On Sun, 30 May 2004 09:24:38 +0100, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

Bollocks. Will = certainty. Reality = low probability.

"The action has been taken because there is a small risk of cancer,
identified from repeated daily application of creosote to the skin."

"may" "link" "repeated" and other junk science terms.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/hthdir/noframes/creosote.htm

"Professional and industrial uses of creosote have been allowed to
continue" suggests that your ludicrous assertion "You could use the
old style creosote and drop dead a year latter as a result." is a work
of fiction.

Phil

"Jonathan Buzzard" <jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote in message
newsan.2004.05.29.20.36.03.267810@uk.me.buzzard. ..
Which original post are you reading then, it doesn't sound like mine!


Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:44:10 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote:

If a million people splash their skin with creosote then a small number
(say one or two) *will* die as a result, not they might, they will.

For example give one million people a chest X-Ray and on average six
will die of cancer as a direct result. We cannot say which six, but
six *will* die.

Your grasp of statistics would appear to be poor. Why take the risk
when you can remove the problem chemicals from creosote. Like I
said, it is on sale at B&Q as of the 30/5/2004.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:11:26 +0100, Graham wrote:

I meant the one going on about creosote being banned, which it is not.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:36:15 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote:

You mean the ones too poor to afford safer alternatives. There are
plenty of countries that would otherwise suffer malaria problems
that don't use DDT because they can afford something else.

Further more it is a bit short sighted to use DDT to avoid malaria
to then all drop dead from long term DDT exposure.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:36:15 +0100, Phil Thompson
<cynical_observer@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm sorry, but anyone who argues in favour of reintroducing chemicals
with quite horrendous side-effects is nothing short of a complete
fool. Next you'll be suggesting that smoking should be allowed in
kindergartens and operating theatres.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:32:51 +0100, Phil Thompson
<cynical_observer@hotmail.com> wrote:

Proof please. You insist on proof that its a carcinogen. So I insist
on proof that nobody ever died from it.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:44:10 +0100, Phil Thompson
<cynical_observer@hotmail.com> wrote:

Measured it, have you? Personally I mean, since you don't believe
anything scientists say. And yes, it will cause cancer.

No, other sensibly cautious science terms. Just because you're too dim
or prejudiced to understand scientific language, don't assume everyone
else is.

Or it suggests that professional or industrial applications are
assumed to be done under safer conditions eg staff properly protected
& insured, public access to treated materials blocked till safely dry
etc.

But then, you're not interested in actual explanations are you?

In article <p0emb05igjmr7rd59m8jr0rmqh4o3tb5v4@4ax.com>,
markmcintyre@spamcop.net says...
quite willing to sponsor such a move and leave complimentary packets in
reception or whatever. It has good potential for ensuring market growth.

Operating theatres are a no no, though. One would have to remove ones
face mask in order to take a drag. Think of the germs, eurrgh.

--
Alan LeHun

Mark McIntyre wrote:
I probably shouldn't butin but....
Creosote *is* dangerous:-
e.g. extract from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts85.html

Breathing vapors of the creosotes, coal tar, coal tar pitch, or coal
tar pitch volatiles can cause irritation of the respiratory tract. Eating
large amounts of creosote (any form) may cause a burning in the mouth and
throat and stomach pains. Eating large amounts of herbal remedies containing
creosote bush leaves may cause liver damage, while large amounts of coal tar
creosote may result in severe skin irritation, eye burns, convulsions,
unconsciousness, and even death.

Long-term (365 days or longer) exposure to lower levels of coal tar
creosote, coal tar, coal tar pitch, or coal tar pitch volatiles by skin or
air contact can cause skin damage such as blistering or peeling.

Animals fed large amounts of wood creosote had convulsions and died,
while those fed lower levels had liver and kidney problems. Animal studies
have shown that when pregnant animals breathe creosote, it may cause harmful
effects to the baby.

back to top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How likely is creosote to cause cancer?
Long-term exposure, especially direct contact with skin during wood
treatment or manufacture of coal tar creosote-treated products, to low
levels of creosote has resulted in skin cancer and cancer of the scrotum.
Cancer of the scrotum in chimney sweeps has been associated with long-term
skin exposure to soot and coal tar creosotes. Animal studies have also shown
skin cancer from skin exposure to coal tar products.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined
that coal tar creosote is probably carcinogenic to humans. The EPA has also
determined that coal tar creosote is a probable human carcinogen.




