Sign in to follow this  
spankoka

What's the deal with California telling me PFDs cause cancer?

Recommended Posts

Isn't sailing without a PFD much more likely to kill me than new PFD smell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but if you drown,  wouldn't get the chance to die from cancer, so I guess they've got a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything in California causes cancer. Breathing shouldn’t be done unless it’s absolutely necessary!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's time to go back to kapok or cork! I kind of like the old school powerboat racing life jackets with the big neck roll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposition 65 warning got you down again?

Do what everyone else does. Ignore it. IT has no useful meaning. IT is plastered on everything to preemptively protect you from lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When everything causes cancer, nothing causes cancer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

So much for Disneyland,
image.thumb.png.e54f8d54e31319decb694d58c904f62a.png

That is cancer

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFFS
All based on junk science. That's the problem with CA. They don't vet with good science. They believe the worst often junk science studies.image.thumb.png.df04509fc21b3ed0a1f62e5e0204487f.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

OFFS
All based on junk science. That's the problem with CA. They don't vet with good science. They believe the worst often junk science studies.

IS this junk?

Styrene is widely used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, resins, polyesters and plastics. Styrene and the primary metabolite styrene-7,8-oxide are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Long-term chemical carcinogenesis bioassays showed that styrene caused lung cancers in several strains of mice and mammary cancers in rats and styrene-7,8-oxide caused tumours of the forestomach in rats and mice and of the liver in mice. Subsequent epidemiologic studies found styrene workers had increased mortality or incidences of lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukaemia or lymphoma or all), with suggestive evidence for pancreatic and esophageal tumours. No adequate human studies are available for styrene-7,8-oxide although this is the primary and active epoxide metabolite of styrene. Both are genotoxic and form DNA adducts in humans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

IS this junk?

Styrene is widely used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, resins, polyesters and plastics. Styrene and the primary metabolite styrene-7,8-oxide are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Long-term chemical carcinogenesis bioassays showed that styrene caused lung cancers in several strains of mice and mammary cancers in rats and styrene-7,8-oxide caused tumours of the forestomach in rats and mice and of the liver in mice. Subsequent epidemiologic studies found styrene workers had increased mortality or incidences of lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukaemia or lymphoma or all), with suggestive evidence for pancreatic and esophageal tumours. No adequate human studies are available for styrene-7,8-oxide although this is the primary and active epoxide metabolite of styrene. Both are genotoxic and form DNA adducts in humans.

Yes. In this context. Most definitely.
Even when building boats, styrene exposure when done in normal ways is not carcinogenic,.
We don't have "cancer clusters" around every fiberglass shop.

Note that it causes trouble in mouse studies, Specifically mentions no adequate human studies. for 7,8 oxide.. and then the sort of business about adduct and genotoxicity.
That sounds bad until you look at what else does that all the friggin time. Like all sorts of "natural" stuff....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually,  new car smell is a real health hazard for commercial drivers who are in the new car for fifty hours a week. I do not think my PFD is the same risk as I am obviously using it in the presence of lots of fresh air. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California doesn't dissociate finished goods carcinogenicity from the feedstock/production process carcinogenicity. So, if you happen to be on fire while wearing a PFD, the melting styrene might give you cancer if you breathed the fumes for 8hrs a day for several years while being on fire. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF you want to do styrene

5 minutes ago, spankoka said:

Actually,  new car smell is a real health hazard for commercial drivers who are in the new car for fifty hours a week. I do not think my PFD is the same risk as I am obviously using it in the presence of lots of fresh air. 

I hate new car smell in large doses. IT is pthalates. Take crappy cheap polymers and add small moelcules to them to make them get the target durometer. That's the Walmart smell. Also new shower curtains.

Nobody debates the problems with these things but California's ham-fisted litigious-enabled approach leads to a loss of credibility. And that is a real crime.
We could be making progress to better products. Instead we just get labels. Because if you are going to make "amusement parks" a "hazardous chemical category" well then it is off the reservation. Once product acceptance is assured even with a label (it is) then it is easier that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Yep.
image.thumb.png.d02f7d1bd561126f3fa2fd844d5192e9.png

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sawmill workers actually do get occupational lung diseases from sawdust. I'm pretty sure if your goal is just to be handy if you can't be handsome, it's not such a hazard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

IS this junk?

