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

fastyacht

Super Anarchist
12,928
2,596
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.

 

guerdon

Anarchist
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.

 

fastyacht

Super Anarchist
12,928
2,596
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.

 
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.

 

fastyacht

Super Anarchist
12,928
2,596
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 

CruiserJim

Anarchist
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. 

 

Mark Set

Anarchist
829
199
Texas
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.



Go to:
IN MICE! @justsayinmice on twitter

 

HuronBouy

Anarchist
799
53
Canada
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 ....






 

Latest posts




Top