Benzene Exposure Alters Endocrine Activity
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
When I went to Belgium I visited the Red Star Line museum The Red Star Line was a passenger ship company that brought millions of immigrants from Europe to the US in the early 20th century. In order to depart for the US, passengers were required to scrub themswlves down with benzene and let it soak in to kill any potential lice eggs.
Also their luggage was autoclaved (yep, with hot stean) and then drenched in disinfectant.
Incidentally, as I've mentioned in an earlier post I've always been very careful to avoid exposing myself to C6H6, but less so to HCN. I used to use HCN in photographic processing and as I mentioned once before on HN I was affected by its fumes—and I'm still here to mention the fact (but I'm not for a moment suggesting that people be lax when using the stuff).
Why then was my experience so different back then? We treated benzene and CCl4 with great care, a fume cupboard was esential. See my other post.
https://www.landryswarr.com/did-you-know-decaf-coffee-used-t...
In general if you drink decaffeinated coffee I'd check how it's decaffeinated. Even newer processes that use dichloromethane, ethyl acetate or triglycerides are dicey imho. The supercritical CO2 processes seem safe though.
Truth be told I'd encourage anyone drinking decaf to really think about the benefits here.
That was about the same time I was learning the subject. We didn't get an anecdote about cleaning lab benches with benzene but were told it was very dangerous and carcinogenic.
Our teacher brought out a little bottle of the stuff—about 50ml or so—and told us that this was one aromatic hydrocarbon we weren't going to sniff and we should never attempt to do so. He also went on to stress that carbon tetrachloride was nearly as bad and said that none of the methyl chlorides could be 'trusted' as safe and with every extra Cl atom they became more toxic.
Advice I've always heeded. If this was common advice in lab science 50+ years ago then why is it even an issue today? All our chemical tech should have been built around this knowledge, the default should have been that benzene and humans should not mix—this paper ought to be a hypothetical as such exposure should not happen.
Incidentally, around that time there was controversy about removing carbon tetrachloride from dry cleaners, owners of these operations were complaining the new substitutes didn't remove grease as well.
[...]
>this paper ought to be a hypothetical as such exposure should not happen.
Of course it shouldn't happen. We all wish bad things didn't happen...
I am having trouble wrapping my head around this comment. I don't think people are purposefully exposing themselves to the chemical... Like yeah, of course everyone hopes that they won't need to know what happens when someone is exposed to benzene, but that doesn't mean we don't study it anyway. I don't think "hypothetical" is the word here since the possibility of benzene exposure is very real.
The implication here seems to be that, as soon as you discover the negative effects of exposure to a certain chemical, that chemical is instantly no longer a threat to anybody. Just because we may have known about this ~50 years ago, doesn't mean that we can just stop worrying about it.
Where would you like me to start? Perhaps asbestos, it's well known and well documented. 2000+ years ago the Romans were well aware of its dangers and called is effects 'the wasting disease', that's why they only sent slaves and prisoners to asbestos mines.
It was then the subject of several Admiralty inquiries in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries that came to the conclusion that it was dangerous and significantly shortened lives but the reports were overlooked as those lagging pipes on ships were expendable, getting ships ready for war wasn't. And we are still dealing with the stuff 100+ years on.
We could end with the dangers of social media and AI, but the populous at large is so enamored with them it can't even yet see the dangers let alone consider regulating them.
What it comes down to (which is what it always comes down to in capitalism), is capital. Accruing (and facilitating the accrual of) and protecting capital is the main function of the state, so it's only natural that regulations to protect regular people at the cost of a fraction of profits of the bourgeoisie, would take decades to be put in place. If ever.
Same thing goes for social media and AI. We sit back and watch as it corrodes and destroys our societies, so a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations can report profits to their shareholders every quarter.
This isn't anything new, there are people way smarter than you and I that figured this out a long time ago... Just don't say his name or else nobody will take you seriously.
What truly grates me in this centuries-long battle is that those to whom you refer always end up on top. Capital is like a bobbing cork, no matter how far you sink it, it always has the power to resurface.
We'd clean the ink off the rollers between separations with benzene. We didn't have any special ventilation (or even use gloves, for that matter). The first few times you did it, you'd get quite a headrush.
