Carcinogens - Eight Substances Added To The List
- Thread starter CrealBilly
- Start date
-
- Tags
- added carcinogens list substances
- Status
Well this is disturbing:
Cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder and hard metal form) - used to make dies, cutting and grinding tools, and wear-resistant products for several industries. Cobalt-tungsten hard metals are often referred to as cemented or sintered carbides in the USA.
Cobalt-tungsten carbide (in powder and hard metal form) - used to make dies, cutting and grinding tools, and wear-resistant products for several industries. Cobalt-tungsten hard metals are often referred to as cemented or sintered carbides in the USA.
So is this Joe
"Some inhalable glass wool fibers - some fibers were included in the list following results from experimental animal studies. The HHS stresses that only some glass wool and man-made fibers were included in the list of carcinogens, not all of them. In this latest report, the glass wool fibers that have been redefined include only those that had been previously mentioned and can enter the respiratory tract, are highly durable, and are stay in the lungs for a long time (biopersistent).
There are two main categories of glass wool fibers, as far as consumers are concerned:
- Low-cost, general purpose fibers - mainly glass wool used for home and building insulation. This type is less durable and less biopersistent.
- Special purpose fibers (premium)"
I saw this list at another source recently and I was primarily concerned about the formaldehyde listing since that is used in so many engineered wood products. As one whose shop is lined with OSB and recalling the odor during construction I am glad the walls are sealed with paint. We should keep this announcement in perspective since there is currently well over 200 materials on the carcinogen list and health hazards are definitely proportional to the degree and length of exposure. :wsmile:
"Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA"
You can add me to the 75% list, I stay far away from NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure, "diet soda" and the like.
Yea it makes me loose weight alright - I barf my guts out...
Is nothing safe?
Seems like I can't do anything without some risk. Unfortunately, my own family is constantly pointing out everything from these lists and articles. Guess I need a glass bubble to live in. :eusa_thin
On the other hand, the fiberglass issue seems like a big deal. I've got a whole crawl space and attic of that stuff. What are we supposed to do now, pay an expensive cleanup crew to take it all out, bag it, dispose of it an approved area, and then blow in paper insulation? In 10 years, then, the paper insulation will probably be on the hazards list. It cost me $1000 to sell my last house after installing a radon evacuation pump under the foundation. I am a little leery about all of this and not sure I like what could happen if this leads to adding even more "safety" costs to the house seller.:BangHead:
Seems like I can't do anything without some risk. Unfortunately, my own family is constantly pointing out everything from these lists and articles. Guess I need a glass bubble to live in. :eusa_thin
On the other hand, the fiberglass issue seems like a big deal. I've got a whole crawl space and attic of that stuff. What are we supposed to do now, pay an expensive cleanup crew to take it all out, bag it, dispose of it an approved area, and then blow in paper insulation? In 10 years, then, the paper insulation will probably be on the hazards list. It cost me $1000 to sell my last house after installing a radon evacuation pump under the foundation. I am a little leery about all of this and not sure I like what could happen if this leads to adding even more "safety" costs to the house seller.:BangHead:
I don't think anybody needs to jump off a bridge over this list. Remember the Sacharin announcement a long time ago which freaked everyone out but it turned out you had to drink a bathtub full of Tab daily for 50 years to have a real risk. The thing puzzling me is why they don't include this information.
Where's Tobacco in all this? I think some of us need to worry more about that than Equal, Fiberglass and Formaldehyde. :eusa_naug
Where's Tobacco in all this? I think some of us need to worry more about that than Equal, Fiberglass and Formaldehyde. :eusa_naug
Ever seen someone die real slow from Emphesema and Lung Cancer? I can think of much better ways to spend my final years on this Earth.
Hyperbole aside, saccharin was delisted as a suspected cancer causing agent when it was discovered that rodents were not a good analogue for humans, due to biochemical differences (i.e., the bladder cancer detected in test rodents was due to factors not found in humans). That aside, the vast majority of studies use levels significantly higher than "normal" usage, so that they can determine the level of significance of the result (e.g., if 1000 times the regular dosage DOESN'T cause cancer, then it might be considered safe to use).
They do. In every study, including the one cited above. You'd actually have to read the study. As an example, here's the profile sheet on formaldehyde. Exposure rates and cancer studies are all there.... well documented.
Tobacco would be listed with the rest of the known human carcinogens (and on pp. 408-412 of the full report).
(FWIW, I worked with the vast majority of chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens for about 15 years (environmental chemist). I changed to a less hazardous profession (computers)... now all I worry about is carpal tunnel syndrome and the mold in our air conditioning system).
Mike,
The point I unsuccessfully made was the article Jeff referenced did not have a link I could find to a document or a simple to understand exposure limit so we could measure the realtive risk of these "hazards". We get overdosed on this kind of dumbed down journalism. It makes some folks panic and some folks justify much more hazardous exposure if "everything gives you Cancer".
The point I unsuccessfully made was the article Jeff referenced did not have a link I could find to a document or a simple to understand exposure limit so we could measure the realtive risk of these "hazards". We get overdosed on this kind of dumbed down journalism. It makes some folks panic and some folks justify much more hazardous exposure if "everything gives you Cancer".
Ah. I see. The link to the full report, Fact Sheets, etc. is at the bottom of the article. I understand what you're saying though. Unfortunately, a subject based on statistical probability is not something easily packaged for consumption to the general public. How dumb do you make it when according to an Adult literacy study "nearly 50% of the Americans surveyed cannot read well enough to find a single piece of information in a short publication, nor can they make low level inferences based on what they read"?
To anyone interested in a little more information, I recommend the Fact Sheets. (They are provided by NIH's National Toxicology Program, which is right here in the RTP!) They are intended to give the general public the additional information you're talking about.
as a matter of fact yes. my point is there are as many forms of cancer as there are causes. It is most always a slow painful killer. We don't get to choose what gets us so I am resigned to take it as it comes and live as I see fit. What good is it to live 100 years if you can't enjoy the time you get. We are all dying from the moment we are born so don't waste the time ya got.:icon_thum
- Status
Premier Sponsor
Our Sponsors
LATEST FOR SALE LISTINGS
-
-
Graco 395 FinishPro air assisted airless sprayer for sale
- Started by RobH
- Replies: 1
-
-
-