Zinc Chloride content in Febreze
Dan Spencer
post. Secondly, I am surprised that the people making the most noise here
about how dangerous Febreze is do not bother to obtain any factual
information about its content. I had to get that off my chest.
I contacted P&G last week to ask if Febreze contained Zinc Chloride and how
much it contained. I was told that it did contain Zinc Chloride and that
they would get back to me about the quantity. The person on the phone did
not quite get my email address right over the phone (I gave her the secret
one that only a few people know about here), so Mary went to this newsgroup
and got my email address to make sure that I got the information. Now
that's service!!! I am sure that our very own lunatic fringe gave her a
good laugh. Here's the message:
**start quote**
Specific ingredient information is proprietary and isn't shared outside the
Company. However, I can give you information that I hope will be helpful.
When listing product ingredients there are two categories. Major
ingredients are ingredients that appear in a product at a level of 1% or
more. Minor ingredients are ingredients that appear in a product at less
than 1%. ZnC12 is a minor ingredient in Febreze. This is the
concentration in the bottle and would only be relevant if someone were to
drink the Febreze liquid.
What would be pertinent to birds, pets and even humans, would be the
concentration in the air that is breathed. We've done experiments where
Febreze was sprayed repeatedly for ten continuous minutes. We found peak
concentrations of ZnC12 were less than 0.3 milligrams per cubic meter of
air. For perspective, levels considered safe for the workplace are many
times higher than the levels found in this testing.
**end quote**
Now let's do the math.
1 gram equals about 0.036 ounces.
There are a 1,000 miligrams to the gram.
A cubic meter is about 35.31 cubic feet.
For those not familiar with the metric system, the *peak* concentration of
Zinc Chloride after Febreze is sprayed *repeatedly for ten continuous
minutes* is 0.0000108 ounces (that's about one hundred thousandth of an
ounce) in 35.31 cubic feet of air.
Would anyone like to comment now on how the budgies would succumb to Zinc
Chloride poisoning if the Febreze was used a directed on a sofa?
Dan
Doug Cook
problem
with P&G's answers. Somewhere in this
massive thread, didn't a P&G representative write to someone that
Febreze should never be used around
birds ?
With such conflicting answers, I wonder which representative to believe.
Maybe one is accurate, and the other is a better
salesperson. Regardless of the content of the product (and whatever
hazards it may or may not present) the lack of consistancy from P&G
makes me a bit uneasy. If they can't agree within the company, how can
anyone make an in-
formed decision about the product?
Doug
"I know what you're thinking, and I don't
think you're thinking at all..." Waylon
Susanne Russo
Zinc Chloride poisoning if the Febreze was used a directed on a sofa?>>>
Dan,
Thanks for the update. I was just reading one of their letters to
another list...
Snip<<<<In fact, many of the ingredients are similar to those used in
other cleaning and health products.
If you are not familiar with Febreze, it is designed to be sprayed
directly on fabrics and not spritzed in the air like an air freshener.
For more information about Febreze, please visit our website at
http://www.febreze.com.
Mary,
USA Febreze Team>>>>
Susanne Russo
>>
Dawn212
I'm VERY impressed!!
Thanks
Dawn, Baby, Izzy, Pierre, & Zazu
Human- MSC - CAG - MOL - CAG
Jdsporty
>concentrations of ZnC12 were less than 0.3 milligrams per cubic meter of
>air. For perspective, levels considered safe for the workplace are many
>times higher than the levels found in this testing.
>
>**end quote**
>
>
>
>There are a 1,000 miligrams to the gram.
>
>A cubic meter is about 35.31 cubic feet.
>
>For those not familiar with the metric system, the *peak* concentration of
>Zinc Chloride after Febreze is sprayed *repeatedly for ten continuous
>minutes* is 0.0000108 ounces (that's about one hundred thousandth of an
>ounce) in 35.31 cubic feet of air.
>
>Chloride poisoning if the Febreze was used a directed on a sofa?
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Poisoning at that level is just NOT POSSIBLE. Thanks for the info.
Jennifer
...man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick
himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on. Winston S. Churchill
Alex Clayton
The one who said not to use it around birds was trying to be anti
lawyer. She was afraid if she said it was ok to use around birds someone
would spray the birds cage with it water food and all. Some guy even
E-mailed me a couple times to tell me Ivory snow laundry detergent was
safe to bath a baby in so the story I told about the woman doing this
and the baby breaking out must be made up. So any of you all want to
bath your kid in laundry detergent?
I am sure the rep from P&G did not feel she could say the stuff was
safe for fear of some moron doing something stupid and then wanting to
sue.
{And now For Kim}
I do not use febreze do not advocate it's use and do not care if no one
ever buys any.
-----------------------------------------------
Group: rec.pets.birds Date: Mon, Jan 4, 1999, 11:44pm (PST+3) From:
pier6s...@webtv.net (Doug Cook) Re: Zinc Chloride content in
Febreze
problem
with P&G's answers. Somewhere in this
massive thread, didn't a P&G representative write to someone that
Febreze should never be used around
birds ?
With such conflicting answers, I wonder which representative to believe.
Maybe
"It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
still to be a live lion. And usually easier."
>Lazarus Long
Kevin Chu
> one that only a few people know about here), so Mary went to this newsgroup
> and got my email address to make sure that I got the information. Now
> that's service!!! I am sure that our very own lunatic fringe gave her a
Service? I don't think so, I think it's more like damage control.
And if it WERE service, it's not anomalously great. We're not talking
a retail clerk or auto mechanic here. Anyway....
> than 1%. ZnC12 is a minor ingredient in Febreze. This is the
> concentration in the bottle and would only be relevant if someone were to
> drink the Febreze liquid.
Okay, do not drink Febreze. Hint number one. Febreze is not good
stuff. Not super toxic (yet), but not good stuff.
> What would be pertinent to birds, pets and even humans, would be the
> concentration in the air that is breathed. We've done experiments where
> Febreze was sprayed repeatedly for ten continuous minutes. We found peak
> concentrations of ZnC12 were less than 0.3 milligrams per cubic meter of
> air. For perspective, levels considered safe for the workplace are many
> times higher than the levels found in this testing.
Need to know the volume and shape of the room. Need to know the rate
at which Febreze is entering the air. Need to know where their 0.3
mg/m^3 sample was taken -- was it the highest concentration in the
room? Probably not. It was just the peak measurement. Need to know
how quickly Febreze settles out of the air, and compare it to the
spray rate. Need to know if Febreze can re-enter the air if the
cushion (say) is compressed. Need to know how relevant human
workplace levels are to safety levels for birds. Workplaces are not
necessarily safe places. I believe there are different "classes" of
workplaces, but I'm not going to bother looking up any references.
> Now let's do the math.
Well they GAVE us the measurement, 300 ug/m^3, going backwards and
converting it to Imperial just confuses the issue.
> For those not familiar with the metric system, the *peak* concentration of
"Peak" where, at the measurement point in one corner of the room?
Peak over time?
> Zinc Chloride after Febreze is sprayed *repeatedly for ten continuous
> minutes* is 0.0000108 ounces (that's about one hundred thousandth of an
Sprayed how, pump action? Continuous atomisation? At what rate, a
rate comparable to what comes out of the bottle when a consumer sprays
it? A rate less than that? How much time elapsed between spraying
and concentration measurement? Was it a sealed, airtight room? Was
the Febreze sprayed into the air, or (say) at a wall or floor? (Dumb
question, but we have to know.) What kind of spray, fine atomisation,
or course stream? Spray equipment? Measurement equipment? Traceable
calibrations?
> Would anyone like to comment now on how the budgies would succumb to Zinc
> Chloride poisoning if the Febreze was used a directed on a sofa?
A vet or toxicologist with bird knowledge might, but would probably
ask the same questions as above. As for the concentrations, lots of
important concentrations are given in parts per million. Can we
convert the concentration given to us by P&G to ppm? From my
first-year chem all I know is PV=nRT, but is the zinc chloride aqueous
or particle or what, and how does it act?
