In theory, an N95 mask should work. At its weak spot - .1 microns or so - it’s still 95% effective. It’s been shown to be 95% vs NaCl, which is smaller than bleach (NaOCl).
But in personal experience, whenever I finish up with a patient in contact isolation, I use bleach wipes on my steth. Not only does the odor strongly penetrate the mask, but by mitigating the dilution effect of free air flow, I honestly feel like it concentrates more of the crap inside the mask.
Society disproportionately ignores "women's issues."
Society ignored those miners too, and left them to die, and here you are in 2018 trying to erase that and make it about gender when it’s really about The Workers.
And yet scientists still did a totally "unnecessary" study about them [1], because today miners are dying at younger ages than they did in the past and that's a troubling conclusion that you wouldn't immediately guess from annectoda.
Science is important, even for the 'its obvious, everyone knows it is dangerous' kinda stuff.
> Science is important, even for the 'its obvious, everyone knows it is dangerous' kinda stuff.
Indeed. Intuition, or in other words the "well, that's obvious" feeling, might be a good lazy approximation of the truth, but it is often wrong when examined closely.
> ... but it is often wrong when examined closely.
Having witnessed the whiplash in scientific understanding I'd almost say that "it's more complicated than that" is a more accurate summation. Since often the approximation isn't totally wrong but it's more a simplification of the issue.
The guys with asbestosis, silicosis, and berylliosis did.
There actually aren’t enough people dying of coal miner’s lung to allow good studies of it. Which is too bad (Er... you know what I mean), because our treatments for it are subsequently based on arm-chair hypotheses rather than solid science.
Women, but not men? So nobody should clean? Is it just me experiencing this gender bias cognitive dissonance? For me this renders the whole study suspect and dodgy: if they missed this Elephant In The Room bias, what other, more subtle, issues might they have missed/ignored/swept under the rug?
I did not see that in the article. They state not enough men could be found and even if they could they would have a different exposure to chemicals than women.
This is addressed in the short article. They have very few women who don't clean in their sample and possibly that group is therefore very of unusually high socioeconomic status. Also they have very few men who clean as a profession, and they may differ in their approach.
They're reporting what they find along with the caveats of their data sources.
Yeah, I initially read it like that also. But from the study (which is appallingly formatted and has spelling mistakes):
> [106] Fifty-three percent of the participants were women
> [154] No association between lung function and cleaning was seen for males.
> [264] Finally, the greater impact seen in women (both cleaning at home and occupational cleaners) could be mediated by a different susceptibility according to sex, as is reported for other mixed chemical exposures such as tobacco smoke and other occupational exposures as wood dust, where studies have indicated that less exposure in women is need to develop illness.
So the study is decently written up. However the article itself is leaving a bit more room for interpretation than necessary by saying that
> The study also did not find that men who cleaned, either at home or at work, experienced greater decline in FEV1 or FVC than men who did not.
The phrasing "did not experience greater decline in FEV1 or FVC" - i.e. "no difference" - is terrible. Also:
> The number of men who worked as occupational cleaners was also small, and their exposure to cleaning agents was likely different from that of women working as cleaning professionals.
"Different" is really vague. For completeness, in the study
> [119] There were 293 (8.9%) women and 57 (1.9%) men that reported working with occupational cleaning.
> [256] There was no apparent accelerated decline in lung function in men, but it seems likely that the exposures in men who work as cleaners may be different from those in women
But also
> [259] Our entrance questions might possibly not have picked up i.e. [sic] male industrial cleaners.
Finally, the quote from Mr Svanes in the article doesn't quite follow:
> "The take home message of this study is that in the long run cleaning chemicals very likely cause rather substantial damage to your lungs," Øistein Svanes said. "These chemicals are usually unnecessary; microfiber cloths and water are more than enough for most purposes."
> He added that public health officials should strictly regulate cleaning products and encourage producers to develop cleaning agents that cannot be inhaled.
So regardless of the science, we can see what his opinion on the matter is. I think it's a bit simplistic/sound-bite orientated.
---
One study that would really interest me is if cleaner type preference varies by gender. E.g. if women prefer using spray cleaners, and men prefer using liquid cleaners. Or if men cleaning at home simply use less, erm, sophisticated cleaners. Personally, I find dish soap adequate for most cleaning in the kitchen, which various partners have always scoffed at.
I wonder if there is a similar effect observed in people who cook regularly - especially at high temps or in poorly ventilated spaces. Cleaning the exterior and filters of the exhaust cabinet makes me wonder about the interiors, of, for instance, apartment dwellers doing wok frying.
