12 ms·

Formaldehyde Causes More Cancer Than Any Other Toxic Air Pollutant

218 points by hn_acker 2y ago

29athrowaway 2y ago
Get a TVOC and HCHO meter. HCHO = formaldehyde
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Tvoc sensors react on many organic pollutants. For example dropping a few drops of alcohol jumps it up to astronomical values that linger for hours. I didn't know HCHO sensors existed, I'll get one thanks
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    TVOC reacting to ethanol is a feature, not a bug. Ethanol vapors if up close, such as releasing slowly from a foam surface, can cause sinus irritation and a headache. It tells me that I need better ventilation, if only temporarily. The device is a singular combination meter of both TVOC and HCHO. It is widely sold on Amazon.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Oh yeah I know it's meant to detect it, but it makes it harder to notice more dangerous substances because it detects so many. But I'll try an HCHO meter if I can find one.
hn_acker 2y ago
The full title is: > Formaldehyde Causes More Cancer Than Any Other Toxic Air Pollutant. Little Is Being Done to Curb the Risk.
- angmarsbane 2y ago
  A hair dresser I went to years ago switched to working out of her home instead of a salon because she said she was concerned about formaldehyde exposure. She told me Brazilian blowouts and other treatments and dyes have heaps of formaldehyde.
  - jabl 2y ago
    One reason for the prevalence of all kinds of eco/hippie/etc hair salons is that many hairdressers develop allergies against all the chemicals they're working with.
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      That reminds me of hearing about the problems that Aardman Animations (Wallace and Gromit films amongst others) had with getting/keeping plasticine artists - after a while they develop an allergic reaction to plasticine.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Not particle board (as mentioned in the article) but sheets of inexpensive Chinese plywood I picked up had a very strong formaldehyde smell. I had never smelled that in plywood before (or at least so strongly). I've sworn off particle board in my shop decades ago (for reasons having nothing to do with formaldehyde) but quickly added cheap Chinese plywood to the exclusion list. I have resigned myself to opening my wallet for the expensive stuff (that costs over $100 for a 4' x 8' sheet, Europly, etc.). Europly at least seems to be formaldehyde free.
- malfist 2y ago
  You sparked my interest so I looked it up. Plywood in the US comes predominantly from China and Vietnam. I'm surprised I figured due to it's size and density it'd be mostly a local product
  - lazide 2y ago
    The ones I saw at local stores were all from Canada or US West. Do you have a link to the data?
    - forgetfreeman 2y ago
      Table on page 9 suggests the US imports just under a quarter of consumed sheet products like plywood and OSB. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/US_FPMAR_2023-2024_Nov3.pdf https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/US_FPMAR_2023-...
- bottom999mottob 2y ago
  When we ripped out the carpet to install luxury vinyl flooring it was off-gassing for weeks. Had to go over the vinyl with dozens of microfiber clothes before the outside coating stopped wiping off. Imagine all of the people cutting into that inexpensive wood without air filtration is terrifying
  - ta988 2y ago
ineedaj0b 2y ago
Could also be formaldehyde is the most studied for causing cancer. No one wants to fund a longitudinal tire dust study :/
- bottom999mottob 2y ago
  Or it could be that people spend more time in their luxury vinyl planked house, vaping and having ingress air filled with formaldehyde from traffic It'd make more sense and be less ethical to expose people to either formaldehyde or tire dust in a confined area, but that study is definitely not getting funded
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    What does vaping have to do with this? It doesn’t contain formaldehyde.
    - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
      Shouldn't contain formaldehyde, but does appear to https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321928 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321928 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5954153/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5954153/
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - smitelli 2y ago
    Modern construction is insanely "tight" in the sense that most of the inside air stays in and most of the outside air stays out. Some of the most energy-efficient buildings need convoluted ventilation systems to prevent the humidity from getting out of whack and causing mold. My older house might leak conditioned air like a sieve, but it's also venting away the various VOCs from whatever cheap crap I have recently brought inside.
    - fisherjeff 2y ago
roenxi 2y ago
