A posting at a “newspaper” (I use the term loosely here) called the Canadian entitled ” America’s Toxic Flu shots: 250 times EPA mercury limit” has been getting a bit of attention (and ridicule) lately. The same article appears to be posted at another site under the name “Flu Shots Contain More than 250 Times the EPA’s Safety Limit for Mercury“, both by someone called Anthony Gucciardi. The article is riddled with factual errors, and actually identifies well-known quack Russel Blaylock as a “leading neurologist”. But without even going into all the factual errors, which have been pointed out elsewhere (such as here), the article has fundamental math errors that make it even more laughable.
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.
A 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 »
There have been a few reports in the news recently about how the US government has added formaldehyde to their list of substances known to cause cancer in humans. This doesn’t really come as a surprise – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), for example, already classifies formaldehyde as a confirmed human carcinogen. But since there’s some media attention on the subject right now, and since formaldehyde exposure can occur from a variety of sources, including many consumer products, it seems a good time to look at what this classification means for the general public.
After a bit of a break, I’m getting back to my series of posts related to mercury. This time I’ll focus on methylmercury, which is generally considered to be one of the “nastier” forms, since it is relatively toxic (primarily neurotoxicity, but also believed to cause cardiovascular and reproductive toxicity at high doses) and also bioaccumulates in animals. Since the main source of methylmercury exposure is food, and in particular fish, I’ll look at how the amount of mercury in fish relates to potential effects on humans.
The news yesterday and today has been full of reports that the World Health Organization – or more specifically the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is reporting that cellphones could cause cancer. The reaction is based on a press release; the full IARC evaluation has not yet been released. Based on what is in the press release, should we be worried?
The physics of how electromagnetic fields from cellphones interact (or don’t interact) with the human body is not my area of expertise, so I’ll leave the discussions about the plausibility based on known or suspected mechanisms of carcinogenicity – the energy from cellphones doesn’t break chemical bonds in DNA, but that doesn’t mean there is absolutely no possible mechanism of carcinogenicity. Rather, I’ll look at what the IARC press release is really telling us, which is not necessarily the same thing as how the media are spinning it.
When we think about exposures to chemicals causing adverse effects on human health, there is a tendency to view this as a product of modern industrial societies. To some extent this is true – there are certainly potentially hazardous chemicals we are exposed to as a result of our lifestyles, such as volatile chemicals in paints and solvents, the gasoline used to fuel our vehicles, and products of the combustion of tobacco. Most of the instances where we can clearly associate an adverse health effect with a particular chemical exposure are from workers in factories and chemical plants.
However, a new paper by Sebastian Wärmländer and colleagues examines a much older case of exposure to harmful chemicals – specifically aboriginal populations in California starting around 10,000 years ago exposed to polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).