Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#141

Post by bosie »

microtonal wrote: post #96
nextos wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a Kärcher SC3 steam cleaner. It's cheap (~€100) and pretty good. Even the SC2 is decent. As an alternative, Polti high-end ones are excellent. They invented domestic steamers, and I've seen some used at hospitals. The have accessories for e.g. steaming your mattress to get rid of dust mites. I use a Miele C3 Silence vacuum cleaner. It's the cheapest (~€220) Miele vacuum cleaner that has top (A class in EU) filt…

I use a Kärcher SC3 steam cleaner. It's cheap (~€100) and pretty good. Even the SC2 is decent. I'd like to add a me-too. We bought a Kärcher SC3 to remove old wallpaper when we moved to another apartment (IIRC the price of hiring a steamer for a couple of days made buying one attractive). We use it now to clean our tiled floors, the bathroom, etc. and it has been excellent. The hot steam removes most stains without m…

Can you use it to clean something like the counter top of the kitchen and non-tile floors (i.e. wood or laminated floors)?

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#142

Post by Broken_Hippo »

noja wrote: post #139
nextos wrote: post #12

I clean with a steamer. It doesn't project particles, and it's extremely good at disinfecting. I also use a vacuum cleaner with exceptionally low dust re-emission. And an air purifier. The only "chemicals" I use are an extremely mild lactic acid based cleaner and a pre/probiotic on toilets and kitchen tops. And I don't use any fragrances anywhere. My allergy problems have disappeared. I really recommend this approach…

> I clean with a steamer What about mold?

If you are using the steamer regularly, this shouldn't be an issue (after all, they use steamers to get rid of mold and the temperature is enough to kill most molds). If you are going to let it sit for a while between uses, care for it properly, including letting all the hoses and implements dry completely.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#143

Post by exodust »

benbreen wrote: post #33

I vividly remember my first summer job, working at a grocery store deli when I was in high school. My job was basically to spray down surfaces with some kind of industrial version of Windex. Within a week I had developed a scratchy cough, and after two weeks I had completely lost my voice! I was in the privileged position of being able to quit the job and go on to college, but if I'd kept working with those chemicals…

I agree it's annoying the study doesn't mention any chemicals or ingredients in particular.

Also the claim that all we need is "water and a cloth" is rubbish. You will just spread the bacteria around from one place to another with water and a cloth only.

I recently started using an organic "food safe" spray in the kitchen for general surfaces and chopping boards. Smells nice very natural, all natural ingredients and stops nasty things living on the wooden cutting board. Water and a cloth would do nothing, you need to make it an unfriendly place for bacteria, but safe for cutting up food.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#144

Post by exodust »

derefr wrote: post #15

How much of this is to do with the fact that these cleaners are being put into the air as vapor through a diffuser (the spray-bottle's nozzle); and how much has to do with the fact that these chemicals are volatiles that will evaporate off of the surfaces they're on and then travel into the lungs as a gas? That is, if I wore a dust mask while I cleaned—or if I sprayed the cleaner directly into a cloth pressed against…

You might have a point, particularly considering the action of cleaning involves leaning forward and bending down into the area you just sprayed as you begin scrubbing, further exposing yourself to the misty air and fumes. I thought about this last time I cleaned shower with fan on... I figured the fan was drawing the fumes up towards me as I cleaned shower, so now I don't use fan and just try to finish the job quickly! I think there's a lot to be said for using a mask when cleaning, even if just for a slightly reduced exposure.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#145

Post by exodust »

fitzroy wrote: post #8

I use vinegar for light cleaning and dusting, and rubbing alcohol for almost all other household cleaning now. Isopropyl alcohol is basically magic — it sterilizes and completely evaporates with no lingering residue or fragrances. And a steam mop for the floor.