I can't help but reflect that everything causes cancer. I was reading the other day about the influence of hot tea on throat cancers, for example. With that in the background, I'm struggling to distill this article into a "so what". The article suggests the EPA limit is one incidence of cancer in a million people per lifetime. If they've underestimated the risk from formaldeyhyde by one or two orders of magnitude I'm still not seeing what the problem here is. Odds of prostate cancer in men is double digits over a lifetime. This seems like something of a non-issue. If anything, if formaldehyde is industrially useful, the EPA is probably doing the right thing bending the rules. We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes.
- lazide 2y ago
  One point on this - formaldehyde fumes from furniture will make anyone in the room sick, regardless of any long term cancer. It’s got a distinctive odor, causes lung and eye irritation in any significant quantity, and generally just really sucks to be around long term. It’s been really nice having it phased out for indoor uses.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes. Of course we do. It would just reduce profits. Individual workers accept these risks under the hope that they can eventually improve their or their families lot in life.
  - elcritch 2y ago
    No, we can't. Not every material or chemical has an entirely safe replacement. PPE isn't perfect. Let's say all industrial workers wore air-tight safety suits, then the suits themselves would still be somewhat toxic.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then? Ultimately, though, probably just going to end up using robots. These typically aren't highly skilled labor positions.
Aloisius 2y ago
Oh, maybe this article won't be another questionable attempt at reporting something related to science... > The EPA noted that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which the agency paid to review its report, agreed with its decision not to include myeloid leukemia in its cancer risk. But four former government scientists with experience doing statistical analyses of health harms told ProPublica that the myeloid leukemia risk calculation was sound. Sigh. > A 2003 study showed that factory workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde were 3 1/2 times more likely to develop myeloid leukemia than workers exposed to low levels of the chemical. Well maybe this study they linked to will be a slam dun... | Conclusions: Exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans. However, results from other investigations are mixed, suggesting caution in drawing definitive conclusions. Scanning a recent review article seems to say the same thing - epidemiology studies appear mixed. Maybe formaldehyde causes cancer at rates the EPA had previously estimated, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. What I do know is this article is a disappointment.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  There's no real data in it, it's just scare mongering. 3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5 I'm pretty sure the baseline is included in the relevant research. And people should be scared of formaldehyde.
- tootie 2y ago
  I think that's the wrong line of reasoning. Even if the science isn't 100% settled, you're in a scenario where it's possible if not probably that formaldehyde is major carcinogen. Maybe futures studies say it's not quite as bad as they think, maybe it's worse. The question is how much certainty does the EPA need before it takes action? Should they let people continue to breath in toxic chemicals because it's possible they're not as toxic as we think? Surely they have to be prepared to act on incomplete information sometimes.
benchmarkist 2y ago
Industrial society is self-terminating.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Well, if you prefer, there was an indigenous American culture that needed to carry water in leaky natural materials and discovered that this worked a lot better if you coated the inside of a waterskin with tar. They were wiped out by some combination of tar consumption and the rest of their lifestyle. I would suggest that industrial society is less prone to this, mostly because it's larger-scale. There's always someone doing something that will ultimately prove to be a bad idea. You can't know until you try. What you need is to be able to recover from trying.
  - benchmarkist 2y ago
    The scale will make the inevitable collapse much more spectacular than any previous one in recorded history. I don't have any strong opinions on tar containers but I doubt it's any worse than whatever people are consuming every day on their food because of ubiquitous use of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. Add a few more carcinogens from regular industrial pollution and those natives could be considered to be practically living in paradise compared to their modern counterparts.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      Considering that I have tar flavoured cheddar in fridge(not great). And could get tar flavoured candies from store... I think there is probably lot worse things...
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        It's worth noting that not all substances called "tar" are particularly similar to each other.
        2y ago
aurareturn 2y ago
I believe activated carbon filters are super effective at removing formaldehyde.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Activated charcoal filters fill up too quickly. I assume you don't want to replace it every week.
kazinator 2y ago
