Maker Pro
Maker Pro

On the harmfulness of microwaves

  • Thread starter Rene Tschaggelar
  • Start date
R

Rene Tschaggelar

I'm having a continuous argument with a colleague of mine about the harm
of microwaves. While he considers them harmful at any level, I tend to
be caring less when the level is below -10dBm. We're talking about
frequencies between 10 and 40GHz. I don't have a problem to have the
coax to waveguide coupler open (and operational at -10dBm) while
mounting gear at the network analyzer. Beside that a part of the -10dBm
is reflected, I consider such little power is not harmful on the basis
that sunlight coming with a density of 1kW/m^2 making 1mW/mm^2 is still
orders of magnitude stronger than these -10dBm distributes over a
radian or so. And we can stand the sunlight occasionally over shorter
periods of time unharmed.

How do you guys regard that subject ? Strictly no exposure at no level
at all ?

{BTW. I'm aware of the so called microwave solders in WW2}

Rene
 
V

Vladimir Vassilevsky

Rene Tschaggelar said:
I'm having a continuous argument with a colleague of mine about the harm
of microwaves. While he considers them harmful at any level, I tend to
be caring less when the level is below -10dBm. We're talking about
frequencies between 10 and 40GHz. I don't have a problem to have the
coax to waveguide coupler open (and operational at -10dBm) while
mounting gear at the network analyzer. Beside that a part of the -10dBm
is reflected, I consider such little power is not harmful on the basis
that sunlight coming with a density of 1kW/m^2 making 1mW/mm^2 is still
orders of magnitude stronger than these -10dBm distributes over a
radian or so. And we can stand the sunlight occasionally over shorter
periods of time unharmed.

How do you guys regard that subject ? Strictly no exposure at no level
at all ?

{BTW. I'm aware of the so called microwave solders in WW2}

FWIW they taught us that some RF bands are considered to be more harmful
then the others (5GHz the worst), and the most sensitive parts of the body
are the eyes and the endocrine system. Although the effect is essentially
the heating, the protection was recommended when working with the levels of
+10dBm or higher.

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Consultant
www.abvolt.com
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Tim said:
AFAIK the only scientifically proven harmful effects of RF is heating. I
have heard (anecdotaly, but not from a member of the tinfoil hat brigade)
that this heating can happen in the brain without the victim noticing it
-- but certainly not at those levels.

But if someone is insisting on being afraid of invisible waves, you
aren't going to convince them.

Microwave exposure increases bone demineralization rate independent of
temperature
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jms/2004/00000215/00000003/art00003

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
D

dalai lamah

Un bel giorno Rene Tschaggelar digitò:
I'm having a continuous argument with a colleague of mine about the harm
of microwaves. While he considers them harmful at any level, I tend to
be caring less when the level is below -10dBm.

There are still no conclusive proofs that non-ionizing radiations - i.e.
everything below UV - have significative health effects (besides heating,
of course). Some studies may suggest some kind of correlation with specific
diseases (e.g. child leukemia) but if the correlation was strong enough to
be of any concern, I think we would already have a lot more evidence today.

Probably if you lower your average driving speed of 5 km/h, your survival
rate will be improved a lot more than worrying about microwaves. :)
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

dalai said:
Un bel giorno Rene Tschaggelar digitò:


There are still no conclusive proofs that non-ionizing radiations - i.e.
everything below UV - have significative health effects (besides heating,
of course). Some studies may suggest some kind of correlation with specific
diseases (e.g. child leukemia) but if the correlation was strong enough to
be of any concern, I think we would already have a lot more evidence today.

Probably if you lower your average driving speed of 5 km/h, your survival
rate will be improved a lot more than worrying about microwaves. :)

True, but its another cumulative risk factor.
And it seems that cumulative risk factors might already be showing
epidemiologically in everything from asthma and allergies increasing, to
the phenomenal rise of autism to sperm counts in men decreasing by 60%
in 50 years.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
D

Don Klipstein

True, but its another cumulative risk factor.
And it seems that cumulative risk factors might already be showing
epidemiologically in everything from asthma and allergies increasing, to
the phenomenal rise of autism to sperm counts in men decreasing by 60%
in 50 years.

