EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: VK3DRB on October 01, 2017, 02:09:33 am
-
I got a surprise when I ordered some common Samtec headers recently from Digikey and received a warning label that the headers contains chemicals knows to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm. Maybe polybutylene terephthalate is carcinogenic. Photo of the parts in the bag is attached.
I see three possiblities here:
1. Digikey is selling cancer causing parts made by Samtec.
2. Californians are hypochondriacs.
3. Greenies have infested the Californian government.
It make me wonder how many other cancer causing agents there are out there in the electronics world. Polychlorobiphenyls used in capacitors in some of IBM's Selectric typewriters and old unit record machines like the 082 are long gone, and the beryllium oxide is only found in old amplifiers and TV sets these days.
So what else is out there we should be alarmed at?
-
Prop65... I'm guessing that most people living in CA probably ignore those warnings since they're literally everywhere:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shakataganai/6039225908 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shakataganai/6039225908)
-
There are 22 pages of such chemicals: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/p65single01272017.pdf
Some of them are bound to be in all sorts of parts.
-
It is only "carcinogenic" in California. :-DD
Perhaps you missed the previous discussion of the Prop65 circus:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/fluke-87v-causes-cancer (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/fluke-87v-causes-cancer)!/
-
Do you know anything about EDCs?
The buildup of physiologically active amounts of endocrine disrupting chemicals, flame retardants, obesogenic biopersistant chemicals etc. in the environment from plastics are a ticking time bomb.
Its incredibly costly, its led to increases in many many illnesses, in a dose related relationship. growing levels of dozens of illnesses are statistically attributable to these chemicals, and that increased cost is already taking more than 1-2% of the GNP in industrialized countries around the world.
For example, >150 billion Euros a year in the EU
See: Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399291/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399291/)
I got a surprise when I ordered some common Samtec headers recently from Digikey and received a warning label that the headers contains chemicals knows to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm. Maybe polybutylene terephthalate is carcinogenic. Photo of the parts in the bag is attached.
I see three possiblities here:
1. Digikey is selling cancer causing parts made by Samtec.
2. Californians are hypochondriacs.
3. Greenies have infested the Californian government.
It make me wonder how many other cancer causing agents there are out there in the electronics world. Polychlorobiphenyls used in capacitors in some of IBM's Selectric typewriters and old unit record machines like the 082 are long gone, and the beryllium oxide is only found in old amplifiers and TV sets these days.
So what else is out there we should be alarmed at?
-
Hmmm..
Sci Total Environ. 2013 Oct 1;463-464:1230-8. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.097. Epub 2012 Aug 30.
Levels of PCDDs, PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs in human milk among Hong Kong mothers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939609 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939609)
EDCs are in insulation used on wires and plastics used in electronics.
Many cause breast and ovarian cancers, prostate cancer, testicular cancers, sterility, etc.
Many make people or their offspring fat. They change the body's energy set points.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=obesogenic+endocrine+disruptor (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=obesogenic+endocrine+disruptor)
-
DHMO. Nasty stuff.
Tim
-
Don't put them in your mouth and wash your hands when you're done working in the lab?
I don't really see what the issue is. Many of us work with hazardous chemicals, substances or products every week depending on how they are used. For example, I won't even think about using chemicals with bare hands, even IPA can cause skin irritation. If I'm not using my fine motor skills, I wear nitrile gloves and probably change them 3-10 times depending on the complexity of the job I'm doing. If it's a really complex or particularly hazardous job spanning days or weeks, I'll double-glove and go through an entire box if I have to, I really don't care how much it costs my department, my personal safety comes before anything else (and this should be encouraged in any workplace).
If I wear gloves and have touched a chemical or something that is potentially contaminated or hazardous, I don't go around touching other objects like my tools, door handles, phone, face, etc... that way, I'm preventing cross contamination.
Warnings and MSDS's are provided with products for a reason. It's up to you to determine whether they are suitable for your specific requirement and take the appropriate precautions.
Regular hand washing should be part of your routine and not touching your face (as so many people tend to do).
beryllium oxide is only found in old amplifiers and TV sets these days.