I licked PF (phenol formaldehyde) buttons when I was a toddler. I can't forget the fascination with the bitter, tongue-numbing, medicine-like taste that they released when wet. That shows you geniuses are not born: it's environment, man. Where can I get these buttons today for my children?
- pants2 2y ago
  That's ok, I had an asbestos popcorn ceiling in my room and I'd climb up on the bunk bed and scrape the popcorn off when I was bored
  - scotty79 2y ago
    I casted a inch-length semi cylindrical pendant out of old school solder and wore it around my neck on the bare skin for few days. I eventually stopped because I wasn't feeling to great after sleeping with it for some nights. I'm curious how it affected me. I noticed that my character changed to more anxious around that time and it stayed like that ... but it might have just been an effect of going through puberty.
    - justlikereddit 2y ago
      Metallic lead in jewelry worn on skin shouldn't be a particularly major risk for lead poisoning, especially when worn only a few days.
- onion2k 2y ago
  Where can I get these buttons today for my children? You could give the Nintendo Switch games to lick instead.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  IDK, but I knew a guy who claimed he solved his own learning and developmental problems as a teenager when he accidentally put his head against live mains wires meant for a light fixture. (Details in case someone wants to reproduce: it was in Poland and before 2004, so the voltage between the wires was 220V AC.)
vixen99 2y ago
"Toxic formaldehyde is produced inside our own cells, scientists discover" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170816134721.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170816134721.h...
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  To state the obvious, the toxicity of something depends on the concentration and the location of the toxin in the body.
NotGMan 2y ago
>> Still, if the past is any guide, even the limited efforts of President Joe Biden’s administration are all but guaranteed to hit a dead end after Donald Trump is inaugurated. Do these people even do research? Due to RFK Junior this is the 1st time that USA actually has someone in charge that already has done something about it in the past and is now in even better position to do something about it.
- pvaldes 2y ago
  > Do these people even do research? There is a previous four year experiment so, yes, this people did research and had clear results pointing to that trend. All of this people claiming that, "but, but Trump will experience an epiphany overnight to became the opposite that he was until today", are just lying to themselves and in denial. Have you, as me, seen the Dr Oz put in power?. There is a worldwide movement against science, and we see always the same faces parroting the same lies. Last week in Spain the PNfV tricked the government to have their congress in the Spanish senate. Seeing a former Spanish minister denying the evolution and promoting the "cretinist" theory from the senate was an absolute shame
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pvaldes 2y ago
Interesting related fact. Some plants like Spathiphyllum are known to remove formaldehyde from the air. This does not eliminate the need of a proper strong ventilation system, but indoor plants helping to protect people from cancer should be in each lab, for good measure.
- euroderf 2y ago
  Spider plants too maybe ? AFAIK they are the champs at removing organic volatiles.
- WillAdams 2y ago
  Book on that, _How to Grow Fresh Air_: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/308235.How_to_Grow_Fresh_Air https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/308235.How_to_Grow_Fresh... >In research designed to create a breathable environment for a NASA lunar habitat, noted scientist Dr. B.C. Wolverton discovered that houseplants are the best filters of common pollutants such as ammonia, formaldehyde, and benzene.
hilbert42 2y ago
First, I'll preface this comment by saying that I'm neither a toxicologist nor a medical researcher. Moreover, I don't doubt the evidence that formaldehyde is carcinogenic. I'd also add that decades ago before any EPA reports I'd learned in chemistry that formaldehyde was a dangerous substance and not to breathe its fumes. That said, I have not read the EPA reports so the questions I raise here may be superfluous (if so, then the reports deserve a wider audience). Second, there are a number of issues about formaldehyde that are missing from this story that I consider important for the following reasons: (a) What are the tolerable (accepted) levels of formaldehyde that a human can accept without harm? Restated, in a 'pristine' preindustrial era how much formaldehyde would a human experience from external sources, the environment etc., and how do they compare with the levels we experience nowadays? Moreover, do we actually know the typical level of formaldehyde in a 'pristine' environment (given its ubiquity one can imagine small amounts coming from many different sources). (b) Re the 'pristine' environment, does science know if exposure to levels of formaldehyde from external sources is actually toxic? If so, then how would intermittent dosing versus chronic exposure at those levels mitigate matters? (c) The article does not mention that a metabolite of methanol is formaldehyde and that it's a