US: Chinese drywall not harmful

Posted by Ralph Mowery on October 30, 2009, 12:02 pm

>> You cannot always extrapolate the effects of low level exposure by using
>> a
>> higher concentration for a shorter exposure period to accelerate the
>> testing
>> time.

> Yet this is the basis for much of the rat lab testing for cancer
> status. Feed the rat a couple orders of magnitude more than the human
> equivalent and wonder why bad things occur.

Isn't that what happened to the saccharin ban that caused cancer in rats ?
They fed them enough that a person would have to eat about a gallon of it a
day to produce the same results.

Posted by Pete C. on October 30, 2009, 4:13 pm

Ralph Mowery wrote:

> >> You cannot always extrapolate the effects of low level exposure by using
> >> a
> >> higher concentration for a shorter exposure period to accelerate the
> >> testing
> >> time.

> > Yet this is the basis for much of the rat lab testing for cancer
> > status. Feed the rat a couple orders of magnitude more than the human
> > equivalent and wonder why bad things occur.

>
> Isn't that what happened to the saccharin ban that caused cancer in rats ?
> They fed them enough that a person would have to eat about a gallon of it a
> day to produce the same results.

What saccharin ban? All they ever got was a warning on the label which
nobody cares about, the stuff is still selling quite well today.

Posted by Kurt Ullman on October 30, 2009, 4:37 pm

> What saccharin ban? All they ever got was a warning on the label which
> nobody cares about, the stuff is still selling quite well today.

The FDA banned it in '72 but was overruled by Congress. BTW: Canada
banned it entirely.
Probably confusion with cyclamate where the ban stuck.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Posted by HeyBub on October 30, 2009, 10:48 am

Retirednoguilt wrote:

> HeyBub wrote:

>> "[WASHINGTON] Federal product-safety regulators said Thursday that
>> their sampling of Chinese drywall emits higher concentrations of
>> sulfur gases and strontium than U.S.-made product, but found no
>> evidence so far that the emissions were to blame for health problems
>> and metal corrosion reported by at least 1,900 U.S. homeowners."
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125682903154416173.html
>> Who to believe? The government or your own watery eyes?
>> Let me think...

> Hey Bub-
> The quote you cited includes the phrase "so far". And if you look at
> the full Wall Street Journal article in the URL you included in your
> posting (above), the second paragraph of the full article explicitly
> identifies the government's report as "preliminary".
> In your rush to condemn the government, you are ignoring inconvenient
> information that negates your criticism.

You make a good point, yet your point raises an even more interesting
question:

If the results (so far) are inconclusive, equivocal, almost meaningless, and
merely suggest a hint of a shadow of a possible trend, why say anything at
all?

Is the obviously premature report a mistake in its release or an attempt to
influence something: Diplomatic relations, pending lawsuit results, the
World Series winner?

Posted by JoeSpareBedroom on October 30, 2009, 12:31 pm

> Retirednoguilt wrote:

>> HeyBub wrote:

>>> "[WASHINGTON] Federal product-safety regulators said Thursday that
>>> their sampling of Chinese drywall emits higher concentrations of
>>> sulfur gases and strontium than U.S.-made product, but found no
>>> evidence so far that the emissions were to blame for health problems
>>> and metal corrosion reported by at least 1,900 U.S. homeowners."
>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125682903154416173.html
>>> Who to believe? The government or your own watery eyes?
>>> Let me think...

>> Hey Bub-
>> The quote you cited includes the phrase "so far". And if you look at
>> the full Wall Street Journal article in the URL you included in your
>> posting (above), the second paragraph of the full article explicitly
>> identifies the government's report as "preliminary".
>> In your rush to condemn the government, you are ignoring inconvenient
>> information that negates your criticism.

> You make a good point, yet your point raises an even more interesting
> question:
> If the results (so far) are inconclusive, equivocal, almost meaningless,
> and merely suggest a hint of a shadow of a possible trend, why say
> anything at all?

Because it's interesting, and because there are people who prefer not to buy
defective and/or dangerous shit from dictatorships.

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
Chinese Drywall Houses - Will you DO ONE?	October 24, 2009, 7:25 pm
Chinese drywall worse than you can imagine	July 7, 2009, 7:32 pm
Chinese drywall poses potential risks	April 11, 2009, 7:12 pm
OT - Insurers dropping Chinese drywall policies	October 16, 2009, 2:02 am
Poison Ivy Removal Without Harmful Chemicals?	July 26, 2006, 11:17 am
Water Softener effluent...harmful or not?	January 14, 2007, 12:38 pm
chlorine tables in rear pressure basket of swimming pool harmful?	July 31, 2007, 4:18 pm
Chinese friend	March 9, 2007, 9:49 pm
Chinese Cars	August 23, 2007, 8:04 pm
Chinese kungfu -----the best art	March 29, 2008, 4:06 am

US: Chinese drywall not harmful - Page 4