[HN Gopher] The risks of cleaning with bleach and other disinfec...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The risks of cleaning with bleach and other disinfectants
        
       Author : walterbell
       Score  : 95 points
       Date   : 2023-03-23 03:16 UTC (19 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
        
       | ReaderView wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | tyronehed wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | AlbertCory wrote:
       | .. since I just used some dilute bleach to de-stink a kitchen
       | sponge (yes, I will buy some more sponges next time I think of
       | it):
       | 
       | You do have to be careful. I soaked the sponge in several changes
       | of water, soapy and clean. But come on! Bleach is a mainstay.
       | Just don't overuse it.
        
       | grammers wrote:
       | I don't use disinfectants - not because I fear the chemicals -
       | but because I believe that your immune system needs to be exposed
       | to germs. It's necessary to keep it fit IMO.
        
         | Fomite wrote:
         | In such a vague sense, "exposed to germs", it doesn't matter if
         | you use disinfectants or not - you'll encounter plenty in your
         | daily life.
         | 
         | The purpose of disinfectants is to target surfaces that harbor
         | massive populations of them.
        
         | crazygringo wrote:
         | Everyday respiratory and doorknob germs? Sure, maybe.
         | 
         | But salmonella from raw chicken? Or diseases spread via feces?
         | I don't think so. That's not keeping you fit, it's just a risk
         | of making you seriously sick for no good reason.
         | 
         | People don't generally wipe down their whole house. But
         | disinfecting kitchen prep surfaces and your toilet bowl, is
         | basic hygiene/safety.
         | 
         | Don't worry, you'll still be getting more than enough germs
         | from the rest of the world.
        
       | giantg2 wrote:
       | What about iodine based sanitizers? I see those were missing from
       | the list. Obviously those aren't great on things that can stain.
       | I understand the risk with those is that some people are
       | sensitive to iodine.
        
       | exabrial wrote:
       | Low quality, low science article.
        
       | pazimzadeh wrote:
       | I like this article because it seems to be like a lot of people
       | in the US equate the smell of bleach or lysol with cleanliness,
       | which is far from the case and we now know, could be harmful. You
       | should not let the floor dry with cleaning product, you should
       | first rinse it with water.
       | 
       | Plus, there is increasing recognition that our mucosal surfaces
       | are covered by 'helpful bacteria' and when you get rid of them
       | the pathogenic bacteria are in more direct contact with your
       | epithelium.
       | 
       | I don't see why a similar mechanism would not exist for inanimate
       | surfaces - maybe having a thin coating of 'good dust' is better
       | than letting a pathogen stick directly to the tiles?
       | 
       | In a few years maybe cleaning products will come with a post-
       | cleaning/pre-biotic solution which includes 'good bacteria' or
       | 'good fungi' to form a new barrier on your clean home surfaces.
        
       | jrootabega wrote:
       | Yes, bleach is great when you dilute it properly, ventilate, wear
       | gloves, and don't mix it with other chemicals, thanks article!
        
       | LinuxBender wrote:
       | I agree with the risks stated in the article but I would add that
       | people on well water should still use bleach and other strong
       | chemicals in their bathroom from time to time. Well water does
       | not contain Chlorine bleach and there are a number of bacteria
       | that can grow out of control in a bathroom when Chlorine is not
       | present in the water. Some feed off the fats in soap scum,
       | commonly on the bottom of the shower curtain. A home I bought
       | came with this little gift and I've had to cycle through bleach,
       | Lysol and high powered UVC lamps to get rid of it. And UVC lamps
       | come with the risk of converting O2 to O3 _Ozone_ which requires
       | good ventilation.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | Last time I was in a thread with homesteaders doing sketchy
         | things with water, one of the voices of reason invoked
         | Legionaire's Disease.
         | 
         | Legionaire's disease being a rather nasty bacterial pneumonia,
         | grows in water and needs to be aerosolized to get into the
         | lungs. Like might happen when using a low-flow showerhead.
        
           | LinuxBender wrote:
           | I've heard some horror stories as well. There are lab tests
           | one can send off their water to test for literally hundreds
           | of metals, toxins, pathogens and more. Most towns will also
           | do limited testing. There are also bacteria test kits on
           | Amazon but they only test for a few things.
           | 
           | My well tested clean but I still intend to shock it with
           | chlorine. The bummer is that this is such an old well they
           | did not make it easy to shock it without pulling the pump but
           | I am going to replace the pump anyway because I think it was
           | installed in the 80's.
        
         | NotYourLawyer wrote:
         | I added a chlorine injection pump to my well that adds a little
         | bit whenever the main pump runs. Water quality very much
         | improved.
        
         | vuln wrote:
         | Liquid Chlorine worked the best in my use case. Bought a house
         | in Florida with no bathroom exhaust fan. Fought tooth and nail
         | to keep it at bay. Squeegeeing the walls, apply after shower
         | mildew/mold inhibitor. Nothing worked.
         | 
         | Liquid Chlorine did. Open bathroom window, placed a fan in
         | front of it and sprayed down the entire shower heavily. Yes the
         | smell I was powerful, I wore a respirator. It's been over a
         | year and we haven't had it come back at all. We still squeegee
         | and apply mildew/mold inhibitor and we now have a very high
         | powered exhaust vent in the master bathroom.
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | I try not to spray bleach when I can avoid it -- wiping or
           | pouring keeps more of the bleach on the surface instead of
           | floating around in the air.
        
