9 ms·
Women who clean at home or work face increased lung function decline
- 2muchcoffeeman 9y agoCan this be solved by just wearing a face mask? Why don’t we wear face masks when cleaning? Edit: face mask not meat mask!
- arkades 9y agoIn theory, an N95 mask should work. At its weak spot - .1 microns or so - it’s still 95% effective. It’s been shown to be 95% vs NaCl, which is smaller than bleach (NaOCl). But in personal experience, whenever I finish up with a patient in contact isolation, I use bleach wipes on my steth. Not only does the odor strongly penetrate the mask, but by mitigating the dilution effect of free air flow, I honestly feel like it concentrates more of the crap inside the mask. For whatever anecdote is worth.
- Broken_Hippo 9y agoWouldn't it be easier to simply not use harsh chemicals most places?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gaius 9y agoMiners with “black lung” didn’t need a study or scientists to tell them about it.
- rexpop 9y agoSociety disproportionately ignores "women's issues."
- gaius 9y agoSociety disproportionately ignores "women's issues." Society ignored those miners too, and left them to die, and here you are in 2018 trying to erase that and make it about gender when it’s really about The Workers.
- VectorLock 9y agoAnd here you are in 2018 taking something about gender and making it about miners.
- fimdomeio 9y agoSociety disproportionately ignores the problems of everyone in a less privileged position
- Guthur 9y agoBut its not sbout gender, unless women are more susceptible than men. There're men cleaning at home and work as well.
- gaius 9y ago"Breathing particulates bad for humans, scientists announce"
- rexpop 9y agoIt's true. The comment to which I responded is a choice piece of whataboutism, "a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy."
- rexpop 9y agoYou're somewhat right. I can see how my comment can be construed as dismissive of workers' struggles.
- true_religion 9y agoAnd yet scientists still did a totally "unnecessary" study about them [1], because today miners are dying at younger ages than they did in the past and that's a troubling conclusion that you wouldn't immediately guess from annectoda. Science is important, even for the 'its obvious, everyone knows it is dangerous' kinda stuff. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6549a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6549a1.htm
- madez 9y ago> Science is important, even for the 'its obvious, everyone knows it is dangerous' kinda stuff. Indeed. Intuition, or in other words the "well, that's obvious" feeling, might be a good lazy approximation of the truth, but it is often wrong when examined closely.
- socceroos 9y ago> ... but it is often wrong when examined closely. Having witnessed the whiplash in scientific understanding I'd almost say that "it's more complicated than that" is a more accurate summation. Since often the approximation isn't totally wrong but it's more a simplification of the issue.
- arkades 9y agoThe guys with asbestosis, silicosis, and berylliosis did. There actually aren’t enough people dying of coal miner’s lung to allow good studies of it. Which is too bad (Er... you know what I mean), because our treatments for it are subsequently based on arm-chair hypotheses rather than solid science.
- mikro2nd 9y agoWomen, but not men? So nobody should clean? Is it just me experiencing this gender bias cognitive dissonance? For me this renders the whole study suspect and dodgy: if they missed this Elephant In The Room bias, what other, more subtle, issues might they have missed/ignored/swept under the rug?
- tpm 9y agoWhat bias did they miss? The study did not find the effect taking place in men.
- purple-again 9y agoI did not see that in the article. They state not enough men could be found and even if they could they would have a different exposure to chemicals than women.
- purple-again 9y agoThe author literally addresses men as well as women in the article.
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoThis is addressed in the short article. They have very few women who don't clean in their sample and possibly that group is therefore very of unusually high socioeconomic status. Also they have very few men who clean as a profession, and they may differ in their approach. They're reporting what they find along with the caveats of their data sources.
