Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par with car exhaust

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.

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.

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.

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).

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".

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

I thought when they said chemicals, they meant volatile organic compounds or voooooc (can't remember the exact number of o in this acronym)

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…

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.

> 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

> 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.

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!"

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Always disliked that word. Replace it with "simply", then we can debate how simple it is.

Obviously this is your own fault for accepting the social contract, you should've declined back when you had the chance! /s

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'

I'm moving soon, and I'll defect by not mentioning it to prospective tenants when they visit. I'd like my deposit back.

Joking aside, sorry you have to deal with this. I know how stressful nuisance neighbors can be. Best of luck on your upcoming move!

thanks! I'm overly sensitive, so I'm sure I'll find something to hate about the new place!

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/

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.

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.

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.

I don't want to breathe natural pollen or natural smoke byproducts from natural wildfires or natural dandruff or fur/hair either.

I want to mostly breathe nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and a bit of water for comfortable humidity. I don't need anything more.

Exactly. I assumed synthetic was understood.

You're right. Almost every Uber driver has one and I immediately worry about the sneezing, headaches, and wheezing.

Hang in there. It took me 9 different units at 7 different properties in 3 different states to find the one that was just right for me, but it was out there - don't give up :)

I meant I don't remember if there are other words between volatile and compounds in that terms (:

When I said "tested" I clearly meant "tested for safety," which addresses those concerns.

You're conflating the colloquial usage of the word chemical with the naturalistic fallacy. These are two different things, however they interrelated because of our collective failure to embrace the precautionary principle when it comes to novel synthetic compounds. The result is that newer compounds tend to be correlated with less safety testing, simply because less time has been available for testing, testing which isn't typically required before engaging in mass exposure of the public.

There's also a connection between corporate self-interest in covering up safety risks (well documented in history, and presumably also occurring today as well) because synthetic compounds can be patented while natural compounds cannot.

In short the connection is real, but it's more subtle than your simple definition-based logic is giving credit for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

An ex-coworker introduced the rule that every time someone said "You just..." he increased his estimation by 1 level (standard fibonacci planning poker).

That was like 15 years ago and I've at least mentioned that rule to every team I've been a part of ever since. It usually works.

Did you invite him on purpose?

Simply just basically don't.