           | nilram wrote:
           | Similar situation, I have a bathroom with an exhaust fan but
           | no openable windows. Besides the squeegee religion, I have a
           | circulation fan on a timer that I let run for a couple hours
           | to dry things out.
        
           | sclarisse wrote:
           | Consider cleaning with Pine-Sol too. It's a mold/mildew
           | inhibitor by its nature.
        
       | ben7799 wrote:
       | I thought bleach and alcohol were thought to not create pressure
       | for resistance because of their nature.
       | 
       | It is interesting they talk about benzalkonium chloride, that
       | stuff absolutely destroys my hands.
       | 
       | When the FDA shut down triclosan all the soaps for paranoid
       | people switched to Benzalklonium Chloride. That stuff absolutely
       | destroy my skin. No matter what anyone complains about they won't
       | stop putting it in all the bathroom soap dispensers in our
       | office. I can go in with my skin fine, if I wash my hands 3x in a
       | day they are almost bleeding by the end of the day.
       | 
       | Also interesting Benzalkloium Chloride last time I looked was in
       | limbo with the FDA, they couldn't decide whether to officially
       | approve it or ban it. They know it causes contact dermatitis. It
       | is currently in a state where the manufacturers are preparing
       | evidence to get it approved but yet it is allowed to be on the
       | market.
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | "I thought bleach and alcohol were thought to not create
         | pressure for resistance because of their nature."
         | 
         | I think the most famous example is that bleach (at least at
         | normal cleaning concentrations) doesn't kill MRSA. In theory
         | this would give it an advantage.
        
           | NotYourLawyer wrote:
           | There's just no way that's true. Bleach rips the electrons
           | right off. MRSA isn't going to develop immunity to that.
        
           | Eisenstein wrote:
           | Where did you get that information?
           | 
           | "List H: Registered Antimicrobial Products with Label Claims
           | Against Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
           | and/or Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis/faecium
           | (VRE)"
           | 
           | "5813-50 Sodium Hypochlorite Ultra Clorox Brand Regular
           | Bleach Clorox co."
           | 
           | * https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-h-
           | registered...
        
             | giantg2 wrote:
             | I'm having trouble seeing the concentration for that
             | product. I assume that's full strength 5-7%. If you look at
             | others on that list, you'll see one at 2% sodium
             | hypochlorite rhat requires a contact time of 5 minutes.
             | Most disinfecting products have less than 5% bleach or are
             | not applied for 5 minutes before removal.
        
               | atkailash wrote:
               | [dead]
        
               | cratermoon wrote:
               | Longer kill time is still killing. MRSA is not any more
               | resistant to bleach than other pathogens.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | How many people do you know actually leave a product on a
               | surface for 5+ minutes? If you didn't use it properly,
               | then you didn't actually kill it.
        
               | Eisenstein wrote:
               | P1: Water doesn't make hot tea when combined with tea
               | leaves.
               | 
               | P2: Yes it does, see <points to directions on how to make
               | tea>
               | 
               | P1: Most people don't bother waiting until the water
               | boils, they just pour it on from the faucet.
        
           | Fomite wrote:
           | C. difficile spores or norovirus particles would be better
           | examples, imo
        
         | MengerSponge wrote:
         | I've been known to carry a small bottle of Dr Bronner's for
         | this reason. Also, the bleaching agents in a lot of commercial
         | paper towels also chew up my hands. I'll carry a few
         | handkerchiefs in the winter too.
        
           | cma wrote:
           | > Also, the bleaching agents in a lot of commercial paper
           | towels also chew up my hands.
           | 
           | Are you saying if you wet a commercial paper towel with plain
           | water and drop it on some cloth it will bleach the fabric?
           | Why would the bleaching agents still be active any more than
           | with printer paper or toilet paper? Wouldn't these be a
           | hazard if someone wiped ammonia with them?
        
             | crazygringo wrote:
             | Yeah I'm confused about that too. Not to mention most
             | commercial paper towels are the brown unbleached kind.
             | Meanwhile toilet paper I've never seen unbleached...
             | 
             | But there is something I've also always found very mildly
             | irritating specifically about unbleached brown paper
             | towels, as well as uncoated corrugated cardboard. Just kind
             | of like a micro-scratchiness.
        
         | anonymouskimmer wrote:
         | You can bring in your own soap, either in a dispenser that you
         | keep at your desk and take to the bathroom whenever you need
         | it, or use a travel-sized bottle that you can keep in a pocket.
        
           | gwbas1c wrote:
           | Whenever anyone says "you can just," they're probably being
           | unreasonable and not understanding the problem.
           | 
           | I wouldn't tell someone to bring their own soap unless
           | they're travelling to a 3rd world country. It's quite
           | reasonable to expect basic hygiene products to not destroy
           | your hands.
           | 
           | > No matter what anyone complains about they won't stop
           | putting it in all the bathroom soap dispensers in our office.
           | 
           | Sounds like someone in HR just is ignoring the requests.
           | Someone should call OSHA.
        
             | anonymouskimmer wrote:
             | I've done it or I wouldn't have recommended it.
        
             | Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
             | I take my own soap when I travel for work in western europe
             | because you cannot rely on these crappy airbnbs my boss
             | rents to have any when you get there.
        
             | JohnFen wrote:
             | You'd hate my workplace. The water there is unspeakably
             | foul (I'm sure it's dangerous to drink), so I bring in jugs
             | of my own.
             | 
             | > Whenever anyone says "you can just," they're probably
             | being unreasonable and not understanding the problem.
             | 
             | Or they're offering a solution that they don't view as
             | being overly difficult.
        
