Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: New Study Results by Anne Steinemann

New Study Results by Anne Steinemann 4 years 8 months ago #1

  • Kiahjo
  • Kiahjo's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • EiR Newbie
  • Posts: 12
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 2
Latest research results analyzing common household products.
Attachments:
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Maff, jason34

 

 

New Study Results by Anne Steinemann 4 years 8 months ago #2

  • Maff
  • Maff's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 896
  • Thank you received: 21
  • Karma: 17
Thank you for posting this report kiahjo. I need time to go through it properly but there were several key sentences in the abstract (which I've posted below) which immediately caught my eye as rather concerning and disheartening. It seems little progress is being made in removing toxic chemicals from consumer household and personal care products / cosmetics. What I find worst of all is that products labeled as being 'Green' and/or 'Organic' are basically no better than traditional products and as such are no more than a marketing scam. I've highlighted the key points:

Volatile Emissions from Common Consumer Products

Abstract

Consumer products emit a range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can affect
air quality and health. Risk reduction is hindered because of lack of information about
specific product emissions. This study investigates and compares VOCs emitted from 37
common products (air fresheners, laundry products, cleaners, and personal care products),
including those with certifications and claims of green and organic.
It extends a prior
study of 25 consumer products by adding 12 more products, including fragrance-free
versions of fragranced products, representing the first such comparison in the scientific
literature. This study found 156 different VOCs emitted from the 37 products, with an
average of 15 VOCs per product. Of these 156 VOCs, 42 VOCs are classified as toxic or
hazardous under U.S. federal laws, and each product emitted at least one of these
chemicals. Emissions of carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from green
fragranced products were not significantly different from regular fragranced products.

The most common chemicals in fragranced products were terpenes, which were not in
fragrance-free versions. Of the volatile ingredients emitted, fewer than 3% were
disclosed on any product label or material safety data sheet (MSDS).
Because health
effects depend on many factors, not only individual ingredients, this study makes no
claims regarding possible risks. However, knowledge of product composition can be an
important step to understand, assess, and reduce potential exposures and effects.

Anne Steinemann

Professor of Civil Engineering
Chair of Sustainable Cities
Department of Infrastructure Engineering
Melbourne School of Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010
AUSTRALIA

email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
website: www.ie.unimelb.edu.au/people/staff.php?person_ID=709828

Article published in Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, March 2015
The final publication is available at Springer via http://link.springer.com
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kiahjo

New Study Results by Anne Steinemann 4 years 8 months ago #3

  • Jodie
  • Jodie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 414
  • Thank you received: 67
  • Karma: 9
Have to say, having been forced to give up almost all commercial household cleaning products I find I'm amazed we've been so effectively brainwashed into using all this flashy merchandise choc full of so many totally unnecessary artificial chemicals. I must have felt they were really part of civilised life cos it really hurt to give them up, but it's been such an eye opener how very few cleaning materials you actually do need - & me & my house are just as clean as they ever were.

Mine are:

Sodium Bicarb (cheap from Amazon and such a brilliant bathroom/sink/shower cleaner)
Dishwashing: Plain hot water or BioD dishwashing liquid (which is mostly vegetable glycerine)
Cleaning the loo : BioD as above
Shower - tiny bit of plain bar soap & only on my smelly bits ( I haven't used soap on the rest of me for 15 years & my skin certainly none the worse for it)
Hair - scent free shampoo (shampoo would be the hardest thing to give up I think)
Windows - vinegar or tiny bit of plain soap put on & cleaned off with kitchen roll
Carpet cleaning - BioD in the Vax
Clothes washing - laundry balls filled with ceramic pellets.

That's it!

Occasionally I will use Ecover delicate laundry liquid, well rinsed out, for items like curtains.
Last Edit: 4 years 8 months ago by Jodie.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Maff, jason34

New Study Results by Anne Steinemann 4 years 8 months ago #4

  • Maff
  • Maff's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 896
  • Thank you received: 21
  • Karma: 17
Couldn't agree with you more Jodie. Your list would make and excellent 'MCS hamper' (good business idea?!) for those recently diagnosed - really what you've suggested is all anyone REALLY needs.

Like you I used sodium bicarbonate for bathroom and kitchen cleaning, along with a bit of white vinegar (less potent smell than regular malt vinegar!) for glass and surfaces of kitchen appliances/white goods. I also used the laundry balls which are fantastic and work as a fabric softener as well as getting clothes clean!

Plain soap was all I used by way of personal care other than bicarb for teeth cleaning. I tried mineral salt deodorants but found they worked but were very watery and messy to use. So - I just stopped using deodorant entirely and almost 11 years on from recovering from MCS I still don't use any. It hasn't affected me in any way. Not one person (as far as I know) has even noticed the fact I have been 'au naturelle' all this time. So many products designed to make us feel more attractive or better about ourselves simply do nothing of the sort and instead are just extremely expensive petrochemical poison.
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
The administrator has disabled public write access.

 

 

New Study Results by Anne Steinemann 4 years 8 months ago #5

  • jason34
  • jason34's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • EiR Newbie
  • Posts: 14
  • Karma: 0
Jodie and Maff, washing my clothes without any complaints is a challenge for me! I get complaints after washing my clothes with baking soda and/or crystal soda.
I never heard of laundry balls. Is there a difference between those balls? I have found a dutch seller where the laundry ball is from polypropyleen (plastic). Is that common?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

New Study Results by Anne Steinemann 4 years 8 months ago #6

  • Jodie
  • Jodie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 414
  • Thank you received: 67
  • Karma: 9
Jason - who is complaining & why?

Hub's does his washing with non-perfumed liquid detergent (Ecover or Surcare) - that stuff would only bother me if I wore the clothes myself- it's more effective than the laundry balls.

these are what I use www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00152TVWU?p...ui_search_detailpage
I have 4 of them (large washing machine). I've used those for lord knows how long, maybe 10 years. Originally they only had ceramic pellets in them, then they added these soapy white pellets which I don't get on with, so I remove and add extra ceramic pellets. You need some bar soap you can tolerate to rub on occasional stains/ underarm areas of shirts, cos they won't totally remove that body odour smell. Other than that they're fine. I tried not using them, but plain water was definitely not as effective.


Some folks use soap nuts - I havent' tried those.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jason34

 

 

 

Related Articles:

 

Time to create page: 0.200 seconds