OT: alcohol based perfume removal?

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[...]
> Oh and the exhaust from their dryers after using
> fabric softeners pollutes the air in the
> neighborhood too

I've had that too.  I finished up begging my neighbour to redirect their
dryer exhaust or use something unperfumed, but she adamantly refused.
Her husband came round apologising, but it was no use, he couldn't get
her to stop either and I lost two years of being able to work in my
garden until they moved away.


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

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.


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

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.

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).

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:50:04 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
> On 11/17/21 04:02, Rick C wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 6:22:16 AM UTC-4, T wrote: 
> >> 
> >> What sort-of works on old cloths (that pick it up 
> >> by me sitting in peoples chairs): 
> > 
> > You talk about picking it up from other people's furniture, but don't you smell that as soon as you enter the room or sit in the chair?
> Of course. I am a computer consultant. I have to 
> enter their rooms and sit in their chairs or my 
> family will starve.

That's an interesting concept.  I suspect it is not a valid argument in general, but it is certainly not a valid argument for causing harm to yourself and to your family.  You can change jobs if nothing else. 


> > I'm presently living in Airbnb places for a couple of weeks at a time. I often walk into an apartment only to find it has been fumigated with these sorts of scents. Sometimes I can't sleep in the bed right away. I think this is mostly fabric softeners, but sometimes they add special scents to the place when cleaning or even have those plug in fresheners.
> Oh and the exhaust from their dryers after using 
> fabric softeners pollutes the air in the 
> neighborhood too

I think you are going to have a hard time showing any harm from your neighbor's dryer exhaust vent. 


> > To people who aren't sensitive, all these scents smell good. To the rest of us it's not a lot different from spreading the smell of feces or decaying flesh. Some scents are barely noticeable and not offensive to me, like in the antiperspirants I use. I wonder why they use the scents that are much stronger and easily offend. I guess it's still a tiny minority who are sensitive and what sells, sells. 
> >
> Oh I do not know about "tiny". Just under 20% of 
> the population has breathing issues of one type 
> or another. Asthma especially.

Having asthma does not equate to being sensitive to perfumes.  There may be a correlation, but how strong? 

-- 

Rick C.

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

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:55:21 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
> On 11/17/21 13:06, Cydrome Leader wrote: 
> > T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote: 
> >> Hi All, 
> >> 
> >> Anyone with a chemistry background? 
> >> 
> >> There are now laundry perfumes and fabric finishes 
> >> (that are highly scented) that are not meant to 
> >> wash out. They toxic substances are very difficult 
> >> on folks with allergies, especially asthma. They 
> >> don't wash out. 
> >> 
> >> Somewhere that I do not remember, I read that these 
> >> toxic substances are alcohol soluble and won't wash 
> >> out in water. Am I correct? 
> >> 
> >> Anyway, if alcohol soluble, how do you get them out? 
> >> Dump a bottle of rubbing alcohol in the washer? 
> >> 
> >> Any other ideas one way other the other? 
> >> 
> >> Many thanks, 
> >> -T 
> > 
> > Not sure what you're after here, but if you want a laundry detergent 
> > itself with no extra smells of any type added, look at the lineup from 
> > Atsko. The no UV hunting detergent and sport wash are the same product 
> > with different labelling. Nothing else comes close to just being detergent 
> > with no additives. The stuff has virtually no odor even if you smell from 
> > the jug itself. It also leaves no weird residues on washed clothing. It's 
> > perfect for hypochondriacs or people who just need rags with no residue on 
> > them. 
> >
> I am after getting other people chemicals out of 
> my cloths. I have tried stuff for hunters and 
> it does not work.

Maybe the easy path is to wear a set of coveralls for work and not bring them into the home? 

-- 

Rick C.

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

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

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

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

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