Bike maintenance brand criticised for "really poor taste" video linking Sir Chris Hoy's cancer diagnosis to use of rival company's chain lube

Anonymousattorney wrote:

Teflon is the trade name for PTFE. And "PTFE" or indeed any material will contain impurities. PTFE as it happens is made in a way that results in an unusually complete polymerisation reaction, and so it is an odd choice of plastic upon which to fixate of your concerns are related to trace amounts of precursors. As I mentioned earlier, if you worry about that sort of thing, you may wish to desist eating anything that uses plastic packaging at all. With the greatest respect, you are confusing how things are made with what they are made of. You are also conflating environmental issues with health issues, and in addition conflating unrelated potential health issues with one another. I am fairly confident of dismissing the health risks from Teflon because it is not a particularly new plastic and is extremely well studied. The plasticisers and extrusion aids tend to be benign things such as paraffins, the most profound health effects of which is laxative.

You're over simplifying - Teflon is the trade name for a PTFE-based composition.

I'm not trying to state that Teflon is the only problematic plastic, so you're kind of building a strawman with your comments and ignoring the issues around Teflon.

Anyhow, I'm getting bored with this discussion now.

Somehow the points you're both making seem to be sliding past each other with very little interaction...

FWIW - on what we know currently (always subject to discovering new things) Teflon as applied to things and its degradation products are indeed pretty safe as plastics go.  That's not to say that its producers were/are completely honest about possible negative effects of precursors (or when they spilled stuff) - nor that the growing concentration of these things in the environment (as they're so inert) is good news.  Nature has ways of bioaccumulating things to surprising concentrations.

My bet is that some bugs will be found which eat - or evolve to eat - this stuff (like they do concrete) - producing who knows what?

chrisonabike wrote:

Somehow the points you're both making seem to be sliding past each other with very little interaction...

FWIW - on what we know currently (always subject to discovering new things) Teflon as applied to things and its degradation products are indeed pretty safe as plastics go.  That's not to say that its producers were/are completely honest about possible negative effects of precursors (or when they spilled stuff) - nor that the growing concentration of these things in the environment (as they're so inert) is good news.  Nature has ways of bioaccumulating things to surprising concentrations.

My bet is that some bugs will be found which eat - or evolve to eat - this stuff (like they do concrete) - producing who knows what?

Look Teflon was the original trade name for PTFE itself, that's just a historical fact.

But as to products comprising it, you are using the term "PTFE based" out of context, since it will be around 99.5% PTFE or more. Like all materials (polymers or otherwise) there are impurities, but Teflon is comparatively of high purity and so should be the least of your worries.

Accumulation of plastics is a problem, yes. But plastics (including but by no means limited to PTFE) in the environment is completely unrelated to the nonsense that Green Oils UK has posted.

Thanks, I've heard of that...

My idea was that these cookware mostly lose their Teflon layer when dish washing (abrasion of the sponge, brush), but I noticed that after a few months of cooking on the same limited area of a large frying pan, the layer looks more worn out on this area than on the rest of the surface!

I'm not that worried anyway, my guess is the risk remains limited, a bit like this Roundup scare, when you look carefully at studies, toxicity is on par with cell phone use, processed red meat, very (too) hot drinks, etc.

My point is that you'd need to literally eat large amounts of PTFE to be in danger (i.e. to make it "probably carcinogenic").

S.E. wrote:

My point is that you'd need to literally eat large amounts of PTFE to be in danger (i.e. to make it "probably carcinogenic").

I'd agree on this. It's interesting how often it's low risk sources are discussed/argued over at great length but the more insidious ones glossed over. I'm thinking of things like air pollution (exhaust emissions are very obvious while riding to work on cold mornings like today), ingesting stuff in food and drink (particularly meat & UPF) or skincare products. It's something I'm conscious of, and we eat more organic food now than we used to. And I know that when I clean the gunk from my chain and cassette that the lube is benign. It's not going to 'save the planet' (a silly statement if ever there was one) but it's a choice I'm comfortable with.