- guitarbill 9y agoYeah, I initially read it like that also. But from the study (which is appallingly formatted and has spelling mistakes): > [106] Fifty-three percent of the participants were women > [154] No association between lung function and cleaning was seen for males. > [264] Finally, the greater impact seen in women (both cleaning at home and occupational cleaners) could be mediated by a different susceptibility according to sex, as is reported for other mixed chemical exposures such as tobacco smoke and other occupational exposures as wood dust, where studies have indicated that less exposure in women is need to develop illness. So the study is decently written up. However the article itself is leaving a bit more room for interpretation than necessary by saying that > The study also did not find that men who cleaned, either at home or at work, experienced greater decline in FEV1 or FVC than men who did not. The phrasing "did not experience greater decline in FEV1 or FVC" - i.e. "no difference" - is terrible. Also: > The number of men who worked as occupational cleaners was also small, and their exposure to cleaning agents was likely different from that of women working as cleaning professionals. "Different" is really vague. For completeness, in the study > [119] There were 293 (8.9%) women and 57 (1.9%) men that reported working with occupational cleaning. > [256] There was no apparent accelerated decline in lung function in men, but it seems likely that the exposures in men who work as cleaners may be different from those in women But also > [259] Our entrance questions might possibly not have picked up i.e. [sic] male industrial cleaners. Finally, the quote from Mr Svanes in the article doesn't quite follow: > "The take home message of this study is that in the long run cleaning chemicals very likely cause rather substantial damage to your lungs," Øistein Svanes said. "These chemicals are usually unnecessary; microfiber cloths and water are more than enough for most purposes." > He added that public health officials should strictly regulate cleaning products and encourage producers to develop cleaning agents that cannot be inhaled. So regardless of the science, we can see what his opinion on the matter is. I think it's a bit simplistic/sound-bite orientated. --- One study that would really interest me is if cleaner type preference varies by gender. E.g. if women prefer using spray cleaners, and men prefer using liquid cleaners. Or if men cleaning at home simply use less, erm, sophisticated cleaners. Personally, I find dish soap adequate for most cleaning in the kitchen, which various partners have always scoffed at.
- adynatos 9y agocan we finally offer scientific explanation for why we rarely clean our apartments??
- hh3k0 9y agoNo wonder I always felt so miserable when I had to clean!
- marchenko 9y agoI wonder if there is a similar effect observed in people who cook regularly - especially at high temps or in poorly ventilated spaces. Cleaning the exterior and filters of the exhaust cabinet makes me wonder about the interiors, of, for instance, apartment dwellers doing wok frying.
- def- 9y ago"Chinese food cooking and lung cancer in women nonsmokers." https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/151/2/140/272296/151-2-140.pdf https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/151/2/140/272296/15... > This study presents evidence that cooking habits are associated with lung cancer in Taiwanese women nonsmokers. As shown in this and our earlier study (1), women who do not use fume extractors during cooking are at high risk of developing lung cancer. Furthermore, women who wait until the oil has reached a high temperature before cooking the food (stir frying, frying, and deep frying) and do not use a fume extractor have a consistently higher risk of lung cancer when compared with both hospital and community controls. and further: > In Taiwan, the market for vegetable oil increased from less than 50 percent to 85 percent between 1950 and 1990. However, vegetable oil containing unsaturated fatty acids was found to be more unstable than lard oil at higher temperatures and could emit benzoapyrene, which was not found in lard oil fumes (26).
- ZeroGravitas 9y agoI heard someone on the radio, possibly one of the authors, discuss this and they seemed to be emphasising aerosol sprays that produced very small droplets rather than cleaning chemicals generally.
- tzahola 9y agoThe solution is simple: men should do the cleaning.
- jsiepkes 9y agoNowadays everything kills you...sitting at your desk at work, cleaning at home....
- bmon 9y agoPeople said the same thing about sun exposure and smoking half a century ago.
- chrisper 9y agoSo? His point still stands. If you want to maximize your life expectation, you have to restrict yourself quite a lot. And I think the goal of studies like this should not be to say "don't use it, it kills you" but rather to make us find a better alternative.
- qplex 9y agoIn terms of absolute physical harm, yes. If you live with other people you probably need to convince them to do things differently too. In my experience this can be very stressful and I wonder if the induced stress of even worse for ones health.
- Broken_Hippo 9y agoSo? With studies like this, we can have less of this sort of death or at least minimize it and do things better, just like we have in the past.
- karyon 9y agoalso, see a longer discussion at "Deodorants, perfumes, soaps pollute air at levels as high as cars": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16395372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16395372 i wouldn't be surprised if the same held true for cleaning agents.
