If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WPTV)   Tide detergent not only uses its fast-acting chemicals to get that stain off your shirt -- It makes a new one in your spleen   (wptv.com) divider line 82
    More: Scary, tide detergent, chemical formulae, health advocacy, toxicologists, chemicals, causing chemicals, shirts, endocrine systems  
•       •       •

18227 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-27 09:47:00 AM  
Is it the Pods? It's not the Pods, right? Phew, it's not the Pods.

/Likes the Pods
 
2012-04-27 10:29:28 AM  
Dreft... it's all about the Dreft.
 
2012-04-27 10:29:42 AM  
The exact kind that I use. Figures.
 
2012-04-27 10:32:04 AM  
I guess I should probably stop drinking it then.
 
2012-04-27 10:32:20 AM  
The upside is it may be a clean death.
 
2012-04-27 10:33:57 AM  

Braindeath: The exact kind that I use. Figures.


Me too. Guess i'll look at other 'free and gentle' options until a toxicologist Not from P&G weighs in.
 
2012-04-27 10:34:09 AM  
Here's a fun link from the site's Other Stories:

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_st_lucie_county/fort_pierce/jiggi n g-cited-in-fort-pierce-coffee-attack-report-states
 
2012-04-27 10:36:23 AM  
Wow, glad I make my own laundry soap! Reminds me of the "harmful chemicals in Fabric Softener" story from awhile back, which found a few chemicals in the dryer exhaust that there's no known safe exposure level for. Better off to use Vinegar in the softener compartment of the washing machine.
 
2012-04-27 10:38:12 AM  
That's not all. Do you realize you may be pumping harmful oxidane into the environment?!

/Update on a classic
 
2012-04-27 10:38:12 AM  
Yep they probably detected it down around the part per trillion or lower levels analyzing the pure soap. So you dilute it about 10000 : 1 in the wash and then.... shockingly, rinse and wear the clothes instead of eating them for lunch as a salad every day.

Yep, I'd be worried.
 
2012-04-27 10:39:07 AM  
Farkers need not be concerned as spleens are vented here daily
 
2012-04-27 10:39:17 AM  
Good thing I don't wash my clothes.
 
2012-04-27 10:40:09 AM  
FTFA: "We are many, many levels of magnitude below the levels that are considered any level of safety risk," said Tim Long, a toxicologist for the company"

non-story
 
2012-04-27 10:40:09 AM  
Guess I'll have to stop injecting myself with large quantities of Tide...

Breaking news flash: Most chemics will cause cancer in lab rats if you inject them with enough of it
 
2012-04-27 10:40:49 AM  
False flag to deter rising tide of Tide thefts.
 
2012-04-27 10:40:50 AM  
I highly recommend paying a visit to this site
Chemerical
If you haven't seen the documentary, it is streaming on Netflix right now. Very interesting stuff..
 
2012-04-27 10:41:25 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.
 
2012-04-27 10:43:26 AM  
Here's where the actual science kicks in...

The EPA estimates that, if your drinking water contained 30 parts per million of this chemical, it would increase your cancer risk by... one in a million.

If you drank, for your whole lifetime, water containing 30 ppm of 1,4 dioxane.

The detergents that "Women's Voices for the Earth" claim to have tested had, at worst, 89 parts per million of this chemical (assuming they did an accurate test).

So, under EPA guidelines, you'd need to eat a few pounds of the actual detergent, every day, for your whole life, to increase your cancer risk by one in a million. Hopefully, you can see the problem with this...
 
2012-04-27 10:46:31 AM  

Mr. Potatoass: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 597x392]

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.


You neglected to mention the 13 stars.
 
2012-04-27 10:52:35 AM  
but..but...P&G is a family company

/got nutin'
//neither does Women's Voices for the Earth
 
2012-04-27 10:53:10 AM  
how does the cancer potential of Tide compare with the cancer potential of bacon?
 
2012-04-27 10:53:29 AM  
Women's Voices for the Earth has a name you can trust.
 
2012-04-27 10:55:21 AM  

cirby: Here's where the actual science kicks in...

The EPA estimates that, if your drinking water contained 30 parts per million of this chemical, it would increase your cancer risk by... one in a million.

