Shampoo ‘as bad a health risk as car fumes

[heisenberg]

To reduce your impact on air quality, you might expect to trade in your gas-guzzling clunker of a car — but you can also unplug those air fresheners.

In urban areas, emissions from consumer goods such as paint, cleaning supplies and personal care products now contribute as much to ozone and fine particulate matter in the atmosphere as do emissions from burning gasoline or diesel fuel.

The finding is largely a sign of success, study coauthor Brian McDonald said February 15 during a news conference at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Steps taken to clean up car exhaust over the past few decades have had a huge effect, and as a result, “the sources of air pollution are now becoming more diverse in cities,” said McDonald, a chemist at Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder, Colo.

• Shampoo
• Hairspray
• Deodorant
• Perfume
• Air fresheners
• Cleaning sprays
• Laundry detergent
• Disinfectant wipes
• Hand sanitizer
• Glue
• Paint

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...urprisingly-large-contributions-air-pollution

 

[Overmind One]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article...urprisingly-large-contributions-air-pollution

Seriously?

• Shampoo
• Hairspray
• Deodorant
• Perfume
• Air fresheners
• Cleaning sprays
• Laundry detergent
• Disinfectant wipes
• Hand sanitizer
• Glue
• Paint

I will stop using those things when the REAL polluters stop running fleets of semi-trailers, diesel powered ships and trains and airliners. Or when people like this guy stop polluting my air with nonsense. If anyone stopped using deodorant or laundry detergent, the stench from them might just be worse than depleting a little ozone.

More important than the condensed commentary from Sciencemag is the actual report Brian McDonald submitted. Take some time to read it (attached to this post in it's original journal published form) or read online here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/359/6377/760.full.pdf

What I see in the report is the nonsense of yet another manmade climate change activist. This direction of social conditioning is very disturbing to me. I am wondering when they might try to ban tap water and FORCE us all to buy and drink only bottled water, or start arresting people at laundromats who are using "illegal detergents". That seems to be where these shrill non-scientists want to take us.

 

[heisenberg]

Seriously?

• Shampoo
• Hairspray
• Deodorant
• Perfume
• Air fresheners
• Cleaning sprays
• Laundry detergent
• Disinfectant wipes
• Hand sanitizer
• Glue
• Paint

I will stop using those things when the REAL polluters stop running fleets of semi-trailers, diesel powered ships and trains and airliners. Or when people like this guy stop polluting my air with nonsense. If anyone stopped using deodorant or laundry detergent, the stench from them might just be worse than depleting a little ozone.

More important than the condensed commentary from Sciencemag is the actual report Brian McDonald submitted. Take some time to read it (attached to this post in it's original journal published form) or read online here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/359/6377/760.full.pdf

What I see in the report is the nonsense of yet another manmade climate change activist. This direction of social conditioning is very disturbing to me. I am wondering when they might try to ban tap water and FORCE us all to buy and drink only bottled water, or start arresting people at laundromats who are using "illegal detergents". That seems to be where these shrill non-scientists want to take us.

Welcome to life where we have been socially conditioning since the dawn of time. .Humans were introduced to fuck with nature and fuck with each other.

 

[Overmind One]

Welcome to life where we have been socially conditioning since the dawn of time. .Humans were introduced to fuck with nature and fuck with each other.

100% in agreement!

Ya know, there are actually weirdos out there like me who will really sit down and read those scientific journals. I find them refreshing and informative, if not entertaining. You can see the same corporate influences in some of them, others are paid for by concerns who are detrimental, and are spun to put them in a better light, yet others are too vague and make inferences based upon conjecture and little science. Then, there is the layer of STEM journalism that corresponds to critics in the mainstream. They are other scientists who critique these journals, offering their opinions and comments (but no data). It's a lot to sift through, but if you are a lover of science, it is essential.