←back to thread

Scented products cause indoor air pollution on par with car exhaust

(newatlas.com)
371 points clumsysmurf | 6 comments | 19 Feb 25 23:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.219s | 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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
1. schiffern ◴[20 Feb 25 07:59 UTC] No.43112193[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 #
2. YurgenJurgensen ◴[20 Feb 25 10:07 UTC] No.43113009[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 #
3. mcny ◴[20 Feb 25 10:27 UTC] No.43113120[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 #
4. DFHippie ◴[20 Feb 25 11:41 UTC] No.43113551{3}[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 #
5. mcny ◴[21 Feb 25 09:02 UTC] No.43125547{4}[source]▶
I meant I don't remember if there are other words between volatile and compounds in that terms (:
6. schiffern ◴[21 Feb 25 09:23 UTC] No.43125648[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