> This study presents evidence that cooking habits are associated with lung cancer in Taiwanese women nonsmokers. As shown in this and our earlier study (1), women who do not use fume extractors during cooking are at high risk of developing lung cancer. Furthermore, women who wait until the oil has reached a high temperature before cooking the food (stir frying, frying, and deep frying) and do not use a fume extractor have a consistently higher risk of lung cancer when compared with both hospital and community controls.
and further:
> In Taiwan, the market for vegetable oil increased from less than 50 percent to 85 percent between 1950 and 1990. However, vegetable oil containing unsaturated fatty acids was found to be more unstable than lard oil at higher temperatures and could emit benzoapyrene, which was not found in lard oil fumes (26).
I heard someone on the radio, possibly one of the authors, discuss this and they seemed to be emphasising aerosol sprays that produced very small droplets rather than cleaning chemicals generally.
I recently bought a robotic vacuum cleaner; I'd vacuum normally about once a week, and it seemed that I'd need to vacuum more often, because the dust gathers everywhere; having not the time or the inclination to bring out the heavy hoover, I decided to buy a robot one.
It is the best investition in the last 12 months, by far. It goes around automatically each day and keeps the floor clean. But that's not impresses me. What I'm impressed about the the level of dust that it accumulates each day. I'd expect each day to be a bit less, but no, it's about the same. So I set out to figure out where the dust comes from, as I live in a clean area of the city, surrounded by trees and greenery.
To my shock, it's us. The dust is primarily decomposed skin and clothes chafing off due to the skin friction. I can't imagine how damaging this is to our lungs, of course, nothing compared to chemicals or coal dust, but still...
I can't recommend enough to everybody to buy a robotic vacuum cleaner these days. I bought a cheap Eufy, and I can't imagine what a more expensive one would actually do more than this one.
Could you send me a detailed copy of your floor plan? Ideally, SVG? Thanks! Oh, and anything else the robot sends too, like your IP address and maybe GPS coordinates?
If you're willing to send, great -- thank you. I'd love to know, for undisclosed reasons. My email is in my profile, and you can even encrypt the files you send me using PGP. Although note that I'll be putting it on my Azure account and leaving it there for eternity.
If you're not willing to send me that, then please don't even try the "you've got nothing to hide" line, because you clearly do! I'm going to start challenging this every time I hear this excuse because it's demonstrably nonsense when challenged.
You won't send me that SVG because you know I have no fucking business knowing what your house looks like. Neither does the robot cleaning company. The files could be kept on the device without any real loss of functionality. As Washuu posted below, they are now selling these floor plans. Should I make money off the floor plan you send me?
But couldn't this all be found out in public records? Look up the neighborhood, then who built the homes. Most builders don't have more than a few dozen floor plans.
In that case, why don't the companies just access those public files? Why build their own floor plans and send them back to the cloud to be sold? Why is there even a market for buying floor plans from people who didn't realize they were being mapped from their fucking vacuum cleaner.
You can't even trust a vacuum cleaner. I'm really coming to despise technology companies.
This seems a little paranoid. Everybody does this kind of mapping. Call Home Depot to get an estimate for flooring, and the person they send out laser measures everything and sends you floor plans back accurate to the quarter inch.
I agree with most of what you said, except this bit...
> I have no f---ing business knowing what your house looks like. Neither does the robot cleaning company. The files could be kept on the device without any real loss of functionality. As Washuu posted below, they are now selling these floor plans. Should I make money off the floor plan you send me?
They quite literally do have a business that requires them to know your floor plan, or at least to do a good job. Whether or not they upload it anywhere may be a different matter.
I have a robot that maps my floor plan - admittedly poorly, as we don't let it into every room and it's lidar, so a bit rough and contains no information about doors, windows, or anything I own in my home - but them sending me a push notification to my mobile phone when the robot either completes the cleaning or gets stuck is great. I just open the mobile app and I can see a rough map showing where the robot has been or where they are (if it's stuck), it is actually incredibly useful.
I don't at all question your right to not want a company having that information, I totally get it, but honestly myself and a lot of other people use Google services frequently, so in terms of privacy invasion this is so far down the list it doesn't even register. Yes I've made the choice to use Google services, just as I've made the choice to use a robot vacuum that connect to wi-fi and tells me information I believe is useful.
I do however dislike you suggesting that my robot vacuum should have it's functionality limited because you don't like the company collecting information. Particularly when there's already a super simple solution... just don't setup wi-fi on the robot vac. Problem solved.