Not just. I still use the stuff (in specialised applications). Although I affix a label so that anyone opening the device is clear about what it contains. Don't worry though, I don't work on anything that is available to the public.
-
Exhaust the fumes outdoors.. Heat is what liberates those chemicals the most.
-
Well, the Greens told us all to buy diesels because they would save the planet from climate change by being 'lower carbon.' Then they did an about face and are now trying to ban diesels from cities because they allegedly cause PM2.5 and NOx pollution.
The puzzling thing is that levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution have reduced dramatically since the mid-20thC, and the recent boom in diesel car sales doesn't seem to have reversed that trend. Yet, they are trying to make out that here is a crisis situation. On the face of it, this doesn't make sense.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579200/Emissions_airpollutants_statisticalrelease_2016_final.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579200/Emissions_airpollutants_statisticalrelease_2016_final.pdf)
Meanwhile they were advocating woodburning stoves and biomass, and have again done an about-turn on that, also claiming that they emit PM2.5 pollution. Seemingly it might become illegal to use woodburning stoves in London, eve though those stoves were officially approved and were bought for their 'green' credentials.
Which sounds crazy until you realise that the NGOs pushing for these measures have backers in the manufacturing and supply industries which stand to gain. It couldn't get sleazier. >:D
-
Well, the Greens told us all to buy diesels because they would save the planet from climate change by being 'lower carbon.' Then they did an about face and are now trying to ban diesels from cities because they allegedly cause PM2.5 and NOx pollution.
To be fair, the Greens in your country have got something right. The Greens Party in Australia are just a bunch of nut-jobs (95% of the crap they come up with is just pure lunacy). Carbon (or it's derivatives) are the least of our problems. All the other shit we (the world collectively) pump into the environment is of far greater concern.
But the general population don't understand chemistry, physics or environmental science (even at the most fundamental level), so it's just as easy to blame everything on Carbon and Carbon Dioxide "Climate Change" because those are the buzz words this decade.
-
In California, on the back of your hotel room door, somewhere near the little map with the escape route, ice machine location, etc, there is a sign that says, "Warning, this room contains chemicals known to the state of Calif..."
Pretty much, that warning is everywhere, on everything, so everyone just tunes it out and ignores it these days. The whole thing has turned into a pointless waste of time, money and effort.
-
Just stay out of California and you'll be fine. This is the state with a town that famously nearly banned water.
-
For one thing, those chemicals are in many cases, very dangerous to pregnant women's unborn children.
Even mildly pro-oxidant substances are.
Strongly pro oxidant substances really are.. Like diesel exhaust. It lowers your IQ.
-
Could you give us the story of how they allegedly nearly banned water?
Do you mean serving extra drinking water, during a drought or something?
Just stay out of California and you'll be fine. This is the state with a town that famously nearly banned water.
-
Could you give us the story of how they allegedly nearly banned water?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/local-officials-nearly-fall-ho-hoax/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/local-officials-nearly-fall-ho-hoax/)
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/13/local/me-water13 (http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/13/local/me-water13)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax)
OK, it was a ban on foam containers, but it was considered because they contained "dihydrogen monoxide".
-
Drink too much water in one go and you'll die, and for some organisms oxygen is a deadly poison. I suspect that ANYTHING is dangerous in the wrong circumstances so you therefore have two alternatives:
a) Ignore it all and get on with life whilst employing a certain amount of common sense.
b) Pay attention to every warning, every hazard label and make sure that you act on it. Your life will be both miserable and very busy.
-
Pretty much everything good is either illegal, immoral, fattening or carcinogenic. Handle appropriately, don't eat.
Mike
-
No, there are VERY large differences between different materials (everything is a chemical one way or another) and our growing body of scientific knowledge that is quite helpful in showing us what is harmful and what isn't.
The problem is, our learning didn't stop 30 years ago, but by and large in the US regulation of harmful chemicals at the Federal almost stopped more than two decades ago and its not because of lack of evidence, quite the opposite, its likely because a flood of new knowledge has been damning and it points to an urgent need to regulate a great many chemicals or face huge costs to society, which they are trying to pretend isn't happening.