Styrene is widely used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, resins, polyesters and plastics. Styrene and the primary metabolite styrene-7,8-oxide are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Long-term chemical carcinogenesis bioassays showed that styrene caused lung cancers in several strains of mice and mammary cancers in rats and styrene-7,8-oxide caused tumours of the forestomach in rats and mice and of the liver in mice. Subsequent epidemiologic studies found styrene workers had increased mortality or incidences of lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukaemia or lymphoma or all), with suggestive evidence for pancreatic and esophageal tumours. No adequate human studies are available for styrene-7,8-oxide although this is the primary and active epoxide metabolite of styrene. Both are genotoxic and form DNA adducts in humans.

The most important thing with styrene is it has been put up to "probable" from "possible." The study that tipped the scales is discused here: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180530113105.htm

 

However it is worth noting that the exposure levels in the 1960s and 70s in industrial settings were simply astounding. The problem I have with CA 65 is that it confounds rather than clarifies risk assessment. Indeed it even implicitly calls into question actual OSHA standards. (100 ppm for styrene).
 

Styrene carcinogenicy in humans has only been found measurable epidemiologically in industrial settings. Plast ic cups, styrene from drinking out of polystyren  cups, using a surfboard, printing yourt resume, none of that is at all extrapolatable as a cancer risk. That is junk science. In this case the science is being junked up by CA rather than junk sceince being quoted (the latter is the glyphosate case).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, spankoka said:

Sawmill workers actually do get occupational lung diseases from sawdust. I'm pretty sure if your goal is just to be handy if you can't be handsome, it's not such as hazard. 

It is called brown lung. Joel White had it.

I wear a mask when I am grinding or sanding wood. Most non-morons do. But it isn't because it is a carcinogen. It is because if fucks up your lungs long before that.
See, "carcinogen" is a nasty word. There are chemicals that are high up on that list. Carbon Tetrachloride, Benzene (not benzine) and somewhat lower methyl chloride. Styrene is way down the list (ironically the only difference between styrene and benzene is side chain(s) which is also true of toluene). Wood dust by itself is not a carcinogen. That's the thing. It is long term exposure to wood dust, day in and day out, possibly species critical, that leads to brown lung. A homeowner overdoing a drill job on his new ikea installation is not going to cause cancer. Yet there it is--a cancer warning!

Ham fisted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, virtually everything in California has a prop 65 warning. All commercial buildings, parking garages, consumer products, etc.  So they all tend to be ignored, even for those things for which a warning is appropriate.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So don't eat it or burn it? California sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CruiserJim said:

Problem is, virtually everything in California has a prop 65 warning. All commercial buildings, parking garages, consumer products, etc.  So they all tend to be ignored, even for those things for which a warning is appropriate.  

Even things which do not contain the bad actor, but might be sold in combination. And the warnings show up in EVERY state. So fishing rods. Even monofilament. Sometimes I find the warnings on them! Because they *might* be sold in a "combo" so to prevent catastrophic lawsuits, the distributor or manufacturer applies the warning to *everything.*

What I find astounding is that even though they have this in California, you still have lead poisoning of children, routinely, due to dumbassery with old paint.  It seems you simply cannot educate the public effectively enough. Some of us already know about the issue, we know how to protect our families, we know how to paint over it, keep clean with TSP etc. But millions don't know. And 10,000 children are poisoned routinely.

Meanwhile, undangerous things have warnings on them. Millions are spent by California on superfluous bullshit rather than on measurable demonstrable programs to improve public health. Staggering really.

Kids:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-poisoning-afflicts-neighborhoods-across-california/

And adults. Yep. CA has shitty useless regulations for industrial workers with lead! What?
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rubin-lead-cal-osha-20181014-story.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a cancer in SA, the proper cancer forum is PA.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the marine world this has led to some interesting products: regular paint thinner is now banned, you can by a 'green' thinner that is paint thinner cut with acetone!! And when I just yesterday went to buy some muriatic acid to clean the lime & barnacles out of a raw water there next to the normal acid was "green" muriatic acid, same size but $2 more! No one at the store knows how the acid was greened up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it is ok to drown in California but watch out if you have a PFD with some sort of plastic in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Prop 65, bane of my existence lately.  It is funny that one of the old Prop 65 warnings used to state "this product contains chemicals known to cause cancer in the state of California."

The other 49 states were ok, I guess?