I would blame the rise on autism on greater detection, maybe also on
increased known risk factors for *bad things for children in general* such
as increased smoking by women, decreased breastfeeding, worsening diet
over the decades, children born to older parents, increase over the
decades in children born by mothers using recreational drugs, and increase
in single parent poverty households (where health and childrearing
generally suffer).
Nowadays that people need to be more capable to hold a semi-decent job
than before in order to meet today's greater job demands, all sorts of
mental conditions become more apparent or more greatly in need of
treatment. Maybe nowadays autism is more afordable to detect and treat,
or less embarassing to fail to hide.

Low sperm count - I would blame mainly increase of looking for it, worse
diets, and increase of sedentary lifestyle (latter two being bad for all
sorts of things). Maybe also men on average are keeping their gonads
warmer than before by staying indoors more than they used to and wearing
longer shorts in the summer than they used to.
I have trouble believing that sperm count decreased 60% in 50 years
anyway. I suspect low spem count got more-looked-for during the past 50
years since people started marrying later in age and then wanted a few
years of income-earning freedom before having children, and when couples
first trying for children in their late 20's had quite their share of
fertility difficulties...

With all the stuff we have now that we did not have before, the greater
cancer rates we have now than before 1900 can be largely explained by a
small number of factors. As in other than microwaves, electromagnetic
fields, and something like 99% of the chemicals in our lives that did
not exist in the Garden of Eden (or are not known to the Luddites to have
existed in the Garden of Eden, such as formaldehyde).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
J

Jon Kirwan

<snip>
I would blame the rise on autism on greater detection,

I actually asked Dr, Steve Edelson the question of whether or not that
explanation was sufficient to account for the modern rates, at dinner
together a while back. An unequivocal "NO!" is what I got. My
daughter is profoundly autistic and, it turns out, the rates for that
type of autism (which has a much longer track record) has also
increased dramatically. At least, here in the US. I haven't read
studies that may try to account for variations in methods and rates of
identification elsewhere. It's possible that there would be something
learned there. But within the US, it appears this can't be explained
only by 'greater detection' (either a greater awareness by
professionals or by a greater range of deficits being labeled as
autism.) But it's a part of the picture.
maybe also on
increased known risk factors for *bad things for children in general* such
as increased smoking by women, decreased breastfeeding, worsening diet
over the decades, children born to older parents, increase over the
decades in children born by mothers using recreational drugs, and increase
in single parent poverty households (where health and childrearing
generally suffer).
<snip>

Well, there is that. Lots of stuff in the news might be suggestive --
bisphenols, greater importation of foodstuffs (go to Costco, for
example, and see where the Trio "health" bars are made) where food
controls today probably aren't nearly what they have been here in the
US even some decades back, of course the "mercury preservatives"
debate still rages on, there is definitely a genetic component but
also definitely a non-genetic component too from good, recent research
coming out of Canada, and I even remember reading a convincing looking
article showing geographical correlations of autism in the US with
measured emissions profiles (I don't know what source they used for
that) by coal-fired power plants (the article suggested Pb, I think.)
I don't find it very persuasive, though, that your list of
possibilities cuts much sway. There is too much money and interest in
'the system' now, top notch researchers are becoming increasingly
involved, and most of the low hanging fruit has been picked at. The
stuff you mention, each one I think, is low hanging fruit. Keep also
in mind that one of the earlier correlations that was written about is
that the parents of autistic children were more intelligent than the
general public, at large, and with better incomes -- statistically
speaking. I just don't think you got the answer nailed.