Blaming the victims - isnt helpful. They are trying to dump the costs onto the people impacted by the irreseponsible use of many chemicals, instead of placing the blame where it belongs- with corporations that in many many cases, knowingly poisoned the world with substances they already knew were harmful.
When we already knew they were harmful. The combined burden of all these chemicals is an extremely serious problem for all of us. The chemicals are causing health problems that are effecting more and more people as they build up in people and animals.
It seems to me like we're falling for a classic logical fallacy here if we - as the promoters of this meme wish- if we use the "dihydrogen monoxide" hoax to discredit towns that are trying to hold the line on what is really an out of control menace..
Chemical plants invariably site new facilities in the poorest arweas knowing that the victims fo any future pollution will be poor and unable to afford legal help, also being poor their lives carry little value in the courts.
We need to see the big picture, a global war on accountability for multinational corporations and an attempt to freeze or reverse needed regulation of chemicals thatsvery much needed - as it seems the current US Administration and some in the media seem to be trying to.
This story really has nothing to do with the pollution issue.
Could you give us the story of how they allegedly nearly banned water?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/local-officials-nearly-fall-ho-hoax/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/local-officials-nearly-fall-ho-hoax/)
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/13/local/me-water13 (http://articles.latimes.com/2004/mar/13/local/me-water13)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax)
OK, it was a ban on foam containers, but it was considered because they contained "dihydrogen monoxide".
Well, the reason people think "Dihydogen monoxide" might be toxic is because it does sound like another toxic chemical when described that way.
People have to know how "di" means two and "mono" means one to decipher that the term means H2O i.e. water. And many Americans don't have the scientific literacy to make that connection immediately. (like most of us do, even if we had never heard a single "dihydrogen monoxide" joke before..
But lets step away from this story for a second and consider that numerous chemicals in plastics were known to be dangerous before they started being used in plastics commercially.. and the implications of that..
Bisphenol A for example, perhaps one of the most widely used chemicals in plastics, was known to be a synthetic estrogen since 1891.. So it was really dumb to incorporate it into plastics as they have done.
See The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A “Safety”
Am J Public Health. 2009 November; 99(Suppl 3): S559–S566.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.159228
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774166/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774166/)
Plastics and the chemicals in them are everywhere. They are both beneficial and in many cases, harmful, because some of the chemicals in them, and/or added to them as flame retardants, are quite dangerous, often in very low doses, we're now realizing
They are making people sick as they build up in people. How do they end up in peoples bodies? They turn into dust, or get burned, or get inhaled or ingested and they build up in people's bodies over time.
-------
BPA, an energy balance disruptor.
[Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015]
Bisphenol A: an endocrine disruptor with widespread exposure and multiple effects.
[J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2011]
Prenatal bisphenol A and birth outcomes: MOCEH (Mothers and Children's Environmental Health) study.
[Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014]
Bisphenol A: Understanding the Controversy.
[Workplace Health Saf. 2016]
Low-Dose Bisphenol A Increases Bile Duct Proliferation in Juvenile Rats: A Possible Evidence for Risk of Liver Cancer in the Exposed Population?
Bisphenol A Impairs Synaptic Plasticity by Both Pre? and Postsynaptic Mechanisms
[Advanced Science. 2017]
Minireview: Endocrine Disruptors: Past Lessons and Future Directions
[Molecular Endocrinology. 2016]
-
Well, the Greens told us all to buy diesels because they would save the planet from climate change by being 'lower carbon.' Then they did an about face and are now trying to ban diesels from cities because they allegedly cause PM2.5 and NOx pollution.
The puzzling thing is that levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide pollution have reduced dramatically since the mid-20thC, and the recent boom in diesel car sales doesn't seem to have reversed that trend. Yet, they are trying to make out that here is a crisis situation. On the face of it, this doesn't make sense.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579200/Emissions_airpollutants_statisticalrelease_2016_final.pdf (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579200/Emissions_airpollutants_statisticalrelease_2016_final.pdf)
Meanwhile they were advocating woodburning stoves and biomass, and have again done an about-turn on that, also claiming that they emit PM2.5 pollution. Seemingly it might become illegal to use woodburning stoves in London, eve though those stoves were officially approved and were bought for their 'green' credentials.
