[HN Gopher] Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par w...
___________________________________________________________________
Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par with car exhaust
Author : clumsysmurf
Score : 350 points
Date : 2025-02-19 23:53 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newatlas.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newatlas.com)
| userbinator wrote:
| ...and so do perfumes, most likely.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| And methanol is not good for anyone, in any measure.
|
| I'm pretty sure that's why, 100 years ago, there were so many
| blues folks with names like "Blind Lemon Jefferson" -- they had
| drunk bad hooch that got too much methanol instead of ethanol.
| Blindness is direct side effect of methanol poisoning.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure that's why, 100 years ago, there were so
| many blues folks with names like "Blind Lemon Jefferson"
|
| Also because in a predominantly agricultural society, music
| was one of very few self-sustaining pursuits for a blind (or
| otherwise unsuited to farm work) person. Looking through the
| 'blind' names in [0] most were either born blind or had an
| alternate explanation (usually accidents) for their
| blindness.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_of_blues_
| mus...
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Thanks!
| xnx wrote:
| On average, we inhale 20 lbs of air per day. This is greater by
| weight than the food or water we consume in a day. We should be
| paying a lot more attention to air quality.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| IDK, as an American I eat a lot of food.
| worik wrote:
| As an American, are you sure it is all "food"?
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| A rule of thumb is that if you paid sales tax for it, it's
| probably not food.
|
| Of course "not food" is mostly fine.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Some states tax all food.
| jameshart wrote:
| Everything in New Hampshire is food
| zdragnar wrote:
| Not a great rule of thumb as every state and municipality
| is different in this regard.
|
| Many places will have different rates for raw food,
| prepared to go / delivery, and prepared for on-site
| consumption.
|
| https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2024/08/26/109453/1094
| 53/
| Cyphase wrote:
| California logic, I feel you.
| protocolture wrote:
| I didnt think americans had invented food yet.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Actually Americans are the first to invent everything,
| including food.
| protocolture wrote:
| Oh so they could hypothetically make food they just
| choose not to. Makes sense.
| throaway89 wrote:
| I think as an American, "food" should be in quotation marks
| asdff wrote:
| I can't help but feel like it has taken a nosedive as well.
| Modern homes are sealed and don't recirculate much outdoor air.
| As a result you have all this modern american living plastic
| material constantly offgassing. your fleece shedding
| microplastic particulate into the air that you then breath,
| eat, burn over the stove and inhale the fumes. You can't even
| do anything about it. Get rid of all the plastic you want in
| your life and the water supply is what is contaminated next.
| Your neighbors dryer exhaust and their fleece polluting your
| air. Restaurants. The food suppliers. Move a thousand miles
| away to the tip of the mountaintop upstream of everything
| conceivable, and you are liable to be bombarded with it carried
| via updrafts from around the world along with the rest of the
| usual pollution.
|
| We can't even slow down the consumerism. Everyone's job around
| the world is someway tied into this rampant production of cheap
| plastic goods to replace cheap plastic goods from yesterweek.
| You try and nip it in the bud everyone is liable to lose their
| job and everything might very well collapse because of how we
| chose to stack this deck of cards on this planet.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Modern homes have to have HRV systems for removing indoor air
| and replacing it.
| xnx wrote:
| It can be disheartening. I don't know that there's much
| strong evidence yet that air polluted with synthetic
| particles leads to bad health effects, but I do know that are
| lungs have been subjected to things in the last 100 years
| that they hadn't encountered in the previous 300 million.
| TylerE wrote:
| Inhaled particulates are never good news. Varying degrees
| of bad, but none of it is good.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I uploaded you for nosedive and didn't read anything after
| that. Figured it couldn't get any better!
| mlsu wrote:
| Air quality is much, much better than it used to be.
|
| We used to burn leaded gasoline in our cars, coal pucks to
| heat our homes, smoke directly into our lungs on purpose, god
| knows what else.
|
| I do agree with the broader point though.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Yeah, that's easy to underestimate. Where I live they've
| even declared a ban on open fires; a number of people have
| a fireplace / pit / thing in their back yard which is used
| for social events, but during certain weather conditions
| that smoke lingers. And because firewood is expensive
| people will use whatever they get their hands on. Also,
| people don't have proper stoves, and people don't know how
| to make a proper fire, so the result is... a lot of noxious
| smoke and poor air quality.
| asdff wrote:
| Well it was great for hundreds of thousands of years, then
| it was really bad for a couple generations, now it is just
| less bad for potentially forever. Hardly an improvement
| when you look at things in scales of our species time on
| this planet vs since grandad's day.
| woah wrote:
| get some air filters
| energy123 wrote:
| Not an easy silver bullet. They'll filter out pm2.5 but
| most don't touch VOCs. Most that claim to remove VOCs don't
| have enough volume of activated carbon to justify that. And
| even if you buy one of the ultra expensive machines that do
| filter VOCs, you're still left with rapid carbon dioxide
| accumulation which probably acutely harms cognition even at
| sub 1000 ppm levels, forcing you to open the windows which
| is self defeating.
|
| You're really left with two good solutions, one is
| centralized airflow with appropriate HEPA filtering which
| many can't afford, or to move to a location with default
| clean air, again a difficult proposition depending on work
| etc.
| terribleperson wrote:
| The carbon filters are also a second more expensive
| consumable on top of the particulate filter.
| energy123 wrote:
| Yes and the problem is you need a _lot_ of activated
| carbon. A thin sheet of it is just theatre.
| erikerikson wrote:
| Sealed modern houses usually come with an HRV or ERV so that
| your air is regularly replaced filtered fresh air.
| hypercube33 wrote:
| Really depends where you live and who built the home. Most
| contractors in the Midwest still aren't sure about putting
| network cabling in and haven't heard of air exchangers.
| Seems like the drive is to save 50 cents wherever possible
| per PVC toilet flanges vs at least PVC and metal ones
| terribleperson wrote:
| Finding out that the reason my toilet was wobbling was
| because multiple people thought PVC was okay to use
| structurally was infuriating.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Tight homes dont happen by accident. If the contractor is
| just getting by, they likely arent building a home that
| needs passive ventilation.
| alt227 wrote:
| My house in the UK is 300 years old. It is built of stone
| with proper ventilation built in everywhere. It never gets
| damp, never too cold or hot. Air circulates enough to
| constantly be fresh yet not quick enough to create a draft.
|
| Its a shame homes arent built like that anymore. Looking at
| how houses like this work really shows how we have created
| solutions to our own problems in modern home building.
| mapleoin wrote:
| What's the average temperature in your house on a cold
| winter day?
| nkrisc wrote:
| What are average high and low temperatures where you live
| in the UK? I looked up the averages for the UK as a whole
| (which I'm sure can vary quite a bit once you get more
| local) but I found between 20C and 2C.
|
| Where I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan average
| temperatures average between 32C and -6C. As for extremes,
| I have personally experienced there highs around 37C and
| lows down to -28C (still went to work in 3ft of snow).