principal cause of methanol's toxicity. Right, just about everyone knows methanol is very dangerous and that very few consume it intentionally (or accidentally) and those who do either end up dead or blind but I raise the matter here because the human body continually produces small amounts of methanol as a result of digestion, ipso facto, so too formaldehyde (which is then further metabolised to formic acid). As with ethanol, the body uses its liver enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) to metabolise methanol, so that would seem to indicate there's a threshold or tolerable level to both of these alcohols which does not cause harm (at least so in most individuals). Question, is this unavoidable internal source of formaldehyde dangerous and is its level in the body known to be carcinogenic or not? Rephrased, is it known if internally-produced formaldehyde does actually cause cancer, if so are some individuals more prone or susceptible to developing cancer from exposure (clearly not eveyone is; alternatively, most don't live long enough to succumb from it alone)? (d) Do we know if the effect of the combined amount of formaldehyde from both external ('pristine') and internal is dangerous of not? (e) If the combined effects (of 'd') are negligible on say all but a small percentage of the population who perhaps is susceptible, then what level of formaldehyde is typically experienced in our modern industrial society? What I'm trying to establish here is how much more formaldehyde does the average person now experience over and above the 'natural' baseline and whether a threshold level exists, and if it does then have we put error bars on those graphs? (f) Additionally, the article does not mention the fact that there are some 'foods' that intrinsically produce formaldehyde as part of their metabolism, for instance the artificial sweetener aspartame (as such it could be avoided). Given say a normal or nominal intake of aspartame how does the level of formaldehyde it produces compare with those levels mentioned above, and are they comparable and or relevant? (Yes, I'm well aware of the long ongoing and painful debate over aspartame and the general consensus that its effects on health are essentially negligible or irrelevant (in that its formaldehyde metabolite is both small in quantity and quickly eliminated from the body). Right, I've driven these points home to the point of tedium because such stories are not very informative, I'd even suggest that they contribute to the public's unease and general disquiet over chemicals, per se. It's all very well for learned papers to appear in the pages of Nature et al but whilst they rightly preach to the cognoscente there's precious little that's pitched between their high level and the unsatisfactory low level of this article. I don't know the answers to the questions I've posed but I'd suggest that if science writers were more precise and if they took the matters I've raised to heart then both the lay public and those in technical fields not directly allied to the subject matter would be much better informed.
octopusRex 2y ago
So much for people who voted for Trump because he would let RFK clean up the environment. Such naivete.
- a3w 2y ago
  "Culling the weak" is what a dictator-for-a-day does first? Surprised pikachu face I am glad that I do not live in a country that is number 50 in every important metric, but citizens say "we are best".
gwbas1c 2y ago
[flagged]
- vundercind 2y ago
  > Does everything need to be political? Does an article about regulation of a toxic chemical that would dead-certain already be far more heavily regulated if not for industry lobbying need to be political? Is that the question?
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    You'll find that Republicans and deeply conservative people also care, quite deeply, about pollution and cancer. You just have to learn to speak to them... And if you build consensus and mutual interest, they won't fight your agenda when the Democrats and intense liberals win an election.
jorge-d 2y ago
I was curious so I checked what is the state of the regulations in the EU and I found this: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/chemicals-eu-restricts-exposure-carcinogenic-substance-formaldehyde-consumer-products-2023-07-14_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/chemicals-eu... So yeah it's starting to be phased-out little by little but there is definitely the same exposure in here.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
Isn't that in hair dyes, and also in all kids of fabrics/building materials to prevent McMansions going up in smoke on the regular.
- philipkglass 2y ago
  and also in all kids of fabrics/building materials to prevent McMansions going up in smoke on the regular. Formaldehyde isn't used for fireproofing. You may be thinking of brominated ethers, which are used as flame retardants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers
encoderer 2y ago
They used to put it in milk to improve shelf life. Apparently it tastes sweet.
t0bia_s 2y ago
Article to not mention about formaldehyde as ingredient in some vaccines. https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/vaccine-ingredients/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/vaccine-ingredients/...
- t0bia_s 2y ago
  *do