What happens when a bird comes into contact with a surface that is
sprayed with Febreze? We know not to drink Febreze. What if the bird
licks or chews on the cushion? What if the Febreze enters the air
again? What happens as the Febreze on the (say) cushion ages? What
happens to the buildup from continuous use?
My advice: Don't use sprays that you do not fully understand and do
not fully know the contents of, around your birds. What do I spray at
my birds? Water.
Kevin
--
Kevin Chu ke...@portal.ca
http://members.tripod.com/~super_kevin/
Kevin Chu
> Dan Spencer wrote:
> > Zinc Chloride after Febreze is sprayed *repeatedly for ten continuous
> > minutes* is 0.0000108 ounces (that's about one hundred thousandth of an
>
> Sprayed how, pump action? Continuous atomisation? At what rate, a
> rate comparable to what comes out of the bottle when a consumer sprays
> it? A rate less than that? How much time elapsed between spraying
> and concentration measurement? Was it a sealed, airtight room? Was
> the Febreze sprayed into the air, or (say) at a wall or floor? (Dumb
> question, but we have to know.) What kind of spray, fine atomisation,
> or course stream? Spray equipment? Measurement equipment? Traceable
> calibrations?
I just thought of a situation where it's not a dumb question. For all
we know about the testing, they could have taken a large room
(stadium?), and used a course-spray pump-action spray to spray Febreze
at close range at a cushion, for ten minutes. They could have put the
sensor anywhere.
Dan Spencer
Kevin Chu wrote in message <3691E515...@portal.ca>...
>Dan Spencer wrote:
>
<Much conjecture snipped>
Kevin,
If you have questions about the information that they provided, ask P&G
directly and post the answers as I have done. I think that you are getting
nitpicky now to the extreme. It seems that people who want to condemn
Febreze do so on the basis of speculation and not fact. Even if P&G
underreported the amount of Zinc Chloride concentrations by 99%, there is
still no way that those budgies could have succumbed to Zinc Chloride
poisoning if Febreze was used as directed.
>
>My advice: Don't use sprays that you do not fully understand and do
>not fully know the contents of, around your birds. What do I spray at
>my birds? Water.
This should be common sense for anyone here.
Dan
Mamabird
>
>> > Zinc Chloride after Febreze is sprayed *repeatedly for ten
continuous
>> > minutes* is 0.0000108 ounces (that's about one hundred thousandth
of an
>Kevin Chu wrote:
>>
>> Sprayed how, pump action? Continuous atomisation? At what rate, a
>> rate comparable to what comes out of the bottle when a consumer
sprays
>> it? A rate less than that? How much time elapsed between spraying
>> and concentration measurement? Was it a sealed, airtight room? Was
>> the Febreze sprayed into the air, or (say) at a wall or floor? (Dumb
>> question, but we have to know.) What kind of spray, fine
atomisation,
>> or course stream? Spray equipment? Measurement equipment?
Traceable
>> calibrations?
Kevin Chu wrote in message <3691FB89...@portal.ca>...
>
>I just thought of a situation where it's not a dumb question. For all
>we know about the testing, they could have taken a large room
>(stadium?), and used a course-spray pump-action spray to spray Febreze
>at close range at a cushion, for ten minutes. They could have put the
>sensor anywhere.
>
>Kevin
And someone in the household where the budgies reportedly died "could
have" sprayed the birds directly with the Febreze. Or "could have"
sprayed too close to the birds so that the Febreze contaminated their
food/water.
Or any number of other things "could have" caused the birds' deaths
instead of the Febreze.
We could speculate on "could haves" forever but it won't get us any
closer to knowing all the *facts*.
--
Mama
----
"Mamabird's Nest"
Visit my nest and meet my birds!
http://members.tripod.com/~iluvbirds/
~The Book of Winged Memories~
Susanne Russo
problem with P&G's answers. Somewhere in this
massive thread, didn't a P&G representative write to someone that
Febreze should never be used around
birds >>>>
Doug,
Your right...there are many conflicting answers. It depends on 'how' the
asker 'phrases' the question. In the instance of the quote I posted
from Mary at Febreze, one of the FL bird clubs is doing a talk on
potential household hazards to birds. Zinc was not asked about, so Mary
did not 'have to' answer in that direction.
As I had mentioned early on, they will answer any questions asked, I'm
finding you have to be 'specific' in your request for answers.
Susanne
Susanne Russo
And if it WERE service, it's not anomalously great. We're not talking
a retail clerk or auto mechanic here. Anyway....>>>
Kevin,
Many large companies do monitor Newsgroups and Mailing List that are
related to the end consumer of their product. As to the controversy
over the Polyoma Vaccines the technical veterinarian from Biomume will
comment any conflicting info. as to their product.
Susanne
assets.wharton.upenn.edu
: > What would be pertinent to birds, pets and even humans, would be the
: > concentration in the air that is breathed. We've done experiments where
: > Febreze was sprayed repeatedly for ten continuous minutes. We found peak
: > concentrations of ZnC12 were less than 0.3 milligrams per cubic meter of
: > air. For perspective, levels considered safe for the workplace are many
: > times higher than the levels found in this testing.
: A vet or toxicologist with bird knowledge might, but would probably
: ask the same questions as above. As for the concentrations, lots of
: important concentrations are given in parts per million. Can we
: convert the concentration given to us by P&G to ppm? From my
: first-year chem all I know is PV=nRT, but is the zinc chloride aqueous
: or particle or what, and how does it act?
That's funny, I view 0.3 mg per cubic meter as an extremely high
concentration of a possible poison. Don't forget birds weigh less than
humans, at least the birds I know, like 1/2 or 1 pound compared to what,
150 pounds, so a factor of 150 to 300 times more danger to birds. Now
couple this with birds having lungs that are about 10 times more sensitive
to humans, and you are working with 1500 to 3000 times more sensitivity to
poisons. So what is a milligram to a human is like a gram to a bird.
That's huge for a toxin, like a heavy metal toxin of the zincs.
There are toxins in the air that can cause disease to humans which are
measured at about 5 parts per billion. I can recall a warning to open the
windows when showering because the water vapor could give off enough gas
from the toxins which came from the solvents used by companies in the area
to clean their electronic manufacturings. In fact, this particular one
was so deadly that I calculated that if one employee spilled one
teaspoonful into the ground, and that one teaspoonful worked its way into
the water table, it would pollute the entire water table. Hopefully it
would not rain when the employee made a mistake and spilled one teaspoon.
I worked this out because I worked next to the manufacturing plant and
watched one pretty woman clean the board with the solvent outside, since
they were not allowed to use the solvent indoors. Fortunately she had
steady, slender hands when working with trichloroethylene (TCE).
Dan Spencer
@assets.wharton.upenn.edu <@assets.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote in message
<76ti4v$h66$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 02:10:29 -0800; ke...@portal.ca wrote:
>
>: > What would be pertinent to birds, pets and even humans, would be the
>: > concentration in the air that is breathed. We've done experiments
where
>: > Febreze was sprayed repeatedly for ten continuous minutes. We found
peak
>: > concentrations of ZnC12 were less than 0.3 milligrams per cubic meter
of
>: > air. For perspective, levels considered safe for the workplace are
many
>: > times higher than the levels found in this testing.
>
>That's funny, I view 0.3 mg per cubic meter as an extremely high
>concentration of a possible poison.
Did you have a chance to look under the conditions that would make a
concentration that high possible? It's hardly normal conditions.
>Don't forget birds weigh less than
>humans, at least the birds I know, like 1/2 or 1 pound compared to what,
>150 pounds, so a factor of 150 to 300 times more danger to birds. Now
>couple this with birds having lungs that are about 10 times more sensitive
>to humans, and you are working with 1500 to 3000 times more sensitivity to
>poisons. So what is a milligram to a human is like a gram to a bird.
