Skip to main content

View Diary: A DEMOCRATIC legislative & regulatory WIN you didn't know about (236 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Studies haven't show anything in years. (0+ / 0-)

    The EPA basically just decided the previous evidence, which was inconclusive, should control now.

    Summary of cancer studies on formaldehyde

    •  none so blind as one who refuses to see (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eclectablog

      from the very link you provided:

      A number of cohort studies involving workers exposed to formaldehyde have recently been completed. One study, conducted by NCI, looked at 25,619 workers in industries with the potential for occupational formaldehyde exposure and estimated each worker's exposure to the chemical while at work (4). The results showed an increased risk of death due to leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, among workers exposed to formaldehyde. This risk was associated with increasing peak and average levels of exposure, as well as with the duration of exposure, but it was not associated with cumulative exposure. An additional 10 years of data on the same workers were used in a follow-up study published in 2009 (5). This analysis continued to show a possible link between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems, particularly myeloid leukemia. As in the initial study, the risk was highest earlier in the follow-up period. Risks declined steadily over time, such that the cumulative excess risk of myeloid leukemia was no longer statistically significant at the end of the follow-up period. The researchers noted that similar patterns of risks over time had been seen for other agents known to cause leukemia.

      i figured that since you probably only read what you wanted to read that you missed the numerous times the NCI presents data that showed a link between formaldehyde and cancer so i just bolded two sections in this one paragraph that make your claim quite specious.

      _

      There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

      by dadanation on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 11:45:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cohort studies aren't used for confirming... (0+ / 0-)

        ...carcinogens, which is why formaldehyde was only classified as "Probable" for years and years and why Aspartame is still not classified as such.

        Pg 43, paragraph 3-5

        (It won't let me copy/paste text from that link.)

        ...and that's ignoring the multiple studies which found no association whatsoever, and the fact the studies in question relied on death certificates which may or may not have had the proper diagnosis.

        •  nope. not buying your revisionism again (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eclectablog

          cohort studies and case-controlled studies do make for compelling evidence:

          5.5 Evaluation
          There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde.
          There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde.
          Overall evaluation
          Formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
          For definitions of the italicized terms, see Preamble evaluation.
          Previous evaluations: Vol. 29 (1982); Suppl. 7 (1987); Vol. 62 (1995)

          and thn WHO also does not share you take on the data either.

          there are mountains of data.

          you choose to ignore or downplay or misrepresent the data.  not sure why but it is bothersome.

          knock yourself out.  i'm done with you.

          _

          There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

          by dadanation on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 12:18:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you, dadanation (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dadanation
            I appreciate your efforts though I fear they may be wasted in this instance.

            To be clear, it's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
            Become a fan of Eclectablog on Facebook.

            by Eclectablog on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 12:59:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  hopefully someone who might have disbelieved (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eclectablog

              your great diary based on this person's postings will now know that in fact the facts do support both your diary and the threat posed to us by formaldehyde.

              _

              There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

              by dadanation on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:10:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Only because WHO ignored multiple studies. (0+ / 0-)

            The only one even they considered plausible was Nasopharyngeal cancer, where the cohort studies were 2 for... and 3 against.  The most recent combined study was from 1997, and didn't include most of the recent, negative cohort studies.  Of the case control studies, only 1 of 7 found any statistically significant increase.

            They declared it carcinogenic some time ago, and have struggled against having to walk back the findings in light of negative recent studies.

            This is looking increasingly like a political decision and less like a scientific one.

            •  blah blah blah trixie (0+ / 0-)

              blah blah blah trixie blah blah blah trixie blah blah blah trixie blah blah blah trixie blah blah blah trixie blah blah blah trixie blah blah blah trixie

              _

              There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

              by dadanation on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:20:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site