218 points by hn_acker 2y ago

29athrowaway 2y ago

Get a TVOC and HCHO meter. HCHO = formaldehyde

wkat4242 2y ago
Tvoc sensors react on many organic pollutants. For example dropping a few drops of alcohol jumps it up to astronomical values that linger for hours. I didn't know HCHO sensors existed, I'll get one thanks
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  TVOC reacting to ethanol is a feature, not a bug. Ethanol vapors if up close, such as releasing slowly from a foam surface, can cause sinus irritation and a headache. It tells me that I need better ventilation, if only temporarily. The device is a singular combination meter of both TVOC and HCHO. It is widely sold on Amazon.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Oh yeah I know it's meant to detect it, but it makes it harder to notice more dangerous substances because it detects so many. But I'll try an HCHO meter if I can find one.

hn_acker 2y ago

The full title is: > Formaldehyde Causes More Cancer Than Any Other Toxic Air Pollutant. Little Is Being Done to Curb the Risk.

angmarsbane 2y ago
A hair dresser I went to years ago switched to working out of her home instead of a salon because she said she was concerned about formaldehyde exposure. She told me Brazilian blowouts and other treatments and dyes have heaps of formaldehyde.
- jabl 2y ago
  One reason for the prevalence of all kinds of eco/hippie/etc hair salons is that many hairdressers develop allergies against all the chemicals they're working with.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    That reminds me of hearing about the problems that Aardman Animations (Wallace and Gromit films amongst others) had with getting/keeping plasticine artists - after a while they develop an allergic reaction to plasticine.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Not particle board (as mentioned in the article) but sheets of inexpensive Chinese plywood I picked up had a very strong formaldehyde smell. I had never smelled that in plywood before (or at least so strongly). I've sworn off particle board in my shop decades ago (for reasons having nothing to do with formaldehyde) but quickly added cheap Chinese plywood to the exclusion list. I have resigned myself to opening my wallet for the expensive stuff (that costs over $100 for a 4' x 8' sheet, Europly, etc.). Europly at least seems to be formaldehyde free.

malfist 2y ago
You sparked my interest so I looked it up. Plywood in the US comes predominantly from China and Vietnam. I'm surprised I figured due to it's size and density it'd be mostly a local product
- lazide 2y ago
  The ones I saw at local stores were all from Canada or US West. Do you have a link to the data?
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    Table on page 9 suggests the US imports just under a quarter of consumed sheet products like plywood and OSB. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/US_FPMAR_2023-2024_Nov3.pdf https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/US_FPMAR_2023-...
bottom999mottob 2y ago
When we ripped out the carpet to install luxury vinyl flooring it was off-gassing for weeks. Had to go over the vinyl with dozens of microfiber clothes before the outside coating stopped wiping off. Imagine all of the people cutting into that inexpensive wood without air filtration is terrifying
- ta988 2y ago

ineedaj0b 2y ago

Could also be formaldehyde is the most studied for causing cancer. No one wants to fund a longitudinal tire dust study :/

bottom999mottob 2y ago
Or it could be that people spend more time in their luxury vinyl planked house, vaping and having ingress air filled with formaldehyde from traffic It'd make more sense and be less ethical to expose people to either formaldehyde or tire dust in a confined area, but that study is definitely not getting funded
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  What does vaping have to do with this? It doesn’t contain formaldehyde.
  - ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
    Shouldn't contain formaldehyde, but does appear to https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321928 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321928 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5954153/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5954153/
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- smitelli 2y ago
  Modern construction is insanely "tight" in the sense that most of the inside air stays in and most of the outside air stays out. Some of the most energy-efficient buildings need convoluted ventilation systems to prevent the humidity from getting out of whack and causing mold. My older house might leak conditioned air like a sieve, but it's also venting away the various VOCs from whatever cheap crap I have recently brought inside.
  - fisherjeff 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