If you drank, for your whole lifetime, water containing 30 ppm of 1,4 dioxane.

The detergents that "Women's Voices for the Earth" claim to have tested had, at worst, 89 parts per million of this chemical (assuming they did an accurate test).

So, under EPA guidelines, you'd need to eat a few pounds of the actual detergent, every day, for your whole life, to increase your cancer risk by one in a million. Hopefully, you can see the problem with this...


Oh, so drinking it is the safer option. Good to know.
 
2012-04-27 10:56:16 AM  

Mr. Potatoass: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 597x392]

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.


You forgot to point out the 13 stars.
 
2012-04-27 10:57:55 AM  
The best laundry soap is Oxydol powder (can only find it at dollar stores), followed by Arm & Hammer. Tide's scent makes me queasy, plus I find it doesn't work nearly as well as the other two.
 
2012-04-27 10:59:29 AM  

Mr. Potatoass: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 597x392]

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.


www.pochoblog.com
 
2012-04-27 11:01:07 AM  
Since the group's name is "Women's Voices for the Earth", I think I will believe the opposite of everything they say.
 
2012-04-27 11:01:48 AM  

Snarfangel: Women's Voices for the Earth has a name you can trust.


My mom is getting more liberal by the day (weird for a 64 year old lady, no?). But even she still uses the term "Earth mothers" as a pejorative.
 
2012-04-27 11:04:09 AM  

Diogenes: Mr. Potatoass: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 597x392]

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.

You neglected to mention the 13 stars.


pkellmey: Mr. Potatoass: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 597x392]

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.

You forgot to point out the 13 stars.


I did that intentionally just to see if I could flush out any Satanists in here.

/Not really. Just a hotlinked GIS pic
 
2012-04-27 11:04:12 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Farkers need not be concerned as spleens are vented here daily


MaudlinMutantMollusk, you have some 'spleening to do.
www.hollywoodyesterday.com
 
2012-04-27 11:05:45 AM  
So I will stop washing my clothes to protect ... someone.
 
2012-04-27 11:06:35 AM  
Subby, had you clicked on the link to the original NYT report, you would have changed the tag to asinine. To begin, 1,4 dioxane is classified by the EPA as a probably carcinogen; it is not a proven carcinogen. Secondly, the chemical is only found in the scented version of the product. Worried about it? Then just use the unscented version (you should be anyway); Thirdly, the chemical is only present in minuscule amounts. Finally, the origin of the report is from an organization of a bunch of OMFG!!! helicopter moms.

Conclusion: bullshiat.
 
2012-04-27 11:07:28 AM  
Hah, it's in their "Free and Clear" formula too. Glad I never switched from All Free and Clear despite people saying Tide is "cleans better." I'd rather not have cancer, thanks.

/and if All has dioxane in it too, then I'll be switching to something else
 
2012-04-27 11:07:33 AM  
Damned shiat is too expensive anyway.
 
2012-04-27 11:08:25 AM  

Buffet: Damned shiat is too expensive anyway.


There's no 'a' in s*h*i*t.
 
2012-04-27 11:09:27 AM  
Just looked up dioxane levels of detergent on Googles... got an interesting article that lists most major brands and their levels.

http://www.naturalnews.com/ 028846 _laundry_detergents_dioxane.html

Turns out All does have dioxane, but only .6ppm, compared to Tide, which as 29 (Free and Clear)-55 (regular) ppm, which is a HUGE difference. WTF P&G?
 
2012-04-27 11:09:53 AM  
Well to be fair to Tide, dioxane is only harmful if you accidently mix it with dihydrogen monoxide.
 
2012-04-27 11:11:52 AM  

JackieRabbit: Subby, had you clicked on the link to the original NYT report, you would have changed the tag to asinine. To begin, 1,4 dioxane is classified by the EPA as a probably carcinogen; it is not a proven carcinogen. Secondly, the chemical is only found in the scented version of the product. Worried about it? Then just use the unscented version (you should be anyway); Thirdly, the chemical is only present in minuscule amounts. Finally, the origin of the report is from an organization of a bunch of OMFG!!! helicopter moms.

Conclusion: bullshiat.


Read the article again. The "unscented" free and clear version actually does have it. The article I linked to also says that it contains it, though "only" 29 ppm instead of 55.
 
