More wibble
Mar. 21st, 2006 10:11 amApparently (according to the Guradian on Saturday), 80% of the pollutants in the life of a piece of clothing come from its laundry, rather than its production. I found that quite interesting, especially as I'm a strong advocate of not laundering your clothes to excess.
If it doesn't smell, and it doesn't look dirty, why wash it? Except through some social notion of how often you should wash your clothes.
I also got my guide to the South-West coastpath through the post. Yay to Ebay. I can't wait to get out there and do some hiking :)
If it doesn't smell, and it doesn't look dirty, why wash it? Except through some social notion of how often you should wash your clothes.
I also got my guide to the South-West coastpath through the post. Yay to Ebay. I can't wait to get out there and do some hiking :)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-21 02:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-21 11:40 pm (UTC)This has nothing to do with frequency but I've been debating it since last Saturday, when I did my wash :p
no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-02 12:32 am (UTC)hahaha the irony is thick!
If it doesn't smell, and it doesn't look dirty, why wash it?
It's obvious: so that it falls apart sooner, so's you can buy a *shiny new* one sooner!
In all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that companies manufacture clothes to fall apart sooner based on the ingredients used in common detergents... Planned obsolescence is used for everything else, why not clothes?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-03 02:24 pm (UTC)Heh - and who likes shiny new clothes that much anyway? I don't really like mine until I've had them about a year :P