4 ms·

One has to wonder about a lengthy article which refuses to cite any numbers and instead repeats endlessly that 'no level is known to be safe', which is irreleva

by gwern 7y ago

One has to wonder about a lengthy article which refuses to cite any numbers and instead repeats endlessly that 'no level is known to be safe', which is irrelevant.

refurb 7y ago
I'll probably get down voted to hell, but this seems to be quite overblown. The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder.[1] Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection. The bigger issue is the link to ovarian cancer. The data is all over the place. This one paper [1] sums up the data nicely - when looking at talc use there was no correlation with ovarian cancer. Even outside of hygienic use (condoms, gloves), many women had high talc exposure and no ovarian cancer, while others had no talc exposure and ovarian cancer. "It may be argued that the overall null findings associated with talc-dusted diaphragms and condom use is more convincing evidence for a lack of a carcinogenic effect, especially given the lack of an established correlation between perineal dusting frequency and ovarian tissue talc concentrations and the lack of a consistent dose-response relationship with ovarian cancer risk." [1]
- lightedman 7y ago
  "The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder.[1] Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection." I do a bunch of mining and know the dangers of talc and its contaminants - it only takes ONE PARTICLE of tremolite or actinolite to start you on the road to mesothelioma. You just don't know which specific particle will trigger it.
  - gwern 7y ago
    > it only takes ONE PARTICLE of tremolite or actinolite to start you on the road to mesothelioma. A completely unhelpful thing to say. Everything starts somewhere, there's nothing special about asbestos. 'It only takes ONE GAMMA RAY PARTICLE to start you on the road to terminal brain cancer' too, but does that mean you shouldn't live in Denver or ever take an airplane flight?
  - refurb 7y ago
    OSHA says.... Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), with an excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. The employer must ensure that no one is exposed above these limits.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      There's no such thing as 0.1 fiber. A small fiber is still one fiber.
      - lightedman 7y ago
        This is correct. A single asbestiform fiber can trigger mesothelioma. There is NO SAFE EXPOSURE LEVEL. Perhaps HN readers will understand that once they bother to get a career in surficial mineralogy.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        A single butterfly can also trigger a hurricane. Therefore we must eliminate the Karner Blue[1] to save the planet. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karner_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karner_blue
jcims 7y ago
I went through a hysterical moment in my life where i did some grinding on the concrete floor in the basement and the sheeting i put up to keep the dust from going through the home failed. This sent a large plume of fine particulate through my house and i was concerned for the health of my family. Trying to gauge how much of an issue this was turned out to be impossible as the regulatory agencies wouldn’t set some kind of lower limit on exposure. Then of course you find all manner of skeevy companies leveraging that in scare marketing. Ultimately went with hepa vacuum, big fan to do a few air exchanges with the outside and upgraded furnace filters. Nobody’s died yet.
Roboprog 7y ago
I wondered that as well. 0 tolerance means our entire planet should be condemned as uninhabitable, then. Clearly there must be some level of parts per 10 to the N that is no more dangerous than a walk on the beach. 300 parts per million is probably bad. 1 part per trillion is probably cleaner than a random meadow.
mr_toad 7y ago
What’s to wonder? Cancer stories get clicks. Facts are optional.

by gwern 7y ago

One has to wonder about a lengthy article which refuses to cite any numbers and instead repeats endlessly that 'no level is known to be safe', which is irrelevant.

refurb 7y ago

I'll probably get down voted to hell, but this seems to be quite overblown. The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder.[1] Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection. The bigger issue is the link to ovarian cancer. The data is all over the place. This one paper [1] sums up the data nicely - when looking at talc use there was no correlation with ovarian cancer. Even outside of hygienic use (condoms, gloves), many women had high talc exposure and no ovarian cancer, while others had no talc exposure and ovarian cancer. "It may be argued that the overall null findings associated with talc-dusted diaphragms and condom use is more convincing evidence for a lack of a carcinogenic effect, especially given the lack of an established correlation between perineal dusting frequency and ovarian tissue talc concentrations and the lack of a consistent dose-response relationship with ovarian cancer risk." [1]

lightedman 7y ago
"The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder.[1] Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection." I do a bunch of mining and know the dangers of talc and its contaminants - it only takes ONE PARTICLE of tremolite or actinolite to start you on the road to mesothelioma. You just don't know which specific particle will trigger it.
- gwern 7y ago
  > it only takes ONE PARTICLE of tremolite or actinolite to start you on the road to mesothelioma. A completely unhelpful thing to say. Everything starts somewhere, there's nothing special about asbestos. 'It only takes ONE GAMMA RAY PARTICLE to start you on the road to terminal brain cancer' too, but does that mean you shouldn't live in Denver or ever take an airplane flight?
- refurb 7y ago
  OSHA says.... Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), with an excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. The employer must ensure that no one is exposed above these limits.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    There's no such thing as 0.1 fiber. A small fiber is still one fiber.
    - lightedman 7y ago
      This is correct. A single asbestiform fiber can trigger mesothelioma. There is NO SAFE EXPOSURE LEVEL. Perhaps HN readers will understand that once they bother to get a career in surficial mineralogy.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        A single butterfly can also trigger a hurricane. Therefore we must eliminate the Karner Blue[1] to save the planet. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karner_blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karner_blue

jcims 7y ago

I went through a hysterical moment in my life where i did some grinding on the concrete floor in the basement and the sheeting i put up to keep the dust from going through the home failed. This sent a large plume of fine particulate through my house and i was concerned for the health of my family. Trying to gauge how much of an issue this was turned out to be impossible as the regulatory agencies wouldn’t set some kind of lower limit on exposure. Then of course you find all manner of skeevy companies leveraging that in scare marketing. Ultimately went with hepa vacuum, big fan to do a few air exchanges with the outside and upgraded furnace filters. Nobody’s died yet.

Roboprog 7y ago

I wondered that as well. 0 tolerance means our entire planet should be condemned as uninhabitable, then. Clearly there must be some level of parts per 10 to the N that is no more dangerous than a walk on the beach. 300 parts per million is probably bad. 1 part per trillion is probably cleaner than a random meadow.

mr_toad 7y ago

What’s to wonder? Cancer stories get clicks. Facts are optional.