|
| So I will take my modern home with its ability to be well
| insulated and heated and cooled.
|
| Yes, people lived there long before those modern
| conveniences, and they were cold and hot. They kept warm in
| the winter by keeping fires going inside their dwellings at
| all times. I even spent a week in autumn living in a
| recreation of one as a kid. Unsutprisingly, it was cold and
| everything smelled of smoke by the end of the week. Think
| of how much smoke and particulate we breathed in to stay
| warm (and there wasn't even snow on the ground yet). I
| didn't even mind it.
|
| I'll give the final word though to those living in even
| colder and more extreme climates, and any intrepid people
| living above the Arctic Circle.
| alt227 wrote:
| We have highs of mid 30s and lows down to -10.
|
| Stone is an incredibly efficient thermal material which
| is why animals and humans have lived in caves for
| thousands of years.
| amluto wrote:
| > Stone is an incredibly efficient thermal material which
| is why animals and humans have lived in caves for
| thousands of years.
|
| Most stone makes for a pretty bad insulator. But _the
| ground_ , in aggregate, is a great insulator and has very
| very large thermal mass. So you can go in a hole that's
| more than a few feet underground, and the temperature is
| fairly constant.
| nkrisc wrote:
| They also died in caves for thousands of years. They
| lived there because it was the best shelter available,
| not because it was the ideal shelter.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Look at passive houses, almost fully airtight, 70%+
| reduction in heating requirements, fresh air all day long
| thanks to hrv
|
| The problem is that people want "cheap" houses, cheap
| houses coupled with modern regulations = sealed boxes. The
| average joe doesn't give a shit about building quality,
| it's all about getting something big and as cheap as
| possible.
| alt227 wrote:
| > fresh air all day long thanks to hrv
|
| This costs power and materials. Old houses dont require
| that. On a global scale, that increases power and
| manufacturing on a huge scale. Why are we throwing power
| and more modern materials at a problem that was solved in
| Roman times?
|
| This would also reduce cost, helping the 'cheap' houses
| issue.
| amluto wrote:
| > On a global scale, that increases power and
| manufacturing on a huge scale. Why are we throwing power
| and more modern materials at a problem that was solved in
| Roman times?
|
| Really?
|
| A high quality modern balanced ventilator can ventilate
| an average sized house using 20-40W. That can supply over
| 100cfm and avoid around 90% of the conditioning that
| those 100cfm would otherwise require.
|
| A good approximation is that 1 cfm at a 1 degree F
| temperature difference transfers 1.08 BTU/hr (sigh) or
| 0.317W of "sensible heat". So, in a mild Mediterranean
| climate in the winter, heating by 30 degrees F, that
| 100cfm needs 0.317 times 3000 = 951W of sensible heat
| added.
|
| So you can burn 951W of fuel. Or you can use 20-40W to
| get the same amount of fresh air but only need 95W to
| heat it. Or live in a climate with warm days and cool
| nights and require less thermal mass and therefore less
| material to moderate the temperature and avoid the need
| for active heating or cooling.
|
| Without an HRV, either you don't heat the building, or
| you ventilate less, or you use considerably more
| resources for temperature control.
|
| Oh, and the device itself is two fans, a heat exchanger
| (fancy piece of plastic, generally), and some electronics
| and a box. Not exactly resource-intensive to build. And
| it can usually completely replace your bathroom fans if
| configured to do so, making it even less resource
| intensive.
|
| In climates that require dehumidification or winter
| humidification, it's more extreme because an ERV can
| exchange humidity ("recover latent heat") too.
| alt227 wrote:
| > Really?
|
| Yes
|
| > ventilate an average sized house using 20-40W
|
| Lets take your conservative estimate of 20w
|
| Quote from Googling: "As of July 1, 2023, there were
| 145,344,636 housing units in the United States"
|
| 145,344,636 x 20w = 2906892720W or 2906.89272MW.
|
| Another quick google says that the average Nuclear power
| plant outputs 977 MW.
|
| So thats 3 whole nuclear power plants required just to
| power the hrvs in American homes, using your conservative
| estimate.
|
| That is without the power required to manufacture,
| transport, and install 145 million hrvs.
|
| However you phrase it and whatever you say to justify it,
| thats a huge amount of power required to replace
| something which nature is quite capable of doing itself.
|
| EDIT: I have just also considered the waste as well. The
| average HRV has a lifespan of 15 years, so that would be
| 145 million hrv pumps thrown out and new ones built every
| 15 years. Thats a massive amount of constant power being
| used, and mountains of unecessary waste, as well as the
| power to process that waste etc etc...
| amluto wrote:
| You can multiply 20W by whatever you want, and if you
| multiply 1kW by the same number, you will get a number
| that is 50x as large.
|
| Put another way, _of course_ you can naturally ventilate
| a house to get the same air change rate that an HRV /ERV
| will get you. But (a) if you live somewhere with poor
| outdoor air quality, you have no opportunity to mitigate
| it with natural ventilation and (b) natural ventilation
| at high rates requires _far_ more active heating and
| cooling in climates that need heating and cooling.
|
| Even just the power needed to operate a large enough
| standalone air purifier in a naturally ventilated house
| will be far larger than the power needed to run a
| filtered ventilation system that will outperform that
| standalone filter (in a well sealed house or a positive
| pressure system).
|
| As I write this, I'm running an ERV that is consuming 25W
| to supply HEPA filtered air at very slight positive
| pressure. The same ventilation rate, from unfiltered
| natural ventilation, would remove 500W of heat, and I'd
| probably need at least 100W of air purifiers running to
| get anywhere near the level of filtration that those 25W
| include at no additional cost.
|
| You seem to be trying to tell me that the 25W would scale
| to a lot of power if everyone did this but that the 500W
| I would use otherwise would have no impact because the
| Romans didn't worry about it. I'm unconvinced.
|
| (This is a system where I replaced the mediocre and
| undersized filter from the manufacturer with a monstrous
| 24"x24"x12" nominal HEPA filter, a 24"x24" MERV 8
| prefilter, and a carbon filter mat from McMaster-Carr. I
| expect the HEPA filter to last for several years, the
| extremely inexpensive prefilter to last for a year or so,
| and the carbon filter to need replacement more frequently
| if outdoor odors from wildfires become an issue. Why HEPA
| instead of a 99.9% filter with somewhat lower resistance?
| Because it's _much_ easier to buy a real HEPA filter and
| the added resistance is negligible. No additional power
| is consumed by any of this: it all has _less_ resistance
| to airflow than even a brand new factory filter. The only
| real downside is that it's physically large.)
| alt227 wrote:
| You seem very proud of your home ventilation system, and
| very keen to tell us all about it. Im not surprised you
| dont really care about the power usage to achieve that.
| Its quite telling that your alternative that you suggest
| is more power hungry air purifiers.
