ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th November 2019, 11:06 AM   #1
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,440
1 killed, 10 sickened in chemical incident at Mass. restaurant

The incident happened Thursday night in a Buffalo Wild Wings when an employee began using a common floor-cleaning agent to mop the kitchen floor became severely and unexpectedly sickened; other employees and eventually customers were driven out of the building by powerfully noxious fumes, with several feeling ill enough to take themselves to the emergency room for evaluation. The employee who had been mopping the floor was transported by ambulance and pronounced dead at the hospital.

Quote:
"We were just sitting at the bar, and kind of the smell of, like, ammonia and chlorine came over us, and a bunch of people started coughing," said Jim Jorefice, who was inside the restaurant with some coworkers at the time.

The three men said they asked a restaurant employee if everything was OK and were told some chemicals had spilled in the kitchen.

"At first, I just thought it was the dishwasher, someone poured some chemicals down, but then, it got stronger and stronger," Jorefice said.

Eventually, they moved to a window employees had opened. Then, firefighters arrived in gas masks and told them to leave the restaurant immediately.

Super 8, a sodium hypochlorite, is frequently used in sanitation.

"This is a product that we've been told is a common product used in floor cleaning," Patterson said. "For some reason tonight, there was just a reaction that led to this."
This reminds me of a situation which took place recently regarding a spilled cleaning agent on an airplane reportedly sickening 3 crew and resulting in a diversion of the airplane and transport of some crew and passengers to the hospital. The event was covered in a thread here, and the consensus seemed to be that all of the reported sickness must have been mass hysteria, based mostly on the assumption that a cleaning chemical that would be so toxic when spilled would not be allowed on an airplane to begin with.

But here we have a very similar situation - some apparently spilled multi-purpose cleaner, of a very common variety, which is normally used every day in similar establishments across the country without incident including the very one at which this accident occurred, which on this particular night somehow produced fumes so noxious they overcame and killed the person working with them and led several others to seek medical attention. It's not known yet how this happened, but the language of the article suggests that investigators believe inadvertent contamination or contact with some other substance could have caused a unique reaction.

It's interesting to note that had that employee not been killed, this entire incident could also be summarily dismissed as nothing more than mass hysteria because some people smelled a chemical, just like the incident on the airplane. I suppose it still could, and it's possible the employee might have somehow mass-hysteria'd so hard that he actually mass-hysteria'd himself literally to death, whereas the remaining employees and patrons who were driven out suffered only a more typical nonfatal variety of mass hysteria; however I'm leaning toward the death indicating that there was actually something harmful about the fumes this time. It makes me wonder if some kind of inadvertent contamination and unexpected resultant reaction might have actually made the crew on the airplane physically ill in a non-psychosomatic way after all.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 9th November 2019 at 11:07 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 11:13 AM   #2
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,890
Mixing it with ammonia produces toxic fumes.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 11:18 AM   #3
ArchSas
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 199
"'For some reason tonight, there was just a reaction that led to this.' Patterson added that crews were not sure whether the product had been mixed with anything else."

It sounds to me like the person mopping the floor might have accidentally mixed together two chemicals and created something toxic. Considering someone reported the smell of "amonia and chlorine," it's possible the person made the common mistake of mixing ammonia and bleach (AFAIK, sodium hypochlorite is a kind of "bleach"), which makes chlorine gas. Chlorine gas is quite fatal, especially if you're standing over a mop bucket full of it.

Last edited by ArchSas; 9th November 2019 at 11:19 AM.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 11:22 AM   #4
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,367
I would speculate that the deadly combination happened by accident or ignorance. That is bleach + ammonia.

The article already mentions that bleach was used (sodium hypochlorite). A patron mentions smelling ammonia in addition to chlorine (bleach smell).

By themselves, ammonia and bleach have their own dangers. But when combined the fumes can be rapidly fatal.