>That's huge for a toxin, like a heavy metal toxin of the zincs.
For a bird to breathe in a milligram of zinc chloride, Febreze would have to
be sprayed repeatedly for ten continuous minutes which would give us the
peak concentration of 0.3 mg per cubic meter. The bird would have to then
breathe 3.3 CUBIC METERS of air at that peak concentration. Do you have any
idea how long it would take a budgie to breathe that much air? Multiply the
lung capacity by the respiration rate. At that point, any aireborne mist
would have settled to the ground.
>
>There are toxins in the air that can cause disease to humans which are
>measured at about 5 parts per billion.
You are referring to dioxin which is the deadliest substance known to
humans. That is not a valid comparison.
<SNIP irrelevant references>
I will pose the question to you this time. How would the budgies succumb to
Zinc Chloride poisoning if Febreze was *used as directed* when the sofa was
sprayed?
Dan
Samson
>This should be common sense for anyone here.
>
>Dan
Well, there you have it! No wonder there are still those who insist on P &
G conspiracy theories.
I think it ought to be plain by now that the product is safe if used as
directed. We all know there will be idiots who spray it ON the bird because
they think the bird has a "funny smell." Then bitch when the bird dies.
Samson
Somebody Else
Bob
Dan Spencer wrote in message <76tmtm$ndv$1...@remarQ.com>...
>
>@assets.wharton.upenn.edu <@assets.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote in message
><76ti4v$h66$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 02:10:29 -0800; ke...@portal.ca wrote:
>>
>>: > What would be pertinent to birds, pets and even humans, would be the
<<big SNIP>
Kevin Chu
> If you have questions about the information that they provided, ask P&G
> directly and post the answers as I have done. I think that you are getting
> nitpicky now to the extreme. It seems that people who want to condemn
I just needed to put you on the other side of the quest for verifiable
facts. ;) Should I poke more fun?
- What kind of tests were done?
- Please provide detail about the tests.
- First you said there's no zinc chloride, and now there is?
I'm just bugging you. Whether or not you or P&G come up with good
answers, I'm never going to buy or use Febreze. It's a good idea to
call the company. If a large number of people called P&G and said
they know about the unlisted zinc chloride and demanded more
information about it, then P&G would take notice. Notice of what, I
don't know.... Maybe the quality of usenet as a catalyst for
bickering. There is some good information transfer going on sometimes
though.
assets.wharton.upenn.edu
: You are referring to dioxin which is the deadliest substance known to
: humans. That is not a valid comparison.
I was referring to TCE which was spelled out at the end of my post.
How could you miss that? TCE is not dioxin. But it is a toxin that was
common in the workplace until the dangers were pointed out. I have
doubts that dioxin is the deadliest substance known to humans. What is
your basis for that?
: <SNIP irrelevant references>
You obviously did not read my entire post so how would you know they were
irrelevant, since you missed that I spelled out TCE. I posted that
because of your comment about hazardous materials in the workplace.
Also you cannot possibly know what is the dangerous amount of zinc
chloride to a bird. How could you? So on what basis do you presume to
know? If you have references concerning toxicology and birds, share them
with us.
Don't forget you originally posted that zinc chloride could not be in
Febreze, but you realized your mistake when you telephoned the company.
How were you so sure that zinc chloride could not be in Febreze when it
turned out it was? You are pre-judging but on what basis of expertise?
Dan Spencer
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:58:46 -0800; dspe...@accessone.com wrote:
>
>: You are referring to dioxin which is the deadliest substance known to
>: humans. That is not a valid comparison.
>
>I was referring to TCE which was spelled out at the end of my post.
>How could you miss that?
I stopped reading your post because it was beginning to bore me with it's
irrelevance to the subject at hand.
> TCE is not dioxin. But it is a toxin that was
>common in the workplace until the dangers were pointed out. I have
>doubts that dioxin is the deadliest substance known to humans. What is
>your basis for that?
That is commonly reported in the media. I do stand corrected. It is "one of
the deadliest substances known to man". Oops, my mistake. Reference
material cited below.
http://www2.cnn.com/US/9706/26/times.beach/flashback/
http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/updates/96_12_6.html
>
>: <SNIP irrelevant references>
>
>You obviously did not read my entire post so how would you know they were
>irrelevant, since you missed that I spelled out TCE. I posted that
>because of your comment about hazardous materials in the workplace.
>
>Also you cannot possibly know what is the dangerous amount of zinc
>chloride to a bird. How could you? So on what basis do you presume to
>know? If you have references concerning toxicology and birds, share them
>with us.
I never said that I knew. I suppose that I could research it, but it's only
the rpb lunatic fringe that continues to believe that Febreze is deadly if
used as directed.
>
>Don't forget you originally posted that zinc chloride could not be in
>Febreze,
Please quote!!! I *never* said that. If I did, it will be very easy to
prove.
>but you realized your mistake when you telephoned the company.
>How were you so sure that zinc chloride could not be in Febreze when it
>turned out it was? You are pre-judging but on what basis of expertise?
Once again, please provide the proof via copy and paste where I said that
there was no zinc chloride in Febreze.
Dan
>
Gloria Heim
Mary at P&G. She's some sort of head of the Febreze project.
She sends out *form letters* in response, of course, protecting her butt
and saying 'they're looking into the complaints'or something like that.
Everyone knows they're form letters because they post the letters to the
group and they are IDENTICAL!
Gloria
Kevin Chu
Dan Spencer wrote:
> >Don't forget you originally posted that zinc chloride could not be in
> >Febreze,
>
> Please quote!!! I *never* said that. If I did, it will be very easy to
> prove.
>
> >but you realized your mistake when you telephoned the company.
> >How were you so sure that zinc chloride could not be in Febreze when it
> >turned out it was? You are pre-judging but on what basis of expertise?
>
> Once again, please provide the proof via copy and paste where I said that
> there was no zinc chloride in Febreze.
Hi! I have nothing to do right now, but I'm not going to spend much
time on this. Using Deja News and looking for the accessone email
address only:
==========================
1998-12-29
>Is the non-hazardous classification because zinc cloride was not listed in
>the ingreddients. Obviously a product get approved without full disclosure
>of ALL ingredients.
Are you inferring that Procter and Gamble deliberately commited a
crime of
omission?
[...]
Unless you have anything credible to prove otherwise, you are just
talking
trash when you keep insisting that Febreze contains zinc chloride.
Keep it
up and P&G might have you in civil litigation.
===============================
1998-12-29
>> Are you going to provide proof that zinc chloride is in Febreze and
>> not being disclosed on the bottle and MSDS? Do you have an
>> independent lab analysis to prove your accusation?
>
>The person's vet was in contact with P&G and P&G told the vet that
>zinc chloride is in the product. The vet then contacted a chemist.
This is one of the places where the original story starts falling
apart.
[ Note that "P&G told Dan" carries more weight than "P&G told the
vet." ]
=========================
1998-12-27
>Well what's the MSDS going to tell us?
For one thing, it will let us know if there is in fact zinc chloride
in
Febreze and will list any other potentially toxic chemicals.
==================================
1998-12-27
OK. Let's say that Febreze contains Zinc Chloride and they fail to
disclose
that on a MSDS. How hard would it be for a college chemistry student,
an
activist organization, or an analysis by an independent lab paid for
by the
media to detect it's presence? I think that the penalties far
outweigh the
benefit.
================================
Aaaah, I'm tired of Deja News. (Looks like Dan doesn't post on
anything BUT this Febreze thing. Also looks like there's stuff on
Deja News that isn't on my ISP's web server yet.)
Note that none of these clippings actually have the phrase "there is
no zinc chloride in Febreze" but they do indicate the faulty logic,
"not on MSDS" implies "not in product." And you did keep mentioning
that zinc chloride is not on the label or in the MSDS, "which MUST
imply...."