"else much more people would get cancer"

Err… what!?
A huge amount of people DO get cancer 😑

Sredlums wrote:

"else much more people would get cancer"

Err… what!?
A huge amount of people DO get cancer 😑

But not linked to PTFE.  Do keep up 003.5, the context isnt that hard to see.

eburtthebike wrote:

As a Green, I am disgusted that the concept of being green is disgraced and devalued by this company, which clearly doesn't understand that being green also means being honest.

Currently being "green" is just another sales opportunity, or a box that needs ticked to allow a product to get to the starting line.

It's not just "lies" always but the truth is usually nuanced. e.g. "zero emissions" vehicles?  No, they emit particulates locally, same as ICE vehicles, and in fact they still emit greenhouse gases.  It's just that now happens somewhere else, and we have no idea what or how much or even where.  "Out of sight, out of mind".

As for "green means being honest" in the political field ... good luck with that.  Idealism and principles are going to be casualties for any movement that aspires to power.  The competition isn't going to be so scrupulous!  Plus if your party succeeds it will become a magnet for ... people who want to succeed.  Some of whom may be more attracted to the "success" part than the cause.

chrisonabike wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

As a Green, I am disgusted that the concept of being green is disgraced and devalued by this company, which clearly doesn't understand that being green also means being honest.

Currently being "green" is just another sales opportunity, or a box that needs ticked to allow a product to get to the starting line.

It's not just "lies" always but the truth is usually nuanced. e.g. "zero emissions" vehicles?  No, they emit particulates locally, same as ICE vehicles, and in fact they still emit greenhouse gases.  It's just that now happens somewhere else, and we have no idea what or how much or even where.  "Out of sight, out of mind".

As for "green means being honest" in the political field ... good luck with that.  Idealism and principles are going to be casualties for any movement that aspires to power.  The competition isn't going to be so scrupulous!  Plus if your party succeeds it will become a magnet for ... people who want to succeed.  Some of whom may be more attracted to the "success" part than the cause.

As a member of the Green party, almost everything you say there is nothing to do with being green, mostly it's green-washing, something very different indeed.

Agreed - but - precisely because of assiduous green-washing* - the two are going to be popularly conflated.  Thus unfortunately "no, that's nothing to do with..." may sound like "no true Scotsman..." to many.

* Or being charitable and less cynical one might say there's quite a bit of overselling.  Ignoring the blantant greenwash (e.g. "let us keep selling our product") this is understandable.  Unless there was some strong promotion why would you seek out a way to pay more for the same, or accept less convenience?

Plus small efficiencies / reductions in pollution get eaten up by increasing numbers of people, who all are highly motivated to keep up with the Jones, or would at least like to live a bit less miserably than their parents.

Green products are a real phenomena. Green products are less harmful to the environment and mammals like humans. To use green credentials as a selling point ultimately helps eliminate toxins and contaminants from the air and soil and water. There's nothing wrong with advertising based on green credentials. And cars not emmiting toxins on street corners is better despite emissions into the higher atmosphere from gas power plants.

Do you work for a petrochemical company per chance? Or maybe you're hyper cynical. The fact the greens power share in Europe and have not abandoned core principles disproves your assumptions on that. Why do you think environmental laws are constantly improving?

stevemaiden wrote:

Do you work for a petrochemical company per chance?

Can't imagine much less likely.

Um... wrong end of stick? (unless you work in the chemical industry yourself.  And - playing devil's advocate - few industries have improved as much as the petrochemical businesses.)  Although I don't currently work at planting trees or organically composting people or grow all my own food or fuel ... and yeah, I'm a bit cynical.

This would all be a meaningless discussion about feelings if we don't have some definitions of what "green" means.  I doubt many people will agree with each other on this one but perhaps we can say something like "causes fewer negative environmental side effects" (from raw materials through manufacture, in use or after it's broken / ended)?  And/or perhaps "uses fewer resources" (arguable, that)?

Are all "green products" thus?

What connection is there between "using x as a selling point" and "ultimately helps eliminate toxins and contaminants from the air and soil and water"?  Are you saying that marketing will create a climate in which this actually happens - as opposed to say a market for "being able to talk about such things"?  History seems to show that humans may care about what is (very) local to them, or care about "issues" for a short time.  But generally social motivations drive us.  And we want less detail rather than more.

