FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#131

Post by perl4ever » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #105

lightedman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder.[1] Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection." I do a bunch of mining and know the dangers of talc and its contaminants - it only takes ONE PARTICLE of tremolite or actinolite to start you on the road to mesothelioma. You just don't know which specific partic…

OSHA says.... Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), with an excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. The employer must ensure that no one is exposed above these limits.

There's no such thing as 0.1 fiber. A small fiber is still one fiber.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#132

Post by lightedman » Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #131

refurb wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSHA says.... Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA), with an excursion limit (EL) of 1.0 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. The employer must ensure that no one is exposed above these limits.

There's no such thing as 0.1 fiber. A small fiber is still one fiber.

This is correct. A single asbestiform fiber can trigger mesothelioma. There is NO SAFE EXPOSURE LEVEL.

Perhaps HN readers will understand that once they bother to get a career in surficial mineralogy.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#133

Post by dzhiurgis » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

girvo wrote: post #130

dzhiurgis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the risk there for people who sniff them as well? I have some friends who like their adder too much

It’s theorised that yes, there is, but I haven’t seen the same papers/case studies that prove it. But: consider that talc dust inhalation is known to cause talcosis, then consider that snorting crushed up tablets with talc in them goes straight into your mucous membranes and lungs, I personally would not be at all surprised.

How does medical industry avoid asbestos contamination in talc then? Or is overlooked just as in cosmetics? Kinda doubt it.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#134

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 1:57 AM UTC

lightedman wrote: post #132

perl4ever wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as 0.1 fiber. A small fiber is still one fiber.

This is correct. A single asbestiform fiber can trigger mesothelioma. There is NO SAFE EXPOSURE LEVEL. Perhaps HN readers will understand that once they bother to get a career in surficial mineralogy.

A single butterfly can also trigger a hurricane. Therefore we must eliminate the Karner Blue[1] to save the planet.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karner_blue

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#135

Post by loceng » Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 6:25 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #128

loceng wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems there will be constant battles until enough of society is educated enough where they know what they will take a stand for, accept, and what they won't - in part so they are able to elect politicians who are the gatekeepers, on "both sides" - who will eliminate and watch, protect against these efforts or mechanisms of bad actors. The first step is "getting money out of politics" - which is likely an impossibl…

Won't the lobbyists just spend their $5B on ads encouraging people to spend their $30B on their chosen candidates? Sounds like a lobbying force-multiplier.

There certainly could be some of that - however I imagine that behaviour will still be washed out with the overall quantity. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.