Also, some logic I feel is faulty, is "I can look it up on the web"
implies "a vet's or toxicologist's opinion becomes less valuable."
Now, about this "masked men and SIDS" thing. Andee wrote, "...several
docs there were of the opinion that Teflon might be one of the causes
of SIDS. ...that some of them were of the opinion that there might be
a correlation between SIDS and Teflon, cigarettes, air fresheners,
etc.." So, what's poor Andee to do? If the lab had say, 150 doctors,
and you'd work with 30 doctors in a typical workday, and the ones
speaking were wearing masks, how are you going to know who said what?
What are you going to do, track down doctors and get them to dig up
some statistics and calculate some correlations on a subject that came
up during idle chatter? Because some guy in a newsgroup wants proof
and references about an opinion that came up during idle chatter? If
I tell a friend, "boy my running shoes stink," is a third party going
to want measurements? Calculated correlations? And what's wrong with
her not divulging where she works? I'm not going to divulge where I
work, either. Also your logic "not in the NIH web site" means "it
doesn't exist as a medical fact" doesn't hold water. And where is it
written that if a doctor figures out a correlation, he/she is
obligated to report it? Obligated to develop a cure and patent it and
make money, maybe, or write in a journal and get fame, maybe. What's
the measuring stick for obligation? Clinton obviously has a different
stick for measuring sexual activity.
Bottom line is, there's no proof that the SIDS correlation is there,
and there's no proof that it isn't. But some doctors think it may be
there. There's no proof that the doctors said that, and no proof that
they didn't. There's no proof that I'm typing this, either.
And while you may not have explicitly advocated the use of Febreze,
you repeatedly write about it being harmless "if used properly," which
is just as good as advocating it, in the context of this
Febreze-damning thread.
Now, about properly-used Febreze, here's another Dan quote from
1998-12-26:
=======================
Febreze is mostly water and assuming that there is zinc chloride in
it, the
zinc chloride would not be in a gaseous state at room temperature.
When
Febreze is sprayed on fabric the water will eventually evaporate. Any
zinc
chloride would be left as a residue on the fabric. Being that it is a
"white crystalline powder", there cannot be that much zinc chloride in
Febreze or notable traces would be left on the fabric.
If the birds in this incident were poisoned by zinc chloride, it would
have
been from DIRECT contact with Febreze. This would indicate MISUSE of
the
product.
===============================
So, birds and/or people could come into contact with zinc chloride
buildup on the fabric (or on the floor or wherever). I don't recall
how toxic zinc chloride is, how many ppm are required. But I would
want zero ppm near my birds.
Needless to say, this thread has evolved (devolved) from a discussion
of Febreze to a collection of meaningless personal arguments. I don't
see any reason for Andee or Susanne Russo or even Jack to have had
flames directed towards them. If someone kept bugging me to somehow
prove that an electrical engineer wearing a face mask (for safety
reasons, things explode) was of the opinion that part A overheated
part B, and to divulge where I work, etc., I think I'd be pretty
pissed after a while. I wouldn't go and rant on other forums, but I
think when I was new to online discussions, I would be tempted.
Try some other threads, Dan, it's fun! :)
Dan Spencer
I was expressing *doubts* that Zinc Chloride was in Febreze. I based those
doubts upon the fact that it was not listed on the Febreze bottle or MSDS.
If you recall, I am the person from this newsgroup who called P&G about it
and posted the information. Given that I had express my doubts publically,
I felt that it was important that I posted the information ASAP. I also
requested the MSDS as well as asking P&G about the actual amount of Zinc
Chloride. Why? Because I operate on facts, not hysteria. None of the
hysterical types here could stop flailing their arms long enough to contact
P&G about Febreze. After I posted the Zinc Chloride disclosure, I emailed
someone here privately and let them know that someone was going to post that
I said that Febreze did not contain Zinc Chloride. I was surprised that it
took so long. I felt that getting the truth out there was more important
than omitting the fact for fear of a public lashing. You are also welcome
to call P&G yourself to verify that what I posted was true.
P&G stated the reasons why Zinc Chloride is not listed and the reason why it
did not need to be listed on the MSDS. There was no cover up on P&G's part
since they freely admit the Zinc Chloride content in Febreze when contacted.
The quote you posted about misuse of the product is accurate too. Those
budgies could not have died unless they came in DIRECT contact with Febreze
either via the mist or sprayed on their food and/or water given the actual
amount of Zinc Chloride in the bottle. The hysterical types here feel that
a Bhopal type toxic cloud of Zinc Chloride is released with each squirt of
the bottle.
As far as the amount of doctors working in a medical examiner's office, get
real! If Andee were to post the information that I requested, I could find
that out for you.
Thanks for clearing that up. <VBG>
Dan
Kevin Chu wrote in message <369486E0...@portal.ca>...
<SNIP>
gwen
>
> Bottom line is, there's no proof that the SIDS correlation is there,
> and there's no proof that it isn't. But some doctors think it may be
> there. There's no proof that the doctors said that, and no proof that
> they didn't. There's no proof that I'm typing this, either.
I have to agree with this. In fact I will openingly admit that
the correlation between SIDS and teflon has crossed my
mind on numerous occassions since I got birds and
was told you could not, should not use teflon
around the birds. To me it does make some sense,
but it is just an opinion and I obviously have ZERO
amount of evidence to say this is fact or even
close to fact. But still an infants lungs are very
undeveloped making them much more like birds
in their ability to resist certain fumes. Of course
no one would want this to come out as it would
cause mass hysteria and massive lawsuits from
persons who have lost their babies to SIDS. At
any rate the cause of SIDS is still more or less
a mysteria. Knowing what I know now about birds
and teflon I know for certain I wouldn't use it
around my newborn infant for any amount of
money. Teflon has to have effects on people
if it kills birds. There is no way something
that can kill an animal that easily does
not effect people in some way or other.
It may be more or less totally insignificant
but there still has to be some ill effect no matter
how you roll the dice.
>
> Kevin
>
> --
> Kevin Chu ke...@portal.ca
> http://members.tripod.com/~super_kevin/
Gwen
gwen
>
> I will pose the question to you this time. How would the budgies succumb to
> Zinc Chloride poisoning if Febreze was *used as directed* when the sofa was
> sprayed?
>
> Dan
I can think of one possible way.
That is *IF* the budgies
were allowed on the sofa/couch immediately
after it was sprayed and the moisture got
on their feet or they might have bitten
the freshly sprayed sofa. Now that
would still fall under the "as directed"
clause but with one major twist. I know
the stuff doesn't say one word about
keeping pets off until area that has
been sprayed is totally dry. I have
a bottle of the junk!
There is the possibility to that, but
seeings that I got in on the tail-end
of this whole story I really don't know.
Gwen
assets.wharton.upenn.edu
what you shout that others are doing. You are spreading "hysterical"
nonsense based on ancient rumors you read in the media or the internet.
So you are also part of the "lunatic fringe" you rant about. Naughty you.
One URL you provided was from CNN in Missouri in 1990. Yeah, right.
Look at your calendar, it's 1999. Read the latest on dioxin. It's not
what your news-byters say. For starters, just go to the library and use
the Encyclopedia Britannica: see the end of this post for what the
mistakes and hysteria about dioxin came from. It's a nasty chemical for
sure. But deadly or one of the most deadly? Nah. I realize you have a
short attention span and get easily bored on paragraphs that are more than
few lines, but try to get to the end of this post. I know you can do it,
Dan, try. I'm teasing you here but when you use words like "bore" - then
expect to get supercilious comments in return, and yes, I used that word
correctly, supercilious.
If you are going to use the internet for your information, try to use
first-hand, second-hand or even third-hand sources in toxicology and
poisons instead of news-bytes from media resources almost 10 years old
that are not known for science reporting. CNN ain't the New York Times.
And lay off criticizing and ridiculing others for doing far less than what
you are doing. You are shouting down and brow-beating and even ridiculing
others for their concerns about harming their birds. That's not right.
