Not really. That was because I was typing a response at the time and didn't remember your screen name right at the moment. But that's completely beside the point. Are you going to come up with anything in the form of proof or just admit that you were doing nothing more than making half-assed assumptions?
Yes it is significant. It is like smoking, one time-two times-three times it is insignificant...but once the nicotene daily need accumulates...the smoker is done with. The lungs die. The hemoglobin gets less Oxygen.
You don't think if it can do that with your hands it cannot decay the plastic? Plastics are fairly soft. How do you think they can be molded so easily? Anyways... my wife has endometriosis, so we have been forced to be knowledgeble about the subject. Follow the references: http://www.nobreastcyst.com/xeno.html "At Tufts Medical School in Boston in 1987, Soto and Sonnenschein serendipitously discovered that plastic test tubes thought to be inert contained a chemical that stimulated breast cancer cells to grow and proliferate wildly. They were experimenting with malignant breast cancer cells that were sensitive to estrogen. When exposed to estrogen the cells would grow and multiply, and when isolated from estrogen, the cells would stop multiplying." and "In 1993, at Stanford University School of Medicine, Dave Feldman, professor of medicine was experimenting with a yeast estrogen protein that binds to estrogen. They found that the polycarbonate bottles used to hold drinking water contained bisphenol-A. They used the polycarbonate lab flasks to sterilize the water used in their experiments. Bispheol-A nicely bound to the estrogen protein found in the yeast. This polycarbonate plastic is routinely used for the giant jugs used in shipping water. The manufacturer was aware that the bottles would leach particularly if exposed to high temperatures and caustic cleaners and so developed a washing regimen that they thought would solve the problem. However, the researchers discovered that the manufacturer could not detect samples sent from their lab. Samples that were causing proliferation of estrogen responsive breast cancer cells. This proved to be a detection limit in the manufacturer's lab equipment. The Stanford team found that 2-5 parts per billion of bisphenol-A was enough to cause the breast cancer to proliferate." Still want to turn a blind eye?
There: "Benzene is the most toxic of all the chemical components of Styrofoam and enters the human body either through the skin or respiratory system Benzene is listed on the Hazardous Substances List because it is a known MUTAGEN, CARCINOGEN and is FLAMABLE. Many scientist believe there are no safe exposure levels for carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). " taken from a powerpoint slide of: http://bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/projects/Styrofoam.ppt http://studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/answerspot/message.php?message=323
Read-Only's argument is that the styrofoam does not release carcinogens at low temperatures such as 100C. While my claim is that yes it does release carcinogens...but at very low percentile. So than he claims that the small percentile from carcinogens at such low temperatures does not really have negative effects on body. I claim therefore that each day exposure to these carcinogens...allows them to be accumulated in body which makes it substantial after years of exposure. My other claim is that other factors which cause cancer add up to these accumulated carcinogens. Factors such as UV light...processed food...chemicals in air... All this is small...but when it adds up...all this becomes the leading factor towards healthy YOU...or not.
OK, prove it's significant! And so you seem to repeat your unproven claim that those chemicals from stryofoam accumulate in the human body. C'mon, now - put up proof or shut up. I'm getting tired as asking you to prove what you've said but I will NEVER stop doing so until you finally DO produce something solid or admit your mistake. You can count on it.
i thought this was going to be a thread full of good news and happiness. instead i have just read 3 entire pages worth of a styrofoam debate. well who is going to give me back those 5 mins of my life that was stolen hmm? peace.
Read-Only's argument is that the styrofoam does not release carcinogens at low temperatures such as 100C. While my claim is that yes it does release carcinogens...but at very low percentile. So than he claims that the small percentile from carcinogens at such low temperatures does not really have negative effects on body. I claim therefore that each day exposure to these carcinogens...allows them to be accumulated in body which makes it substantial after years of exposure. My other claim is that other factors which cause cancer add up to these accumulated carcinogens. Factors such as UV light...processed food...chemicals in air... All this is small...but when it adds up...all this becomes the leading factor towards healthy YOU...or not. So than he (Read-Only) claims that I have no proof that these chemicals accumulate in the body While my proof is simple, if indeed toxic chemicals did not accumulate in the body...we would not need 2 kidneys! If toxic chemicals did not accumulate in the body would others need kidney transplantations? If toxic chemicals did not accumulate in the body...than what is it on the skin? lymphatic system cleans the toxins by removing them to the skin and that is why old people have a lot of pimples and discolorations...these are toxins on the skin.
It's vacation! And I've taken it alright, I'm totally not myself today.... good luck finding me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Balderdash! That was in reference to factory workers - not consumers! And on the consumer side, it clearly said the evidence of health risks was inclusive. Care to try yet again??????????? http://studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/answerspot/message.php?message=323[/QUOTE] And from the above link: "Styrofoam is a petroleum product and a known carcinogen (which essentially means it's a canger-causing agent). Styrofoam food containers emit Benzene and Styrene into food (especially hot food or drinks) when the food/drinks comes in contact with this type of food container. These chemicals have been associated with negative health outcomes in animal studies. The danger is when styrofoam melts when in contact with hot food (such as if you microwave food in a styrofoam container and the foot gets so hot that it melts its container). " Pay particular attention to that last paragraph. Do I need to point out to you yet AGAIN that styrofoam drinking cups do NOT melt in a microwave oven?????? Sheesh!!! You've just bombed out two more times!
Now that's just plain stupid!!! The human body needs kidneys for the removal of the end products of metabolism. They also remvove MANY other chemicals as well. The liver is also effective in breaking down many toxins. So your simple proof is NO proof whatsoever. And I'm still waiting for some...
Sorry John99, I was not aware you had a thread on this subject ..... I just googled " styrene migration " and " styrene toxic " and chose decent links with valid information ..........