Which sounds crazy until you realise that the NGOs pushing for these measures have backers in the manufacturing and supply industries which stand to gain. It couldn't get sleazier. >:D
You're confusing two completely different issues.
1) Climate change, for which the carbon released by burning non-renewable fossil fuels is to blame. Burning renewable such as wood and more efficient, diesel fossil fuel engines helps here, because less carbon is reabsorbed by replacing the wood burnt or less is released in the first place.
2) Air pollution, for which burning anything which releases toxic and corrosive chemicals it to blame. It's generally a local problem, as the toxins get washed out of the atmosphere fairly quickly. Wood burning stoves and diesel are bad here because they release toxic smoke. Filtering the exhaust gasses helps to reduce air pollution, at the cost of efficiency of diesel engines. It's more viable for static appliances such as wood burners though.
The problem has been that environmentalists have put climate change above air pollution, when they are both equally important. Another issue is the car emission scam, which meant diesel cars were far worse, than they should have been.
You're right that air pollution has decreased since the mid 20th century. This is due catalytic converters on cars, a reduction in coal and better filtering on industrial chimneys. However, it doesn't mean that it isn't a problem or that it should be ignored.
-
Hacyon,
This is about a common chemical in plastics, Bisphenol A- and brain development..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674177/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674177/)
Yes, its good to wash your hands afterwards and not touch your face when anywhere near hazardous materials..
MSDS's are often woefully out of date and almost never do they give a realistic assessment of a hazardous substance..
They are NOT a good source of info.. That applies especially with so called "engineered nanomaterials", (ENMs) where MSDSs are invariably totally misleading, as they are based on non-nano forms of substances..
ENMs are a whole issue in and of themselves.
Don't put them in your mouth and wash your hands when you're done working in the lab?
I don't really see what the issue is. Many of us work with hazardous chemicals, substances or products every week depending on how they are used. For example, I won't even think about using chemicals with bare hands, even IPA can cause skin irritation. If I'm not using my fine motor skills, I wear nitrile gloves and probably change them 3-10 times depending on the complexity of the job I'm doing. If it's a really complex or particularly hazardous job spanning days or weeks, I'll double-glove and go through an entire box if I have to, I really don't care how much it costs my department, my personal safety comes before anything else (and this should be encouraged in any workplace).
If I wear gloves and have touched a chemical or something that is potentially contaminated or hazardous, I don't go around touching other objects like my tools, door handles, phone, face, etc... that way, I'm preventing cross contamination.
Warnings and MSDS's are provided with products for a reason. It's up to you to determine whether they are suitable for your specific requirement and take the appropriate precautions.
Regular hand washing should be part of your routine and not touching your face (as so many people tend to do).
beryllium oxide is only found in old amplifiers and TV sets these days.
Not just. I still use the stuff (in specialised applications). Although I affix a label so that anyone opening the device is clear about what it contains. Don't worry though, I don't work on anything that is available to the public.
-
This is about a common chemical in plastics, Bisphenol A- and brain development..
I'm well aware of BPA and most average consumers in Australia have at least heard of it and avoid it in things like food storage containers and drinking vessels.
Almost all exposure to BPA in humans is via oral ingestion, so as I said, provided you don't stick it in your mouth and wash your hands/wear gloves if you're handling items with BPA or other hazardous substances, you'll be fine.
-
This is about a common chemical in plastics, Bisphenol A- and brain development..
I'm well aware of BPA and most average consumers in Australia have at least heard of it and avoid it in things like food storage containers and drinking vessels.
Almost all exposure to BPA in humans is via oral ingestion, so as I said, provided you don't stick it in your mouth and wash your hands/wear gloves if you're handling items with BPA or other hazardous substances, you'll be fine.
I believe it has been banned in teething rings and products designed for food. Dildos and vibrators are another possible vector for BPA poisoning and I believe the ban also applies to them too. Don't use anything, made from PVC or soft synthetic rubbers in the body which was made before the ban on BPA or has been purchased from a country which still allows it.
