Speed Cleaning (14 page)

However, many cleaning services are perfectly willing to consider ideas from other experts. They want to know about anything that may
save them time, techniques that may save wasted energy, or products that may save their health. Naturally, we believe that suggesting or giving them this book and outfitting them with an apron and some cleaning tools are excellent ideas.

If the person cleaning for you is your employee, you can train him or her any way you like.
SPEED CLEANING
is custom-made for your situation. Your employee will be a better cleaner and will have more time available to do other things. Use our book as a training manual, and write or call us if you would like to order any of the supplies we use. If you or your housecleaner has a question, call or write. We’re happy to help in any way we can.

It’s most difficult to communicate if you and your housecleaner speak different languages. Sometimes translation services are available through the agency that sent the cleaner or through a few civic or religious organizations. But there aren’t enough of them and they aren’t uniformly available.

We’ve added a Spanish-language summary to this book that will be helpful if Spanish is the foreign language involved. We have other training in development in different mediums (for example, on videotape). You may call us at (415) 621-8444 for more information if these training tools would be helpful.

As most of us learned long ago, dirt and grime don’t just roll over and give up when they see us coming. So consumers have often turned to powerful cleaning agents to help the cause. These agents can have potentially harmful consequences on the environment long after they’re washed down the drain.

This is a time of transition—when many formerly cholesterol-happy cooks are turning to tofu. Likewise for cleaners’ technology—people are seeking ways to turn from hazardous cleaning agents to relatively benign ones. But this transition in technologies has only just begun. Accordingly, many recommendations in publications on the environment turn out to be personal beliefs or preferences that are not backed up with scientific data. We’ve sifted through these recommendations and integrated them with our own experience, and we list below our review of the products we use in terms of their probable environmental impacts. We have also listed alternatives in case you have other preferences.

It is important to distinguish between hazards to individual health
and hazards to the environment. The two are often inextricably entwined, but not always. For example, a product can be an irritant to an individual but can biodegrade quickly and thoroughly enough to pose little environmental hazard. On the other hand, a product may not be much of a personal irritant but may promote excessive growth of algae downstream in the waste cycle. By and large, when there’s a lack of environmental data, some publications shift to descriptions of personal hazard. Until the environmental data are in, one way of reasoning is that if a little of a product is personally hazardous, then a lot of it is likely to be environmentally hazardous too. That’s not always the case, but it’s often a good start.

Our own selection of the products we use (The Clean Team supplies our own products) was motivated by a strong desire to avoid products that caused health problems or irritation to ourselves. Our teams are exposed to five or more complete household cleanings every workday, so if there’s a problem with a product it’s readily apparent. None of the products we have recommended in this book, when used as described, have caused our teams health problems. Admittedly that is not an accurate index of their environmental impact, but we take it as a favorable sign.

Alternative formulas for brand-name cleaning products are being proposed by environmentalists as safer—both environmentally and personally. Some of these formulas are mixtures of several ingredients. Many environmentalists seem to believe that if one cleaner is good,
then several mixed together ought to be that much better. But that’s often not true. When you combine a second or third active ingredient, you can generate a chemical free-for-all, especially considering that there are so many trace compounds in ordinary tap water to begin with. In addition, mixtures of ingredients can work at cross purposes—such as mixing an acid and an alkali in the same formula. Unless a mixture of multiple ingredients has been thoroughly tested by someone with a competent background, stick with single-ingredient alternatives.

One of the most famous and dangerous combinations of household cleaners is chlorine bleach and ammonia, which produces potentially harmful chloramine fumes. But mixing chlorine bleach with other cleaning agents like acids—vinegar and phosphoric acid, for example—can liberate chlorine gas, which can be as toxic as chloramine.

By the way, you may be tempted to wear a face mask when working with cleaners to avoid exposure to fumes. But most cheap particle masks filter out only large dust particles—not vapors. To block vapors from cleaning agents you would need a cartridge-type or industrial-grade mask with an air supply (both of which require medical consultation before use if you are overweight, smoke, or have a heart condition). In most cases for household work, a mask seems unnecessary if
you’ve provided the abundant ventilation that is called for in the directions for just about all cleaning products.

Wearing rubber gloves, by contrast, is almost always a sensible idea when working with strong household cleaners. Unfortunately, many consumer varieties don’t effectively resist strong cleaning agents. We use a very thick type that resists even formaldehyde. They’re also 16 inches long, which helps a great deal to avoid those clammy dribbles down our arms and inside the glove when cleaning.

Before we consider individual products, let’s review a few ideas about environmental impacts that apply to many cleaners. Often the easiest way to clean in an environmentally sound way is simply to reduce the amount of the product used: use one paper towel instead of three; apply a tablespoon of Comet rather than half a cup. And use durable tools instead of disposable gimmicks: brushes, not disposable swipes.

Several products require reasonable caution when disposing large amounts down the drain—notably chlorine bleach and ammonia. The
P trap under the sink is made of relatively thin metal, and undiluted chlorine bleach can eat right through it if given the chance. So keep the cold (not hot!) water running if you pour a quart or more of bleach down the drain. Actually, the toilet is the preferred means of disposing of reasonable amounts of cleaner, except for ammonia (see below). To comply with laws for disposal of significant quantities of bleach or other potentially hazardous substances, contact hazardous-waste authorities in your area for the recommended procedure.