         | NegativeLatency wrote:
         | I think they will create pressure but having chlorine rip apart
         | your cell membrane seems different enough from disrupting
         | pathways (or something else like an antibiotic does) that it
         | seems as though it would be considerably harder to evolve
         | against.
         | 
         | There are things like microbial cysts that are already
         | protective in these cases but the tradeoffs for the organize
         | are pretty large to adopt something like that.
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_cyst
        
         | Fomite wrote:
         | There's concerns for resistance in some non-bleach compounds,
         | especially chlorhexidine.
         | 
         | Bleach though remains pretty much microbial napalm, with some
         | exceptions (prions, norovirus & C. difficile spores at the
         | dilutions a lot of people use).
         | 
         | By far the bigger risk for bleach, IMO, is chemical exposure
         | hazards.
        
           | riffic wrote:
           | it's easy to accidentally create chlorine gas (this will
           | easily and painfully kill people) and if anyone read the
           | article that's exactly what the concern is here with bleach.
        
         | gwbas1c wrote:
         | > No matter what anyone complains about they won't stop putting
         | it in all the bathroom soap dispensers in our office.
         | 
         | Call OSHA, or at least threaten to do so.
        
           | JohnFen wrote:
           | I would recommend against threatening to call OSHA. If you're
           | going to do it, just do it (and be sure they keep you
           | anonymous).
           | 
           | Retaliation is a thing.
        
         | jrootabega wrote:
         | I am grateful you mentioned this. I recently got frustrated
         | wondering why my hands seem to dry, crack, and bleed so much
         | when I stay over at a certain household. It really makes a lot
         | of other things difficult for days when that happens. I believe
         | they buy antibacterial hand soap, and their water makes it hard
         | to rinse off completely. I will now make sure to bring my own
         | when I visit.
        
         | __MatrixMan__ wrote:
         | I don't think there's a way of killing microbiota that creates
         | no pressure for resistance, that's just evolution.
         | 
         | Of course some adaptations are more likely than others, but
         | from a pedantic point of view "use sparingly" is all we have.
        
           | angst_ridden wrote:
           | yes, but the difference between having your biological
           | processes disrupted and being smashed with a rock are pretty
           | significant, and the evolutionary responses are quite
           | different.
        
           | withinboredom wrote:
           | I think in this case it destroys the cell walls, so they'd
           | have to completely evolve how cells work in order to evolve.
           | Thus by definition, if they evolved to survive these
           | substances, they'd be an entirely different organism.
        
             | __MatrixMan__ wrote:
             | > they'd be an entirely different organism.
             | 
             | Yeah, they'd be archaea instead of bacteria, which is a
             | huge taxonomic leap, but they'd probably make you just as
             | sick as before.
             | 
             | The naming hierarchies of taxonomy are somewhat justified
             | within eukarya because we have family trees, but when you
             | only have one parent and get your genetic diversity via
             | horizontal gene transfer with your peers, taxonomy is just
             | the words of silly humans.
             | 
             | I wouldn't be surprised if mutations happen that take
             | populations across that boundary all the time. It happened
             | at least once, what are the odds of it happening only once?
             | 
             | -----
             | 
             | New-cell-wall technology aside, I think there are other
             | reasons to avoid frequently creating unnecessary sterile
             | zones. At those zones' boundaries you're creating
             | situations that favor rapid recolonization, neighbors-be-
             | damned, potentially at the expense of equilibria-seeking
             | behavior. Fewer Ghandis more Ghengis Khans.
             | 
             | There's a great radio-lab podcast (titled Argentine
             | Invasion) which describes how conditions like these
             | (regarding a floodplain, in this case) lead to the
             | evolution of an especially ruthless species of ant. It
             | seems likely to me that you'd see the same thing in
             | bacteria populations that are frequently partially
             | obliterated.
        
             | pasquinelli wrote:
             | anything evolving in any way at all makes it a different
             | organism. evolution is the word for organisms changing at
             | the population level.
        
               | withinboredom wrote:
               | I don't think you understand. Like it would have to
               | evolve into an entirely different class of life, it would
               | no longer be "bacteria" thus "bacteria" can never become
               | resistant to it because to become resistant means that it
               | is no longer "bacteria"
        
               | fvold wrote:
               | You can't outgrow your lineage in evolution. We're
               | monkeys. KFC is made of dinosaurs. Anything descended
               | from bacteria would still be bacteria.
        
               | withinboredom wrote:
               | They would change taxonomy to archea (see MatrixMan's
               | comment) thus no longer being bacteria.
               | 
               | These are all human issues, the "archea-bacteria"
               | wouldn't care what we called it, but fun to think about.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | Robotbeat wrote:
           | One approach is just to starve it of resources such as food
           | or water.
        
             | anonymouskimmer wrote:
             | That would promote spore formation in spore-forming
             | bacteria. And spores are more resistant to damage than
             | active bacteria. And spores can stay viable for years.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | Fun fact, if you have spores you can create the
               | conditions for them to become active for 24 hours or so.
               | Then you can use a sanitizing method that's less intense.
               | This is sometimes used in mushroom cultivation.
        
