I was pretty excited about the new Pur flavor options feature on the on-the-tap filter system. I was… until I read the ingredients on the flavors: the 2nd ingredient is propylene glycol? At concentrations as high as 22%? Yikes! Check out the material safety data on propylene glycol:
Potential Health Effects
Eye:
Causes mild eye irritation. Contact may cause irritation, tearing,
and burning pain.
Skin:
Causes moderate skin irritation. Contact with the skin may cause
erythema, dryness, and defatting.
Ingestion:
May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and
diarrhea. Low hazard for usual industrial handling. May cause
hemoglobinuric nephrosis. May cause changes in surface EEG.
Inhalation:
Low hazard for usual industrial handling. May cause respiratory
tract irritation.
Chronic:
May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments
have resulted in mutagenic effects. Exposure to large doses may cause
central nervous system depression. Chronic ingestion may cause lactic
acidosis and possible seizures.
How did this ever get approved as a water additive meant to get people drinking more water and, consequently, more propylene glycol? Obscene!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Nearly double the risk = not significant?
Reading an abstract which contains the following statement:
"Among the low risk group of women, i.e., those who had never undergone radiation therapy and who had never had a goiter, a history of one or more pregnancies was also associated with a small increase in the risk of thyrold cancer (relative risk = 1.8, 95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.1)." Read the rest of the abstract; that risk number of 1.8 is 1.8 times the risk of the control group.
Now, check out the conclusion drawn:
"While pregnancy and use of exogenous estrogens have an impact on the production of thyrold-stimulating hormone, their effect on the incidence of thyrold carcinoma, if present at all, appears to be small." Excuse me? Nearly double the risk (in the case of pregnancy, at least) is considered to be evidence of a small effect? Good grief! What would a large effect look like?
Compare that with a study on the increased risk of lung cancer brought on by second-hand smoke exposure from living with a smoker. The increase was about 25%. What is that, 1.25 times the risk (put in similar language to the thyroid cancer study)? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the stats (correct me if I'm wrong). We take second-hand smoke as a risk factor for lung cancer for granted while seem to be willfully ignoring the detrimental effects of hormonally active birth control… or even, as this study seems to suggest, pregnancy. Does that seem right to you?
"Among the low risk group of women, i.e., those who had never undergone radiation therapy and who had never had a goiter, a history of one or more pregnancies was also associated with a small increase in the risk of thyrold cancer (relative risk = 1.8, 95% confidence interval, 1.1–3.1)." Read the rest of the abstract; that risk number of 1.8 is 1.8 times the risk of the control group.
Now, check out the conclusion drawn:
"While pregnancy and use of exogenous estrogens have an impact on the production of thyrold-stimulating hormone, their effect on the incidence of thyrold carcinoma, if present at all, appears to be small." Excuse me? Nearly double the risk (in the case of pregnancy, at least) is considered to be evidence of a small effect? Good grief! What would a large effect look like?
Compare that with a study on the increased risk of lung cancer brought on by second-hand smoke exposure from living with a smoker. The increase was about 25%. What is that, 1.25 times the risk (put in similar language to the thyroid cancer study)? Maybe I'm misinterpreting the stats (correct me if I'm wrong). We take second-hand smoke as a risk factor for lung cancer for granted while seem to be willfully ignoring the detrimental effects of hormonally active birth control… or even, as this study seems to suggest, pregnancy. Does that seem right to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
