Synthetic Cleaning Products: inherently irrational ?

[Sensi Star]

I know someone who is VERY liberal with his use of cleaning products. Not the new "green" kind, the kind with toxic chemicals like Lysol, bleach, etc.
I've analyzed this in the typical INTP fashion and my thoughts are: it is inherently irrational to use cleaning products, when the goal of which is to eliminate the POTENTIAL of germs.

It's one thing when you are certain that raw meat has contaminated your table, and you sanitize that spot with Lysol, but what I'm talking about is the heavy use of this stuff during routine cleaning.

My reasoning is that when you spray liquid cleaner, much of it becomes airborne and you WILL inhale it under most circumstances. These synthetic chemicals WILL enter your body and will do some small degree of permanent brain damage. I often get headaches when I smell a strong whiff of cleaning spray, which is indicative of slight brain damage.

The alternative: if you don't spray these cleaners, you MIGHT be susceptible to germs IF the germs are present and IF you happen to absorb them into your body. And even if you do happen to absorb normal "household" germs, it is highly unlikely that you will become ill, and even if you do become ill in most cases the damage is not permanent.

So I consider the relative risks of each scenario to decide which is preferable. When you use cleaning sprays you are subjecting yourself to a GUARANTEED health hazard, but when you avoid cleaning sprays you are only subjecting yourself to a POTENTIAL health hazard (of lesser extent and lesser likelihood).

So with this logic isn't it more wise to avoid cleaning products unless absolutely necessary, because in doing so you would be trading a POSSIBLE risk (germs) for a GUARANTEED risk (toxic chemicals)?

 

[snafupants]

I basically frame the issue the same way - guaranteed versus potential damage. The potential damage normally doesn't seem that bad in comparison to unnecessarily harming myself, so I typically forgo interacting with harmful products. There's a lot of Ne-Si going on in these conjectures though.

Edit: Another factor is that I usually couldn't care less what my place looks like to outsiders. The whole germ concern seems overblown as well.

 

[Architect]

These synthetic chemicals WILL enter your body and will do some small degree of permanent brain damage. I often get headaches when I smell a strong whiff of cleaning spray, which is indicative of slight brain damage.

How do you know? Do you have a measurement? Often getting headaches when breathing chemicals doesn't mean anything. People get headaches from long meetings, hunger, or a loud party. Do they have brain damage?

If you don't like chemical cleaners than don't use them. Even better remove the source and don't cook with raw meat. Otherwise the argument is flawed because it doesn't have any real data. Trying to make one without is like boxing on a life raft.

 

[snafupants]

How do you know? Do you have a measurement? Often getting headaches when breathing chemicals doesn't mean anything. People get headaches from long meetings, hunger, or a loud party. Do they have brain damage?

If you don't like chemical cleaners than don't use them. Even better remove the source and don't cook with raw meat. Otherwise the argument is flawed because it doesn't have any real data. Trying to make one without is like boxing on a life raft.

@Architect

It's either true or untrue irrespective of cogent evidence.

Evidence typically illustrates rather than creates the reality.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I'll take a guaranteed risk of a very mild problem against a small risk of a very huge problem.

 

[Etheri]

So I heard that living in an overly-clean environment is bad for your immune system.

While in general, non-industrial cleaning products allowed in the EU aren't THAT scary (by which I mean, as long as you use them as they're supposed to be used..., ranging from not drinking it to not mixing acids, bases and salt based chemicals...), that doesn't take away the fact that abuse of these substances is probably not doing any good for your health. And I still don't know why you'd try to get rid of ALL the germs. I also heard there are germs in symbiosis with your body. I suggest drinking bleach to clean them out!

 

[Sensi Star]

How do you know? Do you have a measurement? Often getting headaches when breathing chemicals doesn't mean anything. People get headaches from long meetings, hunger, or a loud party. Do they have brain damage?

If you don't like chemical cleaners than don't use them. Even better remove the source and don't cook with raw meat. Otherwise the argument is flawed because it doesn't have any real data. Trying to make one without is like boxing on a life raft.

Hmm, this really caught me by surprise, given that it's on this forum. In my life I have come across only a handful of people who quickly come up with counter-arguments just for the sake of trying to win the argument (like a game). Based on initial impression and not knowing you, I'd have to say your counter-argument (if one can even call it that) is an example of such.

"Often getting headaches when breathing chemicals doesn't mean anything". Really?? Are you sure you've thought about this thoroughly?

Yes, people get headaches for other reasons, but I for one know the difference between a benign headache, and a toxicity headache. The toxicity headaches have more of a sickening, nauseous quality to them.

And to suggest there is "no real data" that Lysol and bleach chemicals are hazardous to our health. I'm not going to even respond to that one. Are you kind of trolling here for fun?

 

[snafupants]

Hmm, this really caught me by surprise, given that it's on this forum. In my life I have come across only a handful of people who quickly come up with counter-arguments just for the sake of trying to win the argument (like a game). Based on initial impression and not knowing you, I'd have to say your counter-argument (if one can even call it that) is an example of such.

"Often getting headaches when breathing chemicals doesn't mean anything". Really?? Are you sure you've thought about this thoroughly?