|
| I however will stick with my house which uses zero
| external grid power to heat or ventilate it, and I can be
| happy in the knowledge I am not putting any drain on the
| national power grid for my comfort.
|
| Also when we have power outages, which is quite often, it
| makes no difference to my home whatsoever.
|
| Its OK, we can agree to disagree. You are not alone in
| thinking electricity is an infinite resource. Lets just
| keep on building houses that require more and more power
| to run and see where that gets us!
| amluto wrote:
| > Im not surprised you dont really care about the power
| usage to achieve that. Its quite telling that your
| alternative that you suggest is more power hungry air
| purifiers.
|
| Huh? I'm literally explaining, with actual measured
| numbers, how the ventilation system uses _less_ power. I
| do care about it!
| asdff wrote:
| Even then you don't get that sort of quality outside
| certain economic situations. The proverbial "old house" in
| california is a stick frame dwelling on a post and pier
| foundation over a crawlspace.
|
| This is because it seldom rains. So when it does rain the
| soil is very hard and doesn't absorb much of it. So it
| comes down the hills and causes landslides and shifting
| soils in the alluvial valleys that much of californian
| civilization is built into (since channelized due to said
| wandering waters destroying early californian civilization
| multiple times until this was learned and tamed by the u.s.
| army). And then, of course the earth quakes, which
| destroyed an early brick structured version of san
| fransisco almost in its entirety in 1906.
|
| Not to mention available american and canadian lumber
| connected by railhead to the entire continent. most of such
| reserves in europe were claimed for sunken ships over the
| previous centuries. So now you live in a 300 year old stone
| house probably with a basement instead of a timber building
| on post and piers because you have no cheap timber to this
| degree here and you have no earthquake risks or much
| shifting soil. Could you build a house like yours in the
| U.S.? Of course, if you pay a premium for it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Air tightness is fine, because when it's done anywhere close
| to the right way it comes with filtered heat recovery
| ventilation.
|
| You're right about building materials, but that's true
| regardless of the air tightness: engineered woods, all kind
| of glues, all kind of foams, paints, sealants, hard to tell
| how nasty they are but they for sure aren't beneficial.
| amluto wrote:
| > all kind of glues
|
| Glues are getting better over time. Slightly nasty
| polyurethanes [0] and quite nasty solvent- and bitumen-
| based products are gradually being replaced with STPE, and
| STPE seems to be considered quite safe. It doesn't even
| have a prop 65 warning!
|
| [0] Polyurethane may well be harmless when fully cured, but
| the uncured isocyanates are most definitely nasty.
| Fortunately, they're so reactive that they will
| aggressively react with water (even just moisture in the
| air) or almost any alcohol and produce much safer products.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Sealed houses in favor of climate control / energy usage has
| a big impact on people I'm sure. I'm lucky ish in that my
| house is well insulated but has central ventilation, but only
| 'suck' so it draws in fresh air from outside. In the same
| neighbourhood, they built houses with recirculation systems
| with a heat exchanger so that outside air was pulled in
| through that. But because the system was noisy (constant fan
| noises), people would turn the system on low or completely
| off, causing health issues due to buildup of CO2 and the
| like. That was uh, a bit of a problem for them and the
| builders.
| amluto wrote:
| The constant fan noise issue always seems a bit absurd to
| me. There's an excellent mitigation available that also
| happens to be to extremely cheap: insulated flexible duct.
| The cheap mylar-fiberglass-mylar sandwich stuff that's
| reinforced with a steel spiral, is sold in big boxes, and
| is favored by cheap contractors because it's easy to
| transport and install.
|
| This stuff is amazing: not only is it safe (no airflow in
| contact with fiberglass) and fairly well insulated, but it
| has excellent acoustic insertion loss. If you take 100 feet
| of rigid galvanized steel duct and talk into one end,
| someone at the other end will hear you loud and clear. If
| you take that same duct and install duct liner (and
| incredibly annoying process) like a fancy commercial
| installer, you won't hear much at the other end. If you use
| 100' of flex duct, you will hear basically nothing. This
| stuff mostly outperforms even the most expensive commercial
| acoustic solutions!
|
| Here's a spec sheet from a random brand:
|
| https://www.flexmasterusa.com/Portals/2/Downloads/Flex/6B.p
| d...
|
| Wow, 12 feet of 6" duct attenuates 250Hz sound by 43dB!
| That will make that frequency close to inaudible even if
| the equipment end of the duct is quite loud as HVAC gear
| goes. Use wider duct or a longer run (or both) to get it
| even quieter and to make a bigger dent in the lowest
| frequencies.
|
| So you stick you fancy fan somewhere that you won't
| directly hear it (in mechanical space with a fiber-
| insulated wall between you and it) and you connect it to
| the living space with ducting that contains at least a
| decent length of insulated flexible duct. And you keep the
| grilles and ducts large enough to keep face velocities low
| so that the ducts and grilles themselves don't make much
| noise, and you have a fantastic system.
|
| Or you use extremely expensive specialized semi-rigid
| ventilation duct or rigid galvanized steel or uninsulated
| flexible aluminum, and you're sad because your duct is a
| speaking tube.
| amluto wrote:
| Competently built modern houses are well sealed, so not much
| air filters in through leaked walls, doors, etc. Instead,
| outside air is actively introduced through a filtered intake,
| by a fan (or by deliberate negative pressure, but that's
| riskier, as air will come in through other paths too,
| bypassing the filter and potentially introducing contaminants
| from the structure and/or soil into the building).
|
| There are plenty of systems to do this. My favorite is an
| ERV, with an aftermarket, oversized, upgraded supply filter.
| macNchz wrote:
| While it's totally possible to build competently, my
| impression is that, in the US at least, there are tons of
| existing houses--built roughly between the 70s (energy
| crisis) and the mid-2000s when ventilation requirements
| became more common in building codes--that are fairly
| tightly sealed but lack any sort of real ventilation
| systems beyond like, kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans.
|
| Having grown up and lived primarily in (uncomfortably!)
| drafty old houses, I've noticed the phenomenon ever since I
| was little kid because they have a distinctive stuffiness
| and smell of furniture/carpet/plywood even if nothing
| inside is actually new. I think many people are just used
| to it/consider it a normal smell of a house because so much
| of the housing stock is in this category.
| moralestapia wrote:
| It's probably way more than that, IMO. Like 10x more.
|
| Edit: Back of the envelope math puts it around 60-70kg per day,
| conservatively.
|
| Can I just stop being right?
| xnx wrote:
| Where does our math differ?
|
| 2,000 gallons/day * 4.6 grams/gallon = 20.3 lbs.
|
| https://www.lung.org/blog/how-your-lungs-work
| moralestapia wrote:
| A person breathes 20-22k times a day (although I agree that
| number will vary greatly among people).
|
| 2,000 gallons/day is about 300ml in/out per breathing
| cycle. My estimate is that you breathe in/out at least one
| liter, recall that total lung capacity is about 6 liters so
| about 20% of that seems like a reasonable estimate.