If you want to argue about this, focus on considering what used to be
the "whole pie" but is today merely a subset -- profoundly autistic
individuals. The identification of those individuals has been
relatively unchanged for over 30 years .. perhaps more. The first
time the term was used was perhaps in the late 1940's, I think. But
the lists of deficits, check-off boxes, and processes for evaluating
profoundly autistic individuals was very solidly in place by the time
my daughter was identified at 2 years of age. And I'm told for some
years before that. (Not to mention the fact that I've become quite an
expert in my own right on that score.) These rates have similarly
climbed rapidly and there is a much longer history of the rates.

I'm actually interested in good ideas on this score, though.

Jon
 
D

dalai lamah

Un bel giorno Dirk Bruere at NeoPax digitò:
True, but its another cumulative risk factor.
And it seems that cumulative risk factors might already be showing
epidemiologically in everything from asthma and allergies increasing, to
the phenomenal rise of autism to sperm counts in men decreasing by 60%
in 50 years.

You are right, but I have very few hope that we can solve the problem "one
risk factor at a time", either individually or as a society. It would be
better to pick the most proven factors and concentrate on them. For example
I mostly blame pollution and the stuff we eat into food (from food colorers
to pesticides, from GMOs to animal drugs...).
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Joel said:
Those increases could be due to everything from microwaves to pollution to
green house gas levels to higher fat in diets to the decrease in the number of
pirates on the high see... and there are people who are fully convinced of
pretty much all of these causes, with the possible exception of the pirates.

True, but I'm betting multiple evil synergies.
However, pthalates have got to be high on the list.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
ttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Don said:
I would blame the rise on autism on greater detection, maybe also on
increased known risk factors for *bad things for children in general* such
as increased smoking by women, decreased breastfeeding, worsening diet
over the decades, children born to older parents, increase over the
decades in children born by mothers using recreational drugs, and increase
in single parent poverty households (where health and childrearing
generally suffer).
Nowadays that people need to be more capable to hold a semi-decent job
than before in order to meet today's greater job demands, all sorts of
mental conditions become more apparent or more greatly in need of
treatment. Maybe nowadays autism is more afordable to detect and treat,
or less embarassing to fail to hide.

Low sperm count - I would blame mainly increase of looking for it, worse
diets, and increase of sedentary lifestyle (latter two being bad for all
sorts of things). Maybe also men on average are keeping their gonads
warmer than before by staying indoors more than they used to and wearing
longer shorts in the summer than they used to.
I have trouble believing that sperm count decreased 60% in 50 years
anyway. I suspect low spem count got more-looked-for during the past 50
years since people started marrying later in age and then wanted a few
years of income-earning freedom before having children, and when couples
first trying for children in their late 20's had quite their share of
fertility difficulties...

With all the stuff we have now that we did not have before, the greater
cancer rates we have now than before 1900 can be largely explained by a
small number of factors. As in other than microwaves, electromagnetic
fields, and something like 99% of the chemicals in our lives that did
not exist in the Garden of Eden (or are not known to the Luddites to have
existed in the Garden of Eden, such as formaldehyde).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html
http://tinyurl.com/68n8km

The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report
yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising
males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals,
including people.

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves
a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being
disrupted, the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for
ministers. On Wednesday, Britain will lead opposition to proposed new
European controls on pesticides, many of which have been found to have
"gender-bending" effects.

It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows
that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in
pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals.

"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says
Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of
chemicals, who wrote the report.

Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals
in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per
cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper
safety information on 85 per cent of them.

Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" – or gender-benders
– because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used
in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications;
flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned
group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and
many pesticides.

The report – published by the charity CHEMTrust and drawing on more than
250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on
wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of
the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in
the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles.

It concludes: "Males of species from each of the main classes of
vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and
mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment.

"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a
widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone
receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore,
observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of
concern for other vertebrates, including humans."

Fish, it says, are particularly affected by pollutants as they are
immersed in them when they swim in contaminated water, taking them in
not just in their food but through their gills and skin. They were among
the first to show widespread gender-bending effects.