>They quite literally do have a business that requires them to know your floor plan
No they don't. Let me be quite clear here: The robot must know your floor plan. The company doesn't need to. Analogy here: Apple sold me a computer running macOS. I get regular updates for XProtect, the built in Anti-Virus. They don't need to know what software I have installed, but the computer does to run that program. That's the difference here -- the local device vs the company (really their cloud).
>Whether or not they upload it anywhere may be a different matter.
Do they need the floor plans in the cloud? Or can the software work with it on the device, that's my question. Even privacy aside, does that mean if the company goes bankrupt, or my internet connection isn't working, that my vacuum cleaner is now broken? Even though the software on board could continue functioning fine? There's a longevity concern here -- I could be throwing away a device after months, despite it being functional.
>I do however dislike you suggesting that my robot vacuum should have it's functionality limited because you don't like the company collecting information.
Nothing you suggested above requires the cloud. Your phone could connect to the robot, through the cloud proxy for when you are not on your Wi-Fi network / otherwise cannot make a direct connection, and could pull the floor plan data from that. The fact this would also work over the LAN would provide a bit of capability to continue customizing the robot and seeing data even after the company's cloud has disappeared. I can't play some games because they had DRM for servers that no longer exist. It really sucks.
Additionally, I'm more asking for transparency and choice, rather than "no cloud features". I just see people trying to justify forced cloud features as "your privacy doesn't matter".
Hmm, I think as someone who doesn't own one of these vacuums you're jumping to quite a few conclusions about how they operate, and how the businesses that sell these devices operate.
1. I know of no manufacturer who requires you to connect your robot vac to their cloud. They function perfectly without being connected, and will continue to do so if the company goes up in flames over night.
> I can't play some games because they had DRM for servers that no longer exist. It really sucks.
DRM is very different to a company providing me with cloud access to information about my vacuum cleaner. DRM restricts (or "manages") your rights to use a product. The smart functionality is additional functionality they're offering. I don't have to use it if I don't want to, my vacuum isn't going to stop functioning because their servers go offline.
> Additionally, I'm more asking for transparency and choice, rather than "no cloud features". I just see people trying to justify forced cloud features as "your privacy doesn't matter".
No one is forcing anything upon you. There are plenty of "dumb" robots that don't have cloud functionality but will navigate around your home, buy one if you prefer it. Even still, the ones that do have cloud functionality, that functionality is used entirely at your own discretion.
2. You're assuming you know better than the company about how to offer this functionality.
You're suggesting the robot vac could just store the information on itself and when I'm not home I'll connect to the robot to retrieve said information. Am I supposed to set up port forwarding so I can connect to the robot vac from the outside world? What if I don't want my robot vac exposed to the outside world, which by the way, I don't.
The alternative would be that it pings home (a server somewhere) every 3 seconds or so, in order to see if I just decided I want to communicate with the robot. Then to setup something like a direct web socket connection and hope the routers along the way play nice. Doesn't sound like the best idea for battery life.
What about when my robot vac gets stuck (as previously described) and its battery inevitably runs out? Which by the way, is precisely what happens. Then how will I query where my robot is now that it's flat stuck under some piece of furniture somewhere around the house?
What about if the power goes out? What about when my home Internet goes down?
3. Security and convenience are almost always at odds. It's a trade off. Put your money where your mouth is and chose a manufacturer who aligns well with what you prefer.
I can think of a tonne of ways I could improve my Macbook's security, they're not particularly convenient though. For example, instead of Apple requiring me to connect to their servers to get updates (how dare they?), why don't they just have an option to mail the updates out on USB? That'd improve my security... it sure as hell doesn't sound convenient for anyone involved though.
There might be some super elaborate way (port forwarding, wall-powered base station charger is a computer etc.) that allows me to have similar functionality to what I've presently got available to me. However, it's not likely to be as convenient as the existing "cloud" solutions.
4. Just because a company has your information doesn't mean the company is evil.
Just because a company is storing data on a server somewhere doesn't automatically mean they're planning to come rob your house. Read their policies, it's highly unlikely that any vacuum company having a rough idea of your floor plan is going to negatively impact your existence on this planet in any way - unless you're getting high blood pressure over the issue for some reason (which I'd say is on you). I'm pretty sure my robot vac provid...
We used to have all our utilities work offline for decades and they work like they are supposed to. Issues were fixed during R&D by analysing every situation that might break the product.
