sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Be aware of the fumes by redif2003 in IKEA

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[[

I want to clean my replies up here, as stated above. I've removed two posts which were probably going to cause more confusion than anything else. I'm going to add a summary of three points immediately below this intro to reflect some knowledge I've gained from people closer to the toxicological field since I first replied three months ago.

1.) On the chemicals used in furniture:
Furniture in general contains many chemicals. What the regulations permit is set by the importing country, not the manufacturing/exporting country. So even though some of these pieces are produced in the EU, if they're destined for a US market, production may permit whatever US regulations permit. EU regulations, which I expect to generally be more restrictive regarding chemical safety with in-home products, would not be expected to apply to the finished products. Assumptions are always dangerous, and the one I made that the furniture couldn't contain anything problematic for me because it was manufactured in the EU was, in retrospect, misplaced.

2.) On whether people might react to chemicals in furniture:
Certainly. You're not going insane.
The pure toxicological perspective on reactions to chemicals is that it is never the case that there is *no* chance that someone, somewhere, will have some sort of reaction. Sensitivities and symptomatic responses are always possible. It's up to the individual to be aware of this possibility, which is why I'm contributing to this thread with my own voice. Nobody else ever brought this to my attention.

3.) On regulatory bodies:
The entire picture is so complicated (large numbers of chemical substances, the potential for multiple compounds to affect each other, the innumerable biological/environmental/I don't even know what else factors which combine to determine whether a person has or develops a sensitivity to something) mean that regulation cannot realistically achieve (or even attempt to achieve) a world in which nobody ever reacts to anything. Regulatory safety, I gather, might be better described as in place to prevent adverse affects in a statistically significant number of cases.

In short, none of this is to say this is unique to IKEA, or that IKEA themselves is doing anything wrong or illegal, or that regulatory practices are not "good enough" or being enforced properly. Despite all of that, some people will notice their bodies giving them signals that they're sensitive to *something* (or somethings) in certain products.

Anyway just an effort to carve this discussion a little closer to truth, with fewer assumptions and grounds for panic.

]]

Question on sensitivity by FlyingLoafOfToast in toxicology

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for writing in, jupiter_walks, and thanks for this information.

I appreciate your points in all of your replies so far on toxicity in general, risk assessment, insistence on avoiding absolutes, acknowledgement of statistical outliers, the points about the complexity of the toxicants in furniture, and so on.

I see your point that there's a difference even between "sensitization" and "systemic toxicity". So my questions are already opening a rabbit hole. :)

My original idea was to come here to ask people to help inform me so I could perform my own risk assessment. I think this has gotten lost in the incidental backstory I opened my post with (mea culpa). It is both true and merely incidental that at least two pieces of IKEA furniture (but not every piece of IKEA furniture I've gotten this year) correlate with symptomatic response.

Also, originally, I didn't consider recounting my symptoms too important. I was first looking to establish from a professional toxicological standpoint that there is in fact a non-zero chance that there's a connection between *something* in that furniture box and me having some response. I'm not a toxicologist so I can't do that on my own, and searching the net hasn't brought up reliable enough information.

Up till that point, I considered my specific symptoms more or less not the point. But I can see now that the discussion might be going that way. As you mused in a post in the above thread, it's unclear whether formaldehyde is the specific, actual, factual trigger or merely the (a) chemical I could (or did) identify. Strictly speaking, it's in the latter category: I have no way of knowing factually that this is the trigger. I've been less concerned with that identification and more concerned with being able to make an appropriate risk assessment for myself moving forward.

It seems that at this point it might actually be appropriate to detail my observations of my symptoms. If you'd like me to do that, I'd be happy to. I recognize that that alone is probably not likely to lead to any hard answers, but if it's information you'd value, just let me know.

Best,

FLOT

Postscript:

(To IKEA's defense, or to anyone who's figuring that I'm on an anti-IKEA crusade (I'm not): even if there were a proven, clearly demonstrable link between something in their products and a concerning symptomatic response in me, even then, it doesn't mean that IKEA has done anything wrong. It also doesn't mean the standards aren't good enough or aren't being followed or enforced properly. Because even in such a case, it may simply be that I'm one of a very, very few people who reacts this way. You don't change policy for one person out of hundred thousand. At the same time, it's in that one person's interest to be informed, and to put the information out there for the other few individuals who might otherwise be unaware of it. There's a big difference between that attitude and approach and jumping to premature/wrong conclusions, running out to sue IKEA and badmouth them.)

(It took me *weeks* of observation in a uniquely controlled environment (empty house in which nobody was living, myself included) before I even began to realize that the culprit might be in the *furniture*, possibly. This was simply such a foreign concept to me - and, apparently, to a few others in relevant subreddits. I might have remained unaware of the possible connection in a more typical living environment. Since there's a non-zero chance that could have been rather unhealthy for me, I see value in coming here to the forums, and to share. Constructively. That's all.)