2012-04-27 11:13:16 AM  
Wow, the only way that group could sound more screwball is if they added "concerned" and "families".
 
2012-04-27 11:14:07 AM  

MythDragon: Well to be fair to Tide, dioxane is only harmful if you accidently mix it with dihydrogen monoxide.


I don't think your theory holds water.
 
2012-04-27 11:15:13 AM  
Mr. Potatoass: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 597x392]

Procter and Gamble in in league with teh Debil.

You forgot to point out the 13 stars.
 
2012-04-27 11:16:05 AM  
Sugar cookies were proven to give mice cancer after enough of them. Hell just about everything will give you cancer after enough massive exposures over long term.

Study should be done to see if Tide families have higher cancer rates than families who use other detergents. I'm willing to bet they don't.

/don't live your life in fear, but certainly educate yourself
 
2012-04-27 11:17:51 AM  

TheSelphie: JackieRabbit: Subby, had you clicked on the link to the original NYT report, you would have changed the tag to asinine. To begin, 1,4 dioxane is classified by the EPA as a probably carcinogen; it is not a proven carcinogen. Secondly, the chemical is only found in the scented version of the product. Worried about it? Then just use the unscented version (you should be anyway); Thirdly, the chemical is only present in minuscule amounts. Finally, the origin of the report is from an organization of a bunch of OMFG!!! helicopter moms.

Conclusion: bullshiat.

Read the article again. The "unscented" free and clear version actually does have it. The article I linked to also says that it contains it, though "only" 29 ppm instead of 55.


It makes no difference. The chemical is a byproduct of making detergents, soaps, perfuming agents and even drugs. There is not one shred of evidence that it is actually harmful. We have a lot of real things to worry about beyond the dumbass claims of a bunch of shrill, activist mommies.
 
2012-04-27 11:18:56 AM  
My grandpa used to be a washing machine repair man and he said Tide was one of the few detergents that didn't gum up washing machines. Of course he died of leukemia at at the age of 65, so . . . uh oh!
 
2012-04-27 11:26:51 AM  
I bet it also contains dihydrogen monoxide, large dose of that chemical can poison you.

What is the toxic exposure, and what is the level in the detergent?

That is what I want to know, and that is what is missing from the article.

Goddamnitsomuch!
 
2012-04-27 11:28:26 AM  
I see it's already been covered, but just to make sure:

THERE ARE NO TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ONLY TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS
 
2012-04-27 11:31:16 AM  

TheSelphie: Just looked up dioxane levels of detergent on Googles... got an interesting article that lists most major brands and their levels.

http://www.naturalnews.com/ 028846 _laundry_detergents_dioxane.html

Turns out All does have dioxane, but only .6ppm, compared to Tide, which as 29 (Free and Clear)-55 (regular) ppm, which is a HUGE difference. WTF P&G?


Natural News is one of the worst sites to get information from. They've gotten a tad better recently, but they still use their own news articles as citations for a lot of their information. I gave up trying to track down information from there after each link took me to another Natural News page, and never to the original source of their information.
 
2012-04-27 11:33:59 AM  

meat0918: I bet it also contains dihydrogen monoxide, large dose of that chemical can poison you.

What is the toxic exposure, and what is the level in the detergent?

That is what I want to know, and that is what is missing from the article.

Goddamnitsomuch!


Yeah but not drinking enough dihydrogen monoxide can also kill u. it's like your body requires it somehow..
 
2012-04-27 11:34:09 AM  
Even the linked article, which is a little hypey says the tests found small amounts of a cancer-causing chemical called dioxane" but if you continue on the to the online petition they exaggerate by claiming " report from Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) revealed high levels of 1,4-dioxane, a chemical linked to cancer". Girls, ya lost me right there... move along, no story here - except maybe for Jenny McCarthy types.
 
2012-04-27 11:49:40 AM  

WOBB: Girls, ya lost me right there... move along, no story here - except maybe for Jenny McCarthy types.


That's the problem...they're screwed even if this stuff is harmless at these concentrations. Logic doesn't enter into it. If they try to explain/educate they'll only make things worse, people will assume they're trying to lie their way out of it and start Facebook boycott campaigns, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report