ETA: Ninjaed while typing.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 12:22 PM   #5
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 32,035
According to this:

Quote:
“A preliminary investigation conducted in conjunction with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indicates that a second employee had applied two substances, Super 8 and Scale Kleen, to the kitchen floor while attempting to clean it. The two substances reacted with one another, creating toxic fumes,” Burlington fire officials said in a Friday afternoon release.
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 12:50 PM   #6
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,121
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
According to this:
Some subsequent news articles say that Scale Kleen is an acidic product, and that it had been spilled on the floor prior to the floor being mopped using the bleach product. So it was not ammonia and bleach, but acid and bleach. Acid and bleach (sodium hypochlorite) will release chlorine gas.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 01:01 PM   #7
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,818
I probably came close to this kind of death 40+ years ago. I was a high-schooler working at Burger King and had the assignment to mop the bathroom floors. My cow-orker prepared the bucket for me. Took it into the bathroom, and within a minute or so I found the fumes so bad that I had to get out. Cow-orker sees me stumbling out and laughs.

I remember him telling me he put in bleach and ammonia, but I don't think either one of us knew that it could be deadly.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 06:07 AM   #8
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Some subsequent news articles say that Scale Kleen is an acidic product, and that it had been spilled on the floor prior to the floor being mopped using the bleach product. So it was not ammonia and bleach, but acid and bleach. Acid and bleach (sodium hypochlorite) will release chlorine gas.

The bleach product was also being misused. Super 8 is a sanitizer labeled for use on countertops, tables, dishes, and utensils, and it's supposed to be diluted at a rate of 1.5 ounces per 10 gallons of water. It's not for use on floors, despite what the workers were told, and not straight out of the bottle.

Registered EPA label.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 06:22 AM   #9
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,085
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
The bleach product was also being misused. Super 8 is a sanitizer labeled for use on countertops, tables, dishes, and utensils, and it's supposed to be diluted at a rate of 1.5 ounces per 10 gallons of water. It's not for use on floors, despite what the workers were told, and not straight out of the bottle.



Registered EPA label.
Of course it can be used on floors, it is just bleach. I wouldn't be surprised if the manufacturer also has a floor cleaner, a toilet cleaner and so on all with the same active product. Manufacturers often do this as a way to get folk to buy more product.

That said, this was a business so yes an employer should not be told to use something "off label".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 10:54 AM   #10
ArchSas
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Of course it can be used on floors, it is just bleach. I wouldn't be surprised if the manufacturer also has a floor cleaner, a toilet cleaner and so on all with the same active product. Manufacturers often do this as a way to get folk to buy more product.

That said, this was a business so yes an employer should not be told to use something "off label".
I'm sure that's part of it, but AFAIK, that system (use this for floors, this for countertops, etc.) is also used by businesses as an easy way to keep situations like what happened at the Buffalo Wild Wings from happening. That is, if you tell your employees a certain thing can only be used in certain areas, it will (hopefully) prevent them from accidentally making toxic chemical reactions, and without needing to teach them chemistry.

At least, that's what it seemed like to me during the short time I worked at Walmart. One time I had to clean a spill and got yelled at for using the wrong thing; when I asked why I messed up, no one could actually explain why until one of the store managers flat out told me about that system. And more recently, during a week-long safety training that involved stuff about chemical cleaners, a professional safety instructor told my entire workplace basically the same thing (companies label things for specific purposes, to minimize toxic reactions made by people who don't know better); I don't know where here got that information, but it made sense.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 01:02 PM   #11
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,121
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
The bleach product was also being misused. Super 8 is a sanitizer labeled for use on countertops, tables, dishes, and utensils, and it's supposed to be diluted at a rate of 1.5 ounces per 10 gallons of water. It's not for use on floors, despite what the workers were told, and not straight out of the bottle.

Registered EPA label.
I don't doubt it a bit. It's not totally unreasonable to put some bleach in mop water, but a little goes a long way. I doubt that enough chlorine to be more that a nuisance would have been released if it had been used at a sensible dilution.

ETA: As far as I can tell from what I've read so far, the "Super 8" product was simply a high strength bleach, 8.2% sodium hypochlorite, whereas laundry bleach is usually 5.25%. Having once worked for a company that made bleach, I know a little about it. Putting an 8% solution directly on the floor would result in an unhealthy level of chlorine in the air without the acid. Without the acid, it wouldn't be immediately dangerous, but it would be enough to be a respiratory irritant; employees would likely be going home with runny nose, sore throat and burning eyes. A few parts per million of chlorine in air will have that effect. With an acid spill already on the floor, nearly all the chlorine in the product would have been released. An 8% or so solution is about the strangest that it's practical to produce for selling in bottles. Anything stronger tends to lose strength in a matter of a few days.