Remember that you are also doing what you accuse others of doing, so try
to be a little more gentle and not pick on people for posting concerns.
: http://www2.cnn.com/US/9706/26/times.beach/flashback/
: http://www.greenpeace.org/~usa/updates/96_12_6.html
: >
: >Don't forget you originally posted that zinc chloride could not be in
: >Febreze,
: Please quote!!! I *never* said that. If I did, it will be very easy to
: prove.
: >but you realized your mistake when you telephoned the company.
: >How were you so sure that zinc chloride could not be in Febreze when it
: >turned out it was? You are pre-judging but on what basis of expertise?
: Once again, please provide the proof via copy and paste where I said that
: there was no zinc chloride in Febreze.
: Dan
Snipped from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The recognition in the early 1980s that residential sites at Times
Beach and elsewhere in Missouri, U.S., had been contaminated by
improper disposal of chemical wastes containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD led to
intense public scrutiny of its possible toxic effects. Toxicologists
mistakenly concluded from studies on laboratory animals that TCDD was
one of the most toxic of all man-made substances and recommended that
soil levels in excess of one part per billion might constitute a
health risk to humans. It was known that TCDD could produce chloracne,
a serious skin rash, but exposure to the chemical was also blamed for
muscular dysfunctions, various bodily inflammations, impotency, birth
defects, genetic mutations, and nervous system disorders. TCDD was
also linked to various cancers.
Subsequent research, however, discounted most of these inferences,
which were based on the effects of very high doses of TCDD on guinea
pigs and other peculiarly susceptible animals. Among humans, the only
disease definitely found related to TCDD is chloracne, which develops
shortly after exposure to the chemical. Epidemiological studies on
industrial workers exposed to TCDD over many years show that it has a
weak carcinogenic effect at high-dose exposures and no effect
whatsoever at low-dose exposures. In fact, normally occurring exposure
to TCDD appears to be less of a carcinogenic risk than similar
exposure to asbestos, radon, or cigarette smoke. Nor has any
convincing evidence been found for the association of TCDD with other
bodily disorders and defects in humans, including genetic mutations.
What toxicity TCDD does possess apparently derives from the chemical's
ability to bind with a particular type of receptor protein inside some
cells within the body. The resulting TCDD-receptor complex can enter
the cell's nucleus and bind with its DNA, thereby disrupting the
cell's machinery for producing proteins. The wide and rather puzzling
array of toxic effects induced in animals by high levels of TCDD are
apparently all receptor-mediated responses to that chemical. Such
animals' immune systems are those most often affected, being
apparently weakened or compromised by TCDD.
...now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast, RFB's As The Birds Peck
Mamabird
contact with the Febreze. My theory is that the spray "drifted" and
contaminated their food/water.
Of course, that's pure speculation and we could speculate forever, but
where is it getting us? I doubt we'll ever know all the facts or the
necropsy results (if there was a necropsy done) so why don't we let this
thread die until such time as we get some hard facts to discuss? Yes?
--
Mama
----
"Mamabird's Nest"
Visit my nest and meet my birds!
http://members.tripod.com/~iluvbirds/
~The Book of Winged Memories~
>Dan Spencer wrote:
>>
>> I will pose the question to you this time. How would the budgies
succumb to
>> Zinc Chloride poisoning if Febreze was *used as directed* when the
sofa was
>> sprayed?
>>
>> Dan
>
>gwen wrote in message <36948F...@utig.ig.utexas.edu>...
Dan Spencer
>Dan, you are literally being a hypocrite here, why? You are doing exactly
>what you shout that others are doing. You are spreading "hysterical"
>nonsense based on ancient rumors you read in the media or the internet.
>So you are also part of the "lunatic fringe" you rant about. Naughty you.
Hardly. You are comparing apples to oranges. More about that later.
>
>One URL you provided was from CNN in Missouri in 1990. Yeah, right.
>
>Look at your calendar, it's 1999.
Silly me. OK. Let me bring you from 1990 to present day in one fail swoop.
Will June 3, 1998 be adequate? Ever hear of the World Health Organization?
This is an excerpt from their report at
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-45.html .
**start quote**
During a previous meeting on dioxins, held at Bilthoven, in the Netherlands,
in 1990, WHO experts established a tolerable daily intake of 10
picogrammes/kilogram body weight for TCDD, said to be the most toxic dioxin.
(One picogramme equals a millionth of a millionth of a gram).
Since then, new epidemiological data has emerged, notably concerning
dioxins' effects on neurological development and the endocrine system, and
WHO thus convened the consultation which has just taken place in Geneva to
re-evaluate the tolerable daily dose of dioxins to which a human can be
exposed. After ample debate, the specialists agreed on a new tolerable daily
intake range 1 to 4 picogrammes/kilogram body weight. The experts, however,
recognized that subtle effects may already occur in the general population
in developed countries at current background levels of 2 to 6
picogrammes/kilogram body weight. They therefore recommended that every
effort should be made to reduce exposure to the lowest possible level.
**end quote**
Now, compare those limits with the toxicity limits of Zinc Chloride on the
MSDS at http://www.chem.utah.edu/MSDS/Z/ZINC_CHLORIDE .
Huge difference, huh?
<SNIP>
>
>If you are going to use the internet for your information, try to use
>first-hand, second-hand or even third-hand sources in toxicology and
>poisons instead of news-bytes from media resources almost 10 years old
>that are not known for science reporting. CNN ain't the New York Times.
Is the WHO report an adequate reference? Is a seven month old report
current enough for you?
Dan
<More Snippage>
Kevin Chu
> Now, compare those limits with the toxicity limits of Zinc Chloride
> on the MSDS at http://www.chem.utah.edu/MSDS/Z/ZINC_CHLORIDE .
Anyone who uses an unnecessary chemical product gets what they
deserve. But, what about BIRDS?! I would guess that the effects of x
ppm per unit mass for a human are not the same as the effects per unit
mass for a bird, simply because humans aren't birds.
Kevin Chu
> The quote you posted about misuse of the product is accurate too. Those
> budgies could not have died unless they came in DIRECT contact with Febreze
> either via the mist or sprayed on their food and/or water given the actual
> amount of Zinc Chloride in the bottle. The hysterical types here feel that
> a Bhopal type toxic cloud of Zinc Chloride is released with each squirt of
> the bottle.
I don't think that a bird coming into contact with the contents of
Febreze (which include zinc chloride) that has been sprayed on a
particular surface (such as a cushion) necessarily indicates product
misuse. We don't know anything about the quantities of the relevant
substances required to have a negative impact on our birds' health.
If we know not to drink Febreze, then why do we, over time, possibly
spray the entire contents onto a cushion and then come into contact
with the cushion (or let our birds come into contact with it)?
Dan Spencer
Mamabird wrote in message ...
>I'm still of the opinion that "somehow" those birds came into direct
>contact with the Febreze. My theory is that the spray "drifted" and
>contaminated their food/water.
>Of course, that's pure speculation and we could speculate forever, but
>where is it getting us? I doubt we'll ever know all the facts or the
>necropsy results (if there was a necropsy done) so why don't we let this
>thread die until such time as we get some hard facts to discuss? Yes?
I would have to agree with that. There was an opportunity to have a
necropsy performed which probably has not been done. If a necropsy was not
performed, why the hell not?!!! The details of the use of the product and
the proximity of the sofa to the cage was not disclosed either. Given the
facts known about Febreze, the onus is on the injured party to demonstrate
that the product was not misused. The plaintiff has failed to prove their
case.
The sad part about this story is the real guilty party (or product) is free
because of the rush to judgement by the injured party and the rest of the
lynch mob. An opportunity lost.
Dan
assets.wharton.upenn.edu
: @assets.wharton.upenn.edu <@assets.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote in message
: <7734ta$o83$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
: >Dan, you are literally being a hypocrite here, why? You are doing exactly
: >what you shout that others are doing. You are spreading "hysterical"
: >nonsense based on ancient rumors you read in the media or the internet.
