaan estää.

Vierailija kirjoitti:

Vierailija kirjoitti:

Vierailija kirjoitti:

Turkki on oikeasti lämpimin vaate kovilla pakkasilla. Ikävä sanoa mutta untuvatakit ja kaikenmaailman keinokuidut eivät pääse lähellekään. Itsellä käytössä mummolta peritty ikivanha turkki joka ei ole turkistarhauksen tuotosta. En ymmärrä mitä pahaa on esimerkiksi lammasturkissa, syödäänhän se lammas kuitenkin niin ei mene nahka hukkaan.

Joo, senpä takia kaikilla napatetekilijöillä onkin lammasturkit. Eiku

No oikeasti se lämpimin taitaa olla karibun nahka. Inuiitit tekivät perinteisesti niistä vaatteet. Niin lämpimiä etteivät tarvinneet alle mitään muuta. Saamelaiset pukeutuivat myös alunperin eläinten nahoista tehtyihin vaatteisiin, ennenkuin ostivat Englannista kankaat ja keksivät uuden "perinnepuvun". Tämä siis ennenkuin poronhoito tuli edes mukaan kuvaan.

Lukekaa itse, ei nykyvaatte

Eivät nahkat edes riittäisi. Nykyään lihantuotanto ei kata nahkatuotantoa, vaan nahkatuotantoa on sen lisäksi erikseen. Valitettavasti pelkkien muotivaatteiden vuoksi.

Se eilisen uutisen otsikointi ja johdanto avauksessa täällä oli myös tehty osin virheellisesti ja keksitysti, ilmeisesti tahalteen. Noinko sitten edistetään muka jotain? Itse uutisessa ei edes ollut asioita otsikoitu ja kerrottu ihan niin.

Edeltävälle, että riippuu käsittelytavasta.

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/animals-used-clot…

Ikävä kyllä se on usein tätä:

"Tannery Toxins

Although leathermakers like to tout their products as biodegradable and eco-friendly, the process of tanning actually stops the leather from biodegrading by stabilizing the collagen or protein fibers.

Until the late 1800s, animal skin was air- or salt-dried and tanned with vegetable tannins or oil, but today, animal skin is turned into finished leather with a variety of much more dangerous substances, including formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives, mineral salts, and various oils, dyes, and finishes, some of which are cyanide-based.

Most leather produced in the U.S. and around the world is chrome-tanned. The Environmental Protection Agency considers all wastes containing chromium to be hazardous. In addition to the toxic substances mentioned above, tannery effluent also contains large amounts of other pollutants, such as protein, hair, salt, lime sludge, sulfides, and acids. A chrome-tanning facility wastes nearly 15,000 gallons of water and produces up to 2,200 pounds of solid waste (e.g., hair, flesh, and trimmings) for every ton of hides that it processes.

Among the disastrous consequences of this noxious waste is the threat to human health from the highly elevated levels of lead, cyanide, and formaldehyde in the groundwater near tanneries. In Bangladesh, which exports leather goods to the United States, chemical exposure and equipment accidents pose such a great hazard that workers (many of them children) arent expected to live beyond age 50.21 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the incidence of leukemia among residents in an area surrounding a tannery in Kentucky was five times the national average.22 Arsenic, a common tannery chemical, has long been associated with lung cancer in workers who are exposed to it on a regular basis. Several studies have established links between sinus and lung cancers and the chromium used in tanning.23Studies of leather-tannery workers in Italy and Sweden found cancer risks between 20% and 50% above [those] expected.

Raising animals for food and leather creates waste and pollution. Huge amounts of fossil fuels are consumed in livestock production: It takes about 35 calories of fossil fuel to make one calorie of beef and 68 calories of fossil fuel to make one calorie of pork.25 Researchers at the University of Chicago found that the typical American diet (nearly 30 percent of which comes from animal sources) generates the equivalent of nearly 3,300 pounds more carbon dioxide per person per year than a vegan diet with the same number of calories.

Trees are cut down to create pastureland, vast quantities of water are used, and run-off from feedlots and dairy farms is a major source of water pollution. A California study found that a single cow on a dairy farm emits 19.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per year, making dairies the largest source of the smog-making gas, surpassing trucks and passenger cars.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, tanneries have largely shifted operations worldwide from developed to undeveloped nations, where labor is cheap and environmental regulations are lax."

Tuohon jatkona vielä:

"Because of the acknowledged hazards of leather production, the process is being discontinued in most European countries and the U.S., and operations are moving overseas. Bangladesh Tanners Association President M. Harun Chowdhury said, Most of the European countries and USA are discontinuing leather processing, as [the] leather industry is an environmentally hazardous one.20 As a result, the health of people in other parts of the world is now being threatened by the tanning industry. In Bangladesh, 90 percent of the leather exported comes from a slum where tanneries wastewater isnt even treated. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the contaminated water flows into the nearby river and [w]hile the government takes a hands-off approach, local residents fall sick and workers suffer daily from their exposure to harmful tannery chemicals."

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/animals-used-clot…

Voin käyttää lampaan nahasta ja villasta tehtyjä vaatteita, poro käy myös, mutta kunhan ovat eläneet hyvän elämän ja lampaat ovat mulesing vapaita. Mutta tuommoinen turkkistarhaus ei ole ilmastoystävällistä, ja ne jotka ylläpitävät toimintaa ostamalla tai olemalla töissä sen alalla, ovat sairasta väkeä, jonka kanssa en halua olla missään tekemisessä.