|
| I chose to do 2-3 liters * 1.225 grams/liter * 22k times =
| ~50-80kg. That's a bit high now that I think about it, but
| no way is as low as 9kg.
|
| Edit: Chat says a healthy adult averages 500ml per
| breathing cycle (honestly surprised is that low), so, final
| estimate ~13-14kg if that is true.
|
| (I like metric units but you can do the conversion to
| burgers per squared eagle and compare)
| rajnathani wrote:
| Not to forget also that inhaled micro/nano particles get into
| the bloodstream more easily than ingested particles.
| autoexec wrote:
| > But have you thought about how you're contributing to air
| pollution inside of where you live by using seemingly innocuous
| products like scented, non-combustible candles?
|
| What is a non-combustible candle? Searching for "flame-free
| candle" just gives results for fake LED ones. The rest of the
| article talks about "scented wax melts" are they the same?
| CharlesW wrote:
| I believe this is a strange way to refer to wickless candles,
| which are used with candle warmers.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Yeah, I stopped going to houses that ran those plug-in
| diffusers.
|
| The rule is: don't put it into your lungs or onto your skin if
| you wouldn't put it into your mouth.
|
| Those people are just paying people to poison them, however
| slowly.
| sethammons wrote:
| Most (all?) "essential oil" products, used in diffusers, are
| edible. I like the peppermint oil as a breath freshener.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| My dumbass Republican family members don't use the
| "essential oil" ones -- they use whatever cheap corporate
| bullshit from Glade or whoever.
|
| It's good to know, however, that non-chemical ones are
| available. Thanks.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Probably, those wick-only stuff that people put one end in an
| oil, and let it evaporate though the body.
| porphyra wrote:
| I wonder just how bad those essential oil diffusers are, compared
| with, say, smoking, laser printers, and tyre microplastics.
| huang_chung wrote:
| My plan to sell flavoured printer toner has been foiled.
|
| Who would not want their print out to smell like fresh apple
| pie?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > My plan to sell flavoured printer toner has been foiled.
|
| > Who would not want their print out to smell like fresh
| apple pie?
|
| I know it's a joke, but surely flavoured printer toner would
| _taste_ like fresh apple pie?
| vidarh wrote:
| Gives a very different meaning to eating your words.
| jedbrooke wrote:
| I mean scented markers are a thing (or are they gone now
| because they're "too toxic"?) so scented (or flavored)
| printer toner doesn't seem too far fetched
|
| and yes I am one of those people who enjoyed the smell of
| freshly laser printed pages
| wongarsu wrote:
| Also scented paper
|
| Maybe offer unique toner scents to companies as part of
| their brand identity. Imagine all letters from Jack
| Wolfskin smelling like pine cones, or the acceptance letter
| from a surf school smelling like the ocean.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Maybe you're not old enough to have cultivated a taste for
| (or addiction to) the smell of fresh ditto printed pages.
| vidarh wrote:
| Scented markers, as well as pencils, are still a thing.
|
| You can also get scented paper, but it seems mostly thicker
| paper meant as drawer liners.
| Bloating wrote:
| Or burning CPAP machines:
| https://www.apneaboard.com/forums/Thread-ResMed-AirSense-10-...
| toddmorey wrote:
| I wonder about the inline air fragrance systems used by pretty
| much every hotel these days to produce a "signature scent".
| alabastervlog wrote:
| These must be nicer hotels than any of the ones I've ever been
| to...
| kstrauser wrote:
| The signature scent of Motel 6 is leftover Long John Silvers
| and Waffle House.
| drusenko wrote:
| I am having a hard time reconciling the claim in the post
| headline with common sense.
|
| One frustrating aspect to the study is that it was hard to
| determine whether they are comparing like for like per unit time.
| They say the "operation of a gas stove" and "running a generator"
| -- but for how long? It doesn't seem like they tested each of
| these things under similar conditions in their lab but rather
| relied on other studies for that data. Figure 2(b) right does
| seem to measure this but they haven't labeled the chart with
| clear labels and the description is a bit ambiguous.
|
| After reading the study, I think the issue is that the claim it
| is making is slightly different than the one in the headline.
| They are measuring VOC and ~PM2.5 pollutants, but gas engines
| (and gas stoves presumably as well) produce other pollutants like
| CO, which is what kills you of you run a gas generator indoors.
| Havoc wrote:
| It's likely selective factors being measured but on some metric
| the top engines produce outputs cleaner than air going in so I
| don't think it's all that improbable
| timewizard wrote:
| > CO, which is what kills you of you run a gas generator
| indoors.
|
| That's the proximate cause.
|
| > They are measuring VOC and ~PM2.5 pollutants
|
| Which aren't good for your lungs long term.
|
| > the claim in the post headline with common sense.
|
| If you can smell it, it's because little particles of it are in
| the air, so your scented products necessarily put PM of some
| size into your home. In other words you are polluting your home
| merely to produce an olfactory sensation. The lack of common
| sense in the market for these products has always baffled me.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Well said. I'm not the first to say it, but: common sense
| ain't so common.
|
| Here's some recommendations from our household, related to my
| previous battles with mold-related illness:
|
| RabbitAir hepa-level air purifiers. Pricey, but worth it.
|
| Dr. Bronner's soaps. We use them for showering, washing hands
| and dishes. No dishwasher here; our son has taken
| responsibility for it, in exchange for our fascilitating his
| chess-oriented lifestyle.
|
| 7th Generation laundry detergent. Unfortunately, we have to
| use a public laundramat, so we're getting some of the
| polluted stuff washing through the machines'
| detergent/softener resevoirs, but the poor have no choice.
|
| We keep the windows closed during rush hour timeframes, and I
| keep watch on wind directions and know where the fresh air
| comes from.
|
| We also try to get out into green space away from traffic and
| get a walk in or just let the teens knock the soccer ball
| around a bit.
| drusenko wrote:
| You're missing my point entirely. VOCs and PM2.5 are bad for
| you no doubt, which means this study is showing that these
| non combustible scented candles are producing measurable
| levels of dangerous indoor air pollution -- we're all in
| agreement there. That's not at all what I meant by common
| sense and my comment was in no way intended to be a defense
| of scented products.
|
| But the headline says "Scented products cause indoor air
| pollution on par with car exhaust". This is not supported by
| the study. PM2.5 and VOCs are not the only forms of indoor
| air pollution. Combustion produces other deleterious
| byproducts that negatively impact human health.
|
| Run a car in your garage for a day and run scented candle and
| tell me which is worse for you. That is what I mean by common
| sense.
| timewizard wrote:
| I'm supposing that when people say "pollution" they most
| readily mean the PM and the VOC.
|
| I highly doubt that if you were in a room that had /only/ a
| high concentration of CO would you describe it as
| "polluted."
|
| Additionally any gas which displaces oxygen is lethal in a
| confined space. Shall we expand "pollution" to include
| those as well? Is nitrogen a "pollutant?"
