Air Fresheners Can Poison the Air Around You
Dave
performed a study of top-selling laundry products and air fresheners.
She found the products emitted dozens of different chemicals; in fact,
all six products tested gave off at least one chemical regulated as
toxic or hazardous under federal laws.
Oddly enough, those chemicals were not listed on the product labels!
"People were telling me that the air fresheners in public restrooms
and the scent from laundry products vented outdoors were making them
sick," said Prof. Steinemann, a UW professor of civil and
environmental engineering. "And I wanted to know what is causing these
effects.'"
It was then that she discovered a surprising number of potentially
toxic chemicals, including acetone, the active ingredient in paint
thinner and nail-polish remover; limonene (a molecule with a citrus
scent) and acetaldehyde, chloromethane and 1,4-dioxane.
"Nearly 100 volatile organic compounds were emitted from these six
products, and none were listed on any product label. Plus, five of the
six products emitted one or more carcinogenic 'hazardous air
pollutants,' which are considered by the Environmental Protection
Agency to have no safe exposure level at all," Steinemann said.
Her study was published online last week by the journal "Environmental
Impact Assessment Review." Steinemann chose not to disclose the brand
names of the six products she tested. In a larger study of 25
cleaners, personal care products, air fresheners and laundry products,
now submitted for publication, she found that many other brands
contained similar chemicals.
Manufacturers of consumer products are not required to disclose their
ingredients. All these items were household items purchased at a
grocery store, in addition to samples of industrial products that were
requested of supplier companies.
In the laboratory, each product was placed in an isolated space at
room temperature and the surrounding air was analyzed for volatile
organic compounds, small molecules that evaporate from the product's
surface into the air.
Results showed 58 different volatile organic compounds above a
concentration of 300 micrograms per cubic meter, many of which were
present in more than one of the six products. For instance, a plug-in
air freshener contained more than 20 different volatile organic
compounds. Of these, seven are regulated as toxic or hazardous under
federal laws. The product label lists no ingredients, and information
on the Material Safety Data Sheet, required for workplace handling of
chemicals, lists the contents as "mixture of perfume oils."
The European Union recently enacted legislation requiring products to
list 26 fragrance chemicals when they are present above a certain
concentration in cosmetic products and detergents. No similar laws
exist in the United States.
Dave
Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/
clams_casino
<snipped>
Dave
> Dave the sham spammer wrote:
>
> <snipped>
What a putz you are "Clams." There are a zillion "Nike shoes for less"
posts on your forum and you object to an article of interest to
anyone, just because it has a link to other articles? There are no
ads, no commercial sponsors, and no agenda's other than to spread
health information. Good luck finding a spam element to that.
Dave
Sue Bilkens
I believe it....
George Grapman
> Dave the sham spammer wrote:
>
> <snipped>
Take it as a compliment when the spammers get upset.
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
--
----------------------
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever."--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." -- Josef V. Stalin
www.myspace.com/bodybuildinggranny
heavy on the country music. if you don't like country, scroll down for
some surprises.
"Dave" <djen...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:90ec3f9d-1dd2-4f73...@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Dave
and even if there were ads and sponsors, the info is important to know.
Dave
George, please take a moment to reply here. I'm not upset - I'm just
seeking information.
"Spammers" don't participate in your forum, or ask questions
respectfully. I've been reading and posting to threads here for about
18 months.
Please, tell me exactly what element you consider to be spam in my
message? There's an article clipped, in full (no teasers, etc) and
then there is a link to the site where it comes from, just as you
might put a link to a blog, news site or wherever anything comes from
that someone clips and pastes here. If you used that link, which you
don't need to do because it was posted in its entirety, you wouldn't
find sponsor ads, spyware or any free offers, etc. Just a bunch of
similar articles, on different topics.
Please respond in the same respectful manner, which I know I won't get
from Clams, and tell me where this post represents "spam."
Thanks, Dave
George Grapman
1- I do not have a forum.
2- If clams upsets you simply kill file him. I did that to both Rod
Speed and his obsessed tormentor, William, some time ago and it made
this group a more pleasant place for me.
3- clams does a good job of pointing out fraud
Dave
I think you know I mean "this discussion" when I said "forum." Sorry.
I like to read everyone's posts. Even if someone is a bit of a troll,
I just pass up reading their stuff. But I didn't understand why a
regular poster like you would chime in and say that I was somehow
posting spam? Just didn't make sense to me. Your note above really
doesn't explain it. Yes, Clams points out fraud when he nails the
umpteenth "Nike shoes" poster, but what specifically was wrong with my
article about air fresheners?
Dave
clams_casino
> you object to an article of interest to
>anyone, just because it has a link to other articles? There are no
>ads, no commercial sponsors, and no agenda's other than to spread
>health information. Good luck finding a spam element to that.