For your personal protection, provide abundant ventilation when using any strong cleaner. For prolonged exposure to powerful fumes like those of ammonia, bleach, and pine-oil cleaners, knowledgeable sources recommend exhausting the fumes out the window with a fan. (Presumably you are prudent enough not to be situated between the window and the fumes.) Another way to avoid respiratory exposure is to use pump-spray products instead of aerosols. This applies especially around children.

Most of us believe we can get reasonable information from labels regarding environmental and personal hazard. But consumer labels are not required to disclose many, many potentially dangerous substances. Why? The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has
limited jurisdiction. They can require a listing of an ingredient on a consumer label only if the substance is defined as a hazardous substance by one specific law (the Federal Hazardous Substances Act). And they can ban an ingredient only if an adequate label cannot be written for that listed ingredient (e.g., if adequate first-aid instructions cannot be given on a label).

What is covered by this federal law? Only substances that pose an acute (immediate) hazard—not chronic (long-term) hazards. Swell. If it doesn’t knock you over on the first whiff, you don’t have to be informed about it (with one or two exceptions—like asbestos). What does this exclude? Oh, merely
carcinogens
(agents that causes cancer),
mutagens
(agents that cause genetic mutations), and
teratogens
(agents that cause birth defects)! And just because the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) itself declares something to be a contaminant doesn’t mean you have to be informed about it on the label of the product you’ll be using in your home.

Such ingredients must be listed for industrial usage via something called a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). You can request an MSDS for a retail product from the manufacturer, who will usually voluntarily comply.

There’s little point in jumping all over the CPSC, because their jurisdiction is limited by law. Their budget hasn’t increased since 1973, and it’s an amount that the Pentagon probably spends in five minutes. The people to contact live in the White House and work in the House
and Senate. Tell them consumers need fuller disclosure on consumer labels so we can make up our own minds about what we’re introducing into our own homes and bodies. Thank you.

We started looking for a nonirritating general-purpose cleaner within a few days of starting The Clean Team. The grocery-shelf cleaners made most of us cough, especially in confined spaces. We ended our search with a unique product from Oregon.

It’s no accident that our Clean Team Red Juice is environmentally safe. It was designed to be that way. Dirt clings to surfaces like a stretched elastic membrane. Without getting into too much chemistry, Red Juice is basically a unique blend of surfactants—compounds that reduce the surface tension of the goop clinging to surfaces. The surfactants in Red Juice break this surface tension and allow the dirt to float away.

The surfactants in Red Juice are derived from sea kelp, among other things. What is
not
in it is also important: it lacks the surfactant in many janitorial and retail general-purpose cleaners—something called Butyl Cellosolve (2-butoxyethanol or closely related compounds). Butyl Cellosolve was formulated 25 to 30 years ago. According to California law,
¹
it is listed as a “chemical contaminant” and described as being
easily absorbed through the skin. (Maybe that’s why it irritates the lungs so quickly.) It injures the kidneys and liver, irritates the eyes and mucous membranes,
²
and is listed as “very toxic” by an established textbook on toxicology.
³

Needless to say, we were delighted to find a cleaner that didn’t contain a drop of Butyl Cellosolve. Red Juice has the USDA’s highest approval classification (A-1), meaning that it can be used on equipment in which food is made and on all surfaces of meat and dairy plants. It is nontoxic, odorless, and quickly and easily biodegradable (in 4 to 7 days).

Red Juice cannot be registered as a disinfectant because it lacks “killability” (thank goodness): it does not kill living cells on contact. But it cleans so well that bacteria and fungi have just about nothing to feed on, so the microbe count after cleaning a surface is close to zero.

We like Red Juice so well that we diluted it and colored it blue to make Blue Juice, which is the way we use and sell it. Its weaker concentration is all that’s needed for cleaning glass surfaces. Both the red and blue dyes are included in the USDA A-1 approval. If you’d like to order our Red or Blue Juice, see
this page
.

A solution of white vinegar and water is recommended by some sources. (Start with ¼ cup white vinegar to 1 quart water.) Or try 4 tablespoons baking soda per quart of water.
⁴
Don’t expect either of these alternatives to have much cleaning strength.

We recommend the use of only a tablespoon or so of laundry-strength chlorine bleach—and then only if there is a mildew problem in the bathroom. We also dribble it on other mildewed surfaces—we don’t spray it in a fine mist. This amount of bleach thus applied, especially rinsed with sufficient cold water afterward, does not appear to pose a significant environmental threat. Although chlorine bleach can be an individual health hazard in large enough amounts, we found no data on the environmental effects of the release of household-level amounts of chlorine bleach. Chlorine bleach in household quantities rapidly breaks down to a variety of common salts when it gets past the sink’s P trap and enters the common drainage system.

Clorox states that its bleach is safe for septic systems—at least in standard household amounts. Its chlorine bleach is registered with the EPA as a disinfectant and contains no phosphates.

If you are concerned about use of chlorine bleach in your home, consider using a more dilute solution. Clorox recommends a dilution of 1 part Clorox to 21.33 parts water (that’s ¾ cup per gallon of water) for anti-mildew operations, which is much more dilute than what we use (one to four). If you are concerned, you could experiment to find the most dilute solution that is still effective against the particular species of mildew in your home.

If you prefer not to use chlorine bleach at all, the alternative most commonly mentioned in the literature is a solution of borax and water. For example, Greenpeace
⁵
recommends a dilution of ½ cup borax per gallon of water. Powdered borax is available in the laundry section of larger grocery stores. We found no data showing that borax is effective against mildew or safe for the environment either, but it is less irritating than chlorine bleach for personal use.