Now, every company wants to collect data or they say the product will not function properly. All of them now needs to access internet for convenience. In a decade, our own belongings will say, I will not work unless you update me.
> In a decade, our own belongings will say, I will not work unless you update me.
I see this happening too, and I don't want any part of it.
Tech is making it way into everything, and it bothers me. Toothbrushes with LCD screens?
Anecdote: Metronomes are all digital now, whereas they used to all be mechanical, like analog watches. The windup mechanism is super simple; it's just a spring with a ratchet on it. The spring is designed to exert a constant force to counteract the natural friction of the pendulum swinging, like an inverted grandfather clock. Such a metronome is simple, straightforward, human-scale understandable from the most basic of investigation. A kid could understand it. Now, with digital metronomes, the damn thing is so tightly integrated that it comes with either a specifically designed IC, an FPGA with EEPROM, or a full CPU with software. Of course they require batteries. Can you figure out how it works from taking it apart? No chance. The chip itself has a stack of PhDs in it; let alone any software. It's fractally complex.
Leave aside Metronome software apps for a moment; these stupid digital metronomes have no swinging arm (a nice indicator to help you get rhythm back), only flashing lights. If/when it breaks, and it will break, let's say 20 years from now, what do I do? I've been programming my entire life and yet I still wouldn't have a clue how to fix it. Nor would anyone else for that matter. That damn thing will go in the bin, and I'll have to buy another. But the model from today won't be available then; I'll be forced to get some other whizz-bang techy thing that is all new and better, and more sophisticated, and even less repairable. Dumb. So yeah, nowadays I have an analog metronome and I'll fix it if it breaks.
The cheap electronic metronomes are just a 555, some passive components and a rotary switch. Diagnosing and fixing one is a really good project for a 10-15yo
> Diagnosing and fixing one is a really good project for a 10-15yo
It does sound fun. But, it'd be a project. Now imagine you had no manuals, voltmeter, or replacement chips. What's a 555? Not so fun now.
Or imagine this another way. You have all the docs, and a fully stocked electronics lab. And in the other corner is someone with a screwdriver and a broken mechanical metronome. Who's faster?
Way older than GDPR, opting out has been possible for Streetview as long as it is available in Germany. Many people didn't like the idea of Streetview, and the legal status isn't entirely clear (exceptions for photography in public are fairly limited in Germany), so Google added this instead of risking larger PR and legal problems.
> Could you send me a detailed copy of your floor plan?
This is in the listing information on houses, if you have a business relationship with someone where you know their address, you also know their floor plan.
Ummm.... Your floorplan is public information... Mine is easy to look up on my towns website. It even shows the location of outdoor features like patios and fences.
Most robotic vacuum cleaners don't map anything at all, they just run around semi-randomly.
Some of them are a little smarter and map your room internally in order to be a bit more efficient and move in more predictable patterns.
And finally, there are a few expensive models that are connected and are able to upload your floor plan. If you don't want to take advantage of that feature you paid good money for, it is a simple matter of not letting the robot in your home WiFi.
The first category of robots start at around $100 and do a decent job at cleaning. I don't think you really need more.
This is a strange image. The carpets aren't a source of dust,and if designed for it, carpets could capture more dust than a wood floor, until they are vacuumed. While the dust in room with a wood floor, would continue to circulate, and perhaps more of it would reach our lungs with a wooden floor.
Depending on how old your carpet is (10+ years), it could be the foam backing underneath disintegrating and getting sucked through the carpet. Do you have any high traffic areas that are obviously more worn than the rest of the carpet? If so, you need new carpet.
There should be a different type of foam layer. Modern laminate flooring usually involves a layer of hard foam underneath to help deaden sound. So it could also be contributing.
Robot vacuums are brilliant. It's worth pointing out that a big vacuum cleaner does a better job at collecting dust than a robot vacuum. One run with a high-powered wired vacuum probably collects as much as 10 runs with a robot one; you see a little dust collected every day because it's not collecting everything on every run. However, the benefit of a robot is that it runs every day. So it's less efficient in the short run, but in the long run it gets the job done. Streaming vs batch. :-)
>I'd expect each day to be a bit less, but no, it's about the same.
That tells me your cleaner is either not powerful enough or you need to run it more often. When I used mine (not even daily), it would be a lot initially and after a few runs would pick up less.
Of course, my "less" may just be the baseline that you're seeing.
As for dust, people used to say 90% of dust is dead skin cells. That claim is often disputed.
Not sure why this struck a nerve with me but this is really shitty reporting. I guess because the site labeled itself as science news but the article is all confirmation bias and correlation v causation.
