Read this and consider the rash of chemophobe anxiety attacks that are coming.
The study didn’t find cancer patterns, but the cleaning chemicals used “cause cancer.”
And the Key–IBM has a deep pocket.
http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Health-Expert-239321531.html
You know what cancer causing and carcinogenic mean–rats and mice bred to have tumors, then exposed to just less than lethal levels of the target chemical, had increased rates of tumors. That’s the usual EPA “cancer” and “carcinogen” research.
This is going to make some lawyers some money, somewhere, now IBM employees will suffer fear, maybe even pre, post or anticipated traumatic stress disorder or panic attacks? And other tech companies use the same chemicals? Shaaaazaaam or is it Ka ching.
Thanks for your great information, the contents are quiet interesting.I will be waiting for your next post.
Environmental safety equipment townsville
Every time I read of studies where mice develope tumore, I recall when I bred mice for my snakes. I feed them mostly Cheerios, since I could purhase those easily (didn’t need a pet store with “special” food). These mice developed tumors regularly. One female looked pregnant but never gave birth. When she died, we dissected her and found a huge tumor in her abdomen. So any time people get going on chemicals, I just smile and think “You probably fed your kid Cheerios……”
oops, my bad, no see distinction between 1,1,1 and TCE. We only used 1,1,1 and then water-based. Then we went out of business…..
we used it in the 70s and 80s in computer mfg (trichlor, aka 1,1,1) as cleaning agent for soldered circuit boards to remove rosin-based flux. pretty volatile stuff, fumes could be heady if you agitated it a lot. Fell out of favor due to cost, handling issues (destroys plastics!) and disposal issues. We switched to cleaning w/water (with some soap actually), or isopropyl and to acid fluxes. Personally I probably spent more time in direct contact with the 1,1,1 fumes due to my job (IE) than anyone in the entire company.
I can always count on your experience to fill in some gaps.
I told you what the EPA considers proof of carcinogenicity–high exposure expermiments on rodents.
Your description is what I expected–they found it in ground water and the panicmongers started up the chant–can’t be too careful. Ban it.
John Dale Dunn MD JD Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center Fort Hood, Texas Medical Officer, Sheriff Bobby Grubbs Brown County, Texas 325 784 6697 (h) 642 5073 (c)
Look up the history of TCE. It’s been used as an anesthetic, solvent to decaffienate coffee, drying agent for 100% ethanol a drycleaning solvent and as a parts cleaner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene
I’ll leave it’s carcinogenicity to the experts who understand the epidemilogical studies. However, it has had such widespread use that doesn’t indicate that it is a serious problem absent constant contact with high concentrations of long periods of time.
Good degreaser, but it’s problems with groundwater contamination from poor handling practices ended it’s use anywhere I worked by the early 1980’s.
The linked news item and links found in the news item are absolutely lousy. It appears that this NIOSH study covered previous use of TCE and PCE as parts/equipment cleaners, something commonly used into the early 1980’s. They work very well, but generally were discontinued 30 years ago. The primary problem with either that I’m aware of was historical handling practices that resulted in ground and groundwater contamination.
Notice that the article about the NIOSH report said that the IBM “workers” had lower than average overall cancer incidents and was concerned with the period 1961-2001. The report did indicate higher rates than the general population for certain types of cancer. Did this come from morbidity and mortality data without looking for confounding influences? It is very likely that IBM has records of employee exposure data, workplace practices for that period. It didn’t even say that they continue to use those cleaners or when they stopped using them. I’d bet that IBM’s workplace practices showed continued safety and exposure practice improvements from 1961-2001.
I sold boiler and cooling tower chemicals to the IBM research facility in the Research Triangle Park 40 years ago. The utilities department was neat, clean, well kept and organized. Chemical handling practices were very good for the period.
Also notice that a “stakeholders” group seems to be the one of beneficiaries of this study. I’m sure there is money in it for them.
I’ve reached the point that I stop reading at the word “chemicals”. The ravings of the ignorant are sure to follow it. I’ve made circuit boards at my own kitchen table. Anyone with half a brain can mitigate the risks involved with the “chemicals” involved with just a modicum of effort. The only thing that ever comes of these stories is lawyers getting rich, media selling ads, and some megacorperation solidifying its monopoly. Oh yeah, and consumers losing out.