The bad news: My $4000 Mac Pro may be killing me | Hacker News Reader

The bad news: My $4000 Mac Pro may be killing me

inquisitr.com

35 pointsvisakhcr70 comments

Relax. The Smell is just there for the first few months, and its purpose is merely to stimulate certain nerve centers. In time, The Smell's absence leads you subconsciously to buy another new Apple product. Your mind rationalizes these thoughts with respect to the various desirable features and aesthetics of Apple products, but your emotional centers of the brain are merely seeking another experience of The Smell.

That was the theory a few guys at work came up with anyhow. I think it has at least as much credence as this article.

I would like to use this as an opportunity to encourage people to stay away from foods with potassium/sodium benzoate as a preservative. This nasty stuff actually has potential to form benzene in foods. Don't poison yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene_in_soft_drinks

Good advice.

My general policy is that if the ingredient isn't in my kitchen, I probably don't want to eat food containing it.

In the case of preservatives, it may benefit the company that uses them since their food won't spoil on the shelf -- but it doesn't benefit me in any way. So why risk whatever the long-term effects are when you are not even being rewarded?

"In the case of preservatives, it may benefit the company that uses them since their food won't spoil on the shelf -- but it doesn't benefit me in any way."

That's a really good point.

Like allowing you to buy in bulk?

This is a good point, but food can last a long time without preservatives. I have never had any dry food spoil on me, and I don't go through food particularly quickly. I think I have had some unopened flour around for about 3 years :)

"In the case of preservatives, it may benefit the company that uses them since their food won't spoil on the shelf -- but it doesn't benefit me in any way."

You only think that way because you've grown up with the luxury of a food supply that is well-protected against a huge number of scourges that were killing significant numbers of people less than a century ago.

Without preservatives, a huge number of the foods we take for granted today (such as canned foods) would be impossible to produce. So unless you can/pickle/preserve all of your own vegetables (which still carries a significant risk of botulism), it's pretty difficult to say that preservatives don't benefit you.

I don't buy it. I can go to a store like Trader Joe's, where they deal almost entirely in packaged foods, and there are no industrial-era preservatives to be found. Pasteurization and sterile containers go a long way.

I learned about this after running into a guy in a Potassium Sorbate company in China. They are gradually taking over the market for potassium/sodium benzoate in soft drinks.

There has even been some controversy over how Pepsi/Coke has been taking it out of western industrialized countries due to health concerns while keeping it in poorer countries.

From the article:

"The UK Food Standards Agency has stated that people would need to drink at least 20 litres per day of a drink containing benzene at 10 μg to equal the amount of benzene you would breathe from city air every day"

...which is why I only breathe canned air.

I suspect if your Mac was going to kill you your car already would have. Gasoline (in the USA) can be up to 5% benzene by volume.

I don't have numbers, but I suspect that one hot-day fill of your car exposes you to more benzene than anything that an entirely dry piece of personal electronics could outgas, ever.

Cigarette smoke is a more direct source of benzene.

(Ergo, do not smoke while using a Mac Pro and covered in gasoline.)

I am suddenly hit with this image of some mechanic who has a smoking addiction and just got done fixing a car which had a leaking gas tank come in, sit down, light up, and get on a Mac Pro which reaks for some unknown reason... =O

Benzene would certainly be the least of your worries in that case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understatement

that's what i was going to say, too. Probably negligible in comparison.

If you smell gas strongly while filling up you are doing it wrong.

First some states require vapor recovery, and second you are outside and your nose is not inches from the nozzle - you should not be getting exposed to much of anything.

Right. So these Mac Pros are releasing trace amounts of benzene, which may cause cancer or death in high doses. Nothing like a little sensationalism early in the morning.

It causes cancer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene#Health_effects

That said, the article is still pretty sensationalistic.

That's true, but irrelevant. If I may borrow Mr. Jaynes' words:

  For example, to tell us that a sugar substitute is dangerous in doses 
  a thousand times greater than would ever be encountered in practice, 
  is hardly an argument against using the substitute; indeed, the fact 
  that it is necessary to go to kilodoses in order to detect any ill 
  effects at all, is rather conclusive evidence, not of the danger, 
  but of the safety, of a tested substance. A similar overdose of sugar 
  would be far more dangerous, leading not to barely detectable harmful 
  effects, but to sure, immediate death by diabetic coma; yet nobody has 
  proposed to ban the use of sugar in food."

( source: http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/prob.html )

The key fact to remember is that it is the amount of Benzene that matters, not just that it is present.