: >So you are also part of the "lunatic fringe" you rant about. Naughty you.
: Hardly. You are comparing apples to oranges. More about that later.
Did you not cast ridicule upon those trying to discuss zinc chloride?
It's not dangerous you said. But then you went on to try and correct me
making the same mistake, not once, not twice, but three times in a row.
You are saying something is terribly dangerous when it is your lack of
info, and as in your post, your reading mistakes in your zeal.
The same mistake you made in correcting me, is the same mistake you are
making here. Slow down and try for understanding instead of cliches.
(Apples can be compared to oranges. They are both round and fruits from
trees :)
: >One URL you provided was from CNN in Missouri in 1990. Yeah, right.
: >
: >Look at your calendar, it's 1999.
: Silly me. OK. Let me bring you from 1990 to present day in one fail swoop.
: Will June 3, 1998 be adequate? Ever hear of the World Health Organization?
: This is an excerpt from their report at
: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-45.html .
: **start quote**
: During a previous meeting on dioxins, held at Bilthoven, in the Netherlands,
: in 1990, WHO experts established a tolerable daily intake of 10
: picogrammes/kilogram body weight for TCDD, said to be the most toxic dioxin.
: (One picogramme equals a millionth of a millionth of a gram).
Read your own quote carefully. The quote from WHO, which you have pulled
out to justify your previous mistakes, does not support you at all. It is
saying only that of the dioxins in general, the one (also) called dioxin
(TCDD) is the most toxic.
IT IS NOT SAYING THAT dioxin is the most toxic substance around.
Your first mistake was saying that it is the most dangerous substance.
Your second mistake was saying that it is one of the most dangerous
substances.
Your third mistake was saying that I meant dioxin when I clearly posted
tricholorethylene (TCE) and you apparently have a reading problem.
Your fourth mistake was trying to find any reference for support and
then misunderstanding the WHO report.
But the fact remains that you misunderstand dioxin in the same manner
that you accuse others of misunderstanding zinc chloride.
Dioxin is not a nice substance and like many toxins, it is considered
dangerous in the ppb range. TCE, which I referred to, not dioxin as you
erroneously misread, is dangerous in the 5 ppb range even as a vapor.
: Since then, new epidemiological data has emerged, notably concerning
: dioxins' effects on neurological development and the endocrine system, and
: WHO thus convened the consultation which has just taken place in Geneva to
: re-evaluate the tolerable daily dose of dioxins to which a human can be
: exposed. After ample debate, the specialists agreed on a new tolerable daily
: intake range 1 to 4 picogrammes/kilogram body weight. The experts, however,
: recognized that subtle effects may already occur in the general population
: in developed countries at current background levels of 2 to 6
: picogrammes/kilogram body weight. They therefore recommended that every
: effort should be made to reduce exposure to the lowest possible level.
: **end quote**
: Now, compare those limits with the toxicity limits of Zinc Chloride on the
: MSDS at http://www.chem.utah.edu/MSDS/Z/ZINC_CHLORIDE .
: Huge difference, huh?
Yup, one is talking about death, the other about a daily tolerable intake.
You do understand there is a difference between life and death? You must.
Read it again. The toxicity referred to in the MSDS is death, and
zinc chloride is quite toxic, around:
TOXICITY: LD50 (ORAL-RAT)(MG/KG) - 350
LD50 (IPR-MOUSE)(MG/KG) - 31
To compare toxicity as in a poisoning death by zinc chloride, with dioxin
for long-term diseases, is not smart. You need to compare both as
carcinogens and both as immediate death by poisoning. Zinc chloride is
not a carcinogen but it will kill you pronto.
What you need to find is the toxicity of dioxin for causing deaths in
rats. I'll leave that for your homework assignment.
But in any case, you still have made the same mistake of jumping to the
gun that dioxin is one of the most dangerous substances known. And you
did this by abusing what you find and misread in the media, as you did my
own post.
But you like to make fun of people as being hysterical, lunatic fringe,
and so on. It's not nice to make fun of others, especially when you do
the same thing you accuse others of doing.
: >If you are going to use the internet for your information, try to use
: >first-hand, second-hand or even third-hand sources in toxicology and
: >poisons instead of news-bytes from media resources almost 10 years old
: >that are not known for science reporting. CNN ain't the New York Times.
: Is the WHO report an adequate reference? Is a seven month old report
: current enough for you?
: Dan
WHO is fine. Your misunderstanding the WHO report is not so fine.
That's three of the same mistakes in a row.
The exact same type of mistakes you ridiculed others for.
3 strikes in a row. Time to sit on the bench for a while and cool off.
Dan Spencer
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:36:27 -0800; dspe...@accessone.com wrote:
>
>: @assets.wharton.upenn.edu <@assets.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote in message
>: <7734ta$o83$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
>: >Dan, you are literally being a hypocrite here, why? You are doing
exactly
>: >what you shout that others are doing. You are spreading "hysterical"
>: >nonsense based on ancient rumors you read in the media or the internet.
>: >So you are also part of the "lunatic fringe" you rant about. Naughty
you.
>
>: Hardly. You are comparing apples to oranges. More about that later.
>
>Did you not cast ridicule upon those trying to discuss zinc chloride?
>It's not dangerous you said.
When did I say that? If you could read, I posted the friggin' MSDS for it.
What I said and this is not an exact quote is the there is not enough zinc
chloride in Febreze to be dangerous is used as directed. Please quote me
where I said that zinc chloride is not dangerous. According to you, I also
said that there was no zinc chloride in Febreze. Couldn't prove that one
either, could you? It would appear that you might have a reading problem.
>But then you went on to try and correct me
>making the same mistake, not once, not twice, but three times in a row.
>You are saying something is terribly dangerous when it is your lack of
>info, and as in your post, your reading mistakes in your zeal.
What you were attempting to do in your first post is compare
trichloroethylene (TCE) with Zinc Chloride. The inference was since
trichloroethylene (TCE) toxicity was measured in parts per billions, the
level of zinc chloride in the air after the gross misuse under the test
conditions was particularly hazardous.
>
>The same mistake you made in correcting me, is the same mistake you are
>making here. Slow down and try for understanding instead of cliches.
>(Apples can be compared to oranges. They are both round and fruits from
>trees :)
>
>: >One URL you provided was from CNN in Missouri in 1990. Yeah, right.
>: >
>: >Look at your calendar, it's 1999.
>
>: Silly me. OK. Let me bring you from 1990 to present day in one fail
swoop.
>: Will June 3, 1998 be adequate? Ever hear of the World Health
Organization?
>: This is an excerpt from their report at
>: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-45.html .
>
>: **start quote**
>
>: During a previous meeting on dioxins, held at Bilthoven, in the
Netherlands,
>: in 1990, WHO experts established a tolerable daily intake of 10
>: picogrammes/kilogram body weight for TCDD, said to be the most toxic
dioxin.
>: (One picogramme equals a millionth of a millionth of a gram).
>
>Read your own quote carefully. The quote from WHO, which you have pulled
>out to justify your previous mistakes, does not support you at all. It is
>saying only that of the dioxins in general, the one (also) called dioxin
>(TCDD) is the most toxic.
Yes, I was not very precise in my original statement.
>
>IT IS NOT SAYING THAT dioxin is the most toxic substance around.
No, I was contrasting the tolerable exposure levels with that of the
toxicity levels of zinc chloride.
>
>Your first mistake was saying that it is the most dangerous substance.
>Your second mistake was saying that it is one of the most dangerous
>substances.
No, there was no second mistake. It is one of the most dangerous
substances. The best you can do is dig up a quote referring to a study from
the 1980's. I think that the figures in the WHO report back me up.
>Your third mistake was saying that I meant dioxin when I clearly posted
>tricholorethylene (TCE) and you apparently have a reading problem.