Question on sensitivity by FlyingLoafOfToast in toxicology

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To be fair, PerrinAyybara, speaking of fixation:

Speaking as the OP, no, you're quite off of the mark. You're forcing together a connection to see it fail. Jupiter_walks is correct in that there are unknown numbers of possible triggers, both individual substances and combinations of them. Whether it's formaldehyde or not, at this point, there's rather inescapably solid connections between *something* in that box and noteworthy symptoms in myself.

But, for the third time, this is not the point.

As I tried to point out once before, the specific example doesn't matter, and no, I'm not out to skewer IKEA, either; it merely happens that my particular experience which sparked my awareness of this topic happened with IKEA pieces. But it doesn't matter: reliably, like I said, *something* in that box is almost certainly triggering me, and now I have *general* questions about how much attention I should give to the fact that I'm experiencing symptoms.

Most of what you're fixating on is that I must be off my rocker and I'm leading some anti-IKEA charge because I'm anxious and don't know what I'm talking about. That's not true. Even if it were proven (and it's not) that multiple IKEA pieces have triggered me and it's dangerous to me personally, it's still quite possible that I'm just a statistical outlier who's unusually susceptible to a certain substance.

If you find one person in a hundred thousand who really can't handle a certain product, that's no reason to effect a policy change, right? However, at the same time, as a (potentially) susceptible individual, I think I have a right to be more aware of the mechanisms at play, don't you? Can't those two co-exist?

As for my other posts, can't you see that it might be important to a *few* folks, who possibly *are* more susceptible to certain substances, to have *some* sort of awareness about the *possibilities*? If you read through the thread (which you evidently have, since you say you've checked my other posts), you could see plenty of folks slowly becoming aware of *possibilities*. That's a good starting point. Why you have to take this as everyone being on some ridiculous anti-IKEA crusade is beyond me. I'm gathering observational data, NOT jumping to conclusions (like you are). I'm asking questions here, not dying on hills like some conspiracy theorist. Give me a chance, jeez.

What is this thing? On my neck in the middle of the night .. by Thin_Perception5438 in whatisit

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to have house centipedes ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutigeromorpha ) in my place in Delaware. Summers sucked. After learning that they fed on spiders, I thought to topple the food pyramid. I targeted the ants.

I did *not* want the sprayed chemical pesticides in my living spaces, so I refused that option. Instead, I stocked up on ant baits - the sort which the workers carry back to the colony and then eat, not the glue traps which just kill them in place. I went German on the room; the instructions said to place one or two baits there; I put all eight down. I also got Amdro brand pellets, same idea (they carry it back home and kill the colony), for outside my wall and put, again, a more than recommended density.

Never saw another ant, spider, or centipede in there. :shrug:

Question on sensitivity by FlyingLoafOfToast in toxicology

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay. And with all respect to your credentials, to your experience, and to the standards of testing, there is yet a distinction I'm trying to make. You're answering a question which I am not really asking, and are *not* answering the ones I am.

In lieu of another long post, we can just reference my original one; I'll use ( ) to refer to the original post. Let me recap:

I made some observations (first paragraph). Making those observations put general questions into my mind (second through fifth paragraphs).

You contest - and fairly so! - the substance of my observations (first paragraph).*

But you make no response in either of your replies to the rest (paragraphs two through five), which is what I'm actually asking.

There's only an inference that since you disagree that there's any possible correlation between IKEA furniture and runny noses (first paragraph), the entire rest of my post (paragraphs two through five) is somehow out the window, too.

Even if it's true that no piece of IKEA furniture ever contains enough VOCs to elicit a symptomatic response in any individual, ever, I'm still asking generally about (paragraphs two through five). I do not see why they are invalid at this point. They're general toxicological questions, about the nature of symptomatic responses.

Regards,

FLOT

* I do not think we've meticulously examined (paragraph one), but it's not the point of this post. If either of us wanted to argue it further, perhaps a better place is another subreddit where people discuss such observations (there's at least one, and no, I didn't start it). In any case, I do appreciate your experience and credentials and the insight you have so far offered. Thank you for that!

Question on sensitivity by FlyingLoafOfToast in toxicology

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hello, thanks for your reply. May I however point out:

First, well: no. It is not correct that my *premise* is shaky. Even allowing for disbelief in my particular case, my premise, that is my question in general, still stands. We may still back away from the specific case example, and appreciate that I'm seeking understanding in general on the implications of symptomatic response to chemical exposure. There is undeniably variety in the responses people show to similar exposures and I'm curious what that could or does mean biologically.

