VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:38:03 08/24/00 Thu
Author: znailady
Subject: Formaldehyde Part 2
In reply to: znailady 's message, "Formaldehyde --- Part 1of 3" on 16:56:28 08/20/00 Sun

THE BIG SCARE
As far back as 1976, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was investigating urea foam formaldehyde insulation (UFFI), which was sprayed onto the exterior walls of old houses in order to insulate them. The commission was looking into complaints of adverse reactions after UFFI was installed.
While this investigation was still underway, the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology conducted landmark research on formaldehyde and carcinogenicity in 1980 and 1981. In a key experiment, 240 rats were exposed to airborne concentrations of formaldehyde gas, ranging from two part per million (ppm) to 15 ppm for six hours a day, five days a week--concentrations that humans could not withstand for even a few seconds.
Because rats breathe only through their noses, it was hardly surprising that after a two-year period (the aniamls' lifetime) of exposure to the hightest level of formaldehyde, a significant portion (44 percent) of the rats developed nasal cancer. At six ppm, less than one percent developed cancer, and no rats developed cancer at two ppm.
At this point, the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Healthy Administration had seen no cause for alarm over UFFI or any other formaldehyde product. However, in November 1980, the CPSC issued a press release warning that UFFI carried a risk of causing cancer. In April 1982, the commission voted to ban UFFI in homes and in schools. Owners of UFFI homes saw their property devalued and more than 1000 manufacturers and installers of UFFI went bankrupt.
The Formaldehyde Institute and other plaintiffs sued in the federal courts. The fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a unanimous decision a year later, declaring that the commission had not produced "substantial evidence" required by laws for the ban and some of its evidence was "worth exactly nothing."
However, by now the damatge had been done. A widespread concern evolved, leading people to believe that formaldehyde in manufactured products caused cancer or was otherwise toxic to humans.
Research projects continued under the direction of private industries, educational institutions and government agencies. Scientific evidence currently available fails to link formaldehyde and cancer in humans. Still, considerable research remains to be done, but conclusions to date include:
*People occupationally involved with formaldehye (chemical workers, morticians and pathologist) have no greater incidence of nasal or pulmonary cancer than do individuals in other occupations (NCTR Workshop, 1985)
*Records of 7716 formaldehyde industry employees who entered the workforce before 1965 showed fewer cancers than expected for the general population, and no nasal cancer deaths.
*An analysis of 481 cancer deaths among DuPont employees who worked at formaldehyde manufacturing plants showed cancer mortality rates among these employees to be no higher than other employees. (Fayer-weather, DuPont, 1983)
*Skin is an effective barrier to formaldehyde: Penetration is slight and of little concern from a healthy standpoint. In a study to evaluate aqueous formaldehyde and fabrics treated by formaldehyde resins and their ability to pentrate the skin of laboratory animals, only a slight amount of aqueous formaldehyde penetrated the skin. No significant amount was absorbed. (Jeficoat, Research Triangle Institute, 1984)
*Exposure to formaldehyde gas does not cause an increase in formaldehyde concentration in other parts of the body. Ibhaled formaldehyde is not transported via the circulatory system and does not reach sites in the body remote from the site of contact. (McMartin, 1979;CIIT, 1984;Yale, 1984)

These are only a few examples of the voluminous research findings on formaldehyde. The most recent and highly publicized report was a study sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, which announced in September 1986 that workers exposed to formaldehyde have no higher risk of caner than the general population.
The degree of formaldehyde that industrial workers are exposed to on a daily basis, compared with the amount of formaldehyde in nail care products used on clients, should lend a certain perspective to the issue.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.