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be
developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have
been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely
from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage
treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of
sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising
man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a
host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in
Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay
in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

Research at the University of Florida earlier this year found that 40
per cent of the male cane toads – a species so indestructible that it
has become a plague in Australia – had become hermaphrodites in a
heavily farmed part of the state, with another 20 per cent undergoing
lesser feminisation. A similar link between farming and sex changes in
northern leopard frogs has been revealed by Canadian research, adding to
suspicions that pesticides may be to blame.

Male alligators exposed to pesticides in Florida have suffered from
lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels, abnormal testes, smaller
penises and reproductive failures. Male snapping turtles have been found
with female characteristics in the same state and around the Great
Lakes, where wildlife has been found to be contaminated with more than
400 different chemicals. Male herring gulls and peregrine falcons have
produced the female protein used to make egg yolks, while bald eagles
have had difficulty reproducing in areas highly contaminated with chemicals.

Scientists at Cardiff University have found that the brains of male
starlings who ate worms contaminated by female hormones at a sewage
works in south-west England were subtly changed so that they sang at
greater length and with increased virtuosity.

Even more ominously for humanity, mammals have also been found to be
widely affected.

Two-thirds of male Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska have been found to
have undescended testes and deformed antler growth, and roughly the same
proportion of white-tailed deer in Montana were discovered to have
genital abnormalities.

In South Africa, eland have been revealed to have damaged testicles
while being contaminated by high levels of gender-bender chemicals, and
striped mice from one polluted nature reserved were discovered to be
producing no sperm at all.

At the other end of the world, hermaphrodite polar bears – with penises
and vaginas – have been discovered and gender-benders have been found to
reduce sperm counts and penis lengths in those that remained male. Many
of the small, endangered populations of Florida panthers have been found
to have abnormal sperm.

Other research has revealed otters from polluted areas with smaller
testicles and mink exposed to PCBs with shorter penises. Beluga whales
in Canada's St Lawrence estuary and killer whales off its north-west
coast – two of the wildlife populations most contaminated by PCBs – are
reproducing poorly, as are exposed porpoises, seals and dolphins.

Scientists warned yesterday that the mass of evidence added up to a
grave warning for both wildlife and humans. Professor Charles Tyler, an
expert on endocrine disrupters at the University of Exeter, says that
the evidence in the report "set off alarm bells". Whole wildlife
populations could be at risk, he said, because their gene pool would be
reduced, making them less able to withstand disease and putting them at
risk from hazards such as global warming.

Dr Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, one of
the world's foremost authorities on gender-bender chemicals, added: "We
have thrown 100, 000 chemicals against a finely balanced hormone system,
so it's not surprising that we are seeing some serious results. It is
leading to the most rapid pace of evolution in the history of the world.

Professor Lou Gillette of Florida University, one of the most respected
academics in the field, warned that the report waved "a large red flag"
at humanity. He said: "If we are seeing problems in wildlife, we can be
concerned that something similar is happening to a proportion of human
males"

Indeed, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state
shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were
more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also
had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign
of feminisation. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed
that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play
with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and
Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer
a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide.
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is
slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys
have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20
countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per
millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years. (Hamsters produce
nearly three times as much, at 160 million.) Professor Nil Basu of
Michigan University says that this adds up to "pretty compelling
evidence for effects in humans".

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

krw said:
Of course you have no evidence for this conclusion. Might just as
well be n-rays.

There's plenty of evidence piling up for some plasticizers used in the
food industry being rather bad for the health.
Why do you think once widely used chemicals get banned from the food system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate

"Phthalates are being phased out of many products in the United States
and European Union over health concerns."

Remember that old "Signal toothpaste" boasting that it had
"hexachlorophene in the stripe"? Turns out it causes brain damage in
children. Wonder why we don't hear much of it these days? Did you ever
use it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachlorophene



--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
 
D

Don Klipstein

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote said:
Don Klipstein wrote:
At the other end of the world, hermaphrodite polar bears with penises
and vaginas

Can you cite?

