Welcome Notice

Register Log in

OT: alcohol based perfume removal?...

R

Rick C

Guest
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 8:40:33 AM UTC-4, Johann Klammer wrote:
On 11/17/2021 06:34 AM, Rick C wrote:

Not sure where you heard that detergents have fragrances that are not water soluble. I suppose it is theoretically possible, but it would not disperse evenly in the wash and would not be applied evenly to the articles in the wash.

Do you know the names of any of these fragrances?

I buy laundry detergents without perfume or color. I think the brand is All. I find the scent from soaps and fabric softener to be cloying and clogs my sense of smell. I\'m happy with no scent. I find antiperspirants to be similar, but I can\'t find them without any scent, however some are rather mild.

It is hard to imagine any scent (other than Eau de Pew) that won\'t depart sheets and clothing hanging on the line for a day.

What makes you think these substances are actually \"toxic\"?

The search term is fabric softener. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabric_softener#Risks
They\'re problematic.
They may be problematic, but the reference you provide doesn\'t say they are \"toxic\". \"Toxic - Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means\". I don\'t see any mention of death or serious injury, at least unless you are handling the stuff. What we are talking about here is equivalent to second hand smoke. It\'s hard to apply the term \"toxic\".

But maybe I\'m just not that sensitive.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/19/21 16:29, Cydrome Leader wrote:
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/18/21 14:32, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I am after getting other people chemicals out of
my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and
it does not work.

which product for hunters did you try?

Don\'t remember. They all gave a member of my family
asthma and skin rashes

Sounds like a family of wackos. No advice will help these folks.
You could not help so your reverted to insults.
You are a real gentleman
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/19/21 16:29, Cydrome Leader wrote:
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/18/21 14:32, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I am after getting other people chemicals out of
my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and
it does not work.

which product for hunters did you try?

Don\'t remember. They all gave a member of my family
asthma and skin rashes

Sounds like a family of wackos. No advice will help these folks.
You could not help so your reverted to insults.
You are a real gentleman
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/19/21 16:29, Cydrome Leader wrote:
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/18/21 14:32, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I am after getting other people chemicals out of
my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and
it does not work.

which product for hunters did you try?

Don\'t remember. They all gave a member of my family
asthma and skin rashes

Sounds like a family of wackos. No advice will help these folks.
You could not help so your reverted to insults.
You are a real gentleman
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/19/21 16:29, Cydrome Leader wrote:
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/18/21 14:32, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I am after getting other people chemicals out of
my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and
it does not work.

which product for hunters did you try?

Don\'t remember. They all gave a member of my family
asthma and skin rashes

Sounds like a family of wackos. No advice will help these folks.
You could not help so your reverted to insults.
You are a real gentleman
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting about
chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub groups).
Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting about
chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub groups).
Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting about
chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub groups).
Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting about
chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub groups).
Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 18/11/2021 15:06, bitrex wrote:
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting
about chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub
groups).


Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?
I don\'t know exactly why. But astronomy attracts nutters with NEW THEORY
OF THE UNIVERSE (all in caps) and physics EINSTEIN WAS WRONG (likewise).

There is the odd nutter posts irregularly to sci.chem (omnilobe) with
his crank theory of the periodic table. Archimedes Plutonium used to be
the most prolific back in the day when it was more popular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_personality#Eccentric_believers

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.
Not really. You can have a decent home chemical laboratory for not that
much outlay - although these days owning such kit might well be frowned
on by the authorities. In my youth I was quite good at pyrotechnics
formulations and glow in the dark writing (cyalume glostick patent).

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
Einstein and now Hawking have popularised science in a way that has made
people think that any word salad they put together is just as valid. :(
A wise publisher once told him that you will lose half your potential
audience with each equation that you put into a popular science book.

Brian Cox (and Jim Al Kalihli for chemistry) have too in a Carl Sagan
sort of way, but at least they have got people talking about real hard
sciences (and made science cool again). Odd that both are particle
physicists but they have a serious media presence and their popular
science programmes are generally made to a high standard. More like
Horizon used to be before it was terminally dumbed down.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 18/11/2021 15:06, bitrex wrote:
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting
about chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub
groups).


Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?
I don\'t know exactly why. But astronomy attracts nutters with NEW THEORY
OF THE UNIVERSE (all in caps) and physics EINSTEIN WAS WRONG (likewise).

There is the odd nutter posts irregularly to sci.chem (omnilobe) with
his crank theory of the periodic table. Archimedes Plutonium used to be
the most prolific back in the day when it was more popular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_personality#Eccentric_believers

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.
Not really. You can have a decent home chemical laboratory for not that
much outlay - although these days owning such kit might well be frowned
on by the authorities. In my youth I was quite good at pyrotechnics
formulations and glow in the dark writing (cyalume glostick patent).

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
Einstein and now Hawking have popularised science in a way that has made
people think that any word salad they put together is just as valid. :(
A wise publisher once told him that you will lose half your potential
audience with each equation that you put into a popular science book.

Brian Cox (and Jim Al Kalihli for chemistry) have too in a Carl Sagan
sort of way, but at least they have got people talking about real hard
sciences (and made science cool again). Odd that both are particle
physicists but they have a serious media presence and their popular
science programmes are generally made to a high standard. More like
Horizon used to be before it was terminally dumbed down.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 18/11/2021 15:06, bitrex wrote:
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting
about chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub
groups).


Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?
I don\'t know exactly why. But astronomy attracts nutters with NEW THEORY
OF THE UNIVERSE (all in caps) and physics EINSTEIN WAS WRONG (likewise).

There is the odd nutter posts irregularly to sci.chem (omnilobe) with
his crank theory of the periodic table. Archimedes Plutonium used to be
the most prolific back in the day when it was more popular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_personality#Eccentric_believers

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.
Not really. You can have a decent home chemical laboratory for not that
much outlay - although these days owning such kit might well be frowned
on by the authorities. In my youth I was quite good at pyrotechnics
formulations and glow in the dark writing (cyalume glostick patent).

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
Einstein and now Hawking have popularised science in a way that has made
people think that any word salad they put together is just as valid. :(
A wise publisher once told him that you will lose half your potential
audience with each equation that you put into a popular science book.

Brian Cox (and Jim Al Kalihli for chemistry) have too in a Carl Sagan
sort of way, but at least they have got people talking about real hard
sciences (and made science cool again). Odd that both are particle
physicists but they have a serious media presence and their popular
science programmes are generally made to a high standard. More like
Horizon used to be before it was terminally dumbed down.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 18/11/2021 15:06, bitrex wrote:
On 11/18/2021 8:07 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/11/2021 03:32, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 09:12, Martin Brown wrote:
You might get better answers in sci.chem than here

I just posted over there.

I originally searched for it in subscriptions, but I
typed out \"chemistry\" and could not find it.  Thank
you!

sci.chem is one of the very old foundation groups hence the short name.
chemistry was one letter too long for its own good back in the day.

Try Google groups \"Uncle Al\" and your topic and you might just get
something. He was in his day very very smart and knowledgeable. It\'s
rather quiet there now. You don\'t get many random nutters posting
about chemistry (they are all posting in the sci.astro .physics sub
groups).


Interesting question, why does chemistry not attract as many as physics
and EE for that matter? Like claiming they\'ve created the ultimate grape
flavor or a cream that cures pattern baldness in 100% of cases?
I don\'t know exactly why. But astronomy attracts nutters with NEW THEORY
OF THE UNIVERSE (all in caps) and physics EINSTEIN WAS WRONG (likewise).

There is the odd nutter posts irregularly to sci.chem (omnilobe) with
his crank theory of the periodic table. Archimedes Plutonium used to be
the most prolific back in the day when it was more popular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_personality#Eccentric_believers

Maybe the initial educational and equipment outlay is too high for it to
appeal much to kooks, you can learn enough physics in not too long to
kinda sound like you know what you\'re talking about to laypeople, but
research chemistry seems like you need at least a few years of serious
study before you can even bullshit effectively. And many thousands of
dollars of lab equipment and a place to put it before you could do even
basic experiments.
Not really. You can have a decent home chemical laboratory for not that
much outlay - although these days owning such kit might well be frowned
on by the authorities. In my youth I was quite good at pyrotechnics
formulations and glow in the dark writing (cyalume glostick patent).