I can't help but reflect that everything causes cancer. I was reading the other day about the influence of hot tea on throat cancers, for example. With that in the background, I'm struggling to distill this article into a "so what". The article suggests the EPA limit is one incidence of cancer in a million people per lifetime. If they've underestimated the risk from formaldeyhyde by one or two orders of magnitude I'm still not seeing what the problem here is. Odds of prostate cancer in men is double digits over a lifetime. This seems like something of a non-issue. If anything, if formaldehyde is industrially useful, the EPA is probably doing the right thing bending the rules. We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes.

lazide 2y ago
One point on this - formaldehyde fumes from furniture will make anyone in the room sick, regardless of any long term cancer. It’s got a distinctive odor, causes lung and eye irritation in any significant quantity, and generally just really sucks to be around long term. It’s been really nice having it phased out for indoor uses.
akira2501 2y ago
> We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes. Of course we do. It would just reduce profits. Individual workers accept these risks under the hope that they can eventually improve their or their families lot in life.
- elcritch 2y ago
  No, we can't. Not every material or chemical has an entirely safe replacement. PPE isn't perfect. Let's say all industrial workers wore air-tight safety suits, then the suits themselves would still be somewhat toxic.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then? Ultimately, though, probably just going to end up using robots. These typically aren't highly skilled labor positions.

Aloisius 2y ago

Oh, maybe this article won't be another questionable attempt at reporting something related to science... > The EPA noted that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which the agency paid to review its report, agreed with its decision not to include myeloid leukemia in its cancer risk. But four former government scientists with experience doing statistical analyses of health harms told ProPublica that the myeloid leukemia risk calculation was sound. Sigh. > A 2003 study showed that factory workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde were 3 1/2 times more likely to develop myeloid leukemia than workers exposed to low levels of the chemical. Well maybe this study they linked to will be a slam dun... | Conclusions: Exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans. However, results from other investigations are mixed, suggesting caution in drawing definitive conclusions. Scanning a recent review article seems to say the same thing - epidemiology studies appear mixed. Maybe formaldehyde causes cancer at rates the EPA had previously estimated, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. What I do know is this article is a disappointment.

readthenotes1 2y ago
There's no real data in it, it's just scare mongering. 3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >3.5x the risk of what?? 3.5x of 1 in a billion is quite different than 3.5x of 1 in 5 I'm pretty sure the baseline is included in the relevant research. And people should be scared of formaldehyde.
tootie 2y ago
I think that's the wrong line of reasoning. Even if the science isn't 100% settled, you're in a scenario where it's possible if not probably that formaldehyde is major carcinogen. Maybe futures studies say it's not quite as bad as they think, maybe it's worse. The question is how much certainty does the EPA need before it takes action? Should they let people continue to breath in toxic chemicals because it's possible they're not as toxic as we think? Surely they have to be prepared to act on incomplete information sometimes.

benchmarkist 2y ago

Industrial society is self-terminating.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
Well, if you prefer, there was an indigenous American culture that needed to carry water in leaky natural materials and discovered that this worked a lot better if you coated the inside of a waterskin with tar. They were wiped out by some combination of tar consumption and the rest of their lifestyle. I would suggest that industrial society is less prone to this, mostly because it's larger-scale. There's always someone doing something that will ultimately prove to be a bad idea. You can't know until you try. What you need is to be able to recover from trying.
- benchmarkist 2y ago
  The scale will make the inevitable collapse much more spectacular than any previous one in recorded history. I don't have any strong opinions on tar containers but I doubt it's any worse than whatever people are consuming every day on their food because of ubiquitous use of pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. Add a few more carcinogens from regular industrial pollution and those natives could be considered to be practically living in paradise compared to their modern counterparts.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Considering that I have tar flavoured cheddar in fridge(not great). And could get tar flavoured candies from store... I think there is probably lot worse things...
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      It's worth noting that not all substances called "tar" are particularly similar to each other.
      - 2y ago

aurareturn 2y ago

I believe activated carbon filters are super effective at removing formaldehyde.