>
>
>
>
That's easy - your sole motivation is is promote (SPAM) your own blog.
clams_casino
>
>Please, tell me exactly what element you consider to be spam in my
>message? There's an article clipped, in full (no teasers, etc) and
>then there is a link to the site where it comes from
>
Well Duh - it's a link to YOUR blog ........ Or is that simply a
coincidence?
Dave
On Jul 28, 12:33 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com>
wrote:
Anytime something is posted to the Internet, an article or reference,
I want to know EXACTLY where it came from. There's too much garbage
out there, as an Internet policeman like you already knows. So, if
someone posts a news story about Obama did this, or John McCain said
this, I need to know what the source is in order to understand and
believe it. (While I may not believe it, at least I'll have some
filter to put the information through). If it is sourced from CNN or
MSNBC, I'll have my own viewpoint of the value of that "news" versus
whether it comes from some political blogger, etc.
Same with news of the sort that I am interested in. I read everything
that I can about health and health-related topics, and oftentimes I
repost press releases where I believe they have merit. Some of what I
read elsewhere on the net gets me interested, and I am really ticked
off when the poster clips something and then does NOT show the source
of the article. Even worse, I hate it when people DO spam the net and
put up little snippets of information herein, simply to get your
interest in order to send you to a commercial website. "Read how
Vitamin D cures cancer," and then you see only a paragraph with this
outrageous claim and yet when you click on it all you get to read is a
few sentences and some ads trying to sell you a miracle product.
When I write something, I list the journal reference in my piece or
the source of the news release. And then I go further, to post the
ENTIRE article on the usenet, so that no one necessarily "needs" to go
further. But, for those (like me) who are obsessed about knowing
something about the poster, they CAN click on the link shown (if they
want) and they can see my identity, my biographical sketch, and read
more on the same subject by doing a search of the hundreds of other
pieces that I've written and archived on the same site. Blogs are
essentially ego-trips, and I am sure that mine is no different. Some
blogs take the ego trip and couple it with a bunch of Google ads, or
large ads from companies. Mine is free from that influence; just a
listing of each and every health-oriented article I've placed therein.
I won't allow someone else (you?) who I don't know to limit what
reaches me by the usenet, try as hard as you want to do that. You can
easily see my identity, even my picture and biography, if you want.
For anyone here who wants to know more about who this "Clams" is, our
self-professed censor and Internet policeman, they'd have hell to pay
to learn ANYTHING, let alone your identity. That's probably not a
stupid idea on your part, with as many net enemies as you must
accumulate via your name calling.
Dave
ChairMan
clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>spewed forth:
1. You have absolutely no idea what his SOLE motivation is
2. A blog does not necessarily mean spam.
3. There is not one ad for anything on his blog, none, zip, nada
4. his intro sez "No-holds-barred discussion of what works, and what doesn't
work, from both a pharmaceutical as well as alternative healthcare
perspective. These articles are gathered from multiple sources by a 25-year
health industry insider."
I think you need another hobby, besides being an ass.
Rod Speed
Only fools are that stupid.
Dave was justifyably upset.
clams_casino
>
>
>Anytime something is posted to the Internet, an article or reference,
>I want to know EXACTLY where it came from.
>
Fully agree, however a reference to a blog (aren't all blogs
fabricated?) is a bogus reference - especially when the posting is
referencing their own blog.
Dave
Clams, I now believe that your concern about my site is based on a
generalization about blogs. You're right, some of them are very
"fabricated."
Blogs can be ANYTHING that the writer sets them up to be. Because they
are free or cheap, sites that post blogs do very little to restrict
what bloggers write or promote on their sites. You can find some of
the most spurious spam on Blogger and other blog sites. Some people
post a personal note or two every month or so, and others post daily.
Some of them would be considered spam and others may have some value
(if you are interested in the topic). I read news blogs for their
political views (the good ones are quite interesting) and a few other
healthy tips blogs. You can tell immediately when something has no
real value -- I hope my site doesn't fall into that category.
Perhaps in your view the correct reference in the article I posted
above would be the journal, ""Environmental Impact Assessment Review."
I agree, that's where the material originated. But, I added editorial
and it isn't just the pure science any longer, it's my viewpoint (the
point of a blog is the viewpoint). So, I list the correct reference in
an article, as I did in this one, but then I always put the (bogus?)
reference to where the above originated, my blog, as that is the site
of the article as written.
Maybe this is putting too fine a point on it. I only post here six or
eight times a year with my blog articles, where I think it has broad
appeal or a fit for the "frugal" lifestyle. I'd appreciate it if you
could cut me some slack on those few occasions, as I have no
motivation other than spreading useful information.
Dave
clams_casino
> I'd appreciate it if you
>could cut me some slack on those few occasions, as I have no
>motivation other than spreading useful information.
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
Sounds fair to me.
Rod Speed
false in all, ye flared:
> I don't believe everything I think.