Or perhaps it just doesn\'t seem as glamorous, most people could name
some physicists and engineers who achieved fame for world-changing
discoveries but naming some famous chemists might be more difficult for
a layperson
Einstein and now Hawking have popularised science in a way that has made
people think that any word salad they put together is just as valid. :(
A wise publisher once told him that you will lose half your potential
audience with each equation that you put into a popular science book.

Brian Cox (and Jim Al Kalihli for chemistry) have too in a Carl Sagan
sort of way, but at least they have got people talking about real hard
sciences (and made science cool again). Odd that both are particle
physicists but they have a serious media presence and their popular
science programmes are generally made to a high standard. More like
Horizon used to be before it was terminally dumbed down.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 18/11/2021 01:05, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 02:03, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The obvious solution is simply to not add a softener to the machine -
our machines have 4 receptacles: pre-wash, wash, bleach, and softener.

Hi Carlos,

Oh lord!  What makes you think I would use these chemicals?
My house is totally unscented.

I am picking them up from other people\'s houses and businesses.
Apart from soap vendor Lush (which I avoid like the plague) I can\'t
think of any other shops in the UK that have sufficient fragrance in
their air to ever cause me a problem.

As a child I would struggle in department store perfume sections and in
smoke filled rooms but I eventually grew out of it and can tolerate some
tobacco smoke now. Even so I still find that tobacco smoke is by far the
most offensive smell that sticks to my clothes.

These days public indoor spaces are all smoke free so it\'s not a problem
any more but outdoors I can smell a smoker or vaper from over 10m away
downwind. I presume that the same probably applies to any Covid viruses
they might exhale too.

Gregs shops have a baking bread smell pumped into the air that isn\'t
entirely natural (and a lot of processed foods flavourings do too).

The smells you are complaining about are designed to bind to the fabrics
during washing and then release into the air very slowly. Fragrances are
detectable as smells in ultra trace amounts (way too low to be toxic).

H2S of rotten eggs for instance really is toxic (more so than hydrogen
cyanide) but is a very obvious smell from about 10ppb to 1ppm and then
changes perceived smell as it swamps olefactory sensors beyond 100ppm
you stop being able to smell it and then stop completely not long after.

https://www.osha.gov/hydrogen-sulfide/hazards

There was a tragic case in the UK involving the wrong chemical in the
wrong water treatment tank. The tanker driver didn\'t stand a chance.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

Guest
On 18/11/2021 01:05, T wrote:
On 11/17/21 02:03, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The obvious solution is simply to not add a softener to the machine -
our machines have 4 receptacles: pre-wash, wash, bleach, and softener.

Hi Carlos,

Oh lord!  What makes you think I would use these chemicals?
My house is totally unscented.

I am picking them up from other people\'s houses and businesses.
Apart from soap vendor Lush (which I avoid like the plague) I can\'t
think of any other shops in the UK that have sufficient fragrance in
their air to ever cause me a problem.

As a child I would struggle in department store perfume sections and in
smoke filled rooms but I eventually grew out of it and can tolerate some
tobacco smoke now. Even so I still find that tobacco smoke is by far the
most offensive smell that sticks to my clothes.

These days public indoor spaces are all smoke free so it\'s not a problem
any more but outdoors I can smell a smoker or vaper from over 10m away
downwind. I presume that the same probably applies to any Covid viruses
they might exhale too.

Gregs shops have a baking bread smell pumped into the air that isn\'t
entirely natural (and a lot of processed foods flavourings do too).

The smells you are complaining about are designed to bind to the fabrics
during washing and then release into the air very slowly. Fragrances are
detectable as smells in ultra trace amounts (way too low to be toxic).

H2S of rotten eggs for instance really is toxic (more so than hydrogen
cyanide) but is a very obvious smell from about 10ppb to 1ppm and then
changes perceived smell as it swamps olefactory sensors beyond 100ppm
you stop being able to smell it and then stop completely not long after.

https://www.osha.gov/hydrogen-sulfide/hazards

There was a tragic case in the UK involving the wrong chemical in the
wrong water treatment tank. The tanker driver didn\'t stand a chance.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:01:20 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 11/19/21 16:29, Cydrome Leader wrote:
T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/18/21 14:32, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I am after getting other people chemicals out of
my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and
it does not work.

which product for hunters did you try?

