Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

[bripat9643]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

you give him too much credit. lol He still doesn't bet it.

You're the one who doesn't bet [sic] it, numskull.

The sic goes in his quote dummy, not yours.

That all you got?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How funny is it when a RWnut posts a thread vindicating environmentalism,

thinking he's condemning environmentalism?

you give him too much credit. lol He still doesn't bet it.

You're the one who doesn't bet [sic] it, numskull.

The sic goes in his quote dummy, not yours.

That all you got?

That's all that is required currently, unless you have plans to speak your tiny mind again, in which case whatever total nonsense you say I'll comment on.

 

[orogenicman]

I suggest you read our environmental laws. You can start with RCRA, which delineates when clean is clean enough for specific compounds.

The law keeps changing because of numskulls like you. When are environmental regulations going to be tight enough to satisfy all the environmental wackos?

Dude, chemicals like Benzene are carcenogens. They produce cancer in people and animals at very low concentrations. This is why the U.S. drinking standard for benzene is 5 parts per billion. If you don't mind drinking this stuff have at it, but you don't have a right to expose me and my children to it. And neither does the petro-chemical industry.

So you're saying the 5 parts per billion is clean enough? If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago they couldn't even measure 5 parts per billion.

I don't know who told you this but it is incorrect. We've had the capacity (via gc/ms) to measure contaminants down to 5ppm for decades. We can now even measure them in many cases down to parts per trillion.

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

The claim that low concentrations of a chemical will cause cancer because they are carcinogens at high concentrations is dubious, so say the least. Many chemicals that are harmful in high concentrations are actually beneficial in low concentrations. For example, radiation has been found to be beneficial to your health in low concentrations.

Before you go banning some chemical and forcing consumers to pay $billions of dollars to reduce it's concentration in the environment, at least make sure you have your facts straight. So far you don't.

There is nothing dubious about the fact that benzene causes cancer at low concentrations. It is well documented. in the scientific literature. It isn't a matter of if benzene causes cancer. Benzene CAUSES cancer. It is a documented fact. And by the way, benzene isn't banned. It is one of the most widely used chemicals around. It is even in your gasoline.

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

 

[bripat9643]

The law keeps changing because of numskulls like you. When are environmental regulations going to be tight enough to satisfy all the environmental wackos?

Dude, chemicals like Benzene are carcenogens. They produce cancer in people and animals at very low concentrations. This is why the U.S. drinking standard for benzene is 5 parts per billion. If you don't mind drinking this stuff have at it, but you don't have a right to expose me and my children to it. And neither does the petro-chemical industry.

So you're saying the 5 parts per billion is clean enough? If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago they couldn't even measure 5 parts per billion.

I don't know who told you this but it is incorrect. We've had the capacity (via gc/ms) to measure contaminants down to 5ppm for decades. We can now even measure them in many cases down to parts per trillion.

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

The claim that low concentrations of a chemical will cause cancer because they are carcinogens at high concentrations is dubious, so say the least. Many chemicals that are harmful in high concentrations are actually beneficial in low concentrations. For example, radiation has been found to be beneficial to your health in low concentrations.

Before you go banning some chemical and forcing consumers to pay $billions of dollars to reduce it's concentration in the environment, at least make sure you have your facts straight. So far you don't.

There is nothing dubious about the fact that benzene causes cancer at low concentrations. It is well documented. in the scientific literature. It isn't a matter of if benzene causes cancer. Benzene CAUSES cancer. It is a documented fact. And by the way, benzene isn't banned. It is one of the most widely used chemicals around. It is even in your gasoline.

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

 

[orogenicman]

Dude, chemicals like Benzene are carcenogens. They produce cancer in people and animals at very low concentrations. This is why the U.S. drinking standard for benzene is 5 parts per billion. If you don't mind drinking this stuff have at it, but you don't have a right to expose me and my children to it. And neither does the petro-chemical industry.

So you're saying the 5 parts per billion is clean enough? If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago they couldn't even measure 5 parts per billion.

I don't know who told you this but it is incorrect. We've had the capacity (via gc/ms) to measure contaminants down to 5ppm for decades. We can now even measure them in many cases down to parts per trillion.

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

The claim that low concentrations of a chemical will cause cancer because they are carcinogens at high concentrations is dubious, so say the least. Many chemicals that are harmful in high concentrations are actually beneficial in low concentrations. For example, radiation has been found to be beneficial to your health in low concentrations.

Before you go banning some chemical and forcing consumers to pay $billions of dollars to reduce it's concentration in the environment, at least make sure you have your facts straight. So far you don't.

There is nothing dubious about the fact that benzene causes cancer at low concentrations. It is well documented. in the scientific literature. It isn't a matter of if benzene causes cancer. Benzene CAUSES cancer. It is a documented fact. And by the way, benzene isn't banned. It is one of the most widely used chemicals around. It is even in your gasoline.

