Tuesday, February 06, 2007


I've been thinking about the illogical ban against mailing wool. Could it be that it builds up static electricity, which could ignite flammable gasses?

No, because it seemed to think the danger is worse when wet, and I've never noticed wet wool being staticy. Plus, acrylic creates way more static than wool.

Okay, I'm still baffled.


Deneen said...

Where is this ban at? You can buy it from all over on eBay. I'm nosy.

I think acrylic creates much more static-way more.

I am wondering if it perhaps because of the critters that can infest wool? Just tossing an idea out there.

noricum said...

Someone locally discovered that Canada Post doesn't allow wool to be mailed because "wet wool was highly flammable and was listed as a hazardous item to mail." At the local SNB we're all baffled about this.

There were, of course, lots of jokes about sheep spontaneously combusting out in the fields. Especially in Britain, which is known for being rainy.

Katy said...

I thought that wool was not particularly flammable at all, which is why EZ encourages us all to dress babies in wool.

How bizarre. The Canada Post needs more knitters writing the rules.

noricum said...

Did I mention we're baffled?!?

jess said...

wool is actually pretty flammable... I mean, it burns like hair (and smells just as awful). Wet though, I don't know...

on the static thing -- I cannot figure out why the most static-y things I have are my 100% merino and 100% cashmere sweaters and my wool-nylon handknit socks. They seems to build up more static than my acrylic dress socks!