Last edited by CORed; 10th November 2019 at 01:17 PM.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 01:35 PM   #12
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,831
If this was in California we'd simply ban bleach. Problem solved!
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 01:50 PM   #13
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I don't doubt it a bit. It's not totally unreasonable to put some bleach in mop water, but a little goes a long way. I doubt that enough chlorine to be more that a nuisance would have been released if it had been used at a sensible dilution.

ETA: As far as I can tell from what I've read so far, the "Super 8" product was simply a high strength bleach, 8.2% sodium hypochlorite, whereas laundry bleach is usually 5.25%.

As an EPA registered pesticide*, it was literally illegal to apply it to floors. "It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."
Granted, that regulation is generally only enforced for things like agricultural herbicides and insecticides, but misuse in what is considered a food processing facility could run into issues with other agencies.


*Anything that kills, diminishes, or repels a pest is classified as a pesticide, and bacteria, viruses, and fungi with health impacts are classified as pests, so disinfectants and sanitizers are considered pesticides.


Funny story. One of our customers at work was having their food plant audited by the USDA, and the auditor was throwing a fit because the paperwork for one of our sanitizers for use on food processing equipment described the product as a pesticide. They were exclaiming "You can't apply pesticides to food contact surfaces!!" The USDA employee wasn't aware of EPA regulations that directly impacted their own work.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 02:17 PM   #14
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,564
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
As an EPA registered pesticide*, it was literally illegal to apply it to floors...

*Anything that kills, diminishes, or repels a pest is classified as a pesticide, and bacteria, viruses, and fungi with health impacts are classified as pests, so disinfectants and sanitizers are considered pesticides.

These facts combined would appear to make it illegal for any business to use any disinfectant cleaning product on any floor ever. I strongly doubt that's actually the case, though. What am I missing?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 02:45 PM   #15
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
These facts combined would appear to make it illegal for any business to use any disinfectant cleaning product on any floor ever. I strongly doubt that's actually the case, though. What am I missing?

There are disinfectants labeled for use on floors, walls, and other non-food contact surfaces. This specific product is only labeled for use on tables, counters, dishes, and utensils.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 02:59 PM   #16
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,564
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
There are disinfectants labeled for use on floors, walls, and other non-food contact surfaces. This specific product is only labeled for use on tables, counters, dishes, and utensils.

Okay, thanks. That makes sense now.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 05:05 PM   #17
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
There are disinfectants labeled for use on floors, walls, and other non-food contact surfaces. This specific product is only labeled for use on tables, counters, dishes, and utensils.
The absence of the word "floors" from the EPA's description is not meant to be proscriptive of use on floors. Specifically invoking things like counter tops, chopping blocks, and other food-prep surfaces is done to point out that the chemical is safe to use on surfaces that will be in contact with food (i.e., if food-preparation surfaces weren't mentioned, that WOULD be proscriptive).

There's no reason why a cleaner that's safe to use on food-preparation equipment, which is meant to come into contact with food that people will be ingesting, wouldn't be safe to use on floors if the latter fact isn't specifically called out on the label.

On the manufacturer's website, Super 8 is described as thus:

Quote:
Extra Strength General Purpose Detergent

Extra strength ALL purpose cleaning liquid detergent in concentrated form. Lifts of oil, ink, wax, grease, soil and dirt from floors, walls, carpets, upholstery, counter tops, chairs, windows, enamel, equipment, etc. Its versatility eliminates a cupboard full of shampoos, scouring powders and detergents.

Applications

For general purpose cleaning of windows, floors & carpets, bathrooms, tiles, equipment, kitchens, upholstery, walls & furniture and vehicles in households, factories, shops, hotels & lodges.

Usage

Dilute as the particular job requires. Spray or mop on and wipe off. On heavy deposits let T419 rest for a few minutes. As a general guide:
Windows 1:200
Floors and carpets 1:50
Baths and ceramics 1:50
Equipment 1:25
Kitchen 1:50
Upholstery 1:25
Walls & furniture 1:25
Vehicles 1:100
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2019, 09:57 PM   #18
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
On the manufacturer's website, Super 8 is described as thus:

That's a different product, from a different manufacturer.
Auto-Chlor Super 8.