-
My dad's been gone for years, but I remember a call from him, back when I was living in Wackifornia, questioning the fishing rod & reel combo he purchased from Walmart/Kmart that stated with the California blanket statement that it contained something that might cause cancer. I told him that, yes, the reel had grease in it and that was what was the no-no. I think I can still hear his cursing......... :-DD
-
The fishing line could also have been flagged because it might be used with lead weights. I remember as a kid using those lead sinkers that you bite to clamp down on the line. It is often easier to put the warning on everything than only the things that actually contain the supposedly hazardous substances. For instance, if a given rod and reel might be sold as part of a kit along with items that fall under prop 65, then the whole things would be labeled. In the same way, soldering irons and other electronics equipment is usually labeled because you might use it with lead solder. Even if they only sell lead free. Of course, greases containing VOCs might also qualify.
But the problem with prop 65 is that the rules on doses are insane. It is something like "has a concentration at least 1/1000th the level shown to cause harm in humans or animals". And even beyond that, nobody is going to bother actually measuring since there is no problem with adding "incorrect" warnings, so even if the concentration is below threshold. Its easy to make fun of the more absurd cases, but there are some much more serious concerns about prop 65. For instance, all parking garages have prop 65 notices because car exhaust is carcinogenic. But based on the notification there is no way for me to tell if the level is actually serious or not. I think if the level is actually dangerous, the garage owner should have to install exhaust fans, and if it is not dangerous, there should be no need to have a notice. But the notices are so prevalent, that it is not useful for someone who wants to try to reduce actual exposure to carcinogens.
Another absurd part is that "Natural sources" are also exempt. So while many fruits have arsenic in small quantities they do not need to be labeled even if the concentration is much higher than would be otherwise subject to labeling. On the other hand, roast coffee beans have to be labeled because of the acrylamides formed in the roasting process, since that is formed by processing and not originally in the coffee bean.
-
Not only did we bite down on them, we cast our own sinkers in the basement, but then again I've soldered with lead for about 60 years too. :-//
-
The more data that comes in the more scientists are clamoring for recognition of the fact that lead is really bad for health in people of all ages, particularly children at much lower levels than the so called "action levels" in the US. I have a strong interest in environment and health, have been following issues in it for >20 years.. What they are doing is inexcusable. We have a huge problem with lead and its fixable, but its going to cost money to fix. Not a huge amount but it is going to cost money.
Ive been told several times that there really is no safe level of lead exposure. So failure to act on things like lead pipes is inexcusable. Bottled water is not a solution because bottled water comes in plastic bottles that have issues of their own. (EDCs)
That said, handling a lead weight doesnt seem likely to me to lead to lead exposure, lots of other things however do. lead solder in pipes, brass fittings in faucets or especially old lead pipes in plumbing.
the point is, we cant allow thousands of small exposures to occur to people and try to pretend they are not additive, they are. Having warnings is wise in this context.
Diesel exhaust also causes systemic inflammation. Chronic exposure to air pollution (or lead) will lower a person's IQ by 10 points and shorten their lifespan substantially. Thats something people should be reminded of so they don't stay in unsafe places with diesel exhaust (or other applicable pollutants) for any longer than they have to (when they need to)
Because of the way the immune system uses both pro-oxidant and pro-inflammatory responses and stress hormones to train itself what to trigger on and fight, a behavior which history has shown to be advantageous in evolution, many things that cause changes in the body including metals and chemicals that cause reactive oxygen species, stress (corticosteroids) diesel exhaust, chemicals that mimic hormones, and even things like chronic noise exposure all likely have substantial effects on health, and the immune system which becomes progressively more dysregulated, typically hyper or hypo-reactive - less able to respond when it should because of this) There is no fix for this, it lasts a persons entire remaining life.
Exposures to pro-oxidant toxicants can and do cause autism and other birth defects due to changes in the expression of Fyn and c-Cbl which disrupt precursor cell function. So, if people live in an area and have children, we need the environmental action levels to be low enough to prevent illness during that critical time, you cant say - well, it doesnt hurt this healthy male person in their 20s.. Different groups are substantially different in their vulnerability to poisons they are exposed to.
Depletion of glutathione caused by lead and other toxicants - adds up, also as we get older, changes in the body result in lower and lower levels of the important molecule which the body uses to detoxify chemicals we're exposed to so we dont get cancers, Its likely a huge percentage of all known toxic substances deplete glutathione, which means they should be treated as additive in regulation, but aren't. thats criminal not to incorporate this knowledge in laws.. Its been known for at least three or four decades..