On entry to the article of course it seems like common sense that breathing in what could boil down to chlorine gas (bleaches) and peroxide mist etc would be bad for you.
But the entire article is then trying to fit a poorly designed and sampled study to that common sense. By the time you get to the end of the article where there was no measured effect in men, I don't think the collected data supports any of the color commentary.
It would be interesting to see a properly sampled study in a country like the US with wider socioeconomic gradient and crosscutting clean v non-cleaners.
It does a pretty good job explaining what was analyzed in the study. It talks about negative results (i.e. no effect in men, no COPD), and at the end of the article it discusses the limitations.
It is a Eureka report--It's a press release that I think is usually written by the researchers themselves or the University.
Is the science valid? Maybe, maybe not. But I do not perceive this as bad reporting
If this worries you, here's a cleaning tip for cleaning your tub with much better results and much less effort.
In a spray bottle, mix 1/2 vinegar and 1/2 unscented dish detergent. Spray your shower/tub down with the mixture, including shower curtain. Walk away. In 30 minutes rinse off. You'll never use one of those industrial scented cleaners to do this again.
Or, you know, simply use soap and water in a small bucket, which is much less likely to be inhaled and will smell much better. Sometimes just water will work. You can also steam clean with plain water. These will clean most things, including windows if you use a squeegee. Simply wiping with water will make things appear clean, and magic erasers (soap free) can be used for stubborn stains.
Tubs and showers aren't generally a problem if you rinse and squeegee after you are done. Curtains are a pain, but doors are similar. Plain dishsoap takes off soap scum.
> The number of men who worked as occupational cleaners was also small, and their exposure to cleaning agents was likely different from that of women working as cleaning professionals.
I don't understand this. How being a male working as cleaning professional will get a different exposure to cleaning agents? It's the same job, with the same chemicals.
A family member working in the construction business told me that it was also the case for construction worker, they were dying much younger than the average, because of exposure to airborn particles from paint, concrete, asbestos, dust, wood and other various chemicals.
92 comments
[ 205 ms ] story [ 3054 ms ] threadWhy don’t we wear face masks when cleaning?
Edit: face mask not meat mask!
But in personal experience, whenever I finish up with a patient in contact isolation, I use bleach wipes on my steth. Not only does the odor strongly penetrate the mask, but by mitigating the dilution effect of free air flow, I honestly feel like it concentrates more of the crap inside the mask.
For whatever anecdote is worth.
Society ignored those miners too, and left them to die, and here you are in 2018 trying to erase that and make it about gender when it’s really about The Workers.
Science is important, even for the 'its obvious, everyone knows it is dangerous' kinda stuff.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6549a1.htm
Indeed. Intuition, or in other words the "well, that's obvious" feeling, might be a good lazy approximation of the truth, but it is often wrong when examined closely.
Having witnessed the whiplash in scientific understanding I'd almost say that "it's more complicated than that" is a more accurate summation. Since often the approximation isn't totally wrong but it's more a simplification of the issue.
There actually aren’t enough people dying of coal miner’s lung to allow good studies of it. Which is too bad (Er... you know what I mean), because our treatments for it are subsequently based on arm-chair hypotheses rather than solid science.
They're reporting what they find along with the caveats of their data sources.
> [106] Fifty-three percent of the participants were women
> [154] No association between lung function and cleaning was seen for males.
> [264] Finally, the greater impact seen in women (both cleaning at home and occupational cleaners) could be mediated by a different susceptibility according to sex, as is reported for other mixed chemical exposures such as tobacco smoke and other occupational exposures as wood dust, where studies have indicated that less exposure in women is need to develop illness.
So the study is decently written up. However the article itself is leaving a bit more room for interpretation than necessary by saying that
> The study also did not find that men who cleaned, either at home or at work, experienced greater decline in FEV1 or FVC than men who did not.
The phrasing "did not experience greater decline in FEV1 or FVC" - i.e. "no difference" - is terrible. Also:
> The number of men who worked as occupational cleaners was also small, and their exposure to cleaning agents was likely different from that of women working as cleaning professionals.
"Different" is really vague. For completeness, in the study
> [119] There were 293 (8.9%) women and 57 (1.9%) men that reported working with occupational cleaning.
> [256] There was no apparent accelerated decline in lung function in men, but it seems likely that the exposures in men who work as cleaners may be different from those in women
But also
> [259] Our entrance questions might possibly not have picked up i.e. [sic] male industrial cleaners.