           | nordsieck wrote:
           | > I don't think there's a way of killing microbiota that
           | creates no pressure for resistance, that's just evolution.
           | 
           | In order for evolution to function[1], there needs to be
           | differential survival. That is to say, some variants of
           | bacteria must survive at greater or lesser rates than other
           | variants.
           | 
           | For something as strong as bleach, given sufficient
           | concentration and working time, it's not clear to me that
           | that effect exists. My understanding is that it's so powerful
           | and it's means of action is so robust that is just kills
           | everything equally.
           | 
           | ---
           | 
           | 1. Yes, technically evolution never stops and always
           | functions. I guess a more precise way to word that is: in
           | order for there to be an observable evolutionary effect.
        
             | [deleted]
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | Yes, but if it is something extremely devastating, it might
           | take millions of years of consistent use. Maybe e coli can
           | figure out how to live in an autoclave after a million years,
           | but humans will probably stop using autoclaves before then.
        
             | giantg2 wrote:
             | Depending on the temperature, prions can survive at the
             | lower ranges. 2.5% bleach solution will denatured them
             | though.
        
               | kube-system wrote:
               | Prions are not living and do not evolve.
        
               | giantg2 wrote:
               | Well, it seems that you can have new prion diseases
               | emerge. Not _technically_ evolution since it 's not
               | reproduction, but still a similar theory where new
               | proteins or folds could create more resilient structures.
               | Even for true evolution you're looking at variations in
               | sequences leading to both better and worse states.
               | 
               | The point is, not all autoclaves destroy everything
               | today.
        
           | anonymouskimmer wrote:
           | For microbes bleach is the equivalent of a cluster bomb. If
           | you know it's coming you can evolve to decrease the odds of
           | it killing you, but if you don't know it's coming there's
           | nothing you can do.
           | 
           | One thing some bacteria can do is create spores. These are a
           | main reason various disinfectants, including dilute bleach
           | mixtures, say they kill 99.999% of germs, and not 100%.
           | Spores are highly, though not totally, resistant to damage.
           | They can even survive autoclaving at standard autoclave
           | temperatures and pressures. But making spores is the
           | equivalent of sticking baby Superman in a pod and sending him
           | to Earth. Spores are the next generation, the adult
           | generation still dies.
           | 
           | There are apparently better chlorine disinfectants than
           | bleach which show good activity against spores: https://www.c
           | dc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection...
           | 
           | > Alternative compounds that release chlorine and are used in
           | the health-care setting include demand-release chlorine
           | dioxide, sodium dichloroisocyanurate, and chloramine-T. The
           | advantage of these compounds over the hypochlorites is that
           | they retain chlorine longer and so exert a more prolonged
           | bactericidal effect.
           | 
           | > In vitro suspension tests showed that solutions containing
           | about 140 ppm chlorine dioxide achieved a reduction factor
           | exceeding 10^6 of S. aureus in 1 minute and of Bacillus
           | atrophaeus spores in 2.5 minutes in the presence of 3 g/L
           | bovine albumin. The potential for damaging equipment requires
           | consideration because long-term use can damage the outer
           | plastic coat of the insertion tube. In another study,
           | chlorine dioxide solutions at either 600 ppm or 30 ppm killed
           | Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare within 60 seconds after
           | contact but contamination by organic material significantly
           | affected the microbicidal properties.
        
             | cratermoon wrote:
             | > One thing some bacteria can do is create spores.
             | 
             | Spores and biofilms. Biofilms not only protect against
             | antibiotics but also bleach. Some of them repel water
             | better than Teflon.
             | https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011033108 "The
             | biofilm surface remains nonwetting against up to 80%
             | ethanol as well as other organic solvents and commercial
             | biocides across a large and clinically important
             | concentration range."
        
         | sometimeshuman wrote:
         | "I thought bleach and alcohol were thought to not create
         | pressure for resistance because of their nature."
         | 
         | Agreed, and I missed if this article stated otherwise. Also we
         | have been adding chlorine (the active ingredient in bleach) to
         | our water supply for over 100 years ago and that experiment
         | hasn't produced resistant microbes AFAIK.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | After all the clickbait, here's the EPA's Safer Ingredients List
       | for antibacterials.[1]
       | 
       | * Chitosan
       | 
       | * Citric acid, anhydrous
       | 
       | * Ethanol
       | 
       | * Hydrogen peroxide
       | 
       | * Isopropanol
       | 
       | * L-Lactic acid
       | 
       | * Peracetic acid
       | 
       | * Sodium bisulfate
       | 
       | Citric acid cleaners are widely available and cheap. They work as
       | as degreasers, and they are not flammable.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-ingredients#searchList
        
       | insaneirish wrote:
       | From the article: "The chemicals in bleach "are persistent in the
       | environment, and they're also very corrosive," she added."
       | 
       | This seems incomplete at best and disingenuous at worst.
       | 
       | It's my understanding that chlorine bleach breaks down into
       | oxygen, NaCl, and water.
       | 
       | So, sure, you can argue that salt water is persistent in our
       | environment and also corrosive, but that statement strikes me the
       | same way as how people have long warned about the dangers of ever
       | present dihydrogen monoxide in almost everything we consume these
       | days.
        
         | 01100011 wrote:
         | It seems NaOCl is capable of forming various products when
         | reacting with other chemicals common to the home environment:
         | https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00573
         | 
         | Whether such products rise to a level of concern is another
         | story.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | NotYourLawyer wrote:
         | This jumped out at me too. If it's very reactive (and it is)
         | then it can't possibly be that long-lived.
        