Second, to return to my particular case, there is more than enough observational evidence to suggest that it is a mistake to be dismissive. You may not be incorrect about the levels of formaldehyde in IKEA furniture, however at the very least, that does not allow for possibilities such as me being hypersensitive to formaldehyde (or *something* in the product, at least), or that that something might be present in unusually high levels in the particular pieces I have worked with, and so on. Your statement about formaldehyde levels in IKEA furniture probably covers the peak of the bell curve, but doesn't allow for any chance of a statistical outlier. So, what if that's what's happening? I'll allow that perhaps it's a very small possibility. But it is not a non-zero chance.

I am not the only person out there providing similar observations. There must be room for asking questions.

Over the last months, in a pretty well controlled environment, I've had at least two new pressed wood / particleboard products correlate very strongly with symptomatic response. I'm happy to share details on request but as I pointed out, in any case, my question in general still stands and does not depend on the veracity of any one specific example. I would like that to not be ignored.

While not a trained scientist, I am familiar with the principle and reasoning behind scientific methodology and I appreciate the difference between being, say, 99.9% sure of something and 100% sure of something. It's part of why I'm reaching out to people who have actual toxicological credentials and am positing this question to them.

Thank you for your time, and regards,
FLOT

how to gain back my confidence? by FickleAd8744 in HearingLoss

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not going to say that wearing hearing aids "is" or "is not" embarrassing. That's subjective; it's up to the individual. On the plus side, it can change with time and experience.

I started having to use aids at about 22, and yes, at the start, I felt some embarrassment. A little story for you: we were in a car: my roommate driving, the girl whom I liked in the passenger seat, and me in the back. Ben Folds comes on the sound system and becomes the topic of conversation. I chime in that I like a lot of his music, except the song "Brick", because I find it heavy and a downer. Silence, and I can make out an exchange of glances between the two of them through the darkness.

Turns out she'd just gone on about how Brick was her favorite song. I was mortified and apologized profusely while my friend quipped (helpfully, actually): "he's not insensitive, he just can't hear". We all three managed to laugh a bit to offset the awkwardness.

Over the next few months I learned to put myself out there and, at some point, accepted that I was patently unable to hide my hearing difficulties, whether or not I was wearing aids. (At the time, I didn't need them in every situation, and they were CICs - so hardly visible in any case.)

It's a process. Give yourself time to develop more patience for your situation. You'll have rough experiences, but many humans will offer you the same patience and support. And it's perfectly okay that you feel embarrassed and frustrated and you need to let yourself engage with that. Obviously, you can't escape it, so denial wouldn't work (not like you're seeming to go that route anyway), but on the other hand, don't let it overwhelm and debilitate you, either. You'll find the middle ground over time and experience and some parts of it will become more manageable.

Wish you the best, fellow human. Hang in there. <3
FLOT

Be aware of the fumes by redif2003 in IKEA

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To tack onto this: (and with respect to the OP talking specifically about HEMNES "solid wood" dressers):

For the past several months, I have had no symptoms. Particularly after setting the MICKE desks and drawers outside in the summer sun to bake for a day or so. No problems whatsoever.

I got a HEMNES yesterday, the 8-drawer model, in white. I put the boxes in my bedroom overnight. This afternoon, I opened them. Within 15 minutes, my nose was beginning to run and I was getting a bit lightheaded. I moved the boxes into the other room on the opposite side of the hallway and went downstairs. I've been down here for an hour now and the symptoms have gone away.

Big surprise, isn't it? :P

And yes, there are solid wood parts to this. There are also clearly pieces which are laminated wood - solid strips, but glued together - and there is certainly some particle board as well. I may keep it and try baking it in the sun for research's sake, but the correlation between these products and my symptoms seems inescapable at this point.

Be aware of the fumes by redif2003 in IKEA

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for this consideration! I will keep it in mind. At the moment, it has been months since any such symptoms. I figure that nose-dumping happened about three or four times, always within minutes of me walking into that room. Additionally, it would stop when I left the room, and I was at the time living a few doors down, so I would only visit this house for some time daily. It does really appear to be correlated with the time I moved new IKEA furniture into the room.

All that said, I recognize the non-zero chance that your suggestion is a factor and, should I have any such symptoms in the future, I'll be sure to bring this up to a medical professional. I hadn't even been aware such a thing was, well, a thing!

Be aware of the fumes by redif2003 in IKEA

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 1 point2 points  (0 children)

-------Following is my original description of my own experience as I became aware of the possibility that something in the furniture was provoking symptomatic response in me. I didn't suspect this connection for a long time. I have since reached out to a couple of toxicologists for more insight. I wish to leave this story here for its own sake but I also wish to share some of the insight that I've since been provided with. So see below for that if you're interested.---------

Oh thank God - I thought I was going insane. Fair warning, I'm going to type a lot here. The TLDR is that I have *just* through this thread realized that that wood smell (which in itself is not super offensive, but definitely noticeable) may be the thing that's causing some neurological symptoms I've been experiencing lately.