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying the 5 parts per billion is clean enough? If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago they couldn't even measure 5 parts per billion.

I don't know who told you this but it is incorrect. We've had the capacity (via gc/ms) to measure contaminants down to 5ppm for decades. We can now even measure them in many cases down to parts per trillion.

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

The claim that low concentrations of a chemical will cause cancer because they are carcinogens at high concentrations is dubious, so say the least. Many chemicals that are harmful in high concentrations are actually beneficial in low concentrations. For example, radiation has been found to be beneficial to your health in low concentrations.

Before you go banning some chemical and forcing consumers to pay $billions of dollars to reduce it's concentration in the environment, at least make sure you have your facts straight. So far you don't.

There is nothing dubious about the fact that benzene causes cancer at low concentrations. It is well documented. in the scientific literature. It isn't a matter of if benzene causes cancer. Benzene CAUSES cancer. It is a documented fact. And by the way, benzene isn't banned. It is one of the most widely used chemicals around. It is even in your gasoline.

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't know who told you this but it is incorrect. We've had the capacity (via gc/ms) to measure contaminants down to 5ppm for decades. We can now even measure them in many cases down to parts per trillion.

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

There is nothing dubious about the fact that benzene causes cancer at low concentrations. It is well documented. in the scientific literature. It isn't a matter of if benzene causes cancer. Benzene CAUSES cancer. It is a documented fact. And by the way, benzene isn't banned. It is one of the most widely used chemicals around. It is even in your gasoline.

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

 

[bripat9643]

You just admitted that what I said was true. They could only measure to 5 ppm "for decades," which means they couldn't measure parts per billion.

How fucking stupid are you?

Sorry, but it's not documented. Whenever the EPA does tests to determine whether a substance is carcinogenic, it gives large doses of the substance to test mice. If the mice develop cancer, then the EPA sets some safe limit that might be a millions times lower than the amount given to the test mice. This procedure is based on a theory that if large doses are dangerous, then small doses are dangerous in proportion. This theory has been proven to be wrong in numerous cases.

One thing scientists never do is say some substance cause cancer no matter what the dose. Only morons like you do that.

Furthermore, where did I claim Benzene was banned?

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

 

[orogenicman]

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[GreenBean]

That was a typo. I meant 5 ppb. That has been possible since the 1980s, at least.

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you're still admitting it.

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "extensive risk analysis" is mathamatical Voo Doo. As I said, what the EPA and other agencies do is infer that if a high concentration causes harm, then a lower concentration will still cause harm in proportion. This theory has never been demonstrated. In fact, empirical data show precisely the opposite. And it doesn't matter whether you are discussing toxicity or carcinogenicity.

As for your claim the it is a "fact based on the chemistry of the chemical," that's also bullshit. Many chemicals that have been show to be harmful at high concentrations demonstrate no signs of harm at low doses. Mercury is the classic example.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

 

[bripat9643]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

 

[GreenBean]

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

My question being - if you persistently eat fish tainted with low levels of mercury over a long period of time - common sense would dictate that - just like the fish you are eating - the mercury levels in your body would be gradually increasing. Your body does not purge all toxins - it retains some - I am not certain about benzene , but mercury - yes.

Mind you - I'm no tree hugger I'm a conservative - but there are some environmental issues on which I side with the Libtards - not for the same reasons as them [I prefer to think for myself]

 

[bripat9643]

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

My question being - if you persistently eat fish tainted with low levels of mercury over a long period of time - common sense would dictate that - just like the fish you are eating - the mercury levels in your body would be gradually increasing. Your body does not purge all toxins - it retains some - I am not certain about benzene , but mercury - yes.

Mind you - I'm no tree hugger I'm a conservative - but there are some environmental issues on which I side with the Libtards - not for the same reasons as them [I prefer to think for myself]

The mercury scare has always been a scam to attack cheap abundant coal-fired electricity because enviros hate you and want you to freeze to death in the dark JunkScience Sidebar

 

[GreenBean]

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

My question being - if you persistently eat fish tainted with low levels of mercury over a long period of time - common sense would dictate that - just like the fish you are eating - the mercury levels in your body would be gradually increasing. Your body does not purge all toxins - it retains some - I am not certain about benzene , but mercury - yes.

Mind you - I'm no tree hugger I'm a conservative - but there are some environmental issues on which I side with the Libtards - not for the same reasons as them [I prefer to think for myself]

The mercury scare has always been a scam to attack cheap abundant coal-fired electricity because enviros hate you and want you to freeze to death in the dark JunkScience Sidebar

Thank You - interesting Link - I'll reserve judgment till I finish digesting the facts it presents - but your efforts are well appreciated. In particular ...

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “The gold standard in mercury research is a University of Rochester study that tracked a group of Seychelles Island children from birth to nine years old. While their mothers ate fish similar to that consumed in the U.S., they ate 10 times as much and had an average of six times as much mercury in their bodies. Yet researchers found no negative effects in their children.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

The argument above clearly reveals why we need an impartial authority on subjects like this, and that is going to be a government agency.