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I fully support research like this, because it's always good to
| get proper data about phenomena. However, I can't help feeling
| that the results are unsurprising: how could you smell the
| scented candles if they _weren 't_ producing nanoparticles?
| Surely the existence or abundance of these nanoparticles was
| never in question?
| protocolture wrote:
| This was my initial thought too. Like if I grow a bunch of nice
| smelling flowers, and crack open a window during the spring. Am
| I worse or better off than purchasing a scented candle.
|
| Should we as a species stop nice smelling things entirely.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Imagine how much "air pollution" one inhales when taking a
| big whiff of a nice curry.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Don't you mean an hour after consuming said curry? :)
| imp0cat wrote:
| Actually, it's the cooking that pollutes your indoor air
| the most. Once the food is on the table, most of the damage
| is already done.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| The sub-species that I belong to does stop smelling those
| nice things entirely as my nose clogs up, eyes water, and
| convulsions known to many as "sneezing" take over my body.
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Same here, including incense and most in home fireplaces.
| terribleperson wrote:
| No, but I wouldn't complain if we stopped scenting every damn
| cleaning and hygiene product. Please, no scented hand soap,
| or laundry detergent, or especially dish detergent. I'm not
| gonna complain if people want scented conditioner, but you
| probably don't need scented shampoo if you're going to
| condition anyways.
|
| Intuitively I'd guess the scented candle is worse than the
| flowers. I doubt soot and vaporized wax are good for you.
| Lanolderen wrote:
| Both exist tbh. My more medicinal shampoos smell of nothing
| or bad (assuming because of the active contents and not to
| smell more medicinal). Sensitive shampoo/detergents seem to
| be very lightly scented. Kinda just enough to where you can
| check if your kid washed their hands by smelling them but
| it doesn't release a citrus bomb around the sink.
| HPsquared wrote:
| The scent thing can be useful for a forgetful person
| wondering "did I wash my hands recently?"
| Lanolderen wrote:
| When we were little my dad used to check our hands before
| eating by smelling them, that's why I mentioned it. In
| retrospective it seems like a great feature since he
| didn't have to watch us do it and could with time start
| doing only occasional checks to see if we'll start
| slipping until we got the habit.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Lots of products smell bad if they're _truly_ unscented.
| "Unscented" is an effect that is often achieved with...
| scent. So, still putting stuff in the air for you to
| smell, but to counter other odors so it smells neutral to
| you.
| calgoo wrote:
| I just had this discussion with my wife yesterday as she
| bought a scented product for the dishwasher so it does not
| smell bad. That stuff has ruined several travel mugs etc as
| i can not get rid of the smell. When i drink coffee, i want
| to smell coffee, not some lemon whatever. And it always
| ends up with me being the bad guy for not being reasonable.
|
| We already had the same conversation about the automatic
| perfume spray machines; we had them over the dinner table,
| on hallways etc. Not so great when you are a tall person,
| and all of a sudden you get sprayed in your face because
| you happen to be standing in-front of the machine.
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| If the dishwasher smells bad without using a scented
| product, that sounds like a problem with the dishwasher's
| maintenance.
| calgoo wrote:
| Yup just needed some cleaning
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Yeah, they have filters that get _nasty_ without regular
| cleaning. Physically clean that out, bleach the hell out
| of it, and run a self-clean cycle or two if the washer
| has one.
|
| If someone's not cleaning that, I also have some bad news
| for them about their washing machine.
| leephillips wrote:
| > how could you smell the scented candles if they weren't
| producing nanoparticles?
|
| By smelling a gas?
| smallerize wrote:
| Gases are also made of particles. Molecules that you can
| smell are easily a nanometer across.
| pama wrote:
| Nanoparticle as a term has a specific technical definition
| that does not include a random gas made of organic small
| molecules, which include most molecules we perceive by
| smell.
| smallerize wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticle#Definitions ?
| chemicalnovae wrote:
| Sure, and most small organic molecules are an order of
| magnitude smaller than that definition.
| aeonik wrote:
| What? Not an a whole order of magnitude.
|
| I thought most orderants were around 0.5 to 1nm in
| diameter.
| leephillips wrote:
| The nanoparticles that are the subject of the article are
| not single molecules.
| energy123 wrote:
| Don't underestimate the amount of education needed for this
| opinion to be understood and enter conscious awareness.
|
| The marketing ploy of an attractive woman breathing in those
| delicious scents counts for much more to the majority of the
| population.
|
| Regulators need to crack down on this deception, it's the only
| proven way.
| Lanolderen wrote:
| I think it's more so that people don't believe it's bad
| unless they start drinking parfume.
|
| And I'm like that as well. I have a a Febreeze oil thing
| stuck in a smart outlet so it works only a bit before I wake
| up and in the evening and my room smells like strawberries at
| the moment. I also shower with the scented stuff whenever I
| don't have to use the medicinal stuff, etc.
|
| I know the scent probably isn't healthy but I also don't
| believe it's bad enough to where I should stop enjoying it.
| Especially considering people who vape aren't dying all over
| the place. You've got people huffing scents out of X00 Watt
| sticks for years before it fucks them up in some way in
| comparison to which my exposure is probably invisible on the
| graph.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Read the abstract of the paper. They were demonstrating that
| combustionless scented products generate very similar levels
| and types (in chemical composition, size, etc) to scented
| candles, which they considered noteworthy because many assume
| the combustion-less products are safer for you (they do not
| claim to be studying, nor do they make any claims, about health
| impacts.)
| amluto wrote:
| You can smell genuine, non-particulate gaseous molecules just
| fine. The issue is that there's a large class of compounds that
| will form actual particles, and this phenomenon can be
| responsible for a surprisingly large fraction of smog.
| theodric wrote:
| I don't understand why you'd want anything in your house to
| release smells independently of delivering some essential
| function. I find it distracting at best, and headache-inducing at
| worst. Cosmetic products are particularly offensive. Let this
| study serve as a call to eliminate stinky products!
| intreble wrote:
| I agree wholeheartedly. The more unnatural the scent the more
| it impacts me. Cinnamon is tolerable but as we trend towards
| "beach day bonfire" it creates a feeling in my olfactory system
| similar to tasting something sickly sweet. I think it ties back
| to my brain smelling what I expect to be eating.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Generally the "pleasant" odor is meant to cover up some
| combination of "unpleasant" odors. It's nice when the area
| around a liter box doesn't smell like cat piss.
