Love the fresh smell of clean laundry? Be careful - you may just be snorting up carcinogens:
Analysis of the captured gases found more than 25 volatile organic compounds, including seven hazardous air pollutants, coming out of the vents. Of those, two chemicals -- acetaldehyde and benzene -- are classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as carcinogens, for which the agency has established no safe exposure level.
"These products can affect not only personal health, but also public and environmental health. The chemicals can go into the air, down the drain and into water bodies," Steinemann said.
The researchers estimate that in the Seattle area, where the study was conducted, acetaldehyde emissions from this brand of laundry detergent would be equivalent to 3 percent of the total acetaldehyde emissions coming from automobiles. Emissions from the top five brands, they estimate, would constitute about 6 percent of automobiles' acetaldehyde emissions.
The two carcinogens found are acetaldehyde and benzene. Acetaldehyde* and Benzene are Group 1 Carcinogens (that means they're *known* to be carcinogenic - not suspected) as classified by the IARC.
*Acetaldehyde created endogenously through alcoholic consumption, so you can argue that exogenous acetaldehyde isn't carcinogenic. But you can't make the same argument on benzene.
Further, my comment draws attention to the sensationalist, over-hyped, scare stories that crop up every few months in the 'lastest thing that will kill everyone in our homes that we never knew about, film at 11' media.
Lastly, thanks for responding to me instead of Deary who specifically mentions the grinding of axes being the reason for this research in the first place.
Alex: Equating these dryer sheets with a fully exposed core of a nuclear reactor? Really? Very nice why of disputing my comment about this being FUD.
How about addressing Lorijellybean's criticism? I understand you are merely a linker who writes a few words of description about other people's work, but surely you must see the validity to her comment. (I'll beat you to the punch and admit that a forum commenter is even lower on the scale than a linker, we have nothing better to do and we have axe's to grind, as Dysko Stu says above.)
I mean, cancer schmancer - you can't see all that radiation, so it can't possibly be bad, right? ;)
The article refers to the original research. Dig in, Wolfy, and find the error in the researchers' methods and enlighten us.
Or are you attempting to prove that the opposite of FUD is ACC (pronounced AXE, as in a thing one grinds) aka Anger, Certainty, and Confusion? If so, pardon me, and carry on...
Lorijellybean and Deary: +1
Twist: What the *bleep* does something being a carcinogen have to do with you being allergic to it? Is your allergy a new form of carcinogen detector?
Alex@Neatorama: Thanks for helping spread the FUD. It warms the bottom of my heart to know that you are here to help disseminate fear into your fellow citizens. Next, I suspect, you'll be warning us all of the deadly dihydromonoxide vapor that is permeating our homes.