Perhaps "the world is getting better - just very slowly".  Certainly e.g. industrial chemical processes have become more efficient, and there is more concern about not having or spilling nasties.  On the other hand perhaps it's just a series of something like Jevons' paradoxes?  As we "make better" or find a new source of resources (having used up the cheap form of the last lot) or have "less smoke coming out of the back" people react by using (a lot) more of it?

Looking back at the last century the way to e.g. climate hell (or plastic everywhere) was indeed paved with some good intentions - and lots and lots of "little"!

On the Greens - I hope the Green party sticks to principles of social justice, localism and environmentalism.  I'm not familiar with European politics, exuse ignorance.  The Bute House agreements in Scotland with the SNP allowed some commitments which I thought good and quite radical for us (e.g. active travel budget to be set to a sensible fraction of the "road budget" - and the SNP even stuck to it).  FWIW they clearly stuck to their guns.  But on the other hand it seems that was part of the reason the coalition ended (of course lots to do with "politics" e.g. the SNP struggling for supprot, as parties often do after many years in power).

The media term for this is "JAQing off" (JAQ = Just asking questions). Farage does it all the time (something like "Is there something behind the Southport riots - I'm just asking questions"). It's the feeblest form of argument.

eburtthebike wrote:

"the idea was to simply raise the question — and awareness".

Clearly not: the idea is to trash the competition and sell more of your stuff.  Asking questions like that is a Farage tactic e.g. "Are the police hiding anything."

As a Green, I am disgusted that the concept of being green is disgraced and devalued by this company, which clearly doesn't understand that being green also means being honest. 

If a company has values this low, how can you trust anything they say?

Alongside honesty, a critical component of "green" practices is accountability. That's what we have missing in so many of Capitalism's failures is that companies make a lot of profit and then don't have to worry about external pollution etc. (see water companies for more info)

This quotation from 'Simon Nash' looks like another hacked account- lots of mistakes in it, such as 'principals'

wtjs wrote:

This quotation from 'Simon Nash' looks like another hacked account- lots of mistakes in it, such as 'principals'

Taken from his LinkedIn page.

If it's genuine, he needs somebody with a GCSE to run his social media for him

I think we already know that he doesn't have that person.

wtjs wrote:

This quotation from 'Simon Nash' looks like another hacked account- lots of mistakes in it, such as 'principals'

He also can't seem to make up his mind as to whether he's the Managing Director or the "CEO".

Rendel Harris wrote:

... prostate cancer has one of the highest rates of causation by inherited genetic factors ...

Indeed, which is why my GP was very keen to know that my Father had prostate cancer 10 years or so back and discuss the potential implications for my own health. 

Not to mention that we are constantly bombarded with information about how many things in our environmental potentially cause cancer that seeking to isolate one specific item in a specific patient solely to sell your own products that don't include it is just appalling. 

As one of the commentors online said ... there is definitely a debate to be had about the presence of these "forever chemicals" in bike maintenance products, but GreenOil have picked probably the worst possible way of framing their contribution to it. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

... prostate cancer has one of the highest rates of causation by inherited genetic factors ...

Indeed, which is why my GP was very keen to know that my Father had prostate cancer 10 years or so back and discuss the potential implications for my own health. 

Not to mention that we are constantly bombarded with information about how many things in our environmental potentially cause cancer that seeking to isolate one specific item in a specific patient solely to sell your own products that don't include it is just appalling. 

As one of the commentors online said ... there is definitely a debate to be had about the presence of these "forever chemicals" in bike maintenance products, but GreenOil have picked probably the worst possible way of framing their contribution to it. 

I am all for informed debate, but please see my post above regarding toxicity. There is no possible causal link, and what the likes of Green Oil are doing is flagrantly conflating unrelated issues.

This absence of scientific understanding from them does rather cast doubt on anything else they might claim, about their own product or others'.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

there is definitely a debate to be had about the presence of these "forever chemicals" in bike maintenance products, but GreenOil have picked probably the worst possible way of framing their contribution to it. 

I agree. I've been using Green Oil chain lube instead of petrochemical chain lube since it was first launched. I'm disappointed with this stunt, which is in extremely poor taste, but I'm not going to stop using the product because the alternatives are simply not acceptable.

I just hope Mr Nash learns his lesson from this monumental PR fuck-up.