Not a shocker. The Wall Street Journal reports today that a new study has found toxic chemicals in household dust. (Ed note: WSJ subscription required.)
The good people at Clean Production Action tested "baseball-sized" clumps of dust taken from vacuum cleaners around the country. The upshot: they found trace amounts of nasty things like polybromenated diphenyl ethers, but were unable to prove that these were harmful to humans. (They don't sound too good for you though do they?)
Best line in the article: writer Jim Carlton notes that commercial cleaners contain alkylphenols, "a chemical class that has been linked to sexual deformities in trout." Ouch. How many times to we have to tell you to go green with your detergents?
- Caldrea: Natural Cleaners for the Home
- Melaleuca: Environmentally Sound Cleaning Products
- Naturally Yours: Natural Cleaners and Tough Too
(Thanks, O!) MGR
I will admit that I don't have a WSJ subscription, so I was unable to read the article, but...
"Trace amounts" of substances that even an environmental advocacy organization wasn't able to prove are harmful to humans?!?
And we're supposed to be concerned about this?
Because "polybromenated diphenyl" must be "nasty" because it *sounds* bad?
And to think all these years I've been drinking and bathing and cooking with hydrogen oxide....
Doug,
I didn't read this article, but other studies have shown that there are tons of toxins in dust, and there was recently an article in the NY Times that basically said how household cleaners, fire retardants, and furniture toxins were building up in our bodies and in women's breast milk. Basically, we don't yet know what effect this will have. Obviously, it doesn't concern you much, but it does concern me, especially since I am of child-bearing age. I personally see no harm in trying to avoid toxins whenever possible. In fact, I think it's smart. They once thought thalomide was perfectly harmless, too, so I don't much count on what the government says is safe. They kind of lag behind the times, imo.
Sorry, I meant thalidomide!
I agree with most everything you said, especially that there is "no harm in trying to avoid toxins whenever possible." I couldn't agree more. I don't doubt that there are real articles containing real data which can better make this case. I just didn't see anything in this lead that made the case. I'll be sure to look the NYT article up. Thanks for the suggestion.
Dihydrogen oxide, to be precise. Not to mention the mixture of di-esters of 3-substituted 4-hydroxycinnamic acid and quinic acid and non-acidic quinolactones I brewed out of my organic free-trade coffee beans this morning. We've just been trained to assume that anything with a chemical name is scary - even though just about anything can have one applied to it...
Colin, you showoff! (But then, I should have paid more attention in chemistry, but that's another story.)
Doug, you are right--that article really had no smoking gun. (I couldn't think of the term for a couple minutes, and kept thinking "No, blazing saddle isn't the term I'm looking for. Scary.)
The NY Times article was VERY scary, though, and in my old workplace, when I didn't make it out of the building before the cleaning people, my eyes would burn for hours from the chemicals they used. I just think that can't be a good thing, and it made me a little more paranoid about my own cleansers. I figure at worst, I waste money on organic cleansers, which is a better alternative to me than absorbing more chemicals into my body. JMO.
Cheers,
Fiona
Blazing saddle -- I love it!
I have to admit, I was given some arthome botanical glass cleaner last year, and I think a household surface cleaner as well, and they worked better than just about any other household cleaners I've ever used.
Available at www.fruits-passion.com