alt Hacker NewsThe challenge with any article like this is that the correlated impact on health outcomes is always implied in the article but is rarely studied as part of the research cited. Just because a is bad and b has a property similar to a that doesn't imply b has the same harmful impacts as a. I really wish articles would limit big headlines like this unless the research cited was directly comparing mortality and health outcomes directly. If the study this article was based on came to the conclusion that 'average household aerosol use has a similar associated mortality risk as average city car pollution' then the title could have been warranted but instead we got a bit of click-bait. A slightly better title could have been 'Scented products cause unexpected levels of indoor air pollution'. I'd even argue 'Scented products cause concerning levels of indoor air pollution' is a reasonable title since it is worth our concern and further study.
Replies
I found that gap annoying, when they finally did address it it was such a hand wavey thing that doesn't actually say it's bad for you. We know particles are being produced, because smell doesn't come from nowhere, so in some regards the whole bit of research could be read as "thing that produces particles, produces particles. Surprise!"
If it's studies you want with quantifiable impacts, I'd recommend you read (part of) this investigation (because it's so long)[0]. A couple of the top recommendations are to extinguish candles with a lid and to ban incense.
> The challenge with any article like this is that the correlated impact on health outcomes is always implied in the article but is rarely studied as part of the research cited.
The scope of the research is determined by the researchers conducting the research, not what you think it should be, especially since you do not understand the basics of the scientific method - or that research is highly iterative and derivative. A great deal of research sets out only to establish whether it is worth pursuing further research on a particular hypothesis.
> I really wish articles would limit big headlines like this unless the research cited was directly comparing mortality and health outcomes directly.
That wasn't the scope of the research.
> If the study this article was based on came to the conclusion that 'average household aerosol use has a similar associated mortality risk as average city car pollution' then the title could have been warranted but instead we got a bit of click-bait.
Proving health risks was not the scope of the research, and nothing in the title of the article, the PR release from Purdue, or the paper's title, even remotely implies what you seem to think it does. If I say the shed is green, you think that means seafoam green, and you're profoundly disappointed to discover the shed is british racing green, the only person to blame is you.
The purpose of the paper was to demonstrate that wax "melts", which many consider "safer" than aromatic candles, produce similar levels of the similar particles as scented candles. They studied the counts, compositions, and the formation process of the particles. In the abstract they state that their results show the need for more study of the effect of the particles on health.
The point of the title and coverage in the news story is to give the layperson something they can relate to, not to be extremely accurate, pedantic, and understate things.
Not much to add here other than as someone with terrible allergies and asthma, the constant need for plugin air fresheners, scented candles, scented laundry detergent, and scented lotions, perfumes, febreeze, and scented deodorant drives me crazy. I don't think normal folks realize how they're breathing in straight chemicals all day.