Why would anyone ban bleach? It is a good cheap general purpose disinfectant and if used correctly; safe.

I assume by 'bleach' you are referring to sodium hypochlorite in solution. If so, on what grounds would you ban it? It is widely use in industry for a variety of purposes. Chris

It's about risk management and needs to be decided by taking into account the risks at the particular business. That risk assessment also needs to consider the risks of not using bleach and ensure that the same level of cleaning is achieved by the alternatives. As we all know in hospitals they cut back on cleaning, ok it was not bleach related, and then later on there were serious consequences. Regards

As I said bleach, sodium hypochlorite, is a good cheap general disinfectant. There are issues with it being harmful if ingested but then all disinfectants are harmful to a degree. If misused then (if you mix alkali with bleach it gives off chlorine gas) then it can pose a risk but that is why you train your staff. The original question was “Is bleach banned?”. Well not by any regulatory body. It is all down to your good old risk assessment.

Sorry meant acid not alkali...it's friday Keep away from ammonia as well

Aren't these tablets justr hypochlorite is solid form? The greater risk is probably to the environment.

Oh....chlorine is also released when sodium hypochlorite bleach is in contact with urine. Don't pee into the bleach treated urinal/toilet!

Along with earlier responders I agree that bleach is acceptable as an inexpensive general purpose disinfectant provided that users are suitably informed and equipped to use it safely and properly. This includes appropriate dilution ratios! Many years ago I was told about a case of a school caretaker who was using significantly more bleach than his counterparts in other schools. The education authority's caretaking supervisor/client officer investigated and found that the caretaker was using a double strength ratio of bleach as he misperceived that this would enable him to clean/disinfect twice as well as with the recommended ratio. In fact, the double ratio gave no advantage and involved the purchase and use of more bleach than necessary. The caretaker was duly advised and checks were made to ensure that other caretakers understood and used the recommended ratio. As such checks also revealed that a few caretakers were using their own money to buy replacement protective gloves, their schools were left in no doubt that the cost of PPE for all employees should come out of school budgets! JohnMurray's comment about urine at #14 reminds me of (and also partially explains) a significant issue with boys' toilets in my former employer's schools. Most had old sectional ceramic trough urinals and tended to be unpleasantly smelly. This was apparently because the grouting between the sections had become porous with age and presumably absorbed urine. Therefore, caretakers and cleaners tended to try and clean/disinfect such urinals on a frequent basis. However, as this strategy wasn't very effective, we developed a campaign to try and persuade schools with old ceramic trough urinals to replace them with wall-mounted stainless steel troughs or single ceramic units. The campaign received a boost from teachers and health education people after discovering that some boys in primary schools deliberately tried to avoid drinking anything during the school day because they hated having to visit and use smelly toilets. As a result, a significant number of schools did change their urinals and found it very worthwhile. Boys with a previously understandable aversion to using smelly facilities no longer shunned fluids while at school - all the better for their personal health and comfort. Caretakers and cleaners were also happy because they needed to spend less time and effort trying to clean and disinfect boys' toilets. Also they needed notably less bleach or other cleaning agents, especially where (as in most cases) the improvements also included the replacement or covering of old ceramic tiled floors with suitable non-slip heavy duty vinyl flooring. Also schools which had devices to dispense smell-masking aromas in boys' toilets tended to find they were no longer needed. The campaign was admittedly low-profile and un-prestigious compared with various other issues but ultimately it was quite satisfying in view of the difference it made for pupils and school staff. Therefore, where appropriate, I hope this information may be of use for forum users, whether as OSH advisers working with schools or parents/grandparents of children at school. p.s. As a general aside it's best not to under-estimate school caretakers: In my experience most tend to be dedicated people who work long hours, often unseen and undervalued, for low pay. Most of the ones at my former employer's schools had prior experience of other types of work, including ex-engineers and fitters made redundant when a local aircraft factory downsized. Also, some schools try to recognise the value of their caretakers by re-designating them as site supervisors.

Using any hierarchy of control would suggest replacing any "harmful" chemical with something less harmful. Maybe this is where the suggestion to ban it (NaClO) has come from

not sure what you are expecting from resurrecting this ancient post - theft of chemicals comes down to how you control them in the first place e.g. locked cupboards or rooms. Your language chair, dissallows, custodial, y'all indicates possible overseas location - any fervent Trump followers on campus?