> irrelevant

It's not known if it's relevant or not. It might be, it might not. Without having further information, it's simply impossible to say.

Why is it not known? It seems like an experiment should have already been done.

For example, one could arrange an experiment with two groups of rats. The active group R would be administered very low doses of Benzene, whereas the control group C would not. Then, both groups would be studied over a sufficient period of time. If rats from R develop cancer and rats from C don't, then it is known that Benzene does cause cancer at low doses. Otherwise, if the experiment is repeated a sufficient number of times, the chance that Benzene causes cancer in low doses is statistically irrelevant.

Our points are the same: it is not generally known whether cancer can actually be caused by low doses of Benzene, so it is detrimental to freak over sensationalist articles like this one.

Also, it is especially distasteful to frighten people by claiming that there is some measure of truth ("science") in these inherently unscientific claims.

What is unknown is what the Mac computers are giving off, if anything, and in what quantities. Without that, it's impossible to even start talking about benzene.

I don't understand. From the article:

  According to Liberation.fr (english translation), as reported on ZDNet,
  the odor being emitted from Mac Pros manufactured before 2008 includes a 
  number of chemicals including Benzene, a known carcinogen that in high 
  doses is lethal.

So we're saying the same thing... I think? If the report is unconfirmed, then this article is extremely objectionable because the implication is that Mac Pros kill people (which would rightfully freak people out), but there is no supporting evidence. So therefore, the story might as well have been completely made up.

Like I said, it's a sensationalist article. Without knowing the composition and quantities involved, it's impossible to say anything with certainty.

Correct, but it's impossible to say anything with absolute certainty. However, we can judge the probabilities based on our previous experiences. So my assertions are:

- There are claims that Mac Pros emit an odor that contains Benzene.

- It's unlikely that the amount of Benzene is enough to be statistically dangerous, or even the source of the odor itself.

- Therefore, this article is pointless.

Agreed, hence my posting links to MSDSs below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=320901

And here's the MSDS for benzene: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Benzene-9927339

Microsoft's next ad: "Hi, I'm a PC and I won't kill you"

Lies!

Well, I can confirm that my grandfather died 3 months after visiting an apple store. Could this be why?!!?!?

Actually, my research shows that EVERY person who has ever visited an Apple store, will DIE.

[Citation Needed]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236

Oxygen is the common link in all these, and every single case of Cancer ever recorded. I can assure you that if you stop breathing now you will not die of cancer (unless you already have a very advanced case).

A common misconception.

http://cryonics.org/

You might want to just read the originating article:

http://translate.google.fr/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libe...

Yeah, it's a bit less dramatic, but it mentions the same facts: benzene present in the fumes, and its known toxicity.

Cars also give off loads of nasty fumes (new car smell anyone?).

My sister cancelled an order for a Nissan Versa because of its horrible rating on healthycar.org (lists all cars and how bad they are for this) and didn't want to risk it with her newborn.

Yes, have you ever seen the film that accumulates on the inside windshield of some cars on a very sunny day? It's vaporized and then condensed dashboard material :\

Yeah -- nasty stuff, and it keeps accumulating for years. My brother had a '91 Dodge Colt that would always get that film on the windshield.

If you're concerned, benzene smells like almonds.

As does hydrogen cyanide. I think it's a good generalization to assume that anything which smells like almonds is toxic unless you're really sure it's actually almonds.

The part I found most interesting is that Mac Pros emit some odor. I've had one for over a year and I haven't noticed anything.

Also, ripens fruits!

anyone think there is some fact in this??

It's probably true of many of the products we use on a daily basis.

Definitely. It's interesting to skim the material safety data sheets for commonly consumed chemicals, BTW:

Sugar: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s7394.htm ("Extremely large oral dosages may produce gastrointestinal disturbances.")

Capsaicin (in hot peppers): http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Capsaicin_Natural-9923296 ("Taste: Burning.")

Alcohol (ethanol): http://www.nafaa.org/ethanol.pdf ("May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea.")

Caffeine: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Caffeine-9927475

Table salt: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Sodium_chloride-9927593

I've been working on a pre-2008 Mac Pro for a year now. I have noticed that I often have headaches, and this is not a regular occurrence for me.

Of course it has not rained in Johannesburg, South Africa yet... it's a few weeks overdue and my sinus might be at fault.

But I am slightly concerned.

I would not be too concerned about things like this, there are far more harmful carcinogenic materials around you....such as synthetic drugs, herbicides, pesticides, metal in your old fillings..etc (I could go on)

The harmful components used in the construction of the cases are in such small quantities that its almost a non concern!

The trick here is "may be"

See? Deceptive marketing, people just read the headline, gets scared and never buys a mac for fear.

Ask yourself this question, who is so ethically wrong to be behind this ad?

Who benefits the most from the damage it may cause a competitor?

There is the answer...

Or, look at science for the answer, and discover that toxins off-gassing from products and homes are a largely underreported phenomenon with far-ranging effects on the human body.

One major question would be: how much can we trust current science? If I had a nickel for all the times I heard that carcinogen argument...

As opposed to what, our gut?

If I got a nickel every time someone died of cancer, I'd be rich. And probably have a massive guilt complex.

Science changes opinion quite often (this is an observed fact).

If someone dies because of cancer, you're never sure about the real reason. If used wrong, quite everything may provoke cancer... we all are continuously exposed to so many dangerous things.

There isn't even a simple answer to what cancer really is -- it's more the description of a symptom, and not the real cause...

It's rare for Science to form an opinion let alone for it to change it's opinion. You often hear single study's saying something, but Science only cares about what has been independently verified by several studies. The media presents controversy even with tiny fraction's of the community so that you listen. A classic case in point is "String Theory" which people compare to the "Standard Model" but it's still just an area of research that does not have the acceptance of the community of large.

A far more important case is the effects of low levels of radiation on cancer. It's been assumed my some people that there is a linear relationship between the risk of cancer and total radiation but there is still a lot of debate on the topic.

In both cased their are competing ideas, but the entrenched idea is just older and unlike evolution or the general theory of relativity it's far from accepted as correct.

Science is all done by scientists, and (most/all/?) scientists are humans (so far).

For the last 4 centuries, we have seen a continuous increase of science to form peoples' opinion.

But science is only science (no joke -- it's the current opinion of most scientists).

So, peoples' opinion and science are deeply related.

Scientific method serves to develop progressively more accurate theories by testing hypotheses and discarding those that do not stand up to scrutiny. It "changes opinion" because while scientific understanding is influenced by intellectual trends, cultural dogma, political pressure to manufacture evidence, etc., its fundamental emphasis on testing works as a corrective force in the long run. (As Kuhn noted in _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, if the old generation refuses to let go of old models a generation may pass before new ideas are really accepted, but such change can be measured in years rather than millennia.)

Only few scientists are sincere to themselves -- most are following some ideology, and so they are highly biased...

Sometimes true, but science has self-correcting measures that compensate for this eventually.

In contrast, religion could (in these terms) be characterized as a process in which someone has a revelation and tries to pass it on, it gradually becomes distorted through transmission, and there are recurring attempts to return to the original vision.

> Sometimes true, but science has self-correcting measures that compensate for this eventually.

I completely agree: but sometimes you have to wait centuries for this to happen...

But it actually happens, which is pretty remarkable in light of the rest of human history.

Yeah, what's science ever done for us?

Nothing of really important: nothing to be happier or more in peace...

Medicine.

What kind of medicine: the modern/european/american/... one, or the antique/chinese/naturalistic/... one?

One of them seems to be real science, the other is more similar to religion than to real science.

The most important fact is: only the scientific one is full of adverse effects...

The one that discovered insulin and penicillin.

The one that has doubled the world average life expectancy over the last century.

> The one that has doubled the world average life expectancy over the last century.

Life expectancy has been more or less like nowadays in past, and this for a long time.

Then came the Industrial Revolution (a product of modern science), and it went down to half. Then came modern medicine, and tried to bring it back to where it had already been for a long, long time...

Please cite. Everything I know about the history of public health and epidemiology tells me you're wrong. I know you want to argue from a position that science is a pox on humanity and religion alone improves life, but you should probably back that up with something.

Maybe you concentrate too much on Europe, America, and the 'modern world'.

If you look at other people, you see that there have been periods where people lived 100 years and more, and this many many centuries back.

Regarding science and religion: don't you know that the european scientists in past have all been christians? So, science and religion are not opposed to each other, as many modern people think: this is only a recent invention.

the world average life expectancy [has doubled] over the last century.

Are you referring to the life expectancy for 20-year-olds?

[Edit: I found some data here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_09.pdf 20-year-olds do seem to have benefited quite a bit in the first half of the 20th century. I had assumed that life-expectancy was virtually unchanged across the century, except for that of infants and other under-five-year-olds.]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com