Having both a penis and a vagina means some major plumbing rerouting.

Maybe easier to do to a female - urethra gets rerouted through the
clitoris.

To do to a male - the duct from the utricle has to go to an opening
on the skin instead of joining the urethra close to (or maybe even within)
the prostate.

You did post a bunch of aberrations that I suspect mainly recently
upticked due to recent upticks in ability and willingness to find them.
One of those had to do with alligators - whose physiological gender is
far from being always hard-coded by genes, but notably having a high rate
of being heavily influenced by incubation temperature.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
why microwave turn it on and leave. but what about phones into the giga putting it on your ear. no wander i am crazy.
 
D

Don Klipstein

There's plenty of evidence piling up for some plasticizers used in the
food industry being rather bad for the health.

Plasticizers aren't used by "food industry" - they are used to soften
plastic objects.

There is slightly significant concern that bisphenol-A is "significantly
actually a bad thing". That is mainly present and of concern in plastic
objects having recycling symbols, especially #6 and/or whatever
polycarbonate gets, along with anything with any recycling symbol
and especially soft-and-flexible in comparison to "usual fare of same
recycling symbol".

I still think that reducing exposure to BPA from "average American
exposure level" to zero makes about as much difference as reducing smoking
by 1/2 cigarette per day.

And it apears to me that about 98,950-98,975 of the other 99,000
chemicals of modern life not existing in the Garden of Eden or not known
to the Luddites to have existed in the Garden of Eden (such as
formaldehyde) are more truly harmless still. If I double my intake rate
of the all of them except the worst-1/8% of those not already subject to
regulations, I suspect that I merely have to drink 1 beer less per week or
eat 1-per-week fewer units of processed food to co pensate.
Why do you think once widely used chemicals get banned from the food system?

99% either on scientific grounds becoming obvious long ago or on
political grounds low on scientific foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate

"Phthalates are being phased out of many products in the United States
and European Union over health concerns."

Sounds to me like an unusual now-remaining area where bathwater is being
thrown out instead of babies. I still consider that a hazard comparable
to bisphenol-A - not as bad as smoking even half a cigarette per day.
Remember that old "Signal toothpaste" boasting that it had
"hexachlorophene in the stripe"?

And when was that from? I remember it - from when I was still living
with my parents! I moved out in 1986!
Turns out it causes brain damage in children. Wonder why we don't hear
much of it these days? Did you ever use it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachlorophene

Not that I actually followed that link, but it sounds like an older-tech
"organochlorine" type pesticide to me. Too similar to DDT and "Agent
Orange" for me to want to put into my mouth!

I actually did not use it when I was a child. Please look for other
explanations for any signs of brain damage that I exhibit! :) :)

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])
 
J

Jon Kirwan

<snip>
Sounds to me like an unusual now-remaining area where bathwater is being
thrown out instead of babies. I still consider that a hazard comparable
to bisphenol-A - not as bad as smoking even half a cigarette per day.
<snip>

I'd only heard about bisphenol-A recently when Canada was in the news
about planning to ban it -- a few months ago. I read a little bit.
Most of the science about it seemed to suggest that it was very
harmful, but mostly for those in the process of active development
(axon and dendrite rapid growth, dendritic pruning, etc) of nervous
tissue -- in other words, in humans prior to perhaps 5 years of age.
It probably also has much more effect on some indicator species that
live in or close to water ways. In adults, I'd probably agree with
what you wrote. It's just that you seemed to have missed the fact
that agencies weren't warning adults about their own consumption, but
instead that of their young children as well as prior to birth.

Jon
 
M

Martin Brown

There is a slight difference between incoherent white sunlight and
coherent monochromatic radiation that also needs to be taken into
account. Personally I would only worry about it if there was a risk of
internal heating or of wearing a ring at the wrong resonant
frequency.

OTOH A friend in the microwave telecoms industry died alarmingly young
of a brain tumour.

