5 ms·

Women, 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 do

Women, 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 ago
What bias did they miss? The study did not find the effect taking place in men.
- purple-again 9y ago
  I 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 ago
The author literally addresses men as well as women in the article.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
This 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 ago
Yeah, 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.
hodl 9y ago
Actually it should say "European Women" rather than just "Women"
- guitarbill 9y ago
  If you're going to be pedantic, at least go all the way: "3,298 European Women"

tpm 9y ago

What bias did they miss? The study did not find the effect taking place in men.

purple-again 9y ago
I 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 ago

The author literally addresses men as well as women in the article.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

This 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 ago

Yeah, 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.

hodl 9y ago

Actually it should say "European Women" rather than just "Women"

guitarbill 9y ago
If you're going to be pedantic, at least go all the way: "3,298 European Women"