           | HarryHirsch wrote:
           | Yes, it's a very silly statement. That said, the chlorine
           | that you breathe in when the bleach that you cleaned your
           | bathtub with evaporates can't be good for you. Worse if you
           | spray the stuff (and how we all made fun of Trump and his
           | nebulized hydrogen peroxide).
        
         | gamblor956 wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
         | flavius29663 wrote:
         | and it breaks down on it's own, pretty quickly, especially when
         | hit by sun UV rays, which is why you have to chlorinate your
         | pool so often. It also gets diluted easily by water.
        
           | rootusrootus wrote:
           | This is why you add cyanuric acid to the pool when you're
           | setting it up. The sun can destroy an entire pool's chlorine
           | in a few hours, but CYA will help slow that process down
           | significantly, so that you can keep up with a chlorine
           | generator or chlorine dispenser.
        
             | hippich wrote:
             | Afaik, cya also lowers chlorine ability to disinfect. So it
             | is balancing act. And since cya does not break down, one
             | have to be careful to not overdo tablets and such. I
             | switched to liquid chlorine for that reason
        
               | achenatx wrote:
               | and then liquid chlorine is impossible to find and
               | doubled in price, so I ended up with salt water.
        
           | WirelessGigabit wrote:
           | Which is why you get a salt-water pool. So much better!
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | A saltwater pool IS a chlorine pool. The difference is that
             | instead of adding sodium hypochlorite from a jug, you add
             | salt to the water and use electrolysis (chlorine generator)
             | to create chlorine gas and hydrogen.
             | 
             | Properly maintained pool water will have the same chlorine
             | level either way. The "chlorine pool" water won't have
             | quite as much dissolved salt, but over time it does build
             | up.
        
         | cpach wrote:
         | In the 90s in Sweden (possibly other countries as well) there
         | was a campaign to get people to stop using bleach (i.e. sodium
         | hypochlorite). However, I have not been able to find any
         | sources that could prove that use of bleach in the home would
         | contribute to any environmental damage.
        
           | rejectfinite wrote:
           | A campaign from who? Im also a swede so I grew up with the
           | "DRINK MILK OR UR GONNA DIE!!" campaigns from the "neutral"
           | milk lobby.
        
             | radicalcentrist wrote:
             | Is that on the ground floor of the neutral milk hotel?
        
         | seiferteric wrote:
         | I thought I remembered reading something that some amount can
         | be converted into chloramines and that those don't break down
         | quickly.
        
           | vondur wrote:
           | Chloramines are used to disinfect residential water supplies.
           | I believe if you mix chlorine and ammonia, you get cyanogen
           | chloride, which is toxic.
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | Doesn't most bleach contain stabilizers? Perhaps that part of
         | it. The other possibility is that when bleach reacts with stuff
         | it can form other, more stable compounds.
         | 
         | Either way, I generally agree with your position. Bleach tends
         | to break down pretty quickly compared to many other things.
        
           | jaggederest wrote:
           | Cyanuric acid is the stabilizer used in pool chlorine, but
           | even it breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.
           | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4451360/
           | 
           | Also if chlorine is stabilized by cyanuric acid, it is no
           | longer active in the environment - basically the cyanuric
           | acid locks up the chlorine in an equilibrium so that it slow
           | releases, which is why it's widely used in outdoor pools.
           | Otherwise UV exposure would cause the chlorine to offgas
           | rapidly and you'd need to add chlorine every hour or so
           | during the day, which is obviously effort and cost
           | prohibitive.
        
           | insaneirish wrote:
           | > Doesn't most bleach contain stabilizers?
           | 
           | Not sure.
           | 
           | SDS for Clorox Regular Bleach:
           | https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-
           | content/uploads/cloroxre...
           | 
           | It lists a single ingredient: sodium hypochlorite.
        
             | giantg2 wrote:
             | Ah, I might have been thinking about pool chlorine and some
             | outdoor cleaners.
        
               | jaywalk wrote:
               | Pool chlorine is just slightly more concentrated bleach.
        
               | rootusrootus wrote:
               | You might be thinking of certain types of pool chlorine
               | tablets that include cyanuric acid. Really a terrible way
               | to treat a pool, honestly, it builds up CYA in the water
               | and eventually you can't get enough active chlorine to
               | safely disinfect. And the only realistic way to reduce
               | CYA is drain the pool partly or completely and refill.
               | Properly maintained pool water only needs basic
               | chemicals, and pure sodium hypochlorite (unless you're
               | going to use a chlorine generator, in which case you'll
               | end up buying a few hundred pounds of salt when you fill
               | the pool).
        
             | thoughtISawA2 wrote:
             | Guess the SDS only covers components that require special
             | handling? They have a page that mentions stabilizers:
             | https://www.clorox.com/learn/what-is-bleach-what-are-
             | active-...
        
       | photochemsyn wrote:
       | If you ever have to move into a cabin in the American Southwest
       | that's been a mouse and rodent playground, saturating it with a
       | solution of 10% chlorine bleach in water is not a bad idea
       | (hantavirus is the general issue in that case). You will want to
       | rinse with a lot of water to get residue out, though.
       | 
       | However, such scorched-earth tactics are a bad idea on a regular
       | basis, just use simple non-toxic cleaning agents like sodium
       | percarbonate aka 'chlorine-free oxygen bleach', sodium citrate
       | (basically citric acid + sodium bicarbonate cooked together in
       | solution), and simple soap (vegetable oil + lye). The latter two
       | are not hard to make yourself if you want to, just find a
       | reliable recipe and instruction set online (gloves and eye
       | protection recommended).
        
