Posted on 12/21/2007 10:57:43 PM PST by neverdem
Holiday shoppers this season may still worry if the toys they buy contain lead after more than 10 million children’s products were recalled this year for that reason.
But some scientists are urging consumers to focus on a different problem: the lack of hazard information on the thousands of chemicals in everyday products.
“We have enormous gaps in our understanding of how these chemicals affect health and the environment.” said Michael P. Wilson, a public health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. “And where we do have information, we see cause for concern.”
The effects of human exposure to chemicals in consumer products are difficult to ascertain and are subject to dispute. As a result, there is a growing gap in the ways governments regulate chemicals. The European Union, Canada and California, for example, are restricting the use of some chemicals before the science on their hazards is absolutely clear; the federal government is not.
For retailers and manufacturers, conflicting requirements in the global marketplace pose a challenge. Companies have two choices: make products with potentially harmful ingredients for some countries and not others or meet the strictest standards in all markets. Increasingly companies are choosing to conform to the most restrictive rules rather than wait for any scientific consensus.
Scientists are just beginning to see how long-term exposure to chemicals affects humans throughout a lifetime. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that traces of hundreds of chemicals flow through the blood and urine of humans, but the center cautions that their presence does not mean that they cause harm.
Scientific research shows that thousands of chemicals in consumer products have toxic effects, but many of these studies are focused on higher levels of exposure. Less is known about the low but regular doses from...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
One dangerous chemical, which has a MSDS, is hydrogen dioxide, which can cause death in humans at high doses..
Eighty percent of Deca is used as flame retardant in the plastic cases of televisions. It’s also used commercially in furniture, drapes and electrical wires. Widespread use of this chemical has resulted in widespread exposure. Deca, and the chemicals it breaks down into, have been found in several animal species, as well as human breast milk and blood.
Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine
http://www.nrcm.org/news_detail.asp?news=1429
Thanks for the link.
Who taught you to use abbreviations without explaining them first?
Who has synthesized hydrogen dioxide?
Well, H2O2 is pretty common, though it can be a bit nasty. It's normally referred to as hydrogen peroxide, though.
I’m sorry, I was just making a joke about chemiphobia and referring to water. Toxicity depends on the dose, not the chemical!
An MSDS is a material safety data sheet and it must accompany all chemicals, including water.
An MSDS is a material safety data sheet and it must accompany all chemicals, including water.
msds for water link: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm
BTW, some fellow chemist mistakenly refer to water as “hydrogen dioxide”, but official IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Sciences) names for water are hydrogen oxide and oxidane.
Just about all chemicals are considered toxic when 1 person in 1,000,000 people develop cancer over 30 years of exposure. The exception is THMs (trihalomethanes) in which the acceptable cancer risk is 1 per 10,000. The reason is because these compounds are created when tap water is chlorinated and there are no other technologies available at reasonable costs. The most at-risk group for THM exposure is pregnant women. With this, you probably know more than most people about chemicals and toxicity.
I didn't need the explanation, but I'm sure others were scratching their heads.
You're right! That's how it is when one talks about their career field.
Male Bass in Potomac Producing Eggs
I wonder what they found and what the dose was?
I see your point. Human toxicity based on chemical exposure depends on the dose, not the chemical. Non-human exposure is a different, much more complex, political and expensive matter.
Even with humans it is more complex, as a dose that is non-toxic to one person may be very toxic to another, depending on variable factors including their size, liver condition, etc.
Oh yes and then there are mutagens and teratagens to consider. The sad thing is what started out as a scientific, objective and realistic career field turned into “the place where companies and government employees go when they have little to no value”. Then lobbying money started paying for results/regulations that suited business interest and now environmental is somewhat of a joke.
Baaah, not a word on fun and exciting uses of common household products...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.