Gee, thanks for the green light, counselor. I’d certainly think twice about tangling with the no-iron shirt industry if I suspected you were on its legal team.
The simple answer to your question is that no-iron shirts are indeed made by soaking them in formaldehyde—or more precisely, formaldehyde-containing resins. Although we think of it mainly in connection with embalmed cadavers and fetal pigs in jars, formaldehyde is widely used commercially to make plastics, particle board and plywood, and a variety of other common products. When resins containing formaldehyde are added to cotton fabric, they form cross-links between the fibers like rungs on a ladder, giving the fabric added strength and increasing its resistance to wrinkling.
Formaldehyde also has some drawbacks. In small doses, it can cause respiratory problems and eye and skin irritation. It’s likely a carcinogen, and breathing too much of it can be fatal. If you wear no-iron clothing, you can inhale formaldehyde vapors from the fabric or absorb it through your skin. To keep things in perspective, though, you’ll leave a sharp-looking corpse.
Individual sensitivity to formaldehyde varies—and in some cases it’s not clear whether formaldehyde is the culprit. Recent lawsuits have alleged that wearing certain Victoria’s Secret bras led to hives, rashes and even scars; the suits claimed that the bras had tested positive for formaldehyde, but VS denied using formaldehyde in making the garments. On the cancer front, research has yielded mixed results. A study of 11,000 U.S. garment workers who used formaldehyde to make wrinkle-free clothes found a moderate increase in leukemia, but scientists looking at 7,700 Australian textile workers saw no significant link between formaldehyde and cancer risk. If you’re worried, washing your clothes before wearing them for the first time greatly reduces your exposure.
Formaldehyde isn’t the only problematic chemical found in clothes. One common drycleaning agent is perchloroethylene (PERC), a solvent also used in stain removers, paint cleaner and ink. Short-term exposure to high doses can cause dizziness, decreased motor skills, and vision trouble. You don’t have to live above a dry cleaner to be at risk—PERC levels in a sealed car containing freshly dry-cleaned clothes have tested at more than eight times the recommended limit. (And if you do live above a dry cleaner, consider moving—measurements in such apartments have found concentrations of 30 to 52 times the limit.) True, cutting-edge dry cleaning technology uses little or no PERC, but who knows what chemical perils will turn up tomorrow? Then again, Mr. or Ms. Concerned Attorney, if the world contained no risks, nobody would need to hire you.
SAA: Threat or Menace?While watching the National Geographic Channel today, I saw that the South Atlantic anomaly (a giant hole in Earth’s magnetic field) could pose a serious risk to airplanes. Could the South Atlantic anomaly be responsible for the recent crash of the Air France plane flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris? —Ryan K.
One doesn’t want to be alarmist, but: Hmmm.
Earth’s magnetic field protects us from charged particles in the solar wind that could otherwise cause bad things to happen, from interfering with electronics to stripping away our atmosphere. The magnetic field isn’t uniform—since 1958, we’ve known about a weak spot (not a hole) centered near Rio de Janeiro. Called the South Atlantic anomaly (SAA), it results in the magnetic field dipping to an altitude of 100 to 120 miles instead of its normal 500 miles or more.
Because it lets in more solar radiation, the SAA is a hazard to space flight. Satellites have had their circuits temporarily scrambled while passing through it, so some are shut off during that part of their orbit. Astronauts passing through the SAA see flashes of light when they close their eyes, caused by charged particles striking their retinas.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), the SAA lies right over part of the flight path of Air France flight 447, which crashed into the Atlantic on June 1. The cause of the crash hasn’t been established, but I had my assistant Una dig around for reports of unusual aircraft equipment failures near the SAA. She learned about solar activity blacking out aircraft radio over the poles, but nothing near the SAA. She also checked the space weather archives, and even though earthbound weather was terrible that night, things were calm from a solar-radiation standpoint. So despite online claims, I doubt the SAA was a factor in the crash. But we’ll see.
Comments, questions? Take it up with Cecil on the Straight Dope Message Board, StraightDope.com, or write him at the Chicago Reader, 11 E. Illinois, Chicago 60611.