Finally, the quote from Mr Svanes in the article doesn't quite follow:
> "The take home message of this study is that in the long run cleaning chemicals very likely cause rather substantial damage to your lungs," Øistein Svanes said. "These chemicals are usually unnecessary; microfiber cloths and water are more than enough for most purposes."
> He added that public health officials should strictly regulate cleaning products and encourage producers to develop cleaning agents that cannot be inhaled.
So regardless of the science, we can see what his opinion on the matter is. I think it's a bit simplistic/sound-bite orientated.
---
One study that would really interest me is if cleaner type preference varies by gender. E.g. if women prefer using spray cleaners, and men prefer using liquid cleaners. Or if men cleaning at home simply use less, erm, sophisticated cleaners. Personally, I find dish soap adequate for most cleaning in the kitchen, which various partners have always scoffed at.
> This study presents evidence that cooking habits are associated with lung cancer in Taiwanese women nonsmokers. As shown in this and our earlier study (1), women who do not use fume extractors during cooking are at high risk of developing lung cancer. Furthermore, women who wait until the oil has reached a high temperature before cooking the food (stir frying, frying, and deep frying) and do not use a fume extractor have a consistently higher risk of lung cancer when compared with both hospital and community controls.
and further:
> In Taiwan, the market for vegetable oil increased from less than 50 percent to 85 percent between 1950 and 1990. However, vegetable oil containing unsaturated fatty acids was found to be more unstable than lard oil at higher temperatures and could emit benzoapyrene, which was not found in lard oil fumes (26).
If you want to maximize your life expectation, you have to restrict yourself quite a lot.
And I think the goal of studies like this should not be to say "don't use it, it kills you" but rather to make us find a better alternative.
If you live with other people you probably need to convince them to do things differently too.
In my experience this can be very stressful and I wonder if the induced stress of even worse for ones health.
i wouldn't be surprised if the same held true for cleaning agents.
It is the best investition in the last 12 months, by far. It goes around automatically each day and keeps the floor clean. But that's not impresses me. What I'm impressed about the the level of dust that it accumulates each day. I'd expect each day to be a bit less, but no, it's about the same. So I set out to figure out where the dust comes from, as I live in a clean area of the city, surrounded by trees and greenery.
To my shock, it's us. The dust is primarily decomposed skin and clothes chafing off due to the skin friction. I can't imagine how damaging this is to our lungs, of course, nothing compared to chemicals or coal dust, but still...
I can't recommend enough to everybody to buy a robotic vacuum cleaner these days. I bought a cheap Eufy, and I can't imagine what a more expensive one would actually do more than this one.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2017/07/25/ro...
I do not count a clause buried in a terms of service as informed consent.
Neither do EU courts. I guess this "feature" is only available in the US?
If you're willing to send, great -- thank you. I'd love to know, for undisclosed reasons. My email is in my profile, and you can even encrypt the files you send me using PGP. Although note that I'll be putting it on my Azure account and leaving it there for eternity.
If you're not willing to send me that, then please don't even try the "you've got nothing to hide" line, because you clearly do! I'm going to start challenging this every time I hear this excuse because it's demonstrably nonsense when challenged.
You won't send me that SVG because you know I have no fucking business knowing what your house looks like. Neither does the robot cleaning company. The files could be kept on the device without any real loss of functionality. As Washuu posted below, they are now selling these floor plans. Should I make money off the floor plan you send me?
You can't even trust a vacuum cleaner. I'm really coming to despise technology companies.
This seems a little paranoid. Everybody does this kind of mapping. Call Home Depot to get an estimate for flooring, and the person they send out laser measures everything and sends you floor plans back accurate to the quarter inch.
> I have no f---ing business knowing what your house looks like. Neither does the robot cleaning company. The files could be kept on the device without any real loss of functionality. As Washuu posted below, they are now selling these floor plans. Should I make money off the floor plan you send me?
They quite literally do have a business that requires them to know your floor plan, or at least to do a good job. Whether or not they upload it anywhere may be a different matter.
I have a robot that maps my floor plan - admittedly poorly, as we don't let it into every room and it's lidar, so a bit rough and contains no information about doors, windows, or anything I own in my home - but them sending me a push notification to my mobile phone when the robot either completes the cleaning or gets stuck is great. I just open the mobile app and I can see a rough map showing where the robot has been or where they are (if it's stuck), it is actually incredibly useful.
