You May Have More Air Pollution In Your Home Than In The Street
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Certainly, gas stoves and heaters can cause indoor air pollution, with carbon monoxide (CO) being the main risk. Even if you have a CO alarm, the level at which it will go off is usually the “this will kill you tonight if you don’t do something about it soon” level, rather than the “this will slowly kill your brain cells but you’ll keep functioning otherwise, until one day you don’t” levels of CO.
Still, do by all means have a CO alarm if you have anything in your house that can release CO!
Fun fact about those stoves:
❝Just 1 kilogram of cooking fuel emits 10 quadrillion particles smaller than 3 nanometers, which matches or exceeds what’s emitted from cars with internal combustion engines.
At that rate, you might be inhaling 10-100 times more of these sub-3 nanometer particles from cooking on a gas stove indoors than you would from car exhaust while standing on a busy street.❞
But today, we’re not here about that
Rather, we are looking at some more innocent-seeming things, such as scented cleaning products and air fresheners. Notably, the biggest problem is often not even the cleaning chemicals themselves. Of course: please don’t breathe bleach fumes, etc.
But that’s an obvious risk, and today we’re about the less obvious risks.
So… What is the less obvious risk here?
It’s the fragrances. The terpenes used to hold them react with ozone in the air, to create new nanoparticles. And, just like the nanoparticles from the stove, these can reach very high concentrations indoors, and suffice it to say, if you can smell the fragrance then you have the pollutants inside you.
You can read about how badly different products score, here:
Rapid Nucleation and Growth of Indoor Atmospheric Nanocluster Aerosol during the Use of Scented Volatile Chemical Products in Residential Buildings ← you’ll need to scroll down to the table with different cleaning products and air fresheners
Further, the seemingly-harmless scented candle is, as it turns out, quite a menace too:
❝Full-scale emission experiments were conducted in the Purdue zEDGE Test House using a variety of scented candles (n = 5) and wax warmers/melts (n = 14) under different outdoor air exchange rates (AERs). Terpene concentrations were measured in real-time using a proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-TOF-MS). PTR-TOF-MS measurements revealed that scented candle and wax warmer/melt products emit a variety of monoterpenes (C10H16) and oxygen-containing monoterpenoids (C10H14O, C10H16O, C10H18O, C10H20O), with peak concentrations in the range of 10−1 to 102 ppb. Monoterpene EFs were much greater for scented wax warmers/melts (C10H16 EFs ∼ 102 mg per g wax consumed) compared to scented candles (C10H16 EFs ∼ 10−1 to 100 mg per g wax consumed). Significant emissions of reactive terpenes from both products, along with nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2) from candles, depleted indoor ozone (O3) concentrations. Terpene iFs were similar between the two products (iFs ∼ 103 ppm) and increased with decreasing outdoor AER. Terpene iFs during concentration decay periods were similar to, or greater than, iFs during active emission periods for outdoor AERs ≤ 3.0 h−1.
Overall, scented wax warmers/melts were found to release greater quantities of monoterpenes compared to other fragranced consumer products used in the home, including botanical disinfectants, hair care products, air fresheners, and scented sprays.❞
Put in fewer words: scented candles are bad, and wax melts (the kind with no flame, that one might easily expect to thus produce fewer emissions) are at least as bad if not worse, and both are even worse than cleaning products.
Some of the same research team conducted further studies, because of this this, finding:
❝We performed field measurements in a residential test house to investigate atmospheric nanoparticle formation from scented wax melt use. We employed a high-resolution particle size magnifier-scanning mobility particle sizer (PSMPS) and a proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-TOF-MS) for real-time monitoring of indoor atmospheric nanoparticle size distributions and terpene mixing ratios, respectively.
Our findings reveal that terpenes released from scented wax melts react with indoor atmospheric ozone (O3) to initiate new particle formation (NPF) events, resulting in significant indoor atmospheric nanoparticle concentrations (>106 cm–3) comparable to those emitted by combustion-based scented candles, gas stoves, diesel engines, and natural gas engines.
We show that scented wax melt-initiated NPF events can result in significant respiratory exposures, with nanoparticle respiratory tract deposited dose rates similar to those determined for combustion-based sources.