         | jollyllama wrote:
         | I've heard a one-time ozone generator cleaning is also good for
         | this
        
         | JohnFen wrote:
         | > and simple soap
         | 
         | People really underestimate the antimicrobial properties of
         | just plain old soap. Soap is bad news to a lot of common
         | microbes, and kills them dead.
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | Do you mean .5% chlorine bleach? The stuff they sell in the
         | store is 5-7%.
        
       | dogma1138 wrote:
       | Bleach wasn't commonly used for bathroom cleaning in the US ore-
       | covid? It's quite common in Europe and much of the rest of the
       | world...
        
         | pixl97 wrote:
         | Either bleach or some other powerful cleaner was.
         | 
         | Quite often you hear about some some younger adult working at a
         | low paying job using bleach to clean, and they decide to mix
         | some other cleaner in because it's not working well enough, and
         | there is a reaction that hospitalized them or kills them.
        
           | 123pie123 wrote:
           | I've worked in a few cleaning jobs as a student in the UK and
           | I've always had to a have a mini induction on how to use
           | cleaning fluids, which is v basic - don't mix certain types
           | of cleaning fluids
        
           | MisterBastahrd wrote:
           | Bleach + ammonia? Chloramine. Bad. Bleach + peroxide?
           | Exothermic reaction that produces oxygen. Bad. Bleach + an
           | acid like vinegar? Chlorine gas. Bad. Bleach + alcohol?
           | Chloroform. Bad.
        
             | cratermoon wrote:
             | In short, that chlorine atom _really_ wants to be somewhere
             | else, and nearly anything, even water, will break the bond.
             | So now there 's chlorine ions floating around, and chlorine
             | has the 2nd highest electronegativity after fluorine. It's
             | so reactive it will even form compounds with many of the
             | noble gases.
        
         | JohnFen wrote:
         | I'm in the US, and myself and most people I know well enough to
         | know this about them have been using bleach for bathroom
         | cleaning for my entire life.
        
           | malfist wrote:
           | I was raised using primarily bathroom cleaners like scrubbing
           | bubbles and 409. Both of which are QATs instead of bleach.
           | 
           | As an adult I've experimented with using bleach for cleaning,
           | and prefer it most of the time, it's just better.
        
             | kube-system wrote:
             | Most of the stuff in the bathroom cleaning aisle has a
             | "with bleach" version
             | 
             | https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/3189aa67-fa2c-4ad1-ae01-7b
             | 6...
        
             | chordalkeyboard wrote:
             | Scrubbing Bubbles contains microplastic abrasives.
        
         | ben7799 wrote:
         | Yes, it was always common for cleaning in the US.
        
         | eric-hu wrote:
         | I worked in a restaurant kitchen in 2008. Every food station
         | had to prepare a sani-bucket with about a teaspoon of bleach in
         | a gallon of water. We used those to wipe down our food stations
         | between preparations. I believe they're required by US health
         | code law.
         | 
         | The dish washing sink also had 3 basins. Wash, rinse and
         | sanitize. The third had water and a small amount of bleach.
         | Again, required by restaurant health code law.
         | 
         | (I realize after writing this comment you specified bathroom
         | cleaning, but these stories still stand. Food prep environments
         | are held to a higher standard than bathrooms.)
        
         | amalcon wrote:
         | It absolutely was and is. The "potential to produce toxic
         | gases" thing the article mentions is very well known, though
         | the usual advice to avoid it (never mix two different cleaners)
         | was briefly a little more difficult to practice due to
         | shortages.
        
           | hinkley wrote:
           | Honestly I've known about the ammonia thing since college or
           | right after, but I just learned about vinegar and bleach a
           | year ago. If you put vinegar in your laundry you probably
           | shouldn't use the bleach dispenser to do it.
        
           | realworldperson wrote:
           | [dead]
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | I think it was pretty common.
         | 
         | What wasn't common is they many people starting using lots of
         | bleach or bleach containing products all over the place due to
         | covid being though to be spread via fromites in the early
         | days/months of the pandemic.
        
         | werdnapk wrote:
         | Ammonia is a common cleaner as well in parts of the world as
         | well.
        
       | KaiserPro wrote:
       | Sorry, but saying hydrogen peroxide is safer than bleach and
       | therefore you should swap them is leaving out a massive caveat.
       | 
       | It is still corrosive and an irritant. Yes, the decomposition
       | products are much less of a problem, but thats kinda less of the
       | point.
        
       | webnrrd2k wrote:
       | This strikes me as more of a scare piece than useful. Certainly
       | overuse of cleaning agents is a problem. But that sounds like
       | more of a problem with education or a mental issue than a problem
       | with the cleaning agents, per se.
       | 
       | I used to swim all the time in chlorinated pools as a kid. The
       | only consequences were hair getting bleached to an greenish tint,
       | and irritated eyes.
       | 
       | Sodium and chloride are the constituents of plain 'ol salt. You
       | body deals with it well. Your stomach acid of hydrochloric acid,
       | and it doesn't seem to be an issue, either.
       | 
       | I'm not worried about bleach at all, as long as it's used with
       | common sense. So don't go overboard. Dont drink it. Don't take a
       | both in concented bleach. I'm sure you'll be fine.
       | 
       | I'm sure that there are exceptions, like maybe the fumes are too
       | much for someone with asthma or whatever. There used to be
       | problems with dioxins that were the redult of bleaching agents.
       | But, again, if people exercise common sense, then I'm sure that
       | society will muddle along.
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | If you had friends with asthma, the pool was something they had
         | to do in small doses. The lung irritation doesn't affect most
         | people that much, but it also depends on how many people are
         | peeing in the pool.
        