Quote:
Auto-Chlor System Super 8 is EPA registered for use on food contact surfaces as a sanitizer without a rinse. Super 8 is used to sanitize dishware, flatware, glassware, utensils, pots, pans, and other food contact surfaces. Super 8 can be used to sanitize in low temperature warewashing, three compartment sinks and for hard non-porous food contact surfaces sanitizing in foodservice environment.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 09:15 AM   #19
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,013
Why would something used on food-contact surfaces be forbidden from use in non-contact surfaces?

Seems backwards
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 09:55 AM   #20
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Why would something used on food-contact surfaces be forbidden from use in non-contact surfaces?

Seems backwards

Some products can. In a lot of cases, it's a matter of marketing. If your target market is food processing equipment, you don't need directions for floors and walls on your label. There's a minimum allowed font size for text and the size of the label is limited by the size of the container. Some agricultural products have 30-40 pages of directions on their master label. A company may register a product with the EPA that has 20 different use sites, and then they'll sell into different markets under four different alternate brand names, with 5 different sites on each product label. For example, a biocide for industrial water treatment may have cooling towers and paper mills on the master label, while there are two different marketed versions, one for cooling towers and one for paper mills.

In some cases, it's a question of efficacy. For no rinse products the EPA has a maximum level of residue that can remain on food contact surfaces without creating a hazard in the food. That concentration may not be effective on other environmental surfaces that have harsher exposure to contamination.
The company I work for makes a food contact sanitizer that's 150-400 ppm quaternary ammonium chloride in the diluted use solution. We also have a non-food contact disinfectant that's 660 ppm quat when used. 400 ppm is the maximum that can be used on food contact surfaces without requiring a potable water rinse afterward.

There's also the difference between sanitizing and disinfecting in terms of approved efficacy testing. Sanitizing is killing 99.9% of germs in 5 minutes or 99.999% of germs in 30 seconds in fifteen test samples, depending on the surface (the higher is for food contact surfaces). Disinfection requires killing 100% of germs in at least 171 of 180 test samples (three runs of 60, with no more than 3 positives per run) in 10 minutes. A product that can sanitize may not be able to disinfect, while a disinfectant may be too strong to use as a sanitizer.

But marketing is often the big thing.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 10:39 AM   #21
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
Some products can. In a lot of cases, it's a matter of marketing. If your target market is food processing equipment, you don't need directions for floors and walls on your label. There's a minimum allowed font size for text and the size of the label is limited by the size of the container. Some agricultural products have 30-40 pages of directions on their master label. A company may register a product with the EPA that has 20 different use sites, and then they'll sell into different markets under four different alternate brand names, with 5 different sites on each product label. For example, a biocide for industrial water treatment may have cooling towers and paper mills on the master label, while there are two different marketed versions, one for cooling towers and one for paper mills.
But again, there's no reason that's proscriptive. It's fine to buy the one labeled for cooling towers and use it on a paper mill instead.

There really is no apparent reason why something that's safe enough to use on a food-contact surface is somehow unsafe to use on a floor that people will just be walking on.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 11:31 AM   #22
Armitage72
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
But again, there's no reason that's proscriptive. It's fine to buy the one labeled for cooling towers and use it on a paper mill instead.

There really is no apparent reason why something that's safe enough to use on a food-contact surface is somehow unsafe to use on a floor that people will just be walking on.