Also, anything that causes systemic inflammation causes cellular aging to increase in people of all ages and clearly also does things like lower IQs in children. Things that cause inflammation also cause dementia in people to occur sooner.
We have to reduce them, we cant just say "okay, everything we let people do in the past gets grandfathered in".
If that is what the Trump Administration here in the US wants, that's not just irresponsible, its lunacy. Also, people need to know that trade agreements like TTIP are putting a framework into place which is going to make it extremely difficult to regulate needed chemicals, food additives, drugs and everything that impacts corporate profits. They are trying to sneak a big change in that will give corporations rights to sue governments in special rigged courts for doing what its governments job to do, on regulation. That change is called "ISDS" and its a theft of democracy from the people of the world.
-
There should be fine print on the California welcome sign that says "the dust in this state is known to cause lung cancer"
-
Don't forget Radon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_radon
It's everywhere.
-
The reason Califoirnia does this is because of Federal failure to regulate despite known dangers in many products.
Plastics are particularly problematic because of the problem with endocrine disruption. Which does cause a number of different cancers.
So, their whole point of telling people that these various products contain carcinogens is to encourage people to buy products that don't.. that leave the harmful chemicals out. This its hoped will decrease, not increase, the percentages of carcinogens in them.
There should be fine print on the California welcome sign that says "the dust in this state is known to cause lung cancer"
-
Radon levels from radon that builds up in buildings vary quite a bit from one area to another around the world.
Some areas have practically no radon issues, in other areas its a serious problem.
Don't forget Radon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_radon
It's everywhere.
Cigarette smoking causes substantially more lung cancer than radon. Radon exposure is estimated to cause around 21,000 cases of lung cancer each year in the US.
I actually know a fair amount about the disinformation campaign mounted by the tobacco industry against the science that proved the connection between tobacco smoking and cancer because I had (have) a friend who worked in that campaign.
There is a large archive of documents from their internal files archived at https://industrydocuments.ucsf.edu
I actually found my friend's name on some of them!
-
The risk of cancer due to smoking is well documented and well proved. It looks there is no doubt: Not to smoke reduces the risk of lung cancer (and others) dramatically.
But it's not only the risk of lung cancer, because the contents of the cigarette are in the whole alimentary canal, so there may be remarkable risk of bowel cancer (and others) too.
But when smoking and alcohol is avoided, the cancer risks with a lower probability gets more relevant. Radon is one, agricultural pesticide another and not to talk about the whole spectrum of chemistry. So regarding the carcinogenic parts from Digikey it may be not completely wrong to warn the customers, but the question is how relevant it is compared to the other risks.
At the moment the knowledge regarding cancer is quite fragmentary yet due to the enormous complexity of the cells and the complexity of the immune system.
The low concentration of the relevant proteins (in the blood) makes it not easier to find out how it all works.
By example
http://www.ffeservice.com/publications (http://www.ffeservice.com/publications)
shows a small part the actual research.
-
Its quite relevant because statistically, people working in certain parts of the electronics industry do see markedly higher rates of certain diseases. So there clearly are a lot of improvements which could be made and its totally worth it to use the information which has already been discovered and try to learn more.
Otherwise we'll all be living in such a polluted cesspool that it will become impossible to tell what caused what. I am sure chemical companies will be overjoyed but do people really want to die decades sooner due to others greed?
See the graphic below.
But when smoking and alcohol is avoided, the cancer risks with a lower probability gets more relevant. Radon is one, agricultural pesticide another and not to talk about the whole spectrum of chemistry. So regarding the carcinogenic parts from Digikey it may be not completely wrong to warn the customers, but the question is how relevant it is compared to the other risks.
At the moment the knowledge regarding cancer is quite fragmentary yet due to the enormous complexity of the cells and the complexity of the immune system.
Thats not true, we're learning more about how cancer works all the time. All sorts of things cause cancer. Knowledge of what we can do has also been increasing rapidly. All of the sciences are like that.
