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.
we are all gonna die from sumthin anyway so.........
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).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.
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.The thing puzzling me is why they don't include this information.
Tobacco would be listed with the rest of the known human carcinogens (and on pp. 408-412 of the full report).Where's Tobacco in all this? I think some of us need to worry more about that than Equal, Fiberglass and Formaldehyde. :eusa_naug
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"?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".
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.