Combine this with the CPRK and the NY consumer product labelling law, and you get many headaches in the detergent industry right now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mustang__1 said:

California doesn't dissociate finished goods carcinogenicity from the feedstock/production process carcinogenicity. So, if you happen to be on fire while wearing a PFD, the melting styrene might give you cancer if you breathed the fumes for 8hrs a day for several years while being on fire. 

Clearly Cal EPA would then have concerns about pyrogenic Dioxins and Furans forming.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

Combine this with the CPRK and the NY consumer product labelling law, and you get many headaches in the detergent industry right now.

You shouldn't have made those tide pods so damn delicious!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

IS this junk?

Styrene is widely used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, resins, polyesters and plastics. Styrene and the primary metabolite styrene-7,8-oxide are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Long-term chemical carcinogenesis bioassays showed that styrene caused lung cancers in several strains of mice and mammary cancers in rats and styrene-7,8-oxide caused tumours of the forestomach in rats and mice and of the liver in mice. Subsequent epidemiologic studies found styrene workers had increased mortality or incidences of lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukaemia or lymphoma or all), with suggestive evidence for pancreatic and esophageal tumours. No adequate human studies are available for styrene-7,8-oxide although this is the primary and active epoxide metabolite of styrene. Both are genotoxic and form DNA adducts in humans.

Didn't they teach in law school that polystyrene (the foam) is a polymer and relatively inert compared to the monomer styrene? Not that I like polystyrene because it ends up everywhere and degrades very poorly, if at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing with acrylamide, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying fried potatoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ned said:

Clearly Cal EPA would then have concerns about pyrogenic Dioxins and Furans forming.  

let's not split hairs here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breathing can give you cancer - stop doing it!:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one stage coffee was on the IARC list as probably causing cancer. I notice that is has been down graded to only possible now. I blame Big Coffee for that. Corruption and lobby groups must be involved. I mean how would California survive without coffee.

The science behind the IARC (WHO) lists, which most other list are being based off, is they give no indication on the levels of exposure which cause the cancer: do you need 1 milligram of exposure or do you need to take a bath in it once a week for several years for cancer to occur. They are heavily criticized within the scientific community for this by several major national science bodies and by other research groups within WHO, their own parent organisation. DDT is listed as probable carcinogenic but i think most DDT related deaths were actually related to the toxicity of the poison and net effects on the body and not proven to be directly linked to DDT related cancer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit more worried about consuming glyphosate and such than the hazards of life jacket snorting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, spankoka said:

I'm a bit more worried about consuming glyphosate and such than the hazards of life jacket snorting. 

I just don't like the idea that my food is genetically engineered to enjoy being slathered liberally with the stuff from birth to harvest.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oz Scout Sailor said:

At one stage coffee was on the IARC list as probably causing cancer. I notice that is has been down graded to only possible now. I blame Big Coffee for that. Corruption and lobby groups must be involved. I mean how would California survive without coffee.

The science behind the IARC (WHO) lists, which most other list are being based off, is they give no indication on the levels of exposure which cause the cancer: do you need 1 milligram of exposure or do you need to take a bath in it once a week for several years for cancer to occur. They are heavily criticized within the scientific community for this by several major national science bodies and by other research groups within WHO, their own parent organisation. DDT is listed as probable carcinogenic but i think most DDT related deaths were actually related to the toxicity of the poison and net effects on the body and not proven to be directly linked to DDT related cancer.

 

 

A long time ago I read a study that showed that tea with milk was less likely to cause esophageal cancer. Because of tannic acid being neutralized. Another study showed that Americans tend to get skin cnacer on left arms while Brits get it on the right (Ok maybe it was Australians? sun in England? haha).
Problem is I remember this stuff but who knows where it came from or how good the science was.
We all end up bathed in a variety of good indifferent great shitty bullshit science and unless we actively chase it all down and follow up (sometimes for years ) we end up misinformed in some way.
Feynman wrote about how bad science tends to beget more bad science. It becomes a preferred reference and so gains credibility. Like a cancer really. How coincidental.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my laminator buddies when told to don a dust mask pointed he was breathing filtered air on the job.  It was through a cigarette filter.  He didn't light up until break time.  He lived to his mid 80's.  Did you know that carbon fiber dust conducts electricity?  I was almost killed grinding a large part when a spark grounded me from the dust to the grinder.  I had another friend get blown out of the sanding room when the dust exploded suddenly.  Wood dust is tame stuff.  Dry air can damage lungs.  I have learned to accept my mortality, but sailing extends our enjoyment of the ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ROADKILL666 said:
8 hours ago, VWAP said:

https://www.livescience.com/7658-masturbation-increase-risk-prostate-cancer.html

 