OutOfHere 2y ago
Activated charcoal filters fill up too quickly. I assume you don't want to replace it every week.

kazinator 2y ago

I licked PF (phenol formaldehyde) buttons when I was a toddler. I can't forget the fascination with the bitter, tongue-numbing, medicine-like taste that they released when wet. That shows you geniuses are not born: it's environment, man. Where can I get these buttons today for my children?

pants2 2y ago
That's ok, I had an asbestos popcorn ceiling in my room and I'd climb up on the bunk bed and scrape the popcorn off when I was bored
- scotty79 2y ago
  I casted a inch-length semi cylindrical pendant out of old school solder and wore it around my neck on the bare skin for few days. I eventually stopped because I wasn't feeling to great after sleeping with it for some nights. I'm curious how it affected me. I noticed that my character changed to more anxious around that time and it stayed like that ... but it might have just been an effect of going through puberty.
  - justlikereddit 2y ago
    Metallic lead in jewelry worn on skin shouldn't be a particularly major risk for lead poisoning, especially when worn only a few days.
onion2k 2y ago
Where can I get these buttons today for my children? You could give the Nintendo Switch games to lick instead.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
IDK, but I knew a guy who claimed he solved his own learning and developmental problems as a teenager when he accidentally put his head against live mains wires meant for a light fixture. (Details in case someone wants to reproduce: it was in Poland and before 2004, so the voltage between the wires was 220V AC.)

vixen99 2y ago

"Toxic formaldehyde is produced inside our own cells, scientists discover" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170816134721.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170816134721.h...

OutOfHere 2y ago
To state the obvious, the toxicity of something depends on the concentration and the location of the toxin in the body.

NotGMan 2y ago

>> Still, if the past is any guide, even the limited efforts of President Joe Biden’s administration are all but guaranteed to hit a dead end after Donald Trump is inaugurated. Do these people even do research? Due to RFK Junior this is the 1st time that USA actually has someone in charge that already has done something about it in the past and is now in even better position to do something about it.

pvaldes 2y ago
> Do these people even do research? There is a previous four year experiment so, yes, this people did research and had clear results pointing to that trend. All of this people claiming that, "but, but Trump will experience an epiphany overnight to became the opposite that he was until today", are just lying to themselves and in denial. Have you, as me, seen the Dr Oz put in power?. There is a worldwide movement against science, and we see always the same faces parroting the same lies. Last week in Spain the PNfV tricked the government to have their congress in the Spanish senate. Seeing a former Spanish minister denying the evolution and promoting the "cretinist" theory from the senate was an absolute shame
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pvaldes 2y ago

Interesting related fact. Some plants like Spathiphyllum are known to remove formaldehyde from the air. This does not eliminate the need of a proper strong ventilation system, but indoor plants helping to protect people from cancer should be in each lab, for good measure.

euroderf 2y ago
Spider plants too maybe ? AFAIK they are the champs at removing organic volatiles.
WillAdams 2y ago
Book on that, _How to Grow Fresh Air_: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/308235.How_to_Grow_Fresh_Air https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/308235.How_to_Grow_Fresh... >In research designed to create a breathable environment for a NASA lunar habitat, noted scientist Dr. B.C. Wolverton discovered that houseplants are the best filters of common pollutants such as ammonia, formaldehyde, and benzene.

