Organic dry cleaners?

there was a dry cleaners there but they were taken over by another dry cleaner and they have since closed also. I didn't think either was organic tho'.

there was one across from the co-op on union for a long time but it didn't seem very well run and it was a bit dour so that closed a few years ago. (maybe that was where the tea lounge is...?)

there must be another one tho' -- I just can't think of one. it would seem a 'natural.'

Sorrowssong wrote: Dry cleaners that don't use Perc (I think they use carbon dioxide-based cleaners). I've never tried it, but would like to.

That's funny; when I went to school, perchloroethane was organic and CO2 was not.

laura wrote: Just picked up some stuff at Randex ... they use an organic, hydrocarbon-based cleaner.

The use of the word 'organic' here is problematic. Both the 'perc' and a hydrocarbon-based cleaner are 'organic' in the chemistry sense. Since the difference between the two is like the difference between teflon or freon and petroleum, I wouldn't have thought either were 'organic' in the hippy sense.

That is not to rule out a substitute for 'perc' that imposes a lower enivornmental burden. Just that 'organic' is a bad word for going back to the hydrocarbons in use before the adoption of perc that were abandoned because they were less effective and had greater fire and explosion risks.

laura wrote: I know, but it's the word everyone uses for it. Waddya gonna do.

Well, when I'm presented with potentially misleading marketing, my instinct is to try to work out what's right based on evidence and then share that information with other consumers. Just because someone calls something 'organic', doesn't mean it was grown on a farm without chemical technology, nor necessarily that it's the better choice from a social or environmental or safety point of view. I feel that ordinary well-intentioned ParkSlopians trying to make responsible choices are tragically open to manipulation through this kind of misuse of language.

These are not easy questions. There are many factors, like the efficiency of the solvent, the energy required to make and store and transport and use it, the fact that one type is highly flammable and the other isn't, disposal, greenhouse and ozone-depleting power of the vapor and byproducts, investment in infrastructure to improve safety, price (and thus opportunity cost). We'd need to find a proper side-by-side life-cycle analysis. The fact that the industry shifted from petroleum to perchloroethylene and mostly hasn't shifted back despite the documented toxicity of perc suggests to me that it isn't clearcut.

I personally do not think you need to be too worried about minor exposure to either kind of solvent if you don't work in the industry. Large amounts of any solvent on a regular basis isn't a great idea.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hc17.html
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/97-150.html

Advantages of Petroleum-Based Drycleaning

* Generally considered less toxic than PERC based upon exposure limits. Toxicological properties not as well documented as PERC.
* Because the vapor pressures are lower than PERC, exposures due to inhalation are generally lower
* Established cleaning solvent that is effective at cleaning all types of garments
* Generally less expensive than PERC

Disadvantages of Petroleum-Based Drycleaning

* Presents fire hazards; PERC does not. Fire codes may limit where some shops using these solvents may be located.
* Better living condition for bacteria growth. Bacteria cause the garments to retain unpleasant odors.
* Lower vapor pressures result in a longer drying process than PERC.
* Less effective at removing oil and grease stains than PERC
* Higher insurance premiums than with PERC