It's 40 years on, now, and I haven't yet experienced any health effects that I can directly link to that exposure. I'm sure I'm dumber than I would have been had I avoided the exposure, although I also grew up in the era of leaded gasoline. Based on what I've read, I'm more likely to experience Parkinson's, anemia, and various cancers in the future.
Benzene is a building block for the production of many chemicals, including plastics, synthetic fibers, rubber, resins, dyes and pharmaceuticals, and residual amounts may remain in the final products.
Benzene is used as a solvent and cleaning agent in printing, paint manufacturing, electronics, etc. Benzene contributes to the overall VOC load of paint for example.
And benzene is in the formulation of adhesives and sealants. Regulations often restrict the amount of benzene to a certain amount
Note ->
Everywhere 'Today' because of your listed modern products.
Not, Everywhere because it is some natural thing.
Saying it is "Everywhere" seems to imply it is ok. The point is, we are all exposed now.
There's no reference for that section, and I wonder if that calculation is by value, rather than by volume or weight, which would rather massively skew the calculation. Poisons don't usually care how much you paid for them.
https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/image/CENODS/10001-feature2-benze...
Although benzene exposure from cosmetics probably depends highly on what you are using. As per another reply here, those spray on sunscreens are are pretty terrible (likely due to using butane, propane, etc as propellants). Exposure can get as high as 6 ppm in some cases.
That’s wishful thinking.
Also, benzene is a common contaminant and breakdown product of chemical sunscreen (as opposed to mineral sunblock) ingredients. I.e. the older the tube of sunscreen is, the more benzene and other undesirable by products it’s likely to have.
Currently chemical analysis techniques can detect compounds down to picograms/L. That's billionth's of grams per liter. So saying "this material has benzene in it", doesn't really tell you anything about the level of exposure or risk.
Very few compounds are toxic at that kind of exposure.
I've been wondering about this a lot in recent years. Particularly in regards to medications/pharmaceuticals but also environmental containments/traces (which can include pharmaceuticals of course), pair with this what we are just starting to understand about plastics exposure and pervasiveness and I really wonder why more health research and workplace safety resources aren't being directed to look at compound and long term exposures.
Probably because no one wants to find the various smoking guns alongside the fears of what each of the ensuing lawsuits would cost. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
But if the threshold effect is 1 microgram, and you're exposed to 1 picogram of 10 different chemicals all working through the same pathway, you're still below the threshold effect.
And 1mg/kg of body weight is way more than any person would be exposed to unless you like drinking gasoline.
Also, they are obviously interested in lifetime exposure, but the expense of exposing rats to tiny amounts over the course of years is not financially/logistically feasible, unless someone is dumping obscene amounts of money into this specific avenue of research. Instead, they go with much higher doses in 24 exposures over a 4 week period.
Pure water - i.e. Milli-Q ultrapure water - is in fact a toxin in moderate quantities due to osmotic effects.
This made me laugh. Well played, sir.
it would be worse if I was a woman I'm sure, god knows what nonsense cosmetics contain
They can always not apply them.
One of my friends is a graphic designer / coder working at a web-dev shop. Guys could come in wearing ripped jeans, hoodies, whatever. If she came in with low makeup and casual clothes she was upbraided for not "looking good" in case a client came in.
It's by no means an uncommon incident. It's 2023, there's still a lot of discrimination and inequality. Women choosing to not wear makeup probably don't get jobs and contracts.
Backwards thinking like your comment is a source of injustice, not a defense against it. What's your point... bad people impose values on others except when I do it too then I'm insightful?
it's a little like a computer memory leak caused by a bit flip
cotton, silk, linen and wool are all harvested from organisms that contain DNA. if they promoted DNA damage, the organisms that produce them likely would have died off and been selected out long ago
of course humans could be vulnerable in ways plants, worms and sheep are not, or the damage could be slow enough to only affect something with a human-length lifespan, but there's a level of reassurance in knowing that those fibres come from something containing DNA
hydrocarbon-based fibres do not give me this reassurance
What's your pillow stuffed with? You mattress? What's your carpet made of? Have anything plastic in the house that might off-gas? You know what aluminum cans are coated with? What's your furniture made of? Is there epoxy in that? What it finished with polyurethane?
Things like lead, benzene, and DDT proved themselves to be dangerous pretty quickly. Your polyester suit should be the least of your worries.
That one methyl group makes a significant difference, but I still would avoid unnecessary exposure.