Many microwave ovens are unable to adequately shield a mobile phone so
the permitted leakage level cannot be exactly zero. Worth pointing out
here that your WiFi is at worst case producing around 100mW of 2.4GHz
or 200mW 5GHz (some can go upto 1W EIRP at 5.5GHz).
FWIW they taught us that some RF bands are considered to be more harmful
then the others (5GHz the worst), and the most sensitive parts of the body
are the eyes and the endocrine system. Although the effect is essentially
the heating, the protection was recommended when working with the levels of
+10dBm or higher.

I once walked into a lab where a researcher was adjusting a ~1kW
microwave induced Helium plasma on the open bench with all safety
interlocks defeated by pieces of the right sized mesh. I remember
wondering how long his eyes would last as I quickly left the room.
Some universities played with this stuff in the 90's by cannibalising
microwave ovens and flying on a wing and a prayer...

I was struck by how pretty translucent pinky orange the flame looked
(compared to the dazzling 9000K optically dense RF induced Ar ICP).

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
M

Martin Brown

  Plasticizers aren't used by "food industry" - they are used to soften
plastic objects.

And one of the main applications is to soften the plastic containers
that fast food and cook chill microwavable junk food is served in.
Fatty foods can leach the plasticiser when hot. A sedentary lifestyle
combined with a fat rich junk food diet almost certainly plays its
part in the demise of Western fertility.
  There is slightly significant concern that bisphenol-A is "significantly
actually a bad thing".  That is mainly present and of concern in plastic
objects having recycling symbols, especially #6 and/or whatever
polycarbonate gets, along with anything with any recycling symbol
and especially soft-and-flexible in comparison to "usual fare of same
recycling symbol".

  I still think that reducing exposure to BPA from "average American
exposure level" to zero makes about as much difference as reducing smoking
by 1/2 cigarette per day.

I would prefer not to smoke an unnecessary 1/2 cigarette per day. YMMV
  And it apears to me that about 98,950-98,975 of the other 99,000
chemicals of modern life not existing in the Garden of Eden or not known
to the Luddites to have existed in the Garden of Eden (such as
formaldehyde) are more truly harmless still.  If I double my intake rate
of the all of them except the worst-1/8% of those not already subject to
regulations, I suspect that I merely have to drink 1 beer less per week or
eat 1-per-week fewer units of processed food to co pensate.

Don't be too sure of that. The really nasty ones are those that only
hit a small fraction of the population a very long time after first
exposure. One such really bad example in the dyestuffs industry was
beta-naphthylamine in the 1960's. Some guys shovelled it around for
years without harm others visited the site once and died later.
  99% either on scientific grounds becoming obvious long ago or on
political grounds low on scientific foundation.

You do have to worry a bit about the high incidence of certain
illnesses in the orchard areas of Belgium for instance. And you don't
have to look that far for modern food adulteration like the milk with
melamine to fake the protein content in China last year. It also made
it into US pet food killing a fair few pets by kidney stone/renal
failure.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/infosan_events/en/index.html

Same for various dodgy toxic azo dyes that turn up in Indian spices
with monotonous regularity.

The flip side of this is that some additives are very important to
ensure food safety. Use the wrong pH for things like herbs stored in
oil and you can end up dying of botulism. And Organic(TM) peanut
butter stored incorrectly is capable of harbouring and very likely
already growing fungi that create extremely nasty aflotoxins. The
preservative(s) are a much lesser evil than the entirely natural
deadly poison.
  Sounds to me like an unusual now-remaining area where bathwater is being
thrown out instead of babies.  I still consider that a hazard comparable
to bisphenol-A - not as bad as smoking even half a cigarette per day.

If you already smoke 40 a day then it doesn't alter your life
expectancy by much.
But what about non-smokers?
  And when was that from?  I remember it - from when I was still living
with my parents!  I moved out in 1986!