There's also no reason that you can't drive your car on the left side of the road in the US. The car will work perfectly fine on that side of the road. Whether the product works or not, the label of every EPA registered product states that it's a violation of federal law to use the product in a manner inconsistent with the label. The label is a legal document enforceable under 40 CFR 150-189. Labels are required to list the application sites for the product. Registrants submit efficacy data and environmental hazard information for the specific applications that are on their label. The EPA reviews every label and approves the specific text on that label. Any changes to the label have to be submitted to the EPA for review and approval.
For facilities that handle food, the USDA used to review cleaning chemicals for use in those facilities and issue certificates saying that they were safe to use. They discontinued that program in 1997, replacing it with supplier-generated Letters of Guaranty stating that a particular product is safe to use and will not adulterate food products when used according to the label directions. This shifts the responsibility for any contamination from the processor to the chemical supplier, if they used the chemical according to the label directions. Off label use shifts the liability back to them if food is contaminated by their misuse.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 12:35 PM   #23
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,626
Last kitchen I worked in, the staff looked at you absolutely sideways if you diluted the cleaning agents the way the label called for. They’d pour the 5:1 degreaser straight in the spray bottle. I would have thought the managers would wonder how they went through the stuff so fast but nope. It hurt to breathe anywhere near where they were using it.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 03:58 PM   #24
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
There's also no reason that you can't drive your car on the left side of the road in the US. The car will work perfectly fine on that side of the road. Whether the product works or not, the label of every EPA registered product states that it's a violation of federal law to use the product in a manner inconsistent with the label.
I am aware of the warning statement of which you speak, but I am skeptical of your implication that it is meant to be interpreted so narrowly that using a cleaning agent as a cleaning agent, just on a surface not explicitly listed (like using a cleaner that says it's okay on countertops to clean a floor too), is the kind of "inconsistent use" that is being implied by it. You're not really committing a federal crime by taking an aspirin, say, to help with a stiff and sore neck just because "stiff and sore neck" isn't specifically listed on the bottle; it is a pain reliever, and taking it to relieve pain is perfectly consistent with the product's labeling. So is spraying a wasp with insecticide marketed primarily as a roach-killer. Using the roach-killer as a doorknob lubricant, that would be "a manner inconsistent with its labeling".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 04:20 PM   #25
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,844
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I am aware of the warning statement of which you speak, but I am skeptical of your implication that it is meant to be interpreted so narrowly that using a cleaning agent as a cleaning agent, just on a surface not explicitly listed (like using a cleaner that says it's okay on countertops to clean a floor too), is the kind of "inconsistent use" that is being implied by it. You're not really committing a federal crime by taking an aspirin, say, to help with a stiff and sore neck just because "stiff and sore neck" isn't specifically listed on the bottle; it is a pain reliever, and taking it to relieve pain is perfectly consistent with the product's labeling. So is spraying a wasp with insecticide marketed primarily as a roach-killer. Using the roach-killer as a doorknob lubricant, that would be "a manner inconsistent with its labeling".
And when the local health inspector makes their mandated visit and asks for proof you have been following the health rule that floors are disinfected every day, you will have a problem. You are using a disinfectant not certified for floors: you have not been disinfecting them to meet the official requirement.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 05:19 PM   #26
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
And when the local health inspector makes their mandated visit and asks for proof you have been following the health rule that floors are disinfected every day, you will have a problem. You are using a disinfectant not certified for floors: you have not been disinfecting them to meet the official requirement.
I do not believe there is such a thing as "certified for floors". I'm open to being shown an example of this being some kind of official thing, though.

As far as I'm aware, there are certain proscriptive approvals - indoor vs outdoor use only; safe for use on food-prep surfaces is the one at issue here. But things you're -not- allowed to use a chemical on, or only allowed to use a chemical on, tend to be designated by inclusion, not omission. A bottle of all-purpose kitchen cleaner says on the bottle that it's "for indoor residential use only" for instance.

Again, something that's effective enough to sanitize commercial kitchen counter-tops and butcher blocks to a food-contact-safe standard cannot logically be "not effective enough" to disinfect a floor, whose standard would be lower if not equivalent given that food won't be touching it..
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 05:29 PM   #27
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,564
I always thought "use the product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" was a euphemism for huffing the contents.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 06:36 PM   #28
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,844
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I do not believe there is such a thing as "certified for floors". I'm open to being shown an example of this being some kind of official thing, though.

As far as I'm aware, there are certain proscriptive approvals - indoor vs outdoor use only; safe for use on food-prep surfaces is the one at issue here. But things you're -not- allowed to use a chemical on, or only allowed to use a chemical on, tend to be designated by inclusion, not omission. A bottle of all-purpose kitchen cleaner says on the bottle that it's "for indoor residential use only" for instance.