- ddalex 9y agoI recently bought a robotic vacuum cleaner; I'd vacuum normally about once a week, and it seemed that I'd need to vacuum more often, because the dust gathers everywhere; having not the time or the inclination to bring out the heavy hoover, I decided to buy a robot one. It is the best investition in the last 12 months, by far. It goes around automatically each day and keeps the floor clean. But that's not impresses me. What I'm impressed about the the level of dust that it accumulates each day. I'd expect each day to be a bit less, but no, it's about the same. So I set out to figure out where the dust comes from, as I live in a clean area of the city, surrounded by trees and greenery. To my shock, it's us. The dust is primarily decomposed skin and clothes chafing off due to the skin friction. I can't imagine how damaging this is to our lungs, of course, nothing compared to chemicals or coal dust, but still... I can't recommend enough to everybody to buy a robotic vacuum cleaner these days. I bought a cheap Eufy, and I can't imagine what a more expensive one would actually do more than this one.
- endgame 9y agoAfter reading about the house mapping of some robotic vacuum cleaners I'm hesitant to let one into my home.
- chaosite 9y ago... Why? What's so confidential about your floor plan?
- taneq 9y agoAh, the good ol' "if you have nothing to hide" stance.
- Washuu 9y agoMore that iRobot disclosed plans to sell the floor plans to the homes of their product users without telling them. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2017/07/25/roomba-plans-sell-maps-users-homes/508578001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2017/07/25/ro... I do not count a clause buried in a terms of service as informed consent.
- kev009 9y agoNot sure why this struck a nerve with me but this is really shitty reporting. I guess because the site labeled itself as science news but the article is all confirmation bias and correlation v causation. On entry to the article of course it seems like common sense that breathing in what could boil down to chlorine gas (bleaches) and peroxide mist etc would be bad for you. But the entire article is then trying to fit a poorly designed and sampled study to that common sense. By the time you get to the end of the article where there was no measured effect in men, I don't think the collected data supports any of the color commentary. It would be interesting to see a properly sampled study in a country like the US with wider socioeconomic gradient and crosscutting clean v non-cleaners.
- jostmey 9y agoBad reporting? It does a pretty good job explaining what was analyzed in the study. It talks about negative results (i.e. no effect in men, no COPD), and at the end of the article it discusses the limitations. It is a Eureka report--It's a press release that I think is usually written by the researchers themselves or the University. Is the science valid? Maybe, maybe not. But I do not perceive this as bad reporting
- Havoc 9y agoSo what's the solution? Wear a Asia style face/dust mask while cleaning?
- jostmey 9y agoThat won't stop submicron sized particles
- tomohawk 9y agoIf this worries you, here's a cleaning tip for cleaning your tub with much better results and much less effort. In a spray bottle, mix 1/2 vinegar and 1/2 unscented dish detergent. Spray your shower/tub down with the mixture, including shower curtain. Walk away. In 30 minutes rinse off. You'll never use one of those industrial scented cleaners to do this again.
- matt4077 9y agoWho says detergent and vinegar are safe to breath?
- tomohawk 9y agoIt's a personal choice. The industrial cleaners make my eyes water and my nose run and can make it difficult to breathe. This doesn't, it works much better, and is much cheaper.
- Broken_Hippo 9y agoOr, you know, simply use soap and water in a small bucket, which is much less likely to be inhaled and will smell much better. Sometimes just water will work. You can also steam clean with plain water. These will clean most things, including windows if you use a squeegee. Simply wiping with water will make things appear clean, and magic erasers (soap free) can be used for stubborn stains. Tubs and showers aren't generally a problem if you rinse and squeegee after you are done. Curtains are a pain, but doors are similar. Plain dishsoap takes off soap scum.
- tomohawk 9y agoAbsolutely. Squeegee after use also helps a lot. If you get mildew, using a squeegee will usually prevent that. To get rid of it, though, use fresh hydrogen peroxide instead of bleach. The vinegar/dish detergent mixture really gets the soap scum, though.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y agoMelamine foam (magic eraser) works really well on soap scum in the shower.
- baud147258 9y ago> The number of men who worked as occupational cleaners was also small, and their exposure to cleaning agents was likely different from that of women working as cleaning professionals. I don't understand this. How being a male working as cleaning professional will get a different exposure to cleaning agents? It's the same job, with the same chemicals. A family member working in the construction business told me that it was also the case for construction worker, they were dying much younger than the average, because of exposure to airborn particles from paint, concrete, asbestos, dust, wood and other various chemicals.