Masturbation May Increase Risk of Prostate Cancer

I guess we are going to get prostate cancer.It was worth it:lol:

For the people who really need this warning, it should be printed in Braille

FB- Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, guerdon said:

One of my laminator buddies when told to don a dust mask pointed he was breathing filtered air on the job.  It was through a cigarette filter.  He didn't light up until break time.  He lived to his mid 80's.  Did you know that carbon fiber dust conducts electricity?  I was almost killed grinding a large part when a spark grounded me from the dust to the grinder.  I had another friend get blown out of the sanding room when the dust exploded suddenly.  Wood dust is tame stuff.  Dry air can damage lungs.  I have learned to accept my mortality, but sailing extends our enjoyment of the ride.

carbon fiber dust is bad for electric tools for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Feynman wrote about how bad science tends to beget more bad science. It becomes a preferred reference and so gains credibility. Like a cancer really. How coincidental. 

So true.  Dealing with that issue right now at work, where a poorly executed study ended being a one-of-a-kind, yet gets cited frequently and is then used to set policy.  Any decent first year Biology student could pick out the flaws.  How scientific policy makers just accept and propagate bad scientific papers without scrutinizing them is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

So true.  Dealing with that issue right now at work, where a poorly executed study ended being a one-of-a-kind, yet gets cited frequently and is then used to set policy.  Any decent first year Biology student could pick out the flaws.  How scientific policy makers just accept and propagate bad scientific papers without scrutinizing them is beyond me.

I bolded that part. I know how that happens. Policymakers are political not scientific. They pick whatever suits their agenda. I'm a cynic. One could argue that the whole "policymaking" (non)system is broken. Or nonexistent. Whether or not we get good sound policy depends on whether the political powers that pick the heads of (name your state or federal bureaucracy) pick actual qualified people. I think we can see that in fact there has been purposeful undermining of these bureaucracies by politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fastyacht said:

I bolded that part. I know how that happens., Policymakers are political not scientific. They pick whatever suits their agenda. I'm a cynic. One could argue that the whole "policymaking" (non)system is broken. Or nonexistent. Whether or not we get good sound policy depends on whether the political powers that pick the heads of (name your state or federal bureaucracy) pick actual qualified people. I think we can see that in fact there has been purposeful undermining of these bureaucracies by politicians.

I agree with you, and it's not only Government.  My example was actually a non-governmental professional organization, but I think the same rules apply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

I bolded that part. I know how that happens. Policymakers are political not scientific. They pick whatever suits their agenda. I'm a cynic. One could argue that the whole "policymaking" (non)system is broken. Or nonexistent. Whether or not we get good sound policy depends on whether the political powers that pick the heads of (name your state or federal bureaucracy) pick actual qualified people. I think we can see that in fact there has been purposeful undermining of these bureaucracies by politicians.

Absolutely true, it’s all about the narrative.   And then it is reinforced with more funding. Just like the corrupted State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 3:05 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

IS this junk?

Styrene is widely used in the manufacture of synthetic rubber, resins, polyesters and plastics. Styrene and the primary metabolite styrene-7,8-oxide are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Long-term chemical carcinogenesis bioassays showed that styrene caused lung cancers in several strains of mice and mammary cancers in rats and styrene-7,8-oxide caused tumours of the forestomach in rats and mice and of the liver in mice. Subsequent epidemiologic studies found styrene workers had increased mortality or incidences of lymphohematopoietic cancers (leukaemia or lymphoma or all), with suggestive evidence for pancreatic and esophageal tumours. No adequate human studies are available for styrene-7,8-oxide although this is the primary and active epoxide metabolite of styrene. Both are genotoxic and form DNA adducts in humans.

IN MICE! @justsayinmice on twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic premise of these toxicity studies has come into question. You can't dose a mouse or rat for years with low amounts of a chemical to see if cancer shows up. So they get around this by upping the dose (sometime tremendously high) and test short term. But this really doesn't mimic the real exposure in humans.  But it is all we got. 

And for your listening enjoyment ....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Main Man said:

Guess this is out then...

 

WTF. Haha! I love Dusty British humour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy a bag of sand at HD for your kid's sandbox.  It has Prop 65 warning on it.  Yup, plain old sand on the beach can give you cancer.  The whole world be damned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this