Yes, people get headaches for other reasons, but I for one know the difference between a benign headache, and a toxicity headache. The toxicity headaches have more of a sickening, nauseous quality to them.

And to suggest there is "no real data" that Lysol and bleach chemicals are hazardous to our health. I'm not going to even respond to that one. Are you kind of trolling here for fun?

Sometimes Architect is out to lunch with these assertions - the emphasis on scientism is undue at any rate. The limitations of research seem only partly understood by our mutual friend Architect.

 

[redbaron]

And to suggest there is "no real data" that Lysol and bleach chemicals are hazardous to our health.

Could you link to the data you're going off that shows the usage of bleach and Lysol for cleaning purposes causes permanent brain damage?

 

[Polaris]

"Bleach", or Sodium hypochlorite solution:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947380553

Good old Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach

NY Dept. of Health: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/emergency/chemical_terrorism/chlorine_tech.htm

Effects are mostly respiratory.

There is a small note: "There is some evidence to suggest that exposure to chlorine may also be associated with long-term neuropsychological changes."

Nothing seems to be pointing directly to permanent brain-damage though.

Spoiler

Yet.

 

[Architect]

@Architect

It's either true or untrue irrespective of cogent evidence.

@snafupants

Evidence typically illustrates rather than creates the reality.

Your point is entirely lost on me

There is some truth here which we don't know. OP assumed the truth (cleaners=bad). I'm pointing out that they don't know, and to create a deductive argument on such shaky ground is faulty. They need first to know whether cleaners are bad, and by how much.

In basic logic classes we learn this approach. You have a set of assumptions, then proceed to a logical deduction based on those assumptions. Fine for the classroom, but my experience is that one should be cautious of using that approach in real life. For anything of consequence, I've found you want to be quite assured of your assumptions before proceeding.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I get the feeling that the OP is full of ulterior motives, IE: an aversion to cleaning things.

I like Lysol. It "Kills 99.8% of bacteria.", which is a lot higher than my kill percentage when I play video games.

 

[nanook]

i have heard that germs have a hierarchy, different life forms of different complexity, the primitives being more harmful to us, the more complex feeding on the more primitive ones keeping their numbers in check, and the more complex ones are more vulnerable to toxic chemicals, they die first. so the chemicals give a survival advantage to the primitive aggressive ones.

so there is actually a mix of complex living healthy germ colonies (liquid) available, that will feed on the primitive ones. they are used in places like wine cellars.

my idea of (r)evolutionary activism

http://www.emsustains.co.uk/what_is_EM.htm

 

[redbaron]

i have heard that germs have a hierarchy, different life forms of different complexity, the primitives being more harmful to us, the more complex feeding on the more primitive ones keeping their numbers in check, and the more complex ones are more vulnerable to toxic chemicals, they die first. so the chemicals give a survival advantage to the primitive aggressive ones.[/URL]

I find this very interesting.

 

[Minuend]

How effective chemicals are on various bacteria (or other microroganisms) depends on the structure of the microroganism. "More" and "less" complex sounds very vague to me, and I never heard or read it explained that way when I took microbiology. Our own eukaryotic cells have their differences from the bacterial and viral ones, that's why we can kill germs without harming our own.

Well, in theory.

To illustrate: Bacteria with a thicker peptidoglycan layer is more resistant against alcohol, but most penicillins (secretions from microroganisms) ((fungi)) kills those more easily than those with a thinner layer. If I remember correctly, the ones with the thicker leyer (gram positive) are also the more normal variations on human skin.

Side note: I disagree with labelling one type of evolutionary pathway "primitive". Since they are still around, obviously it works.

Speaking of "effective microorganisms"; Antibiotics are also medications made from secretions microorganisms use to protect themselves.

There are about ten times as many bacteria on and in us than we have human cells. Very few, however, are pathogenic.

Using sterilization products every time you use the toilet is unnecessary and might even make pathogenic microorganisms immune.

Regular soap binds these little buggers and gets washed away with water. Which is usually good enough.

Other than that, I agree with Architect, (whether or not I believe the assertion in the OP). Hard evidence must be provided to make claims as to harmful something is to humans.

 

[Sensi Star]

It's funny to me how some of us think more hard evidence is needed to prove the toxic nature of traditional cleaning sprays.

Their specific purpose is to kill micro-organisms, which are also what people are made of. Even though the scientific evidence to support this is solid, it doesn't take much more than common knowledge to make this assertion with confidence.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Oh. So then the ultimate point of your argument is...

a) Killing micro-organisms is morally wrong, because it's a form of murder.

b) Killing micro-organisms is environmentally wrong, because it's 'unnatural'.

c) Use of 'traditional cleaning sprays' during ROUTINE cleaning is potentially dangerous, and should therefore be avoided. Thus...

d) killing micro-organisms is intellectually wrong, because 'only a very small percentage of them are actually harmful to humans' So it's more logical to...not clean(?) and expose yourself to a small risk than to clean and expose yourself to a greater risk, is that right?

But what if the sight and smell of a chemically-cleaned living space makes me content? My grandmother was what you might call a Lysol enthusiast. She had a can in every room, even used it as an air freshener after taking a dump. She lived to age 96, Lysoling all the way.