There you go again. I posted why I did not read your complete message. The
stuff about trichloroethylene (TCE) was irrelevant to the subject at hand.
That is not my reading problem, that is a problem with your writing style.
In other words, you bored the living sh*t out of the reader with irrelevant
crap. It's still irrelevant!
>Your fourth mistake was trying to find any reference for support and
>then misunderstanding the WHO report.
>
>But the fact remains that you misunderstand dioxin in the same manner
>that you accuse others of misunderstanding zinc chloride.
They are not in the same class of substances.
>
>Dioxin is not a nice substance and like many toxins, it is considered
>dangerous in the ppb range. TCE, which I referred to, not dioxin as you
>erroneously misread, is dangerous in the 5 ppb range even as a vapor.
So, what does that have to do with Zinc Chloride. As I have stated several
times, I did not misread your statement, I simply did not read it.
The point that I was trying to make in my statement was the stark contrast
in the figures. Yes, it is a little like apples to oranges. What it does
is establishes that Zinc Chloride and dioxin are not in the same class where
toxicity is concerned. I will have to turn down your homework assignment.
>
>But in any case, you still have made the same mistake of jumping to the
>gun that dioxin is one of the most dangerous substances known. And you
>did this by abusing what you find and misread in the media, as you did my
>own post.
I stand by my statement that it is one of the most dangerous substances
based upon the extremely low level of tolerable exposure.
>
>But you like to make fun of people as being hysterical, lunatic fringe,
>and so on. It's not nice to make fun of others, especially when you do
>the same thing you accuse others of doing.
Whatever.
>
>: >If you are going to use the internet for your information, try to use
>: >first-hand, second-hand or even third-hand sources in toxicology and
>: >poisons instead of news-bytes from media resources almost 10 years old
>: >that are not known for science reporting. CNN ain't the New York Times.
>
>: Is the WHO report an adequate reference? Is a seven month old report
>: current enough for you?
>
>: Dan
>
>WHO is fine. Your misunderstanding the WHO report is not so fine.
>That's three of the same mistakes in a row.
>The exact same type of mistakes you ridiculed others for.
>3 strikes in a row. Time to sit on the bench for a while and cool off.
I think that it is you that is having some reading difficulties here.
I am not going to debate this silly, off topic dioxin thing with you any
more. Why don't you come back when you can substantiate that the levels of
zinc chloride are toxic (even to birds) when used as directed? That was
what we were talking about. Right?
Dan
Doug Cook
and on , and still gets no where.
I don't give a rats ass about whats in what
product or its relative dangers of whatever
(comparing people to birds), and I'm sure
most reading this thread are fed-up with the whole deal. Its becoming a
total waste of time and space.
All that really needs to be said is be careful about using any kind of
product that is sprayed into the air,used on surfaces that your birds
come into contact with, and don't swim in the Love Canal (NY). I hate to
sound repeatative but its all
just a matter of common sense in usage of cleaning products or anything
else that emits vapors.
I'm sure the group appreciates all the efforts and research thats been
put into this discussion, but its really been "beat to
death". Lets say we just bury it.....
Doug
"I know what you're thinking, and I don't
think you're thinking at all..." Waylon
Doug Cook
Toucanldy
>put into this discussion, but its really been "beat to
>death". Lets say we just bury it.....
>
>Doug
>
Sort of Like the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky thing:)
Regards.
assets.wharton.upenn.edu
: I am not going to debate this silly, off topic dioxin thing with you any
: more. Why don't you come back when you can substantiate that the levels of
: zinc chloride are toxic (even to birds) when used as directed? That was
: what we were talking about. Right?
: Dan
Dan, this is a quote from one of your previous posts:
----start quote------
The "he" mentioned in that quote is the vet that treated the budgies.
Suffice to say that if P&G did not list Zinc Chloride, which is pretty
easy for a lab to test for, they will be paying a substantial penalty.
Until then, innocent until proven guilty.---------end quote
So, will P&G be paying a substantial penalty since they are now proven
guilty of not listing zinc chloride? And will you see to it that a
"substantial penalty" is really paid, as you state strongly in your above
post?
Regardless of the toxicity to birds, it's important that chemicals be
listed so that owners of birds can decide for themselves. You seem to be
good at dealing with corporations. P&G is a reasonable corporation and a
substantial fine will make sure in the future that the folks in charge of
listing chemicals do a more thorough job. P&G, like other responsible
corporations, need a little nudging to do the right thing and hopefully
will appreciate your making them be more careful in the future.
(The reason I mentioned TCE in the first place was not irrelevant. I was
responding to part of a quote from P&G you listed in an earlier posting,
which mentioned concentrations in the workplace.)
Dan Spencer
P&G readily admits is in Febreze, I will let you pursue it. If you feel
that P&G is out of compliance with the law, turn them in. They have stated
the reasons why it's not listed on the bottle and MSDS.
**END OF STORY**
Dan
@assets.wharton.upenn.edu <@assets.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote in message
<775bjj$u0m$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
Family
Bob W
Three weeks, one day, 9 hours, 20 minutes and 5 seconds. 1119 cigarettes not
smoked, saving $195.90. Life saved: 3 days, 21 hours, 15 minutes.
Doug Cook wrote in message
<10808-36...@newsd-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Is anyone interested in starting a chemistry newsgroup? This has gone on
and on , and still gets no where.
I don't give a rats ass about whats in what
product or its relative dangers of whatever
(comparing people to birds), and I'm sure
most reading this thread are fed-up with the whole deal. Its becoming a
total waste of time and space.
All that really needs to be said is be careful about using any kind of
product that is sprayed into the air,used on surfaces that your birds
come into contact with, and don't swim in the Love Canal (NY). I hate to
sound repeatative but its all
just a matter of common sense in usage of cleaning products or anything
else that emits vapors.
I'm sure the group appreciates all the efforts and research thats been
put into this discussion, but its really been "beat to
death". Lets say we just bury it.....
Doug
"I know what you're thinking, and I don't
Alex Clayton
supply. One thing you can add to your 1999 predictions though is that
this wiil keep poping up every so often like Teflon,feeding pellots and
a couple other topics. Every so often someone who feels the world does
not pay enough attention to them will pop up with "IF YOU HAVE BIRDS YOU
SHOULD NEVER USE FEBRESE, TEFLON ,DEODORANTand on and on and on then you
will get all the "Well I read somewhere about some guys in masks that
said they heard.............................
At which point a couple people will say "well your close but you don't
quite have the facts strait at which point they will imediatly start
calling Dan names even before he responds.
I wonder what it is about you Dan that makes you such a lightning rod
for the lunatic fringe? I have seen this a couple times where I told
someone they were full of shit but then it's Dan they start calling
names. Allmost made me loose some sleep a couple times. Almost but not
quite.{:-)
----------------------------------------------
Group: rec.pets.birds Date: Fri, Jan 8, 1999, 9:40am (PST+3) From:
pier6s...@webtv.net (Doug Cook) Re: Zinc Chloride content in
Febreze
and on , and still gets no where.
I don't give a rats ass about whats in what product or its relative
dangers of whatever (comparing people to birds), and I'm sure most
reading this thread are fed-up with the whole deal. Its becoming a total
waste of time and space.
"It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
still to be a live lion. And usually easier."
>Lazarus Long
fred wilson
Alex Clayton wrote:
> Dan names even before he responds.
> I wonder what it is about you Dan that makes you such a lightning rod
> for the lunatic fringe?
I met Dan this past weekend. He really is a very pleasant person and
appears to be reasonably in control of his mental functions, approaching
fairly normal even.
He was considerate, kind, well spoken and generous (he bought the drinks).
Has a charming and lovely SO, and obviously loves his birds.
--
TA
FAW
"Hope is a feathered thing
that perches in the soul" Emily Dickinson
Dan Spencer
I thought that you were a complete gentleman when you did not even raise an
eyebrow when I asked the waiter for a MSDS for the beer. <VBG>
Dan
fred wilson wrote in message <3696A663...@ix.netcom.com>...