Again, something that's effective enough to sanitize commercial kitchen counter-tops and butcher blocks to a food-contact-safe standard cannot logically be "not effective enough" to disinfect a floor, whose standard would be lower if not equivalent given that food won't be touching it..
See this:
https://cleanersolutions.net/sanitiz...cial-kitchens/

Actually the key for disinfectants for food contact services is that they do not persist and/or can be easily washed away so as to not poison the customers. They can therefore be weaker in certain regards than disinfectants for walls and floors, which are likely not to be licked by the customers yet are faced with much heavier and challenging dirt/organisms tracked in by shoes rather than hands, etc.

Last edited by Giordano; 11th November 2019 at 06:39 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 10:07 PM   #29
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
According to this:
Quote:
“A preliminary investigation conducted in conjunction with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indicates that a second employee had applied two substances, Super 8 and Scale Kleen, to the kitchen floor while attempting to clean it. The two substances reacted with one another, creating toxic fumes,” Burlington fire officials said in a Friday afternoon release.
Scale Kleen's MSDS as found here lists phosphoric acid & nitric acid as its main ingredients. Not ammonia, but mixing it with sodium hypochlorite (bleach) results in just the same: Cl2 gas formation.

Today's PSA: Don't ever mix bleach with these things.
The Nimble Pianist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 10:13 PM   #30
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,115
I'm kinda surprised that this sort of accident doesn't happen more often.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2019, 10:19 PM   #31
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 824
Cl2(g) is some nasty stuff and it doesn't take much for you to notice you've been exposed to it. At small concentrations you'll damage mucosal membranes but won't die. It takes quite a bit to get to that level, so I'm actually surprised the manager was as exposed as he was.

Edit: This of course assumes he wasn't already respiratory-compromised, wasn't deterred for whatever reason by the noxious fumes, or doesn't have some other underlying medical condition that adds a layer of complexity to this case.

Last edited by The Nimble Pianist; 11th November 2019 at 10:23 PM.
The Nimble Pianist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 05:17 AM   #32
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
near miss in a laboratory

If one mixes bleach with ammonia, the Cl2 will react with ammonia to produce chloramines. From what I can gather in this thread, something else happened in the restaurant. Here is a description of an incident that was a near-miss but was similar.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 10:45 AM   #33
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
mixing the two was apparently unintentional

"But that employee did not know that an acid-based cleaner, Scale Kleen, had been spilled on the floor earlier, Patterson said. So when the worker used chlorine- and bleached-based Super 8 on the floor, the mixture turned green and started to bubble, Patterson added." link EDT, I see now that CORed addressed this in comment #6.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 12th November 2019 at 10:50 AM.
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2019, 11:00 AM   #34
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,440
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
See this:
https://cleanersolutions.net/sanitiz...cial-kitchens/

Actually the key for disinfectants for food contact services is that they do not persist and/or can be easily washed away so as to not poison the customers. They can therefore be weaker in certain regards than disinfectants for walls and floors, which are likely not to be licked by the customers yet are faced with much heavier and challenging dirt/organisms tracked in by shoes rather than hands, etc.
That's a reasonable argument for why a place may choose to use a more persistent cleaner on floors, although a possible rebuttal would be that a persistent chemical when walked on can be picked up by shoes and tracked out of the tiled area and into unwanted places like carpets and vehicle interiors. Walls can be touched incidentally by employees throughout the course of the day and lingering chemicals wind up transferred to food preparation surfaces by that means.

But that link still doesn't suggest there is a standard for floors that a food-surface cleaner would not meet:

Quote:
Where Should You Be Using Sanitizers in Your Restaurant?

Sanitizers should be used throughout the whole restaurant. Below are some examples of where they should be used along with tips to improve their uses.

1. Back of House –

Surface Sanitizers and Disinfecting Chemicals

Sanitizers should be used on all prep and cooking surfaces, on cooking utensils, kitchen walls and floors and on all equipment such as grills, hoods, sinks, faucets, ovens, coffee machines and more.
It also mentions that some chemicals will want to be left on the surface for a longer time to do their job, but it's talking it terms of around ten minutes or so - i.e., something will be cleaned and left for a few minutes to dry, during which time it's not likely to be walked on or otherwise messed with.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.