3 ms·

> it's wild that people > would say things like that > back then. I think it's "wild" that you're so confidently clinging to the narrative that there w

by avar 3y ago

> it's wild that people > would say things like that > back then. I think it's "wild" that you're so confidently clinging to the narrative that there was a causal link between this chemical and your dad's cancer. Sure, it's possible, but clearly decades of data since then failing to move it away from the "probably a carcinogenic" column supports the notion that it's more harmless than not. The list of IARC group 2A includes bitumen (widely used in roofing), red meat, drinks above 65°C (150°F), being a barber, and working night shifts.

dappermanneke 3y ago
I don't know why your reply is being hidden. it is completely fair to say most people drawing such links are likely mistaken.
- MichaelRo 3y ago
  I'm not confidently clinging, just saying there's a probable causality link. My father has several brothers and sisters, none got Parkinson's but none worked with herbicides. An acquaintance that was also an agricultural engineer, colleague of my father, also got Parkinson's. There were lots of people in the town around those chemicals but noone kept track. They're almost all gone by now, but old age is also a factor. On the other hand it's almost certain not all got Parkinson's so funk knows. Again I didn't verify and I'm not in the mood to verify, although it would be possible since it's a small town. Go round every house and ask if their deceased relative had Parkinson's. But to what purpose?
- PakG1 3y ago
  You too need to read my comment again. See my reply to gp comment.
PakG1 3y ago
You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I nowhere said that I thought there was a causal link. I cited well-known medical organizations that said it was probable. I in no way put my own feelings into that statement. You were reading things that weren't there and then making incorrect inferences. I'm certainly not clinging to anything. But I do still think it's wild to say that it's perfectly fine to drink 111-trichloroethane. If you think it's not wild to say this, perhaps we can meet up, I'll pour 111-trichloroethane into a cup, and you can drink it in front of me. Me, I'll continue to say it's wild to say it's OK to drink the stuff.
- avar 3y ago
  > You seem to have reading comprehension issues. You seem to have a particular obsession with drawing equivalences between the safety ratings of industrial chemicals and their ingestion. Of course I wouldn't drink 111-trichloroethane, I wouldn't drink bitumen either. Neither is intended for human consumption, so these safety ratings need to be considered in the context of their intended uses. The CDC source you cited notes that it was phased out due to damage to the ozone layer, which is orthogonal to any human safety concerns.

by avar 3y ago

dappermanneke 3y ago

I don't know why your reply is being hidden. it is completely fair to say most people drawing such links are likely mistaken.

MichaelRo 3y ago
I'm not confidently clinging, just saying there's a probable causality link. My father has several brothers and sisters, none got Parkinson's but none worked with herbicides. An acquaintance that was also an agricultural engineer, colleague of my father, also got Parkinson's. There were lots of people in the town around those chemicals but noone kept track. They're almost all gone by now, but old age is also a factor. On the other hand it's almost certain not all got Parkinson's so funk knows. Again I didn't verify and I'm not in the mood to verify, although it would be possible since it's a small town. Go round every house and ask if their deceased relative had Parkinson's. But to what purpose?
PakG1 3y ago
You too need to read my comment again. See my reply to gp comment.

PakG1 3y ago

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I nowhere said that I thought there was a causal link. I cited well-known medical organizations that said it was probable. I in no way put my own feelings into that statement. You were reading things that weren't there and then making incorrect inferences. I'm certainly not clinging to anything. But I do still think it's wild to say that it's perfectly fine to drink 111-trichloroethane. If you think it's not wild to say this, perhaps we can meet up, I'll pour 111-trichloroethane into a cup, and you can drink it in front of me. Me, I'll continue to say it's wild to say it's OK to drink the stuff.

avar 3y ago
> You seem to have reading comprehension issues. You seem to have a particular obsession with drawing equivalences between the safety ratings of industrial chemicals and their ingestion. Of course I wouldn't drink 111-trichloroethane, I wouldn't drink bitumen either. Neither is intended for human consumption, so these safety ratings need to be considered in the context of their intended uses. The CDC source you cited notes that it was phased out due to damage to the ozone layer, which is orthogonal to any human safety concerns.