What do you think would have happened if I'd told her, "Sensi Star says that Lysol is dangerous (forget for a moment that we already know that since it says "Kills Germs" right on the can), so I'm confiscating your current supply and won't be bringing any more home from the supermarket when I do your weekly shopping for you on Sundays. You're elderly and we simply can't take any chances that you'll develop (unknown because as of yet unstated by OP) health problem from using that poison."

Do you think she would have thanked me? If I know my spry, clever grandmother, she probably would have replied "Fine, have it your way (and I'll just go ask Marge next door to buy me 7 cans next time she runs to the store!) Now run down to the corner and buy me 4 cans of Raid to make up for the imbalance."

The existence of such a plethora of chemical cleaning products is a strong indication that the vast majority of people prefer clean, sanitary environments to dirty, unsanitary ones. Even assuming for a moment that all your assertions are correct, I think you're still missing the larger human equation here...the potential health risks of a chemically-cleansed environment are minuscule in comparison to the happiness, contentment, and piece of mind (sound or mistaken...doesn't matter) that the majority of people derive from the use of said products.

In the end, your dry logic seems as cold and sterile as a stainless steel surface sprayed with Lysol.

 

[Architect]

It's funny to me how some of us think more hard evidence is needed to prove the toxic nature of traditional cleaning sprays.

Their specific purpose is to kill micro-organisms, which are also what people are made of. Even though the scientific evidence to support this is solid, it doesn't take much more than common knowledge to make this assertion with confidence.

You make general statements, again I'll say you have to get specific. Surely drinking cleaners is a bad idea. Getting a whiff while using them, does that cause brain damage? Questionable.

 

[Latte]

It's funny to me how some of us think more hard evidence is needed to prove the toxic nature of traditional cleaning sprays.

Their specific purpose is to kill micro-organisms, which are also what people are made of. Even though the scientific evidence to support this is solid, it doesn't take much more than common knowledge to make this assertion with confidence.

Yes. In my opinion, we should ban them. And also apples, cranberries, garlic and tomatoes. There are substances within them that kills micro-organisms, protecting them against rot. Since humans have many micro-organisms within them necessary for bodily functions, they are toxic to humans and should not be allowed to be sold to consumers who unwittingly poison themselves with the ingestion of these toxic products.

 

[Fukyo]

It's funny to me how some of us think more hard evidence is needed to prove the toxic nature of traditional cleaning sprays.

It's funny to me how you're playing the anecdotes card coupled with the common wisdom of "chemicals are bad mmmkay".

You're making a sweeping statement on the harmfulness of cleaning products that makes no distinction, where they obviously exist, based on the chemical constitution of products, how's the product dispersed, how's it handled, etc, what is the target of toxicity, what is the permitted exposure threshold, what is the level of toxicity, instead you go to assume it causes brain damage because it makes your head hurt.

Furthermore, what you really need to prove is your assessment of probability of the harmfulness of micro organisms compared to the harmfulness of a particular cleaning product.


The primary purpose of cleaning products isn't to kill microorganisms, it's to clean. To remove regular ol' dirt and the bad smell that can accompany it.

Their specific purpose is to kill micro-organisms, which are also what people are made of. Even though the scientific evidence to support this is solid, it doesn't take much more than common knowledge to make this assertion with confidence.

You're right, it takes little common knowledge to know basic human biology, but you don't have that common knowledge. We're not made of of micro organisms (while we coexist with microorganisms in and on us), we're made of cells, cells which differ from those of single cell organisms. I think you're grasping at straws to prove a point.

I get the feeling that the OP is full of ulterior motives, IE: an aversion to cleaning things.

It does seem so.


Cleaning products are not inherently irrational. It's irrational to overuse them when there's no real necessity. They have a purpose and they also have safety precautions, instructions for use, and are used in different contexts.

It's stupid to claim they're inherently irrational when it all depends on how and why they're used. The average home doesn't need hardcore sanitary disinfection, but there are places that do.



---


@Solitaire U. Your grandma didn't live in the time of Lysol douche did she?


[bIMG]http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110449.jpg[/bIMG]

 

[Sensi Star]

Cleaning products are not inherently irrational. It's irrational to overuse them when there's no real necessity. They have a purpose and they also have safety precautions, instructions for use, and are used in different contexts.

It's stupid to claim they're inherently irrational when it all depends on how and why they're used. The average home doesn't need hardcore sanitary disinfection, but there are places that do.

This is exactly what I have asserted to begin with (bold points). Fine, maybe not inherently irrational. I tend to focus on the larger message and often ignore the effect of single words, my mistake (also why I clash with Judging types often). If you read my original post carefully you would know what I intended despite that.

My point may be being over-interpreted. As in the OP, I'm simply saying that people who like to use these cleaning sprays on areas that show no evidence of being contaminated are trading a lesser risk for a greater risk, and therefore are acting irrationally.

it is inherently irrational to use cleaning products, when the goal of which is to eliminate the POTENTIAL of germs.

My argument does not apply to cleaning areas that are evidently dirty (visibly, smell, etc).