hilbert42 2y ago

First, I'll preface this comment by saying that I'm neither a toxicologist nor a medical researcher. Moreover, I don't doubt the evidence that formaldehyde is carcinogenic. I'd also add that decades ago before any EPA reports I'd learned in chemistry that formaldehyde was a dangerous substance and not to breathe its fumes. That said, I have not read the EPA reports so the questions I raise here may be superfluous (if so, then the reports deserve a wider audience). Second, there are a number of issues about formaldehyde that are missing from this story that I consider important for the following reasons: (a) What are the tolerable (accepted) levels of formaldehyde that a human can accept without harm? Restated, in a 'pristine' preindustrial era how much formaldehyde would a human experience from external sources, the environment etc., and how do they compare with the levels we experience nowadays? Moreover, do we actually know the typical level of formaldehyde in a 'pristine' environment (given its ubiquity one can imagine small amounts coming from many different sources). (b) Re the 'pristine' environment, does science know if exposure to levels of formaldehyde from external sources is actually toxic? If so, then how would intermittent dosing versus chronic exposure at those levels mitigate matters? (c) The article does not mention that a metabolite of methanol is formaldehyde and that it's a principal cause of methanol's toxicity. Right, just about everyone knows methanol is very dangerous and that very few consume it intentionally (or accidentally) and those who do either end up dead or blind but I raise the matter here because the human body continually produces small amounts of methanol as a result of digestion, ipso facto, so too formaldehyde (which is then further metabolised to formic acid). As with ethanol, the body uses its liver enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) to metabolise methanol, so that would seem to indicate there's a threshold or tolerable level to both of these alcohols which does not cause harm (at least so in most individuals). Question, is this unavoidable internal source of formaldehyde dangerous and is its level in the body known to be carcinogenic or not? Rephrased, is it known if internally-produced formaldehyde does actually cause cancer, if so are some individuals more prone or susceptible to developing cancer from exposure (clearly not eveyone is; alternatively, most don't live long enough to succumb from it alone)? (d) Do we know if the effect of the combined amount of formaldehyde from both external ('pristine') and internal is dangerous of not? (e) If the combined effects (of 'd') are negligible on say all but a small percentage of the population who perhaps is susceptible, then what level of formaldehyde is typically experienced in our modern industrial society? What I'm trying to establish here is how much more formaldehyde does the average person now experience over and above the 'natural' baseline and whether a threshold level exists, and if it does then have we put error bars on those graphs? (f) Additionally, the article does not mention the fact that there are some 'foods' that intrinsically produce formaldehyde as part of their metabolism, for instance the artificial sweetener aspartame (as such it could be avoided). Given say a normal or nominal intake of aspartame how does the level of formaldehyde it produces compare with those levels mentioned above, and are they comparable and or relevant? (Yes, I'm well aware of the long ongoing and painful debate over aspartame and the general consensus that its effects on health are essentially negligible or irrelevant (in that its formaldehyde metabolite is both small in quantity and quickly eliminated from the body). Right, I've driven these points home to the point of tedium because such stories are not very informative, I'd even suggest that they contribute to the public's unease and general disquiet over chemicals, per se. It's all very well for learned papers to appear in the pages of Nature et al but whilst they rightly preach to the cognoscente there's precious little that's pitched between their high level and the unsatisfactory low level of this article. I don't know the answers to the questions I've posed but I'd suggest that if science writers were more precise and if they took the matters I've raised to heart then both the lay public and those in technical fields not directly allied to the subject matter would be much better informed.

octopusRex 2y ago

So much for people who voted for Trump because he would let RFK clean up the environment. Such naivete.

a3w 2y ago
"Culling the weak" is what a dictator-for-a-day does first? Surprised pikachu face I am glad that I do not live in a country that is number 50 in every important metric, but citizens say "we are best".

gwbas1c 2y ago

[flagged]

vundercind 2y ago
> Does everything need to be political? Does an article about regulation of a toxic chemical that would dead-certain already be far more heavily regulated if not for industry lobbying need to be political? Is that the question?
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  You'll find that Republicans and deeply conservative people also care, quite deeply, about pollution and cancer. You just have to learn to speak to them... And if you build consensus and mutual interest, they won't fight your agenda when the Democrats and intense liberals win an election.

jorge-d 2y ago

I was curious so I checked what is the state of the regulations in the EU and I found this: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/chemicals-eu-restricts-exposure-carcinogenic-substance-formaldehyde-consumer-products-2023-07-14_en https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/chemicals-eu... So yeah it's starting to be phased-out little by little but there is definitely the same exposure in here.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

Isn't that in hair dyes, and also in all kids of fabrics/building materials to prevent McMansions going up in smoke on the regular.

philipkglass 2y ago
and also in all kids of fabrics/building materials to prevent McMansions going up in smoke on the regular. Formaldehyde isn't used for fireproofing. You may be thinking of brominated ethers, which are used as flame retardants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybrominated_diphenyl_ethers

encoderer 2y ago

They used to put it in milk to improve shelf life. Apparently it tastes sweet.

t0bia_s 2y ago

Article to not mention about formaldehyde as ingredient in some vaccines. https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/vaccine-ingredients/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/vaccine-ingredients/...

t0bia_s 2y ago
*do