I don't at all question your right to not want a company having that information, I totally get it, but honestly myself and a lot of other people use Google services frequently, so in terms of privacy invasion this is so far down the list it doesn't even register. Yes I've made the choice to use Google services, just as I've made the choice to use a robot vacuum that connect to wi-fi and tells me information I believe is useful.
I do however dislike you suggesting that my robot vacuum should have it's functionality limited because you don't like the company collecting information. Particularly when there's already a super simple solution... just don't setup wi-fi on the robot vac. Problem solved.
No they don't. Let me be quite clear here: The robot must know your floor plan. The company doesn't need to. Analogy here: Apple sold me a computer running macOS. I get regular updates for XProtect, the built in Anti-Virus. They don't need to know what software I have installed, but the computer does to run that program. That's the difference here -- the local device vs the company (really their cloud).
>Whether or not they upload it anywhere may be a different matter.
Do they need the floor plans in the cloud? Or can the software work with it on the device, that's my question. Even privacy aside, does that mean if the company goes bankrupt, or my internet connection isn't working, that my vacuum cleaner is now broken? Even though the software on board could continue functioning fine? There's a longevity concern here -- I could be throwing away a device after months, despite it being functional.
>I do however dislike you suggesting that my robot vacuum should have it's functionality limited because you don't like the company collecting information.
Nothing you suggested above requires the cloud. Your phone could connect to the robot, through the cloud proxy for when you are not on your Wi-Fi network / otherwise cannot make a direct connection, and could pull the floor plan data from that. The fact this would also work over the LAN would provide a bit of capability to continue customizing the robot and seeing data even after the company's cloud has disappeared. I can't play some games because they had DRM for servers that no longer exist. It really sucks.
Additionally, I'm more asking for transparency and choice, rather than "no cloud features". I just see people trying to justify forced cloud features as "your privacy doesn't matter".
1. I know of no manufacturer who requires you to connect your robot vac to their cloud. They function perfectly without being connected, and will continue to do so if the company goes up in flames over night.
> I can't play some games because they had DRM for servers that no longer exist. It really sucks.
DRM is very different to a company providing me with cloud access to information about my vacuum cleaner. DRM restricts (or "manages") your rights to use a product. The smart functionality is additional functionality they're offering. I don't have to use it if I don't want to, my vacuum isn't going to stop functioning because their servers go offline.
> Additionally, I'm more asking for transparency and choice, rather than "no cloud features". I just see people trying to justify forced cloud features as "your privacy doesn't matter".
No one is forcing anything upon you. There are plenty of "dumb" robots that don't have cloud functionality but will navigate around your home, buy one if you prefer it. Even still, the ones that do have cloud functionality, that functionality is used entirely at your own discretion.
2. You're assuming you know better than the company about how to offer this functionality.
You're suggesting the robot vac could just store the information on itself and when I'm not home I'll connect to the robot to retrieve said information. Am I supposed to set up port forwarding so I can connect to the robot vac from the outside world? What if I don't want my robot vac exposed to the outside world, which by the way, I don't.
The alternative would be that it pings home (a server somewhere) every 3 seconds or so, in order to see if I just decided I want to communicate with the robot. Then to setup something like a direct web socket connection and hope the routers along the way play nice. Doesn't sound like the best idea for battery life.
What about when my robot vac gets stuck (as previously described) and its battery inevitably runs out? Which by the way, is precisely what happens. Then how will I query where my robot is now that it's flat stuck under some piece of furniture somewhere around the house?
What about if the power goes out? What about when my home Internet goes down?
3. Security and convenience are almost always at odds. It's a trade off. Put your money where your mouth is and chose a manufacturer who aligns well with what you prefer.
I can think of a tonne of ways I could improve my Macbook's security, they're not particularly convenient though. For example, instead of Apple requiring me to connect to their servers to get updates (how dare they?), why don't they just have an option to mail the updates out on USB? That'd improve my security... it sure as hell doesn't sound convenient for anyone involved though.
There might be some super elaborate way (port forwarding, wall-powered base station charger is a computer etc.) that allows me to have similar functionality to what I've presently got available to me. However, it's not likely to be as convenient as the existing "cloud" solutions.
4. Just because a company has your information doesn't mean the company is evil.
Just because a company is storing data on a server somewhere doesn't automatically mean they're planning to come rob your house. Read their policies, it's highly unlikely that any vacuum company having a rough idea of your floor plan is going to negatively impact your existence on this planet in any way - unless you're getting high blood pressure over the issue for some reason (which I'd say is on you). I'm pretty sure my robot vac provid...