Our results challenge the perception of scented wax melts as a safer alternative to combustion-based aromatherapy❞
Read in full: Flame-Free Candles Are Not Pollution-Free: Scented Wax Melts as a Significant Source of Atmospheric Nanoparticles
In short: you might want to ditch the fragranced products!
Want to do more?
Give your household hair a makeover with this multi-vector approach to deal with different risks:
What’s Lurking In Your Household Air?
For that matter, the air is a very important factor for the health of your lungs (and thus, for the health of everything that’s fed oxygen by your lungs), and there are more things we can do in that regard as well:
Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Cacao vs Carob – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing cacao to carob, we picked the cacao.
Why?
It’s close, and may depend a little on your priorities!
In terms of macros, the cacao has more protein and fat, while the carob has more carbohydrates, mostly sugar. Since people will not generally eat this by the spoonful, and will instead either make drinks or cook with it, we can’t speak for the glycemic index or general health impact of the sugars. As for the fats, on the one hand the cacao does contain saturated fat; on the other, this merely means that different saturated fat will usually be added to the carob if making something with it. Still, slight win for the carob on the fat front. Protein, of course, is entirely in cacao’s favor.
In the category of vitamins and minerals, they’re about equal on vitamins, while cacao wins easily on the mineral front, boasting more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, and phosphorus.
While both have a generous antioxidant content, this one’s another win for cacao, with about 3x the active polyphenols and flavonoids.
In short: both are good, consumed in moderation and before adding unhealthy extra ingredients—but we say cacao comes out the winner.
If you’re looking specifically for the above-depicted products, by the way, here they are:
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Enjoy Bitter Foods For Your Heart & Brain
- Chocolate & Health
- The Truth About Chocolate & Skin Health
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
Blood-Sugar-Friendly Ice Pops
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
This generic food product has so many regional variant names that it’s difficult to get a universal name, but in N. America they’re also known by the genericized brand name of popsicles. Anyway, they’re usually very bad news for blood sugars, being merely frozen juice even if extra sugar wasn’t added. Today’s recipe, on the other hand, makes for a refreshing and nutrient-dense treat that won’t spike your blood glucose!
You will need
- 1 cup fresh blueberries
- 1 can (12oz/400g) coconut milk
- ½ cup yogurt with minimal additives
- 1 tbsp honey (omit if you prefer less sweetness)
- Juice of ¼ lime (increase if you prefer more sourness)
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Blend everything
2) Pour into ice pop molds and freeze overnight
3) Serve at your leisure:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
- 10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
- Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy? ← the fats in coconut are a good source of medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs), which are easily broken down as a good energy source and (enjoyed in moderation) thus unlikely to cause any cardiovascular problems, as little to nothing (usually: nothing) of it will be stored.
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Younger – by Dr. Sara Gottfried
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Does this do the things it says in the subtitle? In honestly, not really, no, but what it does do (if implemented) is modify your gene expression, slow aging, and extend healthspan. Which is all good stuff, even if it’s not the snappy SEO-oriented keywords in the subtitle.
A lot of the book pertains to turning certain genes (e.g. SIRT1, mTOR, VDR, APOE4, etc) on or off per what is sensible in each case, noting that while genes are relatively fixed (technically they can be changed, but the science is young and we can’t do much yet), gene expression is something we can control quite a bit. And while it may be unsettling to have the loaded gun that is the APOE4 gene being held against your head, at the end of the day there are things we can do that influence whether the trigger gets pulled, and when. Same goes for other undesirable genes, and also for the desirable ones that are useless if they never actually get expressed.
She offers (contained within the book, not as an upsell) a 7-week program that aims to set the reader up with good healthy habits to do just that and thus help keep age-related maladies at bay, and if we slip up, perhaps later in the year or so, we can always recommence the program.
The advice is also just good health advice, even without taking gene expression into account, because there are a stack of benefits to each of the things in her protocol.
The style is personable without being padded with fluff, accessible without dumbing down, and information-dense without being a challenging read. The formatting helps a lot also; a clear instructional layout is a lot better than a wall of text.
