Cadmium – the new lead?

July 26, 2011

Health Canada has just proposed a limit on cadmium in children’s jewelry of 130 ppm (0.013%), which is lower than the limit for lead concentrations. This limit was imposed because after a limit was established for lead, manufacturers started using cadmium instead. Several pieces of jewelry tested over the last couple of years have been almost pure cadmium, but in most cases these items remained on the market because there is currently no regulatory mechanism by which Health Canada can force them to be recalled and the sellers refused to voluntarily recall them (and yet there is still a lot of political resistance to proposed regulations that would give Health Canada the power to force a recall…).

So what’s the concern with cadmium, and is it really more toxic than lead? Read on…

Read the rest of this entry »


Salt consumption and the media

July 21, 2011

A good post at Science-Based Medicine today about how the media managed to completely misinterpret a meta-analysis of studies on salt effects.

Yes, I’ve been pretty slack about posts lately – summer is pretty short here so I should spend the time outside rather than sitting at my computer.


Cell phones and cancer – revisited

July 4, 2011

ResearchBlogging.orgA few weeks ago the classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF, the radiation from cell phones) as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made headlines. At the time, my position was that it is hard to draw conclusions from a press release, but that given the criteria for classification as a possible human carcinogen, the information in the press release and the data available in the scientific literature I didn’t see a need to panic.

Now more technical information about the IARC evaluation is available, published in the Lancet; while it still isn’t the full IARC technical monograph (which we probably won’t see for several months at least) it does provide a bit more insight into the basis for the IARC classification. At virtually the same time, another analysis of the same data by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Standing Committee on Epidemiology has been published, which concluded that “the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults.” Which of these two apparently conflicting conclusions should we believe? Read the rest of this entry »