Reading between the lines
Posted In : In The News
I read quite a lot of articles regarding green, and many of them present misleading information. One recently from Newsday (which has a special place in my heart because I am from Long Island) talks about Connecticut schools considering switching to green cleaning. There are a number of things to point out about this article.
- Green products vs. green practices
The article interchanges the two terms. However, they are quite different. Products are the chemicals or substances that you buy. The practices are how you use them. The assumption that a school/company is green, or practices green cleaning, simply by using green products is completely wrong. And I’ll save my rant for “green practices” being a misnomer for another post.
- The cost of training for new products
The CCM (Connecticut Conference of Municipalities) wonders whether custodians will need new training. If the Connecticut schools are simply changing products, then training should simply by how to mix the new chemicals. In the end, though, the chemicals won’t make a huge difference without different tools and practices, which would cost quite a bit to purchase and retrain custodians.
- The proposal wouldn’t prohibit schools from using traditional disinfecting products
Limiting, or not using, EPA registered disinfectants would be catastrophic. The article insinuates that these chemicals are bad and should be avoided. Disinfectants are necessary to fight illnesses that live on the surfaces of high risk areas. Not using a disinfectant would lead to an increase in student absences and the opportunity for bad bugs to thrive and flourish.
One fact in the article that is correct is that proper green cleaning practices will improve indoor air quality and safeguard the health of students, teachers and custodians. Not only that, but it has been proven to increase attendance and passing reading and math scores on standardized tests.