|A fact from Bamboo textiles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 16 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 0 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.||
|WikiProject Textile Arts||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Bamboo fabric concerns
"Bamboo fabric requires handwashing, so it's impractical for items that are worn regularly." The citation for this seems to refer to yarn for hand knitting. I've been machine washing my bamboo towels for several years and they're quite intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Bamboo doesnot require handwashing, you may wash in a washer hoever 100% bamboo is very delicate and you should consider using a delicate bag.
I support that they be merged as well. Bamboo threads and fabric would be the textile, and the fiber should be a sub section as part of the overall. I also think that the controversy needs to be it's own section and not randomly thrown out. Fact should be well researched. The FTC has little to back up their case and is likely being influenced by the cotton industry lobbying. in the old days of "disinfopedia" controversial issues would be solved with facts and not allow the FTC to just say whatever without some counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solight111 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Article seems biased. Should include information on FTC's recent accusations of bamboo textile producers and marketers: []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be possible if the FTC had released any facts, but they didn't and this is supposed to be the place to resolve truth in controversy.
This article reads like an advertisement from the bamboo textile industry. Much of it has the tone of a press release and is probably lifted verbatim from a source of this type. Indeed, some of the "sources" of information cited are just links to online stores selling bamboo textile products. It also repeats the same points verbatim quite a bit (another hallmark of PR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the two comments above. Every section ends with a very positive endorsement of the bamboo textile industry. Examples of the final sentence from each section starting at Manufacture of Bamboo Viscose:
- "The resulting bamboo viscose fibre is extremely soft to the touch."
- "The natural processing of litrax bamboo allows the fibre to remain strong to produce an extremely high quality product. This process gives a material that is very durable."
- "This means that every company working with bamboo starts with the same raw material and that this material is not contaminated."
- "...bamboo's organic and natural properties make it non-irritating so perfect for extra sensitive skin"
- "It is the main species for bamboo timber and plays an important role for the ecological environment"
- "This regular harvesting is actually of benefit to the health of the plant – studies have shown that felling of canes leads to vigorous re-growth and an increase in the amount of biomass the next year"
- "In a time when land use is under enormous pressure, bamboo’s high yield per hectare becomes very significant."
- "One hectare of bamboo sequesters 62 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year while one hectare of young forest only sequesters 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year"
- I needn't go on. Also, the absence of periods in the above examples is not my doing. I would like to see someone with a better understanding of Bamboo textiles do some serious editing of this article. Can we add some sort of "this article is suspected of bias" banner? Boehrb (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. There is absolutely no reason why bamboo viscose should have properties any better or different from viscose from any other source. It's all just reconstituted cellulose, after all. • TheBendster (talk) 23 August 2010, 12:04 (UTC) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I spent many years working with European Union colleagues, colleagues in ISO etc developing legislation and standards to protect consumers from this sort of misleading nomenclature. The essential test was simple - can you take a small specimen of material (fibre,yearn or fabric) and test it to establish precisely what it is and how much there is (in a blend). I doubt that is possible with this material- the term 'bamboo viscose' is an attempt to mislead the general public but more importantly is probably illegal (in Europe at least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Most of the claims are untrue or suggestive at best. There are no reasonable studies that support these claims. As evidence only eco-friendly websites from the esoteric field are given. This is "fubar". Is this wanna-believe over real scientiffic evidence? For what I know, none of the experts of the textile industry or at universities involved in biomemetics or botany that I contacted have ever heard of Bamboo-Kun or most of the claims. They don't confirm the existence of 100% bamboo fabrics. Bamboo as a basis for the Viscose-process yes, but Viscose doesn't retain any of the qualities of the source material. The sad thing is, that people fall for it and wanna believe. So much in fact, that they fight critics. Amazing how easy one can spread lies and profit from it. Are there no questioning critical think people around anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole concept of calling 'viscose' 'bamboo fibre' is a nonsense and is misleading for consumers as well as contravening EC Directives. Calling this product 'bamboo' is loke calling cow dung ' grass'. The input grass is dissolved in acid/ the input bamboo is dissolved in NaOH I assume. Both are then regenerated and exuded through a spinneret (of sorts).
Sorry but the whole idea of bamboo fibre is a marketing tool intended to confuse and mislead the consumer.
Funny this discussion sounds like an anti-bamboo campaign without a "fact" to discuss. For instance, Entegrion adapted the fibers with glass for bandages. Approved by the FDA! (more details coming), also your argument on the break down and reassembly process of rayon isn't fact based at all. To suggest it isn't bamboo afterwords is like saying gold is only gold till you smelt out the impurities (shit is a lot more than just grass, it's opinion and not facts). Also Okeo Tex testing for residual chemicals haven't been entered or mentioned (#1 testing for textiles safety).
I would also like to see some investigation figures or test results(facts) from the FTC, before we throw the baby out! "I don't have the expertise to fix the many problems with this article -- All by unsigned editors!" The biggest problem with the actual article is that it needs to be further fact checked and have all opinion removed, replacing them with facts.
Lack of focus in Pesticides and Fertilisers
It seems to me that the Pesticides and Fertilisers section focuses too much on cotton. Having a baseline to compare bamboo textiles to is fine, but half of the section is talking not about the article's topic, but about cotton, which seems excessive. Anybody else agree?Jetjaws (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- In lieu of a response, I'll be making edits along the lines of what was specified above Jetjaws (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
220.127.116.11, I reverted your edits not because I disagree with the content or direction of the edits(in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with them and am glad that someone like you is interested in helping edit this article), but because they were both unsourced and created conflict within the article, where it should really only belong here. Since all the statements in the article that you did not disprove(pesticide use, CO2 consumption, etc..) are covered later in the article, I propose that the entire section simply be deleted. Jetjaws (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Contradiction - antibacterial properties
Agree with above comments. Also noted contradiction in article over antibacterial properties of fabric made from bamboo: "Anti-bacterial - bamboo actually kills germs and bacteria that accumulate in fabrics made of bamboo. This means that bamboo won't harbor bacteria as much as other fabrics."
"However, the finished bamboo fabric does not retain this antibacterial property; research is being conducted whereby antibacterial agents are being added to bamboo fabric to give it antibacterial properties." 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The first statement is the correct one. The sources provided for the first claim are simply links to retailer websites, which should almost never be cited as they have a huge conflict of interest. The source for the second one is a university paper. You can remove the first statement if you want, but as evidenced above, I was planning on deleting the entire section it was included in eventually if there weren't issues raised about that action. Jetjaws (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
source #3 should be removed
It appears to be leading to a .txt document but really just leads you to a baby clothing store and I think It should be removed and the status should be changed to reflect the lack of a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Section about problems around bamboo
Currently the Pesticides and fertilizers section has problems/criticism against bamboo like "finished bamboo fabric does not retain this antibacterial property" and that it lets UV pass through etc.