|
|
Post by tostones on Jun 29, 2005 20:23:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by =M97= on Jun 29, 2005 22:28:15 GMT -5
Wow.
I was just discussing this in another forum yesterday. A friend of mine was telling me how she had a parrot that she left home one day with her grandfather. She explained to him a few things he must not do. First you cannot feed a parrot certain foods... blah blah... but the issue of Teflon Pans came up. Even tho he was told not to cook with the bird in the room he did and the thing croaked.
I had never heard of such a thing and even said "I bet they find out theres something horribly wrong with Teflon that we just havent discovered yet"
|
|
|
|
Post by khnumet on Jun 30, 2005 8:03:05 GMT -5
Every time man tries to "improve" on nature we find something terrible wrong with it. Many times after untold numbers of people have died.
Most every pan I've got is nonstick. I'm going to the hardware store and invest in some cast iron.
They are doing this on purpose. It's called overload. A lot of us when we hear something causes cancer will just say "Doesn't everything?" and keep using it because we are just so overwhelmed that so much of what we use is dangerous. Then when something really does prove to be carcenogenic we already have this "the hell with it" attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Os3y3ris on Jun 30, 2005 23:36:25 GMT -5
On a side note, if you keep a cat, don't feed it on plastic dishes. Plastic is a carcinogen. It builds up over a decade or so and then all of a sudden your cat develops visible precancerous growths. Take the dishes away and it heals up.
|
|
|
|
Post by CIVILISON on Jul 1, 2005 14:11:20 GMT -5
foul... you never know with this modern technology.  |
|
|
|
Post by =M97= on Jul 7, 2005 16:22:07 GMT -5
On a side note, if you keep a cat, don't feed it on plastic dishes. Plastic is a carcinogen. It builds up over a decade or so and then all of a sudden your cat develops visible precancerous growths. Take the dishes away and it heals up.
Is this something that is specific to a cats digestive system or is this true across the board?
I ask because of the way kids are brought up with plastics... from the bottles, nipples and pacifiers we start them on... to their sipper cups and plastic plates and training utensils. And from there to plastic straws, water bottles etc.
My aunt was just diagnosed with stomach cancer a couple weeks ago... the same cancer that killed my uncle only 2 years ago. From the time my uncle was diagnosed till he died was only a time period of a couple months. Understandably so, my mother and remaining uncle are suddenly very concerned about their health... as I am of my own and that of my children.
From what I see... the Tupper Plastics / Tupperware Corporation was founded in the mid 40's and was full blown by '51...
This may be a stretch... or it may not be. But I wonder if a connection could be found between the occurance rate of stomach cancers and the availablility of plastic products.
|
|
|
|
Post by tostones on Jul 10, 2005 4:38:18 GMT -5
Peace llVll I mentioned the parrot story to a friend of mine that owns a couple pet birds and was told that is a common household danger bird owners are warned about. He even showed me the warning in one of those "pet books" for birds. It was news to me. In further developments with the Teflon problem, it appears DuPont may have to pay for tens of thousand of health screenings to settle a related class action-lawsuit tinyurl.com/b4c2fPersonally, I put nothing past these devilish companies. DuPont has a history of lieing about the risks of their products, one example being the lead gasoline problems way back in the day. peace |
|
|
|
Post by Os3y3ris on Jul 10, 2005 12:38:55 GMT -5
Its specific to a cats immune system. The affected area is mainly the skin and what happens is that the area that comes into direct contact with the plastic is affected. They ate out of plastic bowls so the area under their chins was hit. Everything else was fine. Whats interesting is that it takes about 10 years to develop. They'll be 100% fine, but develop a sudden allergy.
As far as I know, humans are fine around the same material. Not sure why cats are harmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnygemini on Jan 26, 2006 17:00:28 GMT -5
Harmful Teflon Chemical To Be Eliminated by 2015
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; A01
Eight U.S. companies, including giant DuPont Co., agreed yesterday to
virtually eliminate a harmful chemical used to make Teflon from all
consumer products coated with the ubiquitous nonstick material.
Although the chemical would still be used to manufacture Teflon and
similar products, processes will be developed to ensure that
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) would not be released into the
environment from finished products or manufacturing plants.
PFOA -- a key processing agent in making nonstick and stain-resistant
materials -- has been linked to cancer and birth defects in animals
and is in the blood of 95 percent of Americans, including pregnant
women. It has also been found in the blood of marine organisms and
Arctic polar bears.
The voluntary pact, which was crafted by the Environmental Protection
Agency, will force companies to reduce manufacturing emissions of PFOA
by 95 percent by no later than 2010. They will also have to reduce
trace amounts of the compound in consumer products by 95 percent
during the same period and virtually eliminate them by 2015.
The agreement will dramatically reduce the extent to which PFOA shows
up in a wide variety of everyday products, including pizza boxes,
nonstick pans and microwave-popcorn bags.
While not as sweeping as the federal ban on DDT in 1972, yesterday's
agreement is expected to have profound implications for public health
and the environment. An independent federal scientific advisory board
is expected to recommend soon whether the government should classify
the chemical as a "likely" or "probable" carcinogen in humans, which
could trigger a new set of federal regulations.
"The science is still coming in on PFOA, but the concern is there,"
said Susan B. Hazen, acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "This is the right thing
to do for our health and our environment."
The move, which came just a month after DuPont reached a $16.5 million
settlement with EPA over the company's failure to report possible
health risks associated with PFOA, drew applause from environmental
groups that have frequently criticized both the administration and
DuPont.
"This is one of those days when the Environmental Protection Agency is
at its best. With its announcement today, the EPA is challenging an
entire industry to err on the side of precaution and public safety,
and invent new ways of doing business," said Ken Cook, president of
the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization. "As harshly
as we have singled out DuPont for criticism for its past handling of
PFOA pollution, today we want to single out and commend the company
and acknowledge its leadership going forward."
DuPont officials said they were confident they could alter
manufacturing methods over the coming decade to contain PFOA exposure
from products that generated $1 billion in sales for the company in
2004.
"It's important to do this because this is a persistent material in
the environment, and it's at low levels in people's blood," said David
Boothe, DuPont's global business director. To remove PFOA, he said,
the company will subject some of its products to extra heat and will
sometimes add a step in the manufacturing process. "We're going to
push it really hard and take it as far as we can."
Scientific studies have not established a link between using products
containing trace amounts of PFOA, such as microwave-popcorn bags or
nonstick pans, and elevated cancer levels. Hazen said yesterday's
announcement should "not indicate any concern . . . for consumers
using household products" with such coatings.
Several other companies agreed yesterday to reduce public exposure to
the chemical, including 3M Co., Ciba and Clariant Corp. But DuPont,
which settled a class-action suit last year accusing it of
contaminating drinking water in Ohio and West Virginia communities
near its plant in Parkersburg, W.Va., has attracted the most public
scrutiny over its PFOA use.
William Bailey III, who was born in 1981 with multiple birth defects
while his mother, Sue, was working with the chemical at the
Parkersburg plant, said he will "be watching" to see if the chemical
giant complies with the new agreement.
"They're trying to save face," said Bailey, who is suing DuPont over
his birth defects.
|
|