-
These warning labels are completely useless, because they convey no useful information in determining risk. If, for example, a lifetime of lab exposure to plastic component packages adds one thousandth of the risk from consuming the alcohol in one beer or one glass of wine, or eating one loaf of bread, then this is for all practical purposes an academical exercise of no practical significance. And we know the risk from exposure to many known mutagens are exactly that low - entire groups don't even compare to eating a banana. (K decay, the Banana Equivalent Dose - BED)
-
The failure of Proposition 65 isn't that it lists a lot of dangerous chemicals, it's that there is a very very high penalty for non-compliance, but no penalty for over-use of the warning.
In other words, if you have a product that you diligently design to have no dangerous chemicals, you can skip the warning. But if 3 years from now, one of your suppliers decides to change something and you ship products that no longer comply, your company could basically be sunk by the fines. And add to that Proposition 65 could change to include chemicals that were previously considered safe, so if you've got a warehouse pipeline that sells something that no longer complies, I don't know whether that would be permitted, but nonetheless, there would likely be some legal battling going on.
The current "solution", at least from a company's perspective, is to slap the warning on literally everything sold in California. So while the law was noble in its attempt to warn consumers about potentially unsafe products, it more-or-less backfired and now [nearly] everyone in California just buys things regardless of the warning.
The savvy consumer could buy only products from reputable sources that do not have the warning, but that excludes basically all electronics today. The question is, why can't we—the electronics producers—get enough information to know what we're making? We're the next leaded gas or asbestos—we know we're selling things that contain poison but we just do it anyway, claiming ignorance and reinforcing it across the industry.
-
Here the reasons for fatal casualties worldwide
1 ) heart attack 7.2 millions
2 ) stroke 5.7 millions
3 ) pneumonia 4.2 millions
4 ) pulmonary disease 3.0 millions
5 ) squits 2.2 millions
6 ) aids 2.0 millions
7 ) tuberculosis 1.5 millions
8 ) lung cancer 1.3 millions
9 ) traffic accident 1.3 millions
When I look at this chart, cancer is on position 7 (worldwide).
It looks, other research could bring more life and less suffer for the money. But I know the things are not as simple as it looks like in this simple chart and I don't want to say cancer research should be reduced.
At the moment the knowledge regarding cancer is quite fragmentary yet due to the enormous complexity of the cells and the complexity of the immune system.
Thats not true, we're learning more about how cancer works all the time. All sorts of things cause cancer. Knowledge of what we can do has also been increasing rapidly. All of the sciences are like that.
I agree, when you mean, we know enough to reduce the risk for cancer. Every avoided suffer is it worth for it. But I don't agree, when you mean, we can understand the cancer how it works and how the immune system is suppressed, so it cannot destroy the cancer cells. But this are just my two cents.
-
I'm sorry, I don't know where to begin here, so maybe I will just refer you to this site for cancer stats, you should refer to https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics.html (https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics.html)
Here the reasons for fatal casualties worldwide
1 ) heart attack 7.2 millions
2 ) stroke 5.7 millions
3 ) pneumonia 4.2 millions
4 ) pulmonary disease 3.0 millions
5 ) squits 2.2 millions
6 ) aids 2.0 millions
7 ) tuberculosis 1.5 millions
8 ) lung cancer 1.3 millions
9 ) traffic accident 1.3 millions
When I look at this chart, cancer is on position 7 (worldwide).
It looks, other research could bring more life and less suffer for the money. But I know the things are not as simple as it looks like in this simple chart and I don't want to say cancer research should be reduced.
At the moment the knowledge regarding cancer is quite fragmentary yet due to the enormous complexity of the cells and the complexity of the immune system.
Thats not true, we're learning more about how cancer works all the time. All sorts of things cause cancer. Knowledge of what we can do has also been increasing rapidly. All of the sciences are like that.
I agree, when you mean, we know enough to reduce the risk for cancer. Every avoided suffer is it worth for it. But I don't agree, when you mean, we can understand the cancer how it works and how the immune system is suppressed, so it cannot destroy the cancer cells. But this are just my two cents.
-
Moderate amounts of both beer and wine are good for people. (Dark) chocolate too. Its an antioxidant.