ROFL! The last word any knowledgeable person would use to describe the EPA is "impartial." They are a gang of communist agitators bent on destroying capitalism.

 

[orogenicman]

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I do believe the statement "safe at low concentrations" refers to casual and limited exposure only - not persistent exposure to low concentrations over extended period - that does make a big difference.

No, it doesn't mean that. Take Mercury, for example. Harm has definitely been demonstrated for exposure to high concentrations, but no harm has ever been demonstrated by exposure to low concentrations. If you eat fish, you've been exposed to Mercury. You don't see the EPA telling you not to eat fish, do you?

Mercury accumulates both in the environment and within the animals that ingest it. That doesn't happen with benzene. Benzene alters DNA (permanently), and does permanent damage to the nervous system.

 

[orogenicman]

Admit what? That I posted a typo? I freely admit that I posted a typo, bubba. As for there being no documentation that benzene is a carcinogen, only someone with complete ignorance of basic organic chemistry would ever attempt to make such a statement. It was determined that benzene causes cancer long before the EPA even existed, dufus. The fact is well documented and taught in every chemistry class on the planet. OSHA understands this, as does NIOSH. As does the EPA. It is one of the most carcenogenic substances known. Perhaps you should take a class before you make such stupid claims. But hey, of you don't believe that it causes cancer ( I had a client who had been drinking benzene-contaminated well water for several years. She was eat up with cancer and died within a year of our first meeting), I challenge you to drink a 4-ounce cup of the pure stuff. Then let us know in a year or two how you feel, if you are still alive. Put up or shut up.

It's not documented to be a carcinogen at the extremely low levels the EPA claims, moron. the so-called "safe limits" are hypotheses based on projecting on much higher concentrations known to cause cancer. No tests have been done that demonstrate toxicity at the low levels claimed by the EPA.

Wrong. Furthermore. It is not just the EPA that has done this research. It has been conducted by the American Cancer Society, NIOSH, OSHA, and the FDA. Now, if you want to argument with all of those agencies and declare it safe at low concentrations, I challenge you to live on a low concentration diet that includes benzene and lets see how that turns out. Good luck with that:

Benzene

ATSDR - Public Health Statement Benzene

The fact is that there is no known safe level of exposure to benzene.

ROFL! It's not wrong. It's 100% correct. Even the EPA says it's safe at low concentrations. The only question is, what concentration is safe? In most cases, take Mercury for instance, there is no laboratory evidence that the substance is toxic in low doses.

You're document doesn't say a thing about any labratory tests that prove low doses of Benzine are toxic. In fact, it doesn't even discuss doses below 700 ppm - that's parts per MILLION, not parts per BILLION.

Your claim that any dose of benzene is harmful is totally unproven. It definitely not a fact that there is no safe level of exposure to Benzene.

The maximum concentration limit (MCL) for benzene in drinking water is 5 ppb. That is based on very extensive risk analysis conducted by multiple agencies, not on toxicity tests. So yes, below this level, water is considered safe to drink. That is a very low concentration. The natural level of benzene is 0.1 ppb, which is even lower. But if you think they will allow you to sell water containing benzene at 6 ppb, think again. And we aren't talking here about toxicity. That is a different argument altogether. We are talking about its carcinogenicity. And again, there is no level of benzene that has been shown to be safe. That is a fact based on the chemistry of the chemical. It does nerve and chromosome damage at any concentration because it is a highly reactive organic chemical. The questions are how much damage, where that damage occurs, and over what period of time, and if those effects are short term or long term.

Benzene is a group 1 carcinogen.

List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Your "extensive risk analysis" is mathamatical Voo Doo. As I said, what the EPA and other agencies do is infer that if a high concentration causes harm, then a lower concentration will still cause harm in proportion. This theory has never been demonstrated. In fact, empirical data show precisely the opposite. And it doesn't matter whether you are discussing toxicity or carcinogenicity.

As for your claim the it is a "fact based on the chemistry of the chemical," that's also bullshit. Many chemicals that have been show to be harmful at high concentrations demonstrate no signs of harm at low doses. Mercury is the classic example.

It is a statistical analysis of studies conducted to assess toxicity, carcenogenety, and a host of other issues, including how long a contaminant stays in the environment, whether it reacts with other constituents in that environment and becomes more or less dangerous, whether it breaks down, how long that takes, mode of transport in the environment, mode of contact, etc. These assessments have been conducted by numerous scientific organizations and state and Federal agencies. And none of them support your creationist-like claim that it is "only a theory".

Mercury bioaccumulates in the environment,. dufus. Eat low doses over a short period of time, and likely you will not be affected. Eat that same dose day in and day out for a long period of time, and it will seriously impact your health. But as I said earlier, you are free to experiment with your own body. You are not free to experiment with mine or my family's.