Bottom line: if you’d like to tweak your genes for healthy longevity, this book can help you do just that!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Blind Spots – by Dr. Marty Makary
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
From the time the US recommended not giving peanuts to infants for the first three years of life “in order to avoid peanut allergies” (whereupon non-exposure to peanuts early in life led to, instead, an increase in peanut allergies and anaphylactic incidents), to the time the US recommended not taking HRT on the strength of the claim that “HRT causes breast cancer” (whereupon the reduced popularity of HRT led to, instead, an increase in breast cancer incidence and mortality), to many other such incidents of very bad public advice being given on the strength of a single badly-misrepresented study (for each respective thing), Dr. Makary puts the spotlight on what went wrong.
This is important, because this is not just a book of outrage, exclaiming “how could this happen?!”, but rather instead, is a book of inquisition, asking “how did this happen?”, in such a way that we the reader can spot similar patterns going forwards.
Oftentimes, this is a simple matter of having a basic understanding of statistics, and checking sources to see if the dataset really supports what the headlines are claiming—and indeed, whether sometimes it suggests rather the opposite.
The style is a little on the sensationalist side, but it’s well-supported with sound arguments, good science, and clear mathematics.
Bottom line: if you’d like to improve your scientific literacy, this book is an excellent illustrative guide.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Stay off My Operating Table – by Dr. Philip Ovadia
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
With heart disease as the #1 killer worldwide, and 88% of adults being metabolically unhealthy (leading cause of heart disease), this is serious!
Rather than taking a “quick fix” advise-and-go approach, Dr. Ovadia puts the knowledge and tools in our hands to do better in the long term.
As a heart surgeon himself, his motto here is:
❝What foods to put on your table so you don’t end up on mine❞
There’s a lot more to this book than the simple “eat the Mediterranean diet”:
- While the Mediterranean diet is generally considered the top choice for heart health, he also advises on how to eat healthily on all manner of diets… Carnivore, Keto, Paleo, Atkins, Gluten-Free, Vegan, you-name-it.
- A lot of the book is given to clearing up common misconceptions, things that sounded plausible but are just plain dangerous. This information alone is worth the price of the book, we think.
- There’s also a section given over to explaining the markers of metabolic health, so you can monitor yourself effectively
- Rather than one-size-fits-all, he also talks about common health conditions and medications that may change what you need to be doing
- He also offers advice about navigating the health system to get what you need—including dealing with unhelpful doctors!
Bottom line: A very comprehensive (yet readable!) manual of heart health.
Get your copy of Stay Off My Operating Table from Amazon today!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Why Do We Have Pores, And Could We Not?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝Do we really need pores, and why are they bigger on the face?❞
Pores secrete sweat or sebum (there are different kinds of pores for each).
If we didn’t have sweat pores, we’d be unable to sweat, which superficially may seem like a bonus, but it’d make us prone to overheating (like dogs, pigs, and other mammals that cannot sweat).
If we didn’t have sebum pores (usually called hair follicles, which are supplied by a sebaceous gland), we’d be completely hairless, and also unable to supply our skin with natural oils that keep it healthy. So we’d have no hair and very unhappy skin.
Which is ironic, because to believe beauty magazines, we must at all costs minimize our pores (and indeed, interventions like botox* can kill them).
*Let’s give that its full name though:
Suffice it to say, we do not recommend getting injected with neurotoxins unless it is truly necessary to ward off a greater harm.
As for being bigger on the face, they need not be, but sebaceous glands are more active and numerous there, being most active and numerous in the face/forehead—which is why oily skin is more likely to appear there than other parts of the body.
If your facial sebaceous glands are too active for your liking…
…there are ways to reduce that, a simple and relatively gentle way (relative, for example, botox) is with retinoids, including retinols or retinoic acids. Here’s some of the science of that; the paper is about treating acne, but the mechanism of action is the same (down-regulating the sebaceous glands’ action):
The potential side-effects, however were noted as:
- Cheilitis
- Desquamation of the skin
- Pruritus
Which, in translation from sciencese, means:
- Chapped lips
- Flaky skin
- Itchiness
Which aren’t necessarily fun, which is why with retinoids are best taken in very small doses at first to see how your skin reacts.
Remember when we said what your skin would be like without pores? This is what would happen, only much worse.
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: