Prochem UltraPac Extreme, reviews?

keep it clean

Premium VIP
Dec 3, 2012
9,474
4,896
113
Pa
Real Name
Nick
Business Location
United States
AGAIN

WOW!!!

no matter how you try to warn and open peoples eyes they wont get it.


Stuff is toxic and there is still a discussion on usage and
"how well does it mix'? who cares how well it mixes, its bad stuff
Dont touch chain it will cause cancer.
Dont touch drywall it will cause cancer
Dont touch trowel it will cause cancer.
Dont touch your door knob it will cause cancer.
Dont touch plywood or osb it will cause cancer.
Dont sweep concrete you could get cancer.
Dont touch extension cord you could get cancer.
Everything can be linked back to cancer.

Spooky lol
20190207_155704.jpg
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
Unfortunately not. I had to do the research on my own.

Nor do i speak for anyone other than myself. I have not used the product, nor do I even carry it.

I've no dog in this hunt except the truth... and the truth appears to be that it is no more dangerous than any other correctly labeled chemical.
Instead of defending something that is questionable, why dont you go first try it out in the field, use it, spray it, BREATH IT!, after a year or 2 come back and debate, I dare you!
 

ACP

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
3,259
2,232
113
35
Washington
Real Name
Bjorn Marshall
@sbsscn do you use a cell phone? Ever touch anything plastic from china?

Not saying im interested in ultra pac I already have great chems. Was just curious if it clumps in the sprayer
 

Mama Fen

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2012
3,007
3,051
113
Real Name
no name
Business Location
United States
Instead of defending something that is questionable, why dont you go first try it out in the field, use it, spray it, BREATH IT!, after a year or 2 come back and debate, I dare you!
Conan is going to ignore the breath/breathe debacle, and say this instead - when I clean, I read the instructions. If the instructions say wear respiratory protection, I do so.
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
Sometimes, I will actually dial it down to the point where I am pricing out cost per use between a professional chemical and a jug of something that the guys can pick up at the local hardware store. They're usually astounded to find out that the professional chemical actually costs less to use, even though it is more expensive to buy.

Add in factors like dwell time, residues, and how long it takes to achieve a satisfactory result, and price really should drop down the list of concerns. Chemicals make you money more than they cost you money... but time is a commodity you can never bank or earn back.
But arent we suppose to charge for our time?:

If a chemical is risky and has danger potential that potential risk of danger will NEVER go down if it is sprayed and soaks or saturates a carpet fiber, I guess the second hand user doesnt matter, of course it wont, if the end user is careless then of course who cares about the customer who will be left with some residue that will become a powder that be left behind. No matter how hard you try to recover every chemical sprayed into a carpet, you cannot recover 100%, there will ALWAYS be something left behind.

I try so hard to stay away from all of this dangerous stuff, I say this because no one ever really gave thought but seriously, Our jobs are not only tough and hard on our bodies but also dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Tom Forsythe

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2006
330
534
93
Salt lake City, UT
The Prop 65 warning used to mean something. We always made it a practice to not use any ingredients on the list. Recently they added some nonsensical items to the list. For starters, Starbucks has a big Prop 65 warning in every shop in California as you enter the store. Coffee is now considered a carcinogen. Carbon black which is used in many metal parts is considered carcinogenic and even though it is inert in metal parts. There now needs to be warning labels.

I do not know the manufacturer of the Prochem offending material. However, the offending raw is probably ethylene oxide which is used to create the surfactant. It is used to create a reaction making a new substance. It is not existent in the new substance, but trace elements, which evaporate away can be detected with sophisticated equipment at some manufacturing plants. This surfactant is made by many raw material suppliers. Many of these derivatives from the base surfactant are considered green by the EPA Safer Chemical Ingredient list. Some manufacturers do not mention any prop 65 issue, some make a safe harbor claim that the amount is so low to not warrant any warnings, and some list its existence. This is the surfactant by itself. This is almost always used at levels below 5% in any formula. The end product can be diluted as high as 1 part in 640 parts of water. So you start with an evaporative trace element, dilute it 20 times further in the concentrated product and then dilute it even further (up to 640 parts).

You can see that the offending evaporative element (in most cases is not even present) is highly diluted in the ready to use solution. Arsenic is in most muncipal water supplies at similar levels to the raw in question. If the raw in question is carcinogenic, then the municipal water supplies should have the same prop 65 warning everywhere. Based on new Prop 65 warnings, all of us are exposed many times a day with out even being cleaners. The EPA Safer Ingredient List considers this surfactant to be green. I will trust the EPA on this one. There may be reasons to not use the Ultrapac Xtreme, but product safety relating to carcinogens is not one of them. If you consider it to be a reason, then I would not drink water anymore either.
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
@sbsscn do you use a cell phone? Ever touch anything plastic from china?

Not saying im interested in ultra pac I already have great chems. Was just curious if it clumps in the sprayer
YEs we ( at least the majority use cell phone) and yes they too are dangerous but No
Im not snorting or breathing it but yes I do touch the screen and yes i do was my hands, but no im not directly ingesting or breathing it.
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
Conan is going to ignore the breath/breathe debacle, and say this instead - when I clean, I read the instructions. If the instructions say wear respiratory protection, I do so.
Im glad to hear (read) that even you question it, or else you would not use any respiratory equipment, Im not putting you down, but thank you for being sincere and honest in stating your doubt and wearing something
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
The Prop 65 warning used to mean something. We always made it a practice to not use any ingredients on the list. Recently they added some nonsensical items to the list. For starters, Starbucks has a big Prop 65 warning in every shop in California as you enter the store. Coffee is now considered a carcinogen. Carbon black which is used in many metal parts is considered carcinogenic and even though it is inert in metal parts. There now needs to be warning labels.

I do not know the manufacturer of the Prochem offending material. However, the offending raw is probably ethylene oxide which is used to create the surfactant. It is used to create a reaction making a new substance. It is not existent in the new substance, but trace elements, which evaporate away can be detected with sophisticated equipment at some manufacturing plants. This surfactant is made by many raw material suppliers. Many of these derivatives from the base surfactant are considered green by the EPA Safer Chemical Ingredient list. Some manufacturers do not mention any prop 65 issue, some make a safe harbor claim that the amount is so low to not warrant any warnings, and some list its existence. This is the surfactant by itself. This is almost always used at levels below 5% in any formula. The end product can be diluted as high as 1 part in 640 parts of water. So you start with an evaporative trace element, dilute it 20 times further in the concentrated product and then dilute it even further (up to 640 parts).

You can see that the offending evaporative element (in most cases is not even present) is highly diluted in the ready to use solution. Arsenic is in most muncipal water supplies at similar levels to the raw in question. If the raw in question is carcinogenic, then the municipal water supplies should have the same prop 65 warning everywhere. Based on new Prop 65 warnings, all of us are exposed many times a day with out even being cleaners. The EPA Safer Ingredient List considers this surfactant to be green. I will trust the EPA on this one. There may be reasons to not use the Ultrapac Xtreme, but product safety relating to carcinogens is not one of them. If you consider it to be a reason, then I would not drink water anymore either.
Thank you for your input.

I for one am glad the warning exists.
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
I have to brag on one of my "cheapskate" guys here, just for a moment.

I knew this fellow back in the day, when we were both working in different fields, and we reconnected when I started working this industry - he "retired" in the early 2000s by becoming a carpet cleaner, lol.

When I first started working with him here, I was a little frustrated that he always came in and bought the cheapest chemical he could find, regardless of how much it cost him to use it. I knew he was bright, driven, and ethical, I knew his previous career had paid him well, so why was he going the cheap route?

As I got to know more, I found out why.

He cleans carpet, yes... but that's just his introductory tactic.

What he REALLY does is minister to abused women and children in low-end housing, to help them escape situations that are unhealthy for them.

He uses his carpet cleaning as a way to introduce himself to them and begin dialog with frightened, desperate mothers who may not know what their options are.

While he is cleaning their home environment (and he's not above fixing a broken dishwasher or water heater while he's there), he is letting them know that there are people out there who care; that there are safe places to get away from an abusive or violent spouse/partner; that there is help for those who are dealing with substance abuse issues. He ministers to those who may be too afraid to reach out, and helps them to start getting their lives back on track.

He has saved numerous families from the cycle of abuse this way, and he won't admit it but most times he refuses to take any sort of payment for his services. I asked him once how he manages to make a living doing this, and he responded "I'm not making a living for myself. I've made my money. I'm helping THEM have a life to live, and that's what God put me here to do." He's using the cheapest stuff he can find and still do a decent job, because every bit of it is coming out of his retirement.

I don't mind admitting, I cried when I got home that day. I've known this fellow for nigh on twenty years, and I had no idea until a few years ago that this was what he did with his time.

Needless to say, any time I have an opportunity to find him free or discounted stuff to help him continue his work, I am all over it.

I have never been prouder to be "cheap".
I admire his compassion but wouldnt it be better for him to be a counselor? instead of possibly not doing a good job, burning fuel, and possibly bringing in a bad rep to other cleaners and inferior products ?
 

sbsscn

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2009
2,101
628
113
california
Real Name
Arm Ben
Business Location
United States
The main problem with the warning is that there are now too many warnings. I roll my eyes when I hear about a prop 65 warning where five years ago the warning needed to be taken seriously. It is a result of regulators not knowing when to stop.
But its a good thing. A lot of folks do not pay attention at all. its almost like theyre children. I understand its warning, but at least you cant say " they didnt warn you"

Yes it should be better regulated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Forsythe

ACP

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
3,259
2,232
113
35
Washington
Real Name
Bjorn Marshall
YEs we ( at least the majority use cell phone) and yes they too are dangerous but No
Im not snorting or breathing it but yes I do touch the screen and yes i do was my hands, but no im not directly ingesting or breathing it.
cell phones give off radiation, you dont have to eat your cell phone to be exposed lol

this is why using a bluetooth as much as possible is much better.. they are very powerful little computers now so pressing them against your ear and using them can expose you to very minor amounts of radiation over a long period of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbsscn

Mama Fen

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2012
3,007
3,051
113
Real Name
no name
Business Location
United States
But arent we suppose to charge for our time?:

If a chemical is risky and has danger potential that potential risk of danger will NEVER go down if it is sprayed and soaks or saturates a carpet fiber, I guess the second hand user doesnt matter, of course it wont, if the end user is careless then of course who cares about the customer who will be left with some residue that will become a powder that be left behind. No matter how hard you try to recover every chemical sprayed into a carpet, you cannot recover 100%, there will ALWAYS be something left behind.
Go back to the lemon juice - straight lemon juice with a pH around 2 will eat holes in the stomach lining and cause ulcers and other digestive trauma. But a little bit of lemon and sugar in water makes a beloved summer cool-down drink that you can suck down by the gallon with no harm.

DILUTION.

Let's say there's actually a full three ounces of DANGER! chemical in your concentrated prespray. And that's being generous.

Your special sauce calls for 4 ounces of prespray to a gallon of water.

So now that three ounces of DANGER! is actually (3/128 times 4) .09 ounce, and that .09 ounce is spread over 1000 square feet of carpet along with your water. And you don't bother to rinse at all, you just leave it there. We will assume that NONE of it is bound up in any chemical reactions with soil, either.

So each square foot of carpet now has .00009 ounces of DANGER! in it... and a lot of water.

Now let's say you DO care, and you DO rinse and extract. And you do such a good job, you get 75% of the mix back out, leaving only 25% behind. Hurrah!

So you've left a whopping .000023 ounces of DANGER! in each foot of carpet (yes, two-point three hundred-thousandths of an ounce), or just over .02 ounces (two hundredths) in the whole job.

All told, in the entire carpet, that's about half a gram (or half the weight of a paper clip).

YOU, on the other hand, not only have your face hovering over the bottle as you mix, but I guarantee you at some point you've sniffed the darn thing to savor the scent. So who's in danger here? Not the customer.

(I say "you" in the collective sense, not any one given person)
 

smart n kleen

Smart N Kleen
Premium VIP
Mar 12, 2010
9,372
2,921
113
oregon
Real Name
Rick K
Business Location
United States
carpet still looks bad. not horrible but Im not impressed. waste of money and to make it worst high risk of health issues.
Buy some glasses. The difference was unbelievable
 

smart n kleen

Smart N Kleen
Premium VIP
Mar 12, 2010
9,372
2,921
113
oregon
Real Name
Rick K
Business Location
United States
40lbs for $190. Your life priceless. is $190 worth your health?
I guess youll be worth more dead, itll even cost more to bury you.

TO me my life and health aint worth $190 at any point
You better stop breathing air also. Thanks for your concern