| theodric wrote:
| I would counter that it now smells like a combination of
| perfume and cat piss
| jmward01 wrote:
| The challenge with any article like this is that the correlated
| impact on health outcomes is always implied in the article but is
| rarely studied as part of the research cited. Just because a is
| bad and b has a property similar to a that doesn't imply b has
| the same harmful impacts as a. I really wish articles would limit
| big headlines like this unless the research cited was directly
| comparing mortality and health outcomes directly. If the study
| this article was based on came to the conclusion that 'average
| household aerosol use has a similar associated mortality risk as
| average city car pollution' then the title could have been
| warranted but instead we got a bit of click-bait. A slightly
| better title could have been 'Scented products cause unexpected
| levels of indoor air pollution'. I'd even argue 'Scented products
| cause concerning levels of indoor air pollution' is a reasonable
| title since it is worth our concern and further study.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| Not much to add here other than as someone with terrible
| allergies and asthma, the constant need for plugin air
| fresheners, scented candles, scented laundry detergent, and
| scented lotions, perfumes, febreeze, and scented deodorant
| drives me crazy. I don't think normal folks realize how they're
| breathing in straight chemicals all day.
| TylerE wrote:
| One of the reasons I still mask. An N95, while not perfect
| (an N100 with a carbon layer would be the real ticket),
| blocks a lot of the common scents. Things like those dangly
| air fresheners every ride share driver has about 5 of.
| schiffern wrote:
| Sad how masking has become such a bugbear[1] that this
| eminently sensible and practical solution is somehow
| controversial.
|
| [1 ] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bugbear
| laborcontract wrote:
| Chemical allergies are an area where I'm fine oversimplifying
| decisions and using a simple heuristic of "if my body says
| no, stay the heck away."
|
| Of our five senses, smell is the most well attuned for
| detecting something that'll hurt us internally (ie poison
| cancer).
| MyOutfitIsVague wrote:
| I hate all that stuff too, but I have to nit-pick the last
| sentence. Everything you breathe is chemicals. Everything
| that is good for you and bad for you is chemicals.
|
| This in particular bothers me because I end up having this
| discussion with family members all the time who are convinced
| that "chemicals" are bad for you, and they only eat food
| without "chemicals".
| schiffern wrote:
| Of course this is technically correct (almost a cliche
| really), but I think we all realize that "chemicals" in
| this context means "novel untested synthetic chemicals."
| That's a mouthful, so we use shorthand.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| It's not the end of the world, but it's still bad. It's
| the kind of woolly definition that lets charlatans get
| away with blatant lies in advertising.
| schiffern wrote:
| Let's not be overly dramatic. Charlatans are already
| lying, and they can easily switch verbiage.
|
| If you can suggest a pithy replacement terminology for
| "what we really mean" here, I'm sure we'll all adopt it
| whole-heartedly. Until then, people are going to use the
| same (easily deciphered) shorthand. Tilting at this
| particular windmill doesn't actually improve anything or
| protect anybody.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| That's the thing. The reason why there's no concise term
| is because it's not really a meaningful concept. Does
| hemlock contain chemicals? Is botulin a chemical? They're
| both 100% natural. The colloquial sense is totally
| meaningless, so by insisting on the scientific
| definition, you're stopping marketers from saying nothing
| while looking like they're saying something.
|
| Also, 'things are bad for other reasons' isn't an
| argument for trying to eliminate this particular reason.
| mcny wrote:
| I thought when they said chemicals, they meant volatile
| organic compounds or voooooc (can't remember the exact
| number of o in this acronym)
| DFHippie wrote:
| > volatile organic compounds or voooooc (can't remember
| the exact number of o in this acronym)
|
| It's one. Volatile organic compound. VOC.
|
| It doesn't take too long to tally up the O's, actually.
| But since this is such a math-oriented crowd, you can be
| sure someone will come along to do the counting for you.
| ozim wrote:
| I would take it down a notch.
|
| It is more about just synthesized at lab not ,,novel
| untested".
|
| Like you can have bread from four, water, yeast that no
| one would call ,,chemicals" - even though yeast nowadays
| is highly engineered.
| acuozzo wrote:
| > so we use shorthand
|
| Which is fine until the shorthand breaks containment, the
| nuance is lost, and the masses generalize it far beyond
| what was originally intended.
| jmward01 wrote:
| Science communication is a challenge and this particular
| discussion is a key part of that challenge. The goal is
| to be able to get a child to understand the issue at hand
| while not harming their ability to continue to learn
| further. The words 'chemical' when referring to 'bad' and
| 'natural' when referring to 'good', I think, have been
| abused because of exactly your points. These words have
| been used to get a quick win on understanding a point,
| usually about some form of pollution, but generally lead
| to long term harm in deeper understanding later.
|
| Having said all that, arguing these terms are bad just
| tells people they are wrong without giving clear
| direction to improve. The question that matters is what
| should be said instead? I think pollution is closer to a
| good word but when it is used the right meaning should be
| emphasized. The argument is not that chemicals are bad,
| the argument is that compounds not native to an
| environment have untested effects and therefore should be
| carefully studied especially if they are rapidly becoming
| abundant. Articles like this skip right to 'pollution =
| bad' instead of 'pollution = we should try to understand
| the effects quickly to make informed decisions'
| MyOutfitIsVague wrote:
| I'd say that it needs a qualifier in general. I'm not
| against the word "chemicals", but unqualified, it means
| little more than the word "stuff". It really just needs
| an adjective, or to be about how many chemicals you're
| breathing in all day, rather than it being "straight
| chemicals", which implies that there is another way of
| existing, without breathing chemicals.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| No, it just means harmful chemicals. We're talking about
| perfumes. Plenty of this stuff has been well-tested and
| it's toxic, a lot of it is probably toxic if you inhale
| it in aerosolized/partially burnt form.
| MyOutfitIsVague wrote:
| Of course, but many people don't. I wouldn't bother if it
| was just pedantry. It's a discussion I've had many times
| and it's actually hard to make some people understand
| that "chemicals" doesn't just mean "synthetic dangerous
| things made in a lab", or that some labels have
| ingredients that are difficult to pronounce and
| unrecognizable that are still safe and natural.
|
| There are a lot of these people. It's the same kind of
| people who buy their dogs "Taste of the Wild" grain free
| high-protein dog food because it sounds natural and
| therefore better than WSAVA-approved dog food, against
| the advice of any seasoned veterinarian.
| 14 wrote:
| I am thankful my workplace has a no scent policy.
| Unfortunately I have to go into clients homes all day so
| sometimes run into heavily scented homes. If we report it our
| boss will inform the client they need to remove it or not use
| it prior to our visits or open a window. I am thankful that I
| am naturally not a smelly person (confirmed by girlfriends)
| and I shower with non scented soap and I don't ever wear
| deodorant. Sadly I have teens. They over spray perfumes and
| colognes to the point that I can't even be near them at
| times. I hope the unscented trend picks up and spreads to
| more places. Thinking about the topic of scents were you
| around when you could basically smoke anywhere? I remember
| the days walking in a mall smoking and people would just drop
| the smoke and step on it then walk away. Banning smoking from
| public places where I live was the greatest thing.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Oh man. A previous employer had someone come around and spray
| for bugs monthly. I told them to let me know when it was
| going to be so I could stay away for an afternoon. The
| exterminator insisted it was perfectly safe and wouldn't
| bother me. Yeah, well, immune stuff runs in the family -- my
| older sister had lupus -- and it did, in fact, bother me.
|
| As a test or something, he came around spraying without
| telling me. I was in my office when I felt my sinuses
| starting to swell and my chest started tightening. When I
| walked out into the common room and saw him smiling at me
| with a "see, told you it's your imagination" grin, my
| coworkers had to drag me outside because I was ready to kill
| him.
|
| Look, man, I'd freaking love not to have asthma and other
| allergy stuff. I don't like taking handfuls of
| antihistamines. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. I
| just don't, like, enjoying dying.
| fredrikholm wrote:
| There's few things that makes me dislike someone quicker
| than when they dismiss the suffering of others, or use
| their own circumstances to dismiss others inability to
| "just don't X".
|
| Look, man, _shut up_.
| mcny wrote:
| Or trivializes other people's work. Like when a lead
| developer or a manager wants to chime in and say the
| story point estimate is too much and it should be
| smaller.
|
| > Just do x, y, z
|
| Ok then you take the story.
|
| > Oh but I don't know frontend.
|
| But you know the estimate is wrong?
|
| I hate the word "just"
| chriswarbo wrote:
| > I hate the word "just"
|
| This is one of those things that someone pointed out to
| me, I agreed with them and have since tried to avoid
| saying "just do ...", "why not just ...", etc.
|
| However, that means I now _really_ notice it from others.
| _sigh_
| Thorrez wrote:
| I generally try to avoid the word just. However, I'll
| still occasionally use it during a code review, when I
| see a large amount of code that can be replaced by
| something much simpler and smaller.
| mcny wrote:
| I am all for it if you are willing and able to sit down
| and follow through. Or at least show me the way. I can't
| read minds.
| axus wrote:
| Always disliked that word. Replace it with "simply", then
| we can debate how simple it is.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| I am the opposite. My nose has barely any sensitivity, so I
| love intense smells, because they actually make me smell
| something. Also, fuck the people who keep windows open 24/7
| even during winter. They make everyone cold just because the
| air isn't perfectly fresh.
|
| At my previous job we had a guy who'd always come and
| instantly open the windows. I know that I'm the minority with
| my preference to keep them shut, so I just suffered in
| silence, except for these first 30 minutes before he showed
| up, those were a blessing. He lived outside of the city and
| commuted, and one time he really needed to sleep inside the
| city, and I had a spare bed, so I let him sleep at my place.
| He walked in and instantly said "Can we open the window?", to
| which I replied "NO, WE CANNOT". I cannot describe how
| satisfying that felt.
| ako wrote:
| I had a leaky air freshener attached to wall, it dripped on
| top of baseboard, the chemicals did a better job removing the
| paint on the baseboard that regular paint removers...
| exe34 wrote:
| same here. my downstairs neighbour burns garlic for every
| meal, and then burns some kind of incense to get rid of the
| smell of garlic. both of them somehow come up through the
| floor and make me retch, so I have to open the window - at
| which point she goes outside for a smoke and most of it seems
| to come in through that window.
|
| live among people, they said. it'll be nice, they said.
| anonym29 wrote:
| Obviously this is your own fault for accepting the social
| contract, you should've declined back when you had the
| chance! /s
| exe34 wrote:
| I'm moving soon, and I'll defect by not mentioning it to
| prospective tenants when they visit. I'd like my deposit
| back.
| anonym29 wrote:
| Joking aside, sorry you have to deal with this. I know
| how stressful nuisance neighbors can be. Best of luck on
| your upcoming move!
| exe34 wrote:
| thanks! I'm overly sensitive, so I'm sure I'll find
| something to hate about the new place!
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > The challenge with any article like this is that the
| correlated impact on health outcomes is always implied in the
| article but is rarely studied as part of the research cited.
|
| The scope of the research is determined by the researchers
| conducting the research, _not what you think it should be_ ,
| especially since you do not understand the basics of the
| scientific method - or that research is highly iterative and
| derivative. A great deal of research sets out only to establish
| whether it is worth pursuing further research on a particular
| hypothesis.
|
| > I really wish articles would limit big headlines like this
| unless the research cited was directly comparing mortality and
| health outcomes directly.
|
| That wasn't the scope of the research.
|
| > If the study this article was based on came to the conclusion
| that 'average household aerosol use has a similar associated
| mortality risk as average city car pollution' then the title
| could have been warranted but instead we got a bit of click-
| bait.
|
| Proving health risks was not the scope of the research, and
| nothing in the title of the article, the PR release from
| Purdue, or the paper's title, even remotely implies what you
| seem to think it does. If I say the shed is green, you think
| that means seafoam green, and you're profoundly disappointed to
| discover the shed is british racing green, the only person to
| blame is you.
|
| The purpose of the paper was to demonstrate that wax "melts",
| which many consider "safer" than aromatic candles, produce
| similar levels of the similar particles as scented candles.
| They studied the counts, compositions, and the formation
| process of the particles. In the abstract they state that their
| results show the need for more study of the effect of the
| particles on health.
|
| The point of the title and coverage in the news story is to
| give the layperson something they can relate to, not to be
| extremely accurate, pedantic, and understate things.
| Twirrim wrote:
| I found that gap annoying, when they finally did address it it
| was such a hand wavey thing that doesn't actually say it's bad
| for you. We know particles are being produced, because smell
| doesn't come from nowhere, so in some regards the whole bit of
| research could be read as "thing that produces particles,
| produces particles. Surprise!"
| MattSayar wrote:
| If it's studies you want with quantifiable impacts, I'd
| recommend you read (part of) this investigation (because it's
| so long)[0]. A couple of the top recommendations are to
| extinguish candles with a lid and to ban incense.
|
| [0] https://dynomight.net/air/
| skwb wrote:
| Completely off topic to the actual article - but...
|
| I really get irked a lot by seeing (overly obvious) ai generated
| images being used for stock photos. One of the reasons my wife
| and I still subscribe to a couple of newspapers is that the
| photography helps bring to life the story being told. Why where
| these photos taken and how do they impact the story. You don't
| get that same visceral emotional reaction with low quality
| cartoon images.
| caminanteblanco wrote:
| Does anyone have any clue what the point of "scentless wax melts"
| even is? Like isn't the scent the whole point of the product?