Isopropyl is too expensive where I am (Australia) for general household cleaning. Otherwise I probably would use it more often.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#146

Post by fulafel »

stevenwoo wrote: post #86
Symbiote wrote: post #46

I don't like the idea of paying someone else to clean my filth, but I don't clean often enough myself. So I get really lazy, and soak a sponge in phosphoric acid[1] then rub it gently on the glass around the shower. Leave for 2 minutes, and the limescale in gone! It's much easier than any "real" cleaning product, and the phosphoric acid is the equivalent of about $1.50 for a litre. But I don't know if it's bad for me…

Where do you get phosphoric acid? The strongest conventionally available stuff is Limeaway and CLR and those are not strong enough for heavy calcium deposits. The strongest home stuff appears to be toilet bowl cleaners with diluted hydrochloric acid or hydrochloric acid for chlorinating pools.

Many disinfectants meant for cleaning brewing equipment contain it, you can order it from brewing equipment web shops.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#147

Post by opencl »

peferron wrote: post #136
opencl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these complex things they do that are anything but shoving air through a filter with a fan? How do they justify costing hundreds more than taping a HEPA filter+carbon filter to a fan yourself? The product page for the model recommended in that wirecutter article even has a cutaway view, showing that it's just a HEPA filter + carbon filter + fan.

They look better than DIYs, are typically quieter for the same cfm, and optionally have an automatic mode where the fan speed changes based on the detected air quality. But yeah if you don't care how they look or how noisy they are just assemble one yourself and blast it on max. That's what I did for two years in China and it worked (had a separate particle counter to measure PM).

Glad I'm not missing out on too much with the DIY setup, quiet would be nice though. And the auto mode certainly explains a fair chunk of the price, air quality meters seem to run at least $100.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#148

Post by DoingIsLearning »

drewbuschhorn wrote: post #58
refurb wrote: post #23

As a former chemist, call me suspicious of these findings. Can cleaners be an irritant to the lungs? Of course. Inhaling a lot of things can be an irritant. Most cleaners that consumers use are surfactants sometimes mixed with alkylbenzonium disinfectants (in very low concentration). Even cleaners that are ammonia based aren't harmful. Now on the professional side, I could believe there is risk. Some of those chemica…

As another former chemist, I just wanted to agree with this statement. And for industrial cleaners, read the MSDS and act accordingly. It's not that hard to find the correct version of masks and gloves for the task you do everyday.

As someone without a Chemistry background I am just really surprised that they managed to write an entire article about other studies, without ever referencing these studies?

Also just about anything is a "chemical", and there is a plethora of cleaning products, what agent exactly in cleaning products do they speculate causes this damage?

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#149

Post by nonbel »

refurb wrote: post #129
nonbel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe cancer is due to the accumulation of mutations, and the ammonia/whatever is killing cells (thus increasing the turnover), then it will increase the chances of cancer simply because there are more divisions in the tissue. This follows pretty simply from the idea that cancer is caused by accumulating mutations (which you seem to believe), so why do you say "no mechanism"?

The reason is because ammonia has been around a long time, lots of studies of that its effect on biological systems have been done and it naturally occurs in human blood albeit at low concentrations. Your point about higher turnover of cells aligns with the idea of more cell division and thus higher chance of mutation. However, just because a chemical causes irritation doesn't mean it increases cell turnover. Also, t…

> "Retinol A, rapidly increase skin cell turnover but I've never heard of a mutation risk associated with it."

Interesting, do you have a source you like for this? This would indicate major problems with that model.

Re: Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes

#150

Post by briandear »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #104
refurb wrote: post #23

As a former chemist, call me suspicious of these findings. Can cleaners be an irritant to the lungs? Of course. Inhaling a lot of things can be an irritant. Most cleaners that consumers use are surfactants sometimes mixed with alkylbenzonium disinfectants (in very low concentration). Even cleaners that are ammonia based aren't harmful. Now on the professional side, I could believe there is risk. Some of those chemica…

> As a former chemist, call me suspicious of these findings. I've been suspicious since they were posted, for a simple reason: so where's the lung cancers in aging housewives?

Agree! And on that note, where are the lung cancers in non-smokers who work/worked around second hand smoke?
Post reply on HN