Don\'t remember. They all gave a member of my family
asthma and skin rashes

Sounds like a family of wackos. No advice will help these folks.

You could not help so your reverted to insults.
You are a real gentleman
There are some posts best left not responded to and some conversations best left not concluded.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:01:20 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 11/19/21 16:29, Cydrome Leader wrote:
T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 11/18/21 14:32, Cydrome Leader wrote:
I am after getting other people chemicals out of
my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and
it does not work.

which product for hunters did you try?

Don\'t remember. They all gave a member of my family
asthma and skin rashes

Sounds like a family of wackos. No advice will help these folks.

You could not help so your reverted to insults.
You are a real gentleman
There are some posts best left not responded to and some conversations best left not concluded.

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/18/21 06:47, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 8:40:33 AM UTC-4, Johann Klammer wrote:
On 11/17/2021 06:34 AM, Rick C wrote:

Not sure where you heard that detergents have fragrances that are not water soluble. I suppose it is theoretically possible, but it would not disperse evenly in the wash and would not be applied evenly to the articles in the wash.

Do you know the names of any of these fragrances?

I buy laundry detergents without perfume or color. I think the brand is All. I find the scent from soaps and fabric softener to be cloying and clogs my sense of smell. I\'m happy with no scent. I find antiperspirants to be similar, but I can\'t find them without any scent, however some are rather mild.

It is hard to imagine any scent (other than Eau de Pew) that won\'t depart sheets and clothing hanging on the line for a day.

What makes you think these substances are actually \"toxic\"?

The search term is fabric softener. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabric_softener#Risks
They\'re problematic.

They may be problematic, but the reference you provide doesn\'t say they are \"toxic\". \"Toxic - Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means\". I don\'t see any mention of death or serious injury, at least unless you are handling the stuff. What we are talking about here is equivalent to second hand smoke. It\'s hard to apply the term \"toxic\".

But maybe I\'m just not that sensitive.
When your lips start to turn blue, you will get
more sensitive.
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/18/21 06:47, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 8:40:33 AM UTC-4, Johann Klammer wrote:
On 11/17/2021 06:34 AM, Rick C wrote:

Not sure where you heard that detergents have fragrances that are not water soluble. I suppose it is theoretically possible, but it would not disperse evenly in the wash and would not be applied evenly to the articles in the wash.

Do you know the names of any of these fragrances?

I buy laundry detergents without perfume or color. I think the brand is All. I find the scent from soaps and fabric softener to be cloying and clogs my sense of smell. I\'m happy with no scent. I find antiperspirants to be similar, but I can\'t find them without any scent, however some are rather mild.

It is hard to imagine any scent (other than Eau de Pew) that won\'t depart sheets and clothing hanging on the line for a day.

What makes you think these substances are actually \"toxic\"?

The search term is fabric softener. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabric_softener#Risks
They\'re problematic.

They may be problematic, but the reference you provide doesn\'t say they are \"toxic\". \"Toxic - Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means\". I don\'t see any mention of death or serious injury, at least unless you are handling the stuff. What we are talking about here is equivalent to second hand smoke. It\'s hard to apply the term \"toxic\".

But maybe I\'m just not that sensitive.
When your lips start to turn blue, you will get
more sensitive.
 
T

T

Guest
On 11/18/21 03:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 11/17/21 02:03, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The obvious solution is simply to not add a softener to the machine -
our machines have 4 receptacles: pre-wash, wash, bleach, and softener.

Hi Carlos,

Oh lord! What makes you think I would use these chemicals?
My house is totally unscented.

I am picking them up from other people\'s houses and businesses.

I once had to threaten a neighbour with calling in the Public Health
department when they refused to stop using excessive amounts of perfume
that kept blowing into my house.
And when their house gets hot, they open their windows
and share with the neighborhood all the plug in air
fresheners.

Public Health does not give a ...
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top