If you start with something that is natural and sustainable (for example, bamboo), and you add to it something that is neither (for example, glue), then you end up with something that is neither natural nor sustainable. Sorry.
Notice though that the article doesn't talk about sustainability, ecology, or being natural at all. It just shows how bamboo lumber is made. Which is interesting in its own right.
The world, for some strange reason is dominated by absolutist thinking. It is part of the reason why we dont compromise any more. And it is a worrying trend.
It's called rayon and it's about as synthetic as you can possibly get.
For those who are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon
Sure, for rayon the cellulose extraction process is chemical, unlike the physical process used to get cellulose fibers out of cotton, but the raw material is still natural, plant grown cellulose.
There are plenty of things that are made by taking natural ingredients, shoving them in a vat of toxic chemicals to transform them, then taking them out to use, which are generally still considered ‘natural’ products: leather, bleached flour, pressure treated wood, dyed cotton…
I assume the layperson will respond: "Synthesis uses chemicals, and manufacturing doesn't!" (visualizing a bandsaw or a punch-press machine)
Of course manufacturing uses plenty of chemicals, but we don't always think about that when visualizing mechanical assembly processes.
Every word is weird if you think about it too long.
At least in the US, this is pretty simple, even if it offends the sensibilities of category pedants.
"Natural" fibers are cotton, wool, linen, etc. Processing is fine, so long as it isn't "too processed".
It is "Synthetic" if it ends in '-on', or feels like plastic or rubber.
But thinking of Rayon and viscose as ‘synthetic’ means people assume it is not biodegradable, which isn’t the case. It’s about as biodegradable as cotton, or cardboard.
In fact cardboard and paper are good analogs - I think people are comfortable thinking of them as ‘processed’ natural products, but not ‘synthetic’. There is value in getting people to think of rayon as more like that than true synthetics like nylon and polyester, which create non biodegradable micro plastic pollutants.
:)
The old bad stuff is CCA, which uses arsenic. It's been restricted (in the US) for about two decades, though still available for some applications. Home Depot does not carry it.
The newer stuff is ACQ (several types) which are Al and Cu-based. Not considered toxic by the EPA, however some people (including myself) are still not comfortable using it for, e.g. garden beds.
Sawdust of all woods is considered an irritant, toxic, and a possible carcinogen.
Work outside, and/or use good dust collection. Always wear a dust mask.
This applies to a lot of wood products like plywood and MDF not just bamboo.
Looks like some people are investigating it:
https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/using-lignin-as-a-sustainable-...
By comparison, plywood manufacture is a simple process. Entire logs are shaved into veneer sheets, rough cut, laminated together then finish cut.
302 Euros for a 4x8x3/4 sheet of 5-ply plywood that's inferior in most ways to hardwood plywood is crazy. By comparison, the same sheet of hardwood A-B grade plywood would run somewhere between $40-$80 a sheet.
Trees are a great sustainable and renewable resource, they just take longer to grow.
I mean... Some species are ready to harvest in 90 days(not sure if those are applicable, though).
But typical hardwood is decades of growth time to harvest.
It's also much more expensive than synthetic glue. This does not mean that a glued lumber product is necessarily unnatural or unsustainable, but rather that the price may end up being higher, and the properties different, when using a natural glue.
(For folks who aren't familiar, though, animal glues aren't really substitutable for things like plywood; the ability to undo a hide glue joint is valuable in furnituremaking but not in plywood composition.)
Hoof glue might be better for ply.
There are always more externalities we don't consider. To me, the question is whether bamboo worse than other composite wood products. Does it store more carbon? Does it store the same carbon but more quickly? Can it grow using less land? Does it last longer than what would be used instead? If it is at least neutral on all the other questions, does it have other properties that make it preferable?
Isn't epoxy made from fossil fuels, or am I completely off?
Engineering bamboo (flooring doesn't always use UF) has ~5% wt. UF, so 20 kg of lumber requires ~.4 kg of ammonia. Using a methane feedstock that translates to ~.85 kg of CO2. 4% of the CO2 captured by the bamboo, for context. Ammonia can also be made from water, via electrolysis- .64 kg per 20 kg of bamboo.
[1]: UF does not contain an epoxide group. Note also that epoxide is an incredibly generic type of chemical- all it means is that two pairs of radicals and an oxygen form a triangular bond. Epoxides can take all kinds of forms and be made from all kinds of stuff. For instance Epichlorohydrin is used to make some of the most common epoxy resins and is produced from glycerol, which comes from plant/animal sources generally. Not all of it, but most of it.
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/ur...