The commentary on 'Water Footprint:'

From the article

Surprisingly I found out that a Polyester T-shirt, which uses a small amount of oil to produce the fabric, has less of an environmental impact, and Lyocell is the most sustainable fabric. It’s made from eucalyptus plantations, which produce more fibre per acre than, say, Cotton. There are no pesticides and processing and dyeing Lyocell is relatively clean. Even Bamboo has a questionable manufacturing process, because it’s hard to refine into fiber unless a manufacturer uses toxic chemicals like sodium hydroxide, which can cause chemical burns or blindness, to break down bamboo’s cells into something pliable called viscose.

In the first sentence 'Polyester' is likened to 'Lyocell'. The first is a synthetic product of hydrocarbons: oil whilst the second is a non-synthetic product of carbohydrates: cellulose or plant fibre.
The primary difference between Lyocell and Rayon for instance is the process, both using the same raw material > plant cellulose, trees, bamboo, waste paper... not specifically eucalyptus as mentioned. In fact eucalyptus is an environmental damaging tree in may environments. Beech is a far better tree to use.

In the older processes, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is used initially to dissolve the plant fibre. A simple but corrosive chemical agent. However the claims that the newer solvent ' 4-methylmorpholine 4-oxide (C5H11NO2)' is somehow benign is a an added deceipt.

See both these quotes fromh2g2.com

The process is environmentally friendly (at least as far as it is possible to be), whereas polyester is made from oil and viscose involves regenerating the fibre in an acid bath.

The solvent is almost completely recycled, with almost no losses to the environment. This has as much to do with the fact that it is highly toxic and costs about £15,000 per tonne, as it has to do with any environmental altruism on the part of the manufacturers.

Lets face it, manufacturers are always trying to save money.

Some remarks on 'morpholine': toxic but not very caustic

• Morpholine itself is neither a carcinogen nor a teratogen and does not cause chronic toxicity in rats and mice.
• From the estimated morpholine exposure, the possible endogenously formed NMOR was estimated to be 2.2 and 3.6 ng/kg bw/day for adults and children, respectively.
• Morpholine fed to rats at a dietary concentration of 1000 mg/kg caused an increase in tumours (mostly hepatocellular carcinomas and sarcomas of the liver and lungs), probably because of the endogenous formation of NMOR

Some remarks on 'caustic soda': caustic but not toxic

• German pretzels are poached in a boiling sodium carbonate solution or cold sodium hydroxide solution before baking, which contributes to their unique crust.
• Hominy is dried maize (corn) kernels reconstituted by soaking in lye-water. These expand considerably in size and may be further processed by frying to make corn nuts or by drying and grinding to make grits. Nixtamal is similar, but uses calcium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide.
• Like other corrosive acids and alkalis, drops of sodium hydroxide solutions can decompose proteins and lipids in skin, eyes or other living tissues

Note the production of both NaOH and C5H11NO2 produce toxic byproducts, chlorine (Cl) and formaldehyde(CH2O)

Chlorine can react with water in the mucosa of the lungs to form hydrochloric acid, an irritant that can be lethal.

Formaldehyde is highly toxic to all animals, regardless of method of intake. Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human.

Hopefully you can see the quagmire of relying on simple facts to underpin global or absolute arguments.

The article is rife with such careless use of language to turn busy people heads to consume this or that product and make it fashionable.

The real question is how much torture are people prepared to meet out on other animals to provide comfort and then use the sustainable e=argument to cloth oneself is some caring venture. Rather than cloth ourselves in some sustainable cloth we mearly degrade ourselves in an never ending consumption with more complex and devious arguments. What is fashionable today, is to see how far away from being human and caring we can get and still survive.

if you would still like to play with how green your fibre is you can read http://blog.fashionandearth.com/2011/08/06/bamboo-versus-lyocell-or-modal-bedding-which-is-greenest/

Pages: 1· 2