Most active commenters
  • MyOutfitIsVague(3)
  • schiffern(3)

←back to thread

Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par with car exhaust

(newatlas.com)
371 points clumsysmurf | 17 comments | 19 Feb 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jmward01 ◴[20 Feb 25 01:19 UTC] No.43109986[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>43110051 #>>43111762 #>>43115055 #>>43118853 #
7thaccount ◴[20 Feb 25 01:29 UTC] No.43110051[source]▶
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.
replies(8): >>43110760 #>>43110849 #>>43111667 #>>43111704 #>>43111825 #>>43112509 #>>43113395 #>>43115564 #
1. MyOutfitIsVague ◴[20 Feb 25 06:14 UTC] No.43111667[source]▶
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".

replies(2): >>43111899 #>>43121993 #
2. schiffern ◴[20 Feb 25 07:00 UTC] No.43111899[source]▶
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.
replies(6): >>43112049 #>>43113452 #>>43115226 #>>43115949 #>>43119744 #>>43122362 #
3. YurgenJurgensen ◴[20 Feb 25 07:29 UTC] No.43112049[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>43112193 #
4. schiffern ◴[20 Feb 25 07:59 UTC] No.43112193{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>43113009 #
5. YurgenJurgensen ◴[20 Feb 25 10:07 UTC] No.43113009{4}[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>43113120 #>>43125648 #
6. mcny ◴[20 Feb 25 10:27 UTC] No.43113120{5}[source]▶
I thought when they said chemicals, they meant volatile organic compounds or voooooc (can't remember the exact number of o in this acronym)
replies(1): >>43113551 #
7. ozim ◴[20 Feb 25 11:22 UTC] No.43113452[source]▶
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.

8. DFHippie ◴[20 Feb 25 11:41 UTC] No.43113551{6}[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>43125547 #
9. acuozzo ◴[20 Feb 25 14:41 UTC] No.43115226[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>43116648 #
10. lukeschlather ◴[20 Feb 25 15:36 UTC] No.43115949[source]▶
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.
11. jmward01 ◴[20 Feb 25 16:24 UTC] No.43116648{3}[source]▶
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'

replies(1): >>43119857 #
12. MyOutfitIsVague ◴[20 Feb 25 20:28 UTC] No.43119744[source]▶
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.

13. MyOutfitIsVague ◴[20 Feb 25 20:39 UTC] No.43119857{4}[source]▶
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.
14. benlivengood ◴[20 Feb 25 23:37 UTC] No.43121993[source]▶
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.

15. 7thaccount ◴[21 Feb 25 00:11 UTC] No.43122362[source]▶
Exactly. I assumed synthetic was understood.
16. mcny ◴[21 Feb 25 09:02 UTC] No.43125547{7}[source]▶
I meant I don't remember if there are other words between volatile and compounds in that terms (:
17. schiffern ◴[21 Feb 25 09:23 UTC] No.43125648{5}[source]▶
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