Now, every company wants to collect data or they say the product will not function properly. All of them now needs to access internet for convenience. In a decade, our own belongings will say, I will not work unless you update me.
I see this happening too, and I don't want any part of it.
Tech is making it way into everything, and it bothers me. Toothbrushes with LCD screens?
Anecdote: Metronomes are all digital now, whereas they used to all be mechanical, like analog watches. The windup mechanism is super simple; it's just a spring with a ratchet on it. The spring is designed to exert a constant force to counteract the natural friction of the pendulum swinging, like an inverted grandfather clock. Such a metronome is simple, straightforward, human-scale understandable from the most basic of investigation. A kid could understand it. Now, with digital metronomes, the damn thing is so tightly integrated that it comes with either a specifically designed IC, an FPGA with EEPROM, or a full CPU with software. Of course they require batteries. Can you figure out how it works from taking it apart? No chance. The chip itself has a stack of PhDs in it; let alone any software. It's fractally complex.
Leave aside Metronome software apps for a moment; these stupid digital metronomes have no swinging arm (a nice indicator to help you get rhythm back), only flashing lights. If/when it breaks, and it will break, let's say 20 years from now, what do I do? I've been programming my entire life and yet I still wouldn't have a clue how to fix it. Nor would anyone else for that matter. That damn thing will go in the bin, and I'll have to buy another. But the model from today won't be available then; I'll be forced to get some other whizz-bang techy thing that is all new and better, and more sophisticated, and even less repairable. Dumb. So yeah, nowadays I have an analog metronome and I'll fix it if it breaks.
It does sound fun. But, it'd be a project. Now imagine you had no manuals, voltmeter, or replacement chips. What's a 555? Not so fun now.
Or imagine this another way. You have all the docs, and a fully stocked electronics lab. And in the other corner is someone with a screwdriver and a broken mechanical metronome. Who's faster?
BTW the digital one I have has no moving parts; it has buttons to select the bpm and pattern from pre-programmed options.
I'm curious why is that so? Is it possible due to GDPR?
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_c...
[2] https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/germanys-complicat...
This is in the listing information on houses, if you have a business relationship with someone where you know their address, you also know their floor plan.
Some of them are a little smarter and map your room internally in order to be a bit more efficient and move in more predictable patterns.
And finally, there are a few expensive models that are connected and are able to upload your floor plan. If you don't want to take advantage of that feature you paid good money for, it is a simple matter of not letting the robot in your home WiFi.
The first category of robots start at around $100 and do a decent job at cleaning. I don't think you really need more.
That tells me your cleaner is either not powerful enough or you need to run it more often. When I used mine (not even daily), it would be a lot initially and after a few runs would pick up less.
Of course, my "less" may just be the baseline that you're seeing.
As for dust, people used to say 90% of dust is dead skin cells. That claim is often disputed.
On entry to the article of course it seems like common sense that breathing in what could boil down to chlorine gas (bleaches) and peroxide mist etc would be bad for you.
But the entire article is then trying to fit a poorly designed and sampled study to that common sense. By the time you get to the end of the article where there was no measured effect in men, I don't think the collected data supports any of the color commentary.
It would be interesting to see a properly sampled study in a country like the US with wider socioeconomic gradient and crosscutting clean v non-cleaners.
It does a pretty good job explaining what was analyzed in the study. It talks about negative results (i.e. no effect in men, no COPD), and at the end of the article it discusses the limitations.
It is a Eureka report--It's a press release that I think is usually written by the researchers themselves or the University.
Is the science valid? Maybe, maybe not. But I do not perceive this as bad reporting
In a spray bottle, mix 1/2 vinegar and 1/2 unscented dish detergent. Spray your shower/tub down with the mixture, including shower curtain. Walk away. In 30 minutes rinse off. You'll never use one of those industrial scented cleaners to do this again.
This doesn't, it works much better, and is much cheaper.
Tubs and showers aren't generally a problem if you rinse and squeegee after you are done. Curtains are a pain, but doors are similar. Plain dishsoap takes off soap scum.
If you get mildew, using a squeegee will usually prevent that. To get rid of it, though, use fresh hydrogen peroxide instead of bleach.
The vinegar/dish detergent mixture really gets the soap scum, though.
I don't understand this. How being a male working as cleaning professional will get a different exposure to cleaning agents? It's the same job, with the same chemicals.
A family member working in the construction business told me that it was also the case for construction worker, they were dying much younger than the average, because of exposure to airborn particles from paint, concrete, asbestos, dust, wood and other various chemicals.