We may well live to regret the fashion for obsessively hygenic worktop
surfaces and wipes with bactericides that leach out. The technology is
clever, but the benefits pander to the super clean modern life with an
unchallenged immune system in infants. Autoimmune diseases are on the
increase. Adding trace soya bean and peanut proteins to almost all
processed food also appears to have created a huge increase in
allergies to peanuts and other nuts.

And I really love the bakery now with such insanities as "Walnut Cake"
and "Peanut Brittle" that "may contain nuts".
  Not that I actually followed that link, but it sounds like an older-tech
"organochlorine" type pesticide to me.  Too similar to DDT and "Agent
Orange" for me to want to put into my mouth!

DDT is amazingly safe to mammals considering its potency as a
insecticide. Unless you are an avian raptor it isn't really much of a
problem it just accumulates in your fatty tissue (and poisons any egg
laying birds that eat you).

Even for the dioxins that always get a very bad press some are much
more deadly than others (and the polychlorinated biphenol transformer
oils that they are impurities in are much more of an acute threat).
Typically most victims end up with a bad case of chloracne. I lived in
Belgium during their dioxins in eggs & poultry scandal. Barely noticed
it apart from all the gaps in the supermarket shelves as we had our
own chickens. But it was obscene the way their government hid the
information from the general population until eventually a
whistleblower broke the story. These sorts of incidents do colour how
mainland Europe looks at food and farming.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/belg-j08.shtml

An entire population around Seveso in Italy was exposed to a massive
dose of dioxins when the local chemical plant exploded. Again it
didn't help that they failed to warn or evacuate the population in a
timely manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
D

dalai lamah

Un bel giorno krw digitò:
Of course you have no evidence for this conclusion. Might just as
well be n-rays.

I haven't hard evidences that the combination of thousands of different
polluters and food additives has a big impact on human health. It seems
very hard to conduct such a wide-spectrum, long-term epidemiological study,
there are too many interfering factors. But while we wait some scientific
breakthroughs on the analysis techniques for such complex phenomenas, I
think it's wise to listen at the warning bells and apply precautionary
limits, especially on the number of allowed chemicals.
 
M

Martin Brown

Un bel giorno krw digitò:



I haven't hard evidences that the combination of thousands of different
polluters and food additives has a big impact on human health. It seems

Fortunately most of them do not have any significant harmful effects.
And new chemicals are screened extensively before they are allowed out
of the lab. Sometimes they miss dangerous side effects like with
Thalidomide, and I have my suspicions about some artificial sweeteners
like cyclamates and most recently sucralose. But tests suggest that
they are OK in moderation and maybe better than having even more
people morbidly obese...

Most people in the West are hooked on excessively salty and sweetened
processed food.
very hard to conduct such a wide-spectrum, long-term epidemiological study,
there are too many interfering factors. But while we wait some scientific
breakthroughs on the analysis techniques for such complex phenomenas, I
think it's wise to listen at the warning bells and apply precautionary
limits, especially on the number of allowed chemicals.

Do you have any idea about the number of distinct chemicals in a
decent bottle of wine?

The precautionary principle when applied to industrial chemicals makes
no sense at all.

Limiting the ones that the public come into contact with makes a lot
of sense though. And some of the modern lifestyle synthetic chemicals
that allow wierd and wonderful Aardark and Hedgehog flavored crisps to
be manufactured or mask the pong of wet dog or cat litter in the house
are not among my favourites.

The really dodgy stuff is marketted in the alternative therapies
sector where by listing it as a food supplement they can get away with
selling things that are in some cases positively dangerous. There was
a fad in the expat community in Belgium for one particular Chinese
slimming pill that caused renal failure.

http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0610p394.pdf

Natural does not equal safe. There are plenty of natural poisons
around in the world. Most plants are in a permanent state of chemical
warfare with sap sucking insects, herbivores, rodents and fungi. It is
astonishing that soya beans are safe for humans to eat given their
effect on rodents. And real good quality chocolate could kill your
dog.

Mercifully only a handful of plants in Australia, Africa and South
America have mastered organofluorine chemistry.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Top