These warning labels are completely useless, because they convey no useful information in determining risk. If, for example, a lifetime of lab exposure to plastic component packages adds one thousandth of the risk from consuming the alcohol in one beer or one glass of wine, or eating one loaf of bread, then this is for all practical purposes an academical exercise of no practical significance. And we know the risk from exposure to many known mutagens are exactly that low - entire groups don't even compare to eating a banana. (K decay, the Banana Equivalent Dose - BED)
-
The more data that comes in the more scientists are clamoring for recognition of the fact that lead is really bad for health in people of all ages, particularly children at much lower levels than the so called "action levels" in the US. I have a strong interest in environment and health, have been following issues in it for >20 years.. What they are doing is inexcusable. We have a huge problem with lead and its fixable, but its going to cost money to fix. Not a huge amount but it is going to cost money.
Ive been told several times that there really is no safe level of lead exposure. So failure to act on things like lead pipes is inexcusable. Bottled water is not a solution because bottled water comes in plastic bottles that have issues of their own. (EDCs)
That said, handling a lead weight doesnt seem likely to me to lead to lead exposure, lots of other things however do. lead solder in pipes, brass fittings in faucets or especially old lead pipes in plumbing.
the point is, we cant allow thousands of small exposures to occur to people and try to pretend they are not additive, they are. Having warnings is wise in this context.
Diesel exhaust also causes systemic inflammation. Chronic exposure to air pollution (or lead) will lower a person's IQ by 10 points and shorten their lifespan substantially. Thats something people should be reminded of so they don't stay in unsafe places with diesel exhaust (or other applicable pollutants) for any longer than they have to (when they need to)
Because of the way the immune system uses both pro-oxidant and pro-inflammatory responses and stress hormones to train itself what to trigger on and fight, a behavior which history has shown to be advantageous in evolution, many things that cause changes in the body including metals and chemicals that cause reactive oxygen species, stress (corticosteroids) diesel exhaust, chemicals that mimic hormones, and even things like chronic noise exposure all likely have substantial effects on health, and the immune system which becomes progressively more dysregulated, typically hyper or hypo-reactive - less able to respond when it should because of this) There is no fix for this, it lasts a persons entire remaining life.
Exposures to pro-oxidant toxicants can and do cause autism and other birth defects due to changes in the expression of Fyn and c-Cbl which disrupt precursor cell function. So, if people live in an area and have children, we need the environmental action levels to be low enough to prevent illness during that critical time, you cant say - well, it doesnt hurt this healthy male person in their 20s.. Different groups are substantially different in their vulnerability to poisons they are exposed to.
Depletion of glutathione caused by lead and other toxicants - adds up, also as we get older, changes in the body result in lower and lower levels of the important molecule which the body uses to detoxify chemicals we're exposed to so we dont get cancers, Its likely a huge percentage of all known toxic substances deplete glutathione, which means they should be treated as additive in regulation, but aren't. thats criminal not to incorporate this knowledge in laws.. Its been known for at least three or four decades..
Also, anything that causes systemic inflammation causes cellular aging to increase in people of all ages and clearly also does things like lower IQs in children. Things that cause inflammation also cause dementia in people to occur sooner.
We have to reduce them, we cant just say "okay, everything we let people do in the past gets grandfathered in".
If that is what the Trump Administration here in the US wants, that's not just irresponsible, its lunacy. Also, people need to know that trade agreements like TTIP are putting a framework into place which is going to make it extremely difficult to regulate needed chemicals, food additives, drugs and everything that impacts corporate profits. They are trying to sneak a big change in that will give corporations rights to sue governments in special rigged courts for doing what its governments job to do, on regulation. That change is called "ISDS" and its a theft of democracy from the people of the world.
The government wasn't worried on darn bit when they hosed me down with Agent Orange, Blue, Pink, White or any other combination of defoliant they could spray out of an airplane back in 1970. VA still denies 450,000 Vietnam veterans were exposed including me. Congress has been sitting on there hands for years refusing to pass HR969 and now I'm supposed to worry about lead that was in my grade school's water pipe some 60+ years ago? I temper my beliefs when I see the hypocrisy of greens when there's an agenda vs. reality.