Ja muutenkin siinä Yle uutisessa puhuttiin KIRPPUTORILTA ostamisesta. Lukeminen on näköjään ap:lle vaikea homma.

"Vaihtoehtona on kasviparkitseminen, jossa käytetään kasvien omaa parkkihappoa. Kasviparkitseminen on kuitenkin hidasta ja kuluttaa paljon vettä ja energiaa. Kasviparkittuja kenkiä on saatavilla vähän, ja ne voivat olla kalliita. Niitä voi kuitenkin kaupassa kysellä."

-Kuluttaja lehdestä, Mervi Itkonen

"Ympäristöystävällisempikin parkitsemistapa, kasviparkitseminen, on olemassa, mutta menetelmää ei teollisuudessa juuri hyödynnetä."

-Maa, ilma ja me, 12.1.2020

"Vain 10 - 12 % kaikesta maailman nahasta on kasvisparkittua. Useita viikkoja kestävän käsittelyn tuloksena syntyvä nahka on paljon kromiparkittua nahkaa kestävämpää, ja mikä tärkeintä, prosessissa ei käytetä raskasmetalleja, jotka ovat haitallisia ympäristölle, eläimille ja ihmisille."

-Rohje.fi

Tässä jutussa on käsitelty myös samoja asioita:

If You Wouldn't Wear Fur, Why Wear Leather?

https://www.howcork.com/blogs/news/if-you-wouldnt-wear-fur-why-wear-lea…

Otteita jutusta:

"As pointed out by Sascha Camilli, writer of the book Vegan Style and PETA activist, "In order to keep from decomposing on the wearer's back, fur is often treated with chemicals such as formaldehyde and chromium, which are not only environmentally harmful, but also hazardous for human health." PETA has spoken out for years about the concerns of chemical contaminants in fur and leather, including damage to groundwater to air quality in areas where production takes place, not to mention the negative effects on humans exposed to these substances and the animals whose lives are sacrificed.

Formaldehyde and chromium are also two of the most prominent and toxic substances used to tan leather. We wrote an extensive article on how leather is made, highlighting the hazardous effects of exposure to chromium. And this is not just a slight exposure, we are talking about workers who are knee-deep in this slurry of toxic chemicals on a daily basis.

If you read what the fur industry in the United States has to say about the chemicals they use, they will claim to use a list of "natural" substances including table salt and corn starch, and then say "a small amount of formaldehyde may be used as well," with a disclaimer that they "ensure there are no harmful effluents."

I'm personally a lot more inclined to believe the research paper put out by the Humane Society of the United States outlining pages of clearly sourced scientific research detailing the chemicals that are used in fur production, rather than the aforementioned industry-funded website. The Humane Society writes, "common methods for 'dressing' fur skins involve formaldehyde and chromium-chemicals that are listed as carcinogens and are otherwise toxic to humans. Other chemicals that may be used or emitted in the dressing and dyeing processes and that appear on one or more US government lists of toxic chemicals include aluminum, ammonia, chlorine, chlorobenzene, copper, ethylene glycol, lead, methanol, naphthalene, sulfuric acid, toluene and zinc." "

"These toxic substances are not just a problem for the producers of leather and fur and the communities where these factories are located. Residues remain on the final product and the user is directly exposed to them as well. These chemicals have been found on fur and leather when tested, and have the potential to be transferred onto and absorbed into our skin when wearing or handling these products."

"Here, the majority of the world's leather production takes place in India and Bangladesh, where factories are known to use vast amounts of highly toxic chemicals that poison the workers and local waterways. These cows are brought from India into Bangladesh to be slaughtered, and endure hours and hours of abuse during torturous, unending travel, to ultimately be skinned, sometimes in front of each other. The cows are kept in confinement and unbearable living conditions throughout their lives, just like the animals who eventually are turned into fur coats."

 

Edelleen samasta jutusta:

"3. Heavy carbon footprint and heavy greenwashing

Fur and leather both have a heavy carbon footprint. This is due to the animal manure and carcass waste produced by these industries, along with chemical pollution. Although synthetic alternatives are far from the solution, as they are made from fossil fuels, they still rank lower in terms of overall environmental impact. Fur isn't listed in the diagram below, but leather takes the top place for the most environmental impact of any of the compared materials in this chart.

The fur and leather industries both like to claim that fur and leather are natural, or only a by-product of the meat industry putting to use what would otherwise be waste. They both like to say that they are a more environmentally friendly option than synthetics and that they are biodegradable. But the argument from the industry doesn't hold up against the data. We hold our ground and say that all fur and leather industry claims of ethics are pure greenwashing. Fur and leather are both industries that do not rely on the "waste" of the meat industry, but kill animals specifically for fashion. Their products are loaded with toxins that prevent biodegradability and pollute the soil if composted. Both are destructive, dirty industries that put profit over everything else, with no regard for who or what falls in their wake."

"Leather and fur production are both inherently cruel to animals and are detrimental to the environment and human health. It's time to look to the future of fashion. And if you ask me, the future is plant-based."