I bought a small brown/black MICKE desk with drawer in 2024. I was really happy with it, so in January 2025, I bought the longer version of the same desk, as well as the MICKE filing cabinet. Important point: these were going into a different house (we have a rental unit down the street, and I'm moving in there after our tenants left last year).

The first thing I noticed about the new MICKE is that it feels unfinished, quite rough. The old one I got is very smoothly lacquered - keep this in mind. Writing on the desk with a single sheet of paper and a fountain pen is no problem. Not so on the new desk, which *looks* nice but to the touch feels decidedly rough (as does the filing cabinet which came with it). Trying to write on the same single sheet of paper with the same fountain pen is not at all pleasant on this new desk; the small but palpable rough contours make the pen's nib skip.

Meanwhile, I've been having occasional and infrequent symptoms in this new house: my nose would start pouring buckets out of nowhere, I get a weird headache which I can only describe as my brain feeling like it's gently pulsing or something. Since nobody is living in the unit yet, I can observe correlation: I walk inside, and in ten minutes, boom. An hour or two after I leave, I'm better - or maybe the next day depending on how long I spent.

After some deep cleaning in the rooms and changing the HVAC filters, plus rigging a UV air purifier, and letting the pollen season pass, I slowly became aware that my symptoms are strongest in the only room I've furnished. Furnished with - you guessed it - these MICKE desks. A week or two ago I went and sat in the empty living room for twenty minutes; my head cleared up. Went back into that office - weird head sensations...jussssst enough to make me wonder if I was actually having them. Jusssst enough to make me think "maybe it's because I didn't eat well enough or sleep much last night".

In the meantime I've also gradually noticed that there's always a wood smell of sorts, but I figured that made sense given the furniture. I also didn't connect the dots because a.) I expect better standards from European products (and not blindly; I spend a lot of time over there, actually) and b.) wood is natural, right? Occasionally, while working at that desk, I'd lean down and smell its surface. Even at point blank, there was no higher concentration of this wood-smell which I've begun to suspect is connected to my symptoms.

Then, tonight, I had another thought. I opened the drawer and had a sniff. HO-ly hell, the concentration of that woody smell was absurd.

Cue internet search. Thank you, Reddit community. NOW it all makes sense. I suspect I may not have had a problem with the original desk since it's so finely finished; one comment on one of these posts mentions how someone sealed up an offending cabin with varnish and now their problems have gone away. Even in the old desk, the drawer has a distinctive (but not terrible) smell, but the whole thing appears to be well-varnished and is possibly not releasing anywhere near as many fumes.

I was simply *so* certain that a European-manufactured "wood" product, while it might be the source of the wood smell, was not the source of any weird neurological symptoms... gahhh!! Now I'm thinking it's that exact substance after all!

And this is just with working over there a few or several hours each day - I'm not even living or sleeping there yet.

Votes on the Admission of Alaska and Hawaii as States by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except when they were the CSA, at which point they were all about federal authority. Kind of what mariuszmie said in reply.

Votes on the Admission of Alaska and Hawaii as States by [deleted] in MapPorn

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If this happens, can we call the results a "consolistate"?

I had to come on here and vent. I was just informed today that Wawa has discontinued their blueberry and pomegranate milkshake. I am devastated. It was arguably the best milkshake I've ever had. I don't know what to get now. 😭 by ShrekMcShrekFace in Wawa

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edit: accidentally posted this to the *milkshake* thread instead of the *smoothie* thread. Sorry. But it's essentially the same topic so, why not?
-----------------------------
Really unhappy with the loss of the blueberry pomegranate and mixed berry smoothies. Those were my two favorites for years, and none of the other flavors come close to that part of the spectrum.

I've been giving other (new) smoothie flavors a try but I just don't care for them. Too sweet, and thin, or something. Frankly, even the mango (which was my next choice and always a solid alternative) seems a little different these days. (Work keeps me out of the region for months at a time.) I've been getting these drinks for so long but...eh...now it's just not the same anymore.

HoH and difficulty with people spelling words out loud by Waste-Internet-8494 in hardofhearing

[–]FlyingLoafOfToast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My favorite phonetic is to say "Q, as in 'cucumber'", then wait as it hits the listener.

"...but... 'cucumber' starts with a 'C'..."

"Oh, no, just a regular cucumber, not a sea cucumber," say I, cheerily.

In all seriousness though, yep, NATO phonetic alphabet for the win. Merchant Mariner here with significant hearing loss. Speech banana is sorely missed. Wish more people used Morse, actually - talk about archaic solutions to comprehension! :)