<<<<<<<<<<<

Whats worse is that the stuff they sell in diy shops doesn't even stop the
wood rotting.
It just exposes everyone to danger for zero return.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:MvIuc.347$nG6.3259511@news-text.cableinet.net...

Well, would you credit it.
Lets hope they don't try feeding animals large amounts of Dulux gloss,
or there are going to be some shabby properties about in future.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:24:18 +0100, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

every day ?

11. I am pregnant and have been exposed to one or more of these
products – should I be concerned for the health of my unborn child?

The action has been taken because there is a small risk of cancer,
identified from repeated daily application of creosote to the skin.
There is no suggestion of concern for the unborn child.



12. Is there a risk through inhalation?

The study on which this regulatory action has been based showed some
concern for frequent and repeated skin contact. It did not consider
inhalation exposure. However, studies of people working with creosote
regularly in timber treatment plants have not shown that there is an
increased risk of lung cancer.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:24:18 +0100, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

why incur the cost and the hassle if its not a real risk but a
hypothetical one. The US (the most paranoid nation) haven't banned it,
and coal tar products are used for many other purposes than creosote
inc application to skin of some patients.

Phil

On Sun, 30 May 2004 23:28:07 +0100, Jonathan Buzzard
<jonathan@uk.me.buzzard> wrote:

another ludicrous exaggeration, have you no clue about statistics at
all ?

http://news.hst.org.za/view.php3?id=20031212

"At least 39 Limpopo residents have died and 1 900 others have been
infected with malaria in the past two months because of bureaucratic
bungling.
The outbreak, with infection rates four times higher than normal, is
largely due to the government's failure to launch annual DDT spraying
and prevention programmes before the advent of the summer rains."

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/382_0_2_0/

"For years, Accuracy in Media has been reporting on the disastrous
consequences of the world-wide ban on DDT. At our annual conference in
2002, experts warned of the rising death rates from malaria,
particularly in Africa and South America and the failure of the
alternatives to DDT promoted by environmental activist groups. These
alternatives, like treated bed-netting, simply aren't working."

Phil

On Mon, 31 May 2004 14:51:47 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

they never went away

On Mon, 31 May 2004 14:55:49 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

"The action has been taken because there is a small risk of cancer,
identified from repeated daily application of creosote to the skin."

#so multiply the very small (and as usual unqanitifed) risk by the
probabiltiy that someone is a) applying it to their skin and b) doing
so daily

whatever the answe ris it is not worth any amount of anybody's money
to do anytihng about. Just another bunch of single issue fruitcakes or
meddling bureaucrats with nothing better to do.


Phil

On Mon, 31 May 2004 15:51:08 GMT, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:


so we get a clue at to the common sense level here, "eating large
amounts of creosote" indeed.

they can't even answer their own fucking question. The answer to HOW
LIKELY is a number not a pile of bullshit.

"probable carcinogen " - woooohh, scary. Best ban it.

Phil

On Mon, 31 May 2004 20:23:51 +0100, Phil Thompson
<cynical_observer@hotmail.com> wrote:

You really have absolutely no clue do you?

Good idea. Lets ban idiocy too while we're about it. Hmm, its going
to be awful quiet here now....
:-)

On Mon, 31 May 2004 20:20:47 +0100, Phil Thompson
<cynical_observer@hotmail.com> wrote:

Here's another quote, you won't like it quite as much:

"Based on long-term animal studies and actual case history human
cancer cluster research, the Agency for Research on Cancer and EPA
state beyond a shadow of a doubt, that exposure to creosote has been
proven to cause cancer in humans."

On Mon, 31 May 2004 20:23:51 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote:

Do you know what an LD50 test is? Probably not so why don't you stop
blathering.

JAB.


--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195