Toucanldy
>I thought that you were a complete gentleman when you did not even raise an
>eyebrow when I asked the waiter for a MSDS for the beer. <VBG>
>
>Dan
ROTFLOL.
Regards.
Mamabird
>
>> Dan names even before he responds.
>> I wonder what it is about you Dan that makes you such a lightning rod
>> for the lunatic fringe?
fred wilson wrote in message <3696A663...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> I met Dan this past weekend. He really is a very pleasant person and
>appears to be reasonably in control of his mental functions,
approaching
>fairly normal even.
>He was considerate, kind, well spoken and generous (he bought the
drinks).
>Has a charming and lovely SO, and obviously loves his birds.
>--
>TA
>FAW
Yeah, but you shoulda heard what he said about *you*! <VVBG>
Alex Clayton
to but I could'nt get April out out of bed in time (hope I'm at work
before she see's this<BG>) and if I had known Dan was paying hell I
would have really tried hard to get up there.
I have always thought his responses made sense. He sometimes gets a
little overboad about the "rules" and such. What I have never quite
understood is why someone will post some really off the wall thing and
I will say "bull shit" Your full of it. Then Dan will say " will thats
not quite right and here's some URL's to look up" and the people go off
on Dan and start calling him names or accusing him of turning off their
account and a host of other thngs. Like I said it has been good for a
few laughs and dan seems to take it all in stride.
------------------------------------------------
Group: rec.pets.birds Date: Fri, Jan 8, 1999, 4:44pm From:
f...@ix.netcom.com (fred wilson) Dan the target, was: Re: Zinc Chloride
content in Febreze
appears to be reasonably in control of his mental functions, approaching
fairly normal even.
He was considerate, kind, well spoken and generous (he bought the
drinks). Has a charming and lovely SO, and obviously loves his birds.
--
TA
FAW
"It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
fred wilson
Dan Spencer wrote:
> Thanks, Fred. You and Candi are very pleasant people too.
>
> I thought that you were a complete gentleman when you did not even raise an
> eyebrow when I asked the waiter for a MSDS for the beer. <VBG>
>
> Dan
>
>
I figured since the waiters all were wearing masks I wouldn't be able to
identify them later and since the name of the restaraunt is a closely guarded
secret............. But was it really necessary to spray the guy with
Frebreze. And I did think insisting that they use all teflon pans was a touch
much.
gwen
>
> Alex Clayton wrote:
>
> > Dan names even before he responds.
> > I wonder what it is about you Dan that makes you such a lightning rod
> > for the lunatic fringe?
>
> appears to be reasonably in control of his mental functions, approaching
> fairly normal even.
> He was considerate, kind, well spoken and generous (he bought the drinks).
> Has a charming and lovely SO, and obviously loves his birds.
> TA
> FAW
>
> "Hope is a feathered thing
> that perches in the soul" Emily Dickinson
>
> http://www2.netcom.com/~faw/Geobass/plot.html
Hi Fred,
I am not certain whether or not you are still on your trip.
I hope all is well with your flock. I have written several
messages to you with no response, so I am not certain
if you are getting them or if you are too busy and
still hiking around the country side.
Have you added any more to your flock? Do you have
any plans for adding more.
Would you mind keeping your eyes and ears
open for an Amazon for me? I sure would love
to have one some day. If the right situation
would come along I wouldn't hesitate.
Anyway how do you and Candi manage
to clean all those cages? I would love to
know the trick. It takes me 45 minutes
a day just to clean three cages and this
not include bowl cleaning time.
Got to run. Give your flock a hug for me.
Take care,
Gwen
Kellie
trying to quit smoking I opened a pack of cigs that was full of WORMS! I was
disgusted and mailed the wormy cigs to Benson and Hedges with a - let's just
say - complaint. They sent me back a carton of the *(&(*^&*^* things! And the
new ones didnt' even have worms!)
Dan Spencer wrote:
> Firstly, the rpb lunatic fringe will be disappointed by what I am about to
> post. Secondly, I am surprised that the people making the most noise here
> about how dangerous Febreze is do not bother to obtain any factual
> information about its content. I had to get that off my chest.
>
> I contacted P&G last week to ask if Febreze contained Zinc Chloride and how
> much it contained. I was told that it did contain Zinc Chloride and that
> they would get back to me about the quantity. The person on the phone did
> not quite get my email address right over the phone (I gave her the secret
> one that only a few people know about here), so Mary went to this newsgroup
> and got my email address to make sure that I got the information. Now
> that's service!!! I am sure that our very own lunatic fringe gave her a
> good laugh. Here's the message:
>
> **start quote**
>
> Specific ingredient information is proprietary and isn't shared outside the
> Company. However, I can give you information that I hope will be helpful.
> When listing product ingredients there are two categories. Major
> ingredients are ingredients that appear in a product at a level of 1% or
> more. Minor ingredients are ingredients that appear in a product at less
> than 1%. ZnC12 is a minor ingredient in Febreze. This is the
> concentration in the bottle and would only be relevant if someone were to
> drink the Febreze liquid.
>
> What would be pertinent to birds, pets and even humans, would be the
> concentration in the air that is breathed. We've done experiments where
> Febreze was sprayed repeatedly for ten continuous minutes. We found peak
> concentrations of ZnC12 were less than 0.3 milligrams per cubic meter of
> air. For perspective, levels considered safe for the workplace are many
> times higher than the levels found in this testing.
>
> **end quote**
>
> Now let's do the math.
>
> 1 gram equals about 0.036 ounces.
>
> There are a 1,000 miligrams to the gram.
>
> A cubic meter is about 35.31 cubic feet.
>
> For those not familiar with the metric system, the *peak* concentration of
> Zinc Chloride after Febreze is sprayed *repeatedly for ten continuous
> minutes* is 0.0000108 ounces (that's about one hundred thousandth of an
> ounce) in 35.31 cubic feet of air.
>
> Would anyone like to comment now on how the budgies would succumb to Zinc
> Chloride poisoning if the Febreze was used a directed on a sofa?
>
> Dan
--
That Prematurely Eccentric Goddess,
Kellie
Kellie
that was specifically made for baby's delicate skin while not being the
least bit bothered by stuff they were supposed to be bothered by.
Alex Clayton wrote:
> Remeber what isaid about the woman who used Ivory snow to bath her baby?
> The one who said not to use it around birds was trying to be anti
> lawyer. She was afraid if she said it was ok to use around birds someone
> would spray the birds cage with it water food and all. Some guy even
> E-mailed me a couple times to tell me Ivory snow laundry detergent was
> safe to bath a baby in so the story I told about the woman doing this
> and the baby breaking out must be made up. So any of you all want to
> bath your kid in laundry detergent?
> I am sure the rep from P&G did not feel she could say the stuff was
> safe for fear of some moron doing something stupid and then wanting to
> sue.
> {And now For Kim}
> I do not use febreze do not advocate it's use and do not care if no one
> ever buys any.
> -----------------------------------------------
> Group: rec.pets.birds Date: Mon, Jan 4, 1999, 11:44pm (PST+3) From:
> pier6s...@webtv.net (Doug Cook) Re: Zinc Chloride content in
> Febreze
> As much as I hate to see this thread continue, I do have a bit of a
> problem
> with P&G's answers. Somewhere in this
> massive thread, didn't a P&G representative write to someone that
> Febreze should never be used around
> birds ?
> With such conflicting answers, I wonder which representative to believe.
> Maybe
> >snip
>
> "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better
> still to be a live lion. And usually easier."
> >Lazarus Long
--
suman...@gmail.com
All these are available in Solid, Powder and Liquid (Solution) form. The purity and impurity level can be adjusted according to the customer requirement.
For more information ->: http://www.galvanizingchemicals.com/products/zinc_chloride.html