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| The point is to make money. Any notional utility by the
| consumer is a byproduct.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| As is explained in the research paper, they are marketed as (or
| considered by the public to be) safer than candles because they
| don't involve combustion. They show that the same amount/type
| of particles are nearly the same between the two.
| neilv wrote:
| When I saw the title, I half-expected it to be this researcher:
| https://www.drsteinemann.com/
|
| I found her work years ago, when I had a suspicion of why I'd get
| headaches while folding laundry. A Web search turned up her
| papers, I stopped using dryer sheets and scented laundry
| detergent, and laundry-folding headaches stopped immediately.
|
| Separately, it turned out a bunch of people and pets who had
| windows near the laundry room vents of my large condo building
| would get headaches and breathing problems from the exhaust. The
| complaints stopped down after most residents stopped using
| scented laundry products. Though IIUC, the dryer exhaust can
| still contain some nasties, just not as much as before.
| culopatin wrote:
| Random smells can trigger headaches for me too. When I was
| little it was Fanta or Crush, something about the orange. Now I
| found the Trader Joe's blood orange tea has the same scent and
| immediately triggers something.
|
| Diesel exhaust is another one, but that's not just a scent.
|
| Surprisingly anything else motor related is fine. I've been
| soaked in brake cleaner and race fuel and it hasn't been a
| problem.
| Ekaros wrote:
| When you get down to basics it is all about conservation of mass.
| Nearly all of the stuff in these products have to end somewhere.
| So if you have candle or air freshener and it "disappears" with
| use. It must go to air you breath and then well surfaces and so
| on.
|
| Meaning that well whatever is in them might get inhaled. Or
| improperly burned...
| instagib wrote:
| Is 30 minutes too much to handle, to burn an indoor candle?
|
| behind one door and up one floor.
|
| two air handlers blowing with air purifiers of four.
|
| Found two filters sooty and the cpap tasted like campfire booty.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| "A forest is a pristine environment..." Hmm, is that really so?
| The forest air is also full of pollen, fungal spores, viruses and
| bacteria, all kinds of volatile organic molecules and so on. The
| terpenes mentioned as problematic come from conifers after all.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Things we had hundreds millions of years to evolve with and
| adapt too... now we have brake pad dust and haribo strawberry
| flavored candles
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Would the world be a better place if we had brake pad dust
| flavored candies? I like to believe so.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| I'm pretty allergic to all those things so I'm going to
| disagree with your implied preference and take the haribo and
| brake pad dust all day.
| jjk166 wrote:
| There weren't many North American conifers on the African
| savannah when humans were evolving, and our ancestors'
| reproductive success was not generally affected by air
| quality. We haven't evolved immunity to things like volcanic
| gasses which have been around forever. Many plants
| deliberately evolved to produce toxins. A few of these we
| find delicious specifically because we did not co-evolve with
| those plants. Natural = safe is a bad heuristic.
| amluto wrote:
| Not just conifers. In Los Angeles, liquidambar trees are
| planted all over for autumn color, and it turns out that
| they're an enormous contributor to smog formation.
| hinkley wrote:
| And male trees upping pm because they're lonely and looking
| for love.
| amluto wrote:
| To be fair, those are large particles, which are neither as
| dangerous nor as persistent as smaller particles. Unless
| you're allergic to them, of course.
| hinkley wrote:
| PM2.5 is the really nasty carcinogenic stuff, but pollen
| size overlaps substantially with other forms of soot and
| IIRC is a double digit percentage of poor urban air
| quality. It's somewhere around fourth or fifth largest
| source.
| wyclif wrote:
| I don't have any scented products in my house. Ventilation is
| key, especially in common areas like the living room. You should
| open the window occasionally even in the dead of winter to help
| circulate the air.
|
| Some other things I do are regular vacuuming and dusting; you
| might be surprised how effective this can be in freshening the
| air naturally. Dust can trap odors and make a room smell stale if
| not removed often.
|
| It also helps to clean soft surfaces frequently, because fabric
| traps odors.
|
| Abundant houseplants help naturally purify the air. Activated
| charcoal in discreet places absorbs odors without adding any
| scent.
|
| Unscented products like vinegar or baking soda work well for
| carpet and upholstery (the vinegar smell dissipates quickly).
| dkdbejwi383 wrote:
| > Abundant houseplants help naturally purify the air.
|
| apparently the effect is grossly overstated. You'd need to cram
| the place (in all dimensions) so tightly with plants there'd be
| no room for humans or furniture of any kind for any appreciable
| difference.
| tpxl wrote:
| Given that the planet is not crammed in all dimensions so
| tightly there'd be no room for humans, and yet we have fresh
| air outside, I'm doubting your statement a bit.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-ocean-
| air-f...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The planet is a bit larger than a house though.
| culopatin wrote:
| We have the ocean
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| 1) the planet is a big, BIG place and there are rainforests
| and oceans. Like, all of the air that we breathe originally
| started from ocean life.
|
| and 2) there have been studies on this done by NASA, et al,
| and the general consensus was you need _a lot_ of plants
| Retric wrote:
| 1) humans aren't the only thing consuming oxygen outside.
| Bugs, cows, fish, etc add up. Similarly there's a lot of
| empty land and sea without significant plankton.
|
| The actual issue is plants consume oxygen at night
| without grow lamps. You can make a meaningful difference
| in indoor CO2 levels during the day with plants in a
| large home, but they end up making things worse at night.
|
| Thus plants are likely better in an office environment
| than in the home.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The GP is not talking about removing CO2 from the air.
|
| Even though no, it's not as simple as they put it, plants do
| remove particles from the air, humidify it, and emit plenty
| of stuff on their own (what may or may not be good). You
| don't need a lot of them to have a large impact.
| hinkley wrote:
| Vacuums don't capture all of the dust they stir up. When you
| can, vacuum with the windows open.
| ctrlp wrote:
| I cannot wait for the day when people stop scenting their homes
| and offices with scented products. They smell like chemicals and
| cause migraines in some people. If you're doing this, please
| please stop.
| chakintosh wrote:
| My air purifier was instantly showing red and running at max fan
| speed, it took me a while to realize that the incense i ignited
| is causing it to detect the extra particles in the air and spin
| up. Now the question is whether this is a limitation in air
| purifiers, their inability to distinguish inert and harmless
| particles from harmless ones, because all they do currently is
| just detect particles, not their nature.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| What makes you think soot from incense is "harmless"?
| preinheimer wrote:
| How sure are you that it's harmless? Campfire smoke is pretty
| bad for your lungs.
| exabrial wrote:
| Yeah... I understand the intent here, but what people are going
| to hear is "oh car exhaust isn't that bad then".
| javier_e06 wrote:
| When we had the Canada fires months ago I bought a air quality
| sensor that measures among other things CO2. Right now shows 548
| PPM which means good.
|
| I once lit up one of those scented candles and the sensor fire up
| to over 1200 PPM.
|
| It had a wooden wick. I think that was one of the reasons.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I use essential oils in water in an ultrasonic diffuser. Does
| that reduce the toxicity at all? Is the issue here mostly wax?
| an_aparallel wrote:
| The biggest and more recent phenomena is the (at least in Sydney,
| Australia), the popularity of ambroxan(?) laced perfume. You
| can't walk into a lunchroom or walk down the street without being
| literally assaulted by the stuff.
|
| I don't know what perfume makers are thinking, but this stuff
| makes my day unbearable at times.
|
| I guess a chemical with super strength sillage works in the
| market...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-20 23:02 UTC)