         | chimeracoder wrote:
         | > Sodium and chloride are the constituents of plain 'ol salt.
         | You body deals with it well.
         | 
         | Sure, you can make any substance sound innocuous or harmful by
         | reducing it to its elemental constituents and then comparing
         | them to other substances. The structure and form make the
         | poison (along with the dose).
         | 
         | I could tell you that benzene is "just" carbon and hydrogen,
         | and your body deals with those well. Except benzene is
         | extremely carcinogenic. Unlike, for contrast, toluene, which
         | has a very similar chemical formula but is not carcinogenic,
         | due to a different structure.
         | 
         | Heck, your body "deals with" oxygen well. If you're referring
         | to diatomic oxygen, that is - O2. Your body does not like O3,
         | even though that's also "just" oxygen.
         | 
         | Furthermore, you're conflating chlor _ide_ with chlor _ine_.
         | Chloride is a single chlorine anion joined in an ionic bond (or
         | dissociated aqueous, more commonly). Bleach contains a chlor
         | _ite_ anion - the entire anion is negative, but chlorine is
         | itself covalently bonded to another nonmetal (oxygen). The
         | properties of specific nonmetals as part of a larger compound
         | are completely different from the properties of those nonmetals
         | in isolated ions.
         | 
         | Both have elemental chlorine in them, but they're quite
         | different chemically.
        
           | webnrrd2k wrote:
           | The tone of your response is, like the original article, more
           | of a scare piece. And I'm not trying to make bleach "sound
           | innocuous". Bleach, when used with common sense and whatever
           | guidelines that apply, is _actually_ innocuous. It 's just a
           | fact that some substances are actually innocuous.
           | 
           | Bleach has been used for cleaning and disinfecting for a very
           | long time... people have used it daily for years on end in
           | their jobs as dishwashers or whatever. If it was such a
           | problem then people would have noticed the higher cancer
           | rates, or whatever bleach-related diseases that actually
           | occurr. The fact is that people in the US have had small
           | amounts of bleach in their drinking water and it hasn't been
           | an issue. People clean with bleach every day. It's used in
           | laundry and all sorts of other things.
           | 
           | As a kid I swam in some over-bleached pools and it didn't
           | hurt me or any of my friends. The same thing happened in
           | swimming pools across the nation. I'm sure that we swallowed
           | some of it as we swam, too. It wasn't a big deal then. It's
           | not a big deal now.
           | 
           | I'm not a member of a multinational bleach consortium trying
           | to trick you into using bleach against your better interests.
           | If you don't want to use it then go ahead and stop.
           | 
           | The article talks about problems with bleach if you're a
           | "professional cleaner". Ok, fine. Maybe pro-cleaners should
           | have better ventillation sometimes, or respirators, or
           | something else. Maybe they are using a very strong bleach and
           | that's the problem. Maybe it depends on what they are
           | cleaning and there is some reaction that causes problems. All
           | are worth taking precautions against. But a regular person
           | who occasionally uses bleach to sanitize dishes or clean a
           | bathroom or whiten laundry? I just don't believe there is any
           | hazard worth worrying about.
        
             | makeitdouble wrote:
             | > when used with common sense
             | 
             | I think this is the reason this piece and more cautious
             | advices ("scare mongering") are delivered. What is common
             | sense in this case ? You seem gt have a good sense of
             | what's innocuous volumes and not going overboard. Does your
             | neighbor share that sense ? (is it "common" ?). Do the
             | people 20 blocks down your house share that sense ?
             | 
             | I'd argue for better or worse, very few things still stay
             | "common" at a large enough scale without repeating the
             | message often enough.
        
             | rootusrootus wrote:
             | > As a kid I swam in some over-bleached pools
             | 
             | Fun fact -- public pools are typically under-bleached, not
             | over. That's why they smell so bad. The strong smell is
             | coming from the chloramines generated when chlorine
             | neutralizes organics, like pee. If they were able to
             | maintain better chlorine levels they'd actually smell
             | _better_. That 's difficult though with the sheer number of
             | children mistreating the water at a typical public pool.
             | 
             | A well maintained home swimming pool should have a nearly
             | undetectable amount of chlorine odor to the water. Hot tubs
             | are a little more difficult because they have a small
             | version of the same bather load problem a public pool has.
        
       | denton-scratch wrote:
       | > Calls to poison control centers about cleaning chemicals also
       | increased during the pandemic, primarily for accidental or
       | intentional ingestion.
       | 
       | I seem to recall a prominent American recommending the ingestion
       | of bleach as a treatment for Coronavirus.
        
         | cratermoon wrote:
         | Man Dies, Woman Hospitalized After Taking Form Of Chloroquine
         | To Prevent COVID-19 https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-
         | live-updates/2020/0...
         | 
         | In this case, chloroquine phosphate, a common antimalarial, but
         | also found in tablet form to treat fish tanks. The FDA even put
         | out a statement about it. https://www.fda.gov/animal-
         | veterinary/product-safety-informa...
        
         | retox wrote:
         | rent free
        
         | misssocrates wrote:
         | Is there a transcript of that? The exact sentence please.
        
           | yamtaddle wrote:
           | https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-
           | statements/re...
           | 
           | He doesn't literally say "inject bleach" [EDIT: and also
           | doesn't say: "ingest bleach"]. What transpires is this--
           | 
           | Acting DHS undersecretary Bryan:
           | 
           | > We're also testing disinfectants readily available. We've
           | tested bleach, we've tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus,
           | specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can
           | tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes;
           | isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and
           | that's with no manipulation, no rubbing -- just spraying it
           | on and letting it go. You rub it and it goes away even
           | faster. We're also looking at other disinfectants,
           | specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva.
           | 
           | (and also some stuff about UV light killing Covid)
           | 
           | Then, slightly later:
           | 
           | > THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill
           | [Undersecretary Bryan] a question that probably some of you
           | are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I
           | find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body
           | with a tremendous -- whether it's ultraviolet or just very
           | powerful light -- and I think you said that that hasn't been
           | checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said,
           | supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you
           | can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I
           | think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds
           | interesting.
           | 
           | > ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks
           | who could.
           | 
           | > THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant,
           | where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there
           | a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or
           | almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and
           | it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be
           | interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to
           | use medical doctors with. But it sounds -- it sounds
           | interesting to me.
           | 
           | Then a question about it:
           | 
           | > Q But I -- just, can I ask about -- the President mentioned
           | the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you
           | mentioned. There's no scenario that that could be injected
           | into a person, is there? I mean --
           | 
           | > ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: No, I'm here to talk about
           | the findings that we had in the study. We won't do that
           | within that lab and our lab. So --
           | 
           | > THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn't be through injection. We're
           | talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an
           | area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work. But it certainly
           | has a big effect if it's on a stationary object.
           | 
           | So, I mean... he kinda does, in a completely dumbshit way,
           | suggest we should explore injecting bleach (or maybe
           | isopropyl alcohol? It's always hard to tell WTF the guy's
           | talking about) but then walks it back when actually
           | questioned on it, but _then_ finished by leaving open the
           | idea of exploring... something?  "Maybe it works, maybe it
           | doesn't"--maybe _fucking what_ works? Impossible to know.
           | "We're talking about through almost a cleaning" well, yeah,
           | we know that works for, you know, _not_ the inside of people,
           | so... did you or did you not mean trying to get bleach or
           | isopropyl alcohol inside people? Because the first statement
           | _clearly_ meant that, but then you said, not, but now  "maybe
           | it works", but _what_ maybe works? And now my head hurts.
           | "Or almost a cleaning". I mean. What?
           | 
           | Anywho, IIRC from watching this when it happened, he _does
           | not_ seem to be making a joke with the initial comment about
           | using tanning beds or household cleaning product injections
           | to fight covid, or whatever the shit he had in mind when he
           | said that craziness.
           | 
           | [EDIT] Though, to be clear, he _does not_ say people ought to
           | go inject or drink bleach. He just suggests he 's going to
           | have government scientists look into the idea, which is
           | _hilariously_ stupid but also not as bad as it 's sometimes
           | made out to be.
        
             | [deleted]
        
       | syntaxing wrote:
       | Serious question, what do people clean their bathroom with
       | then...I used to never use bleach but it's the most effective
       | thing to clean bath and toilets.
        
       | micromacrofoot wrote:
       | I've purchased a little water electrolyzer from Amazon to use as
       | a bleach alternative, and it seems to work quite well. I wonder
       | why this isn't more popular. A little less convenient (takes a
       | little time to make, shelf life of days) and more upfront cost
       | perhaps?
        
         | cobbal wrote:
         | As I understand it, that's just a way to create bleach, and
         | bleach itself isn't particularly expensive:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochlorination
        
       | neonate wrote:
       | http://web.archive.org/web/20230323080410/https://www.nytime...
       | 
       | https://archive.ph/7PjyQ
        
       | ericbarrett wrote:
       | What the New York Times thinks will happen: Enhanced labeling and
       | regulation of dangerous chemicals in household cleaners leads to
       | a safer world for all.
       | 
       | What will actually happen: Common chemicals like bleach, borax,
       | vinegar, and ammonia will be banned from direct sale to
       | consumers; you'll be forced to buy whatever brand name from one
       | of two major manufacturers, with as little insight into its
       | composition and dangers as you have today. A decade from now
       | they'll run an expose about the multi-generational environmental
       | impact of some exotic chemical these products used. Lawyers get
       | paid $millions in a class action. You get lung cancer and a
       | coupon for $5.95. Cleaning products still cost $10 per quart.
        
         | chimeracoder wrote:
         | > What the New York Times thinks will happen: Enhanced labeling
         | and regulation of dangerous chemicals in household cleaners
         | leads to a safer world for all.
         | 
         | > What will actually happen: Common chemicals like bleach,
         | borax, vinegar, and ammonia will be banned from direct sale to
         | consumers;
         | 
         | This is a lifestyle piece providing basic safety information
         | for common household goods. It's quite a stretch to imply _any_
         | intention of a regulatory outcome for that, let alone one that
         | somehow bans common cooking ingredients.
         | 
         | Not to mention that the only mention of vinegar is as an aside,
         | a (correct) warning that two common cleaning materials should
         | not be used _simultaneously_.
        
         | Eumenes wrote:
         | Glad I'm not the only one who deciphers similar takes from
         | these latent articles
        
       | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-03-23 23:01 UTC)