The more I read these posts the more alarmed I become. As I posted above only minutes ago I was taught the dangers of benzene over 50 years ago to the extent that there were strict controls on how we used it—we weren't allowed to even take the stopper of the bottle unless it was in a fume cupboard.
> For smokers, tobacco smoke is the most important source of exposure to benzene. It is released in the smoke when tobacco is burned. Non-smokers are also exposed through tobacco smoke when they inhale smoke passively. A typical smoker inhales an average of ten times more benzene per day than a non-smoker.
Gas pumps have mandatory vapor recovery systems for decades now. That problem is long solved.
Then my father discovered Goop.
My father also dumped engine oil into storm drains. Then into the ground when that was banned. Yes, he was an idiot. (Becoming a treehugger was probably an act of rebellion.)
Bought a new house in a semi-rural area, had only ever been farms, zero petrol stations ever existed within at least a 4-mile radius, and mostly downhill.
Yet the water test found MTBE [0], Methyl tert-butyl ether, a gasoline additive.
Had to maintain and replace an activated carbon filter in the water system ever since.
The only possibility is some farmer decades ago dumping oil (IDK if it is in there, or gets in there from piston-ring blow-by) or leaking gasoline somewhere in the watershed.
Awful.
And once the stuff is in the watershed/groundwater, it can be really really hard to get out of there, especially if the watershed is enclosed or doesn't have much outflow.
I agree that in this situation it seems very difficult and it is surprising that the pollutant would travel not only that far laterally but also that far down. Yet, there it is.
"Water flowing underground ...." - it moves a lot more than we think!
For cleaning bike gears etc. I've used a DIY degreaser with water, fuel alcohol, baking soda, and dishwashing liquid. Works ok, and is cheap.
The US attitude, particular to expensive systems, on anything emissions related continues to negatively amaze me.
[1] https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/mobilesource/vapor_rec...
[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
https://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/12/epa-says-outdated-gas-va...
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/workshop-vapor-re...
Here’s the 2012 EPA ruling which loosened the requirement for stage 2 recovery systems: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2012-05-16/2012-11846 which led directly to this move in Arizona: https://agriculture.az.gov/weights-measures/fueling/gasoline...
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7918986/#:~:tex....
The very next sentence in your link mentions it can have up to 2%, as I mentioned: “Generally, gasoline in the United States is likely to contain 0.5%–2.0% benzene by volume [14,15].”
18% of gasoline’s weight is the BTEX aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylene-benzene, and xylene. https://www.fuelfreedom.org/is-there-a-better-gasoline-addit....
This may be done depending on the season to increase the octane of gasoline.
An average of 18% of these aromatics is not what I’d call just trace amounts…
> 18% of gasoline’s weight is the BTEX aromatics, benzene, toluene, ethylene-benzene, and xylene. https://www.fuelfreedom.org/is-there-a-better-gasoline-addit....
> This may be done depending on the season to increase the octane of gasoline.
> An average of 18% of these aromatics is not what I’d call just trace amounts…
Yes, BTEX is added to improve octane. It's also possible to increase octane by alkylation and isomerization, which produce branched alkanes which tend to be less toxic and burn cleaner than aromatics, but reformation/dehydrogenation which produces aromatics is cheaper..
But yes, while the other aromatics aren't exactly healthy, they're nowhere as dangerous as benzene. So it makes sense to minimize the amount of benzene via regulation, but be a bit less strict about the other aromatics.
As an aside, a quick glance on that "fuelfreedom.org" site suggests they really like ethanol as a fuel additive, which makes me suspect they might be a front group for the corn ethanol lobby. So I'd be wary of taking what they say at face value.
Whenever he'd watch driving my gas RC car, if the thing would die he'd motion with his thumb down (like a pouring spout) while saying "benzene?".
I don't know if it's an Italian language thing, his dialect, or just his knowledge of engines, but RC car fuel was "benzene". Makes me wonder what kind of benzene exposure he had in his younger days...
It’s taken about five years to get something resembling normal health.
Intelligence of all family members dropped like crazy. Blood started clotting a lot. Nerve pain and inflammation were the norm.
Doctors didn’t know what effect those chemicals would have so refused to sign any paperwork saying it was cause of all health problems. So lawyers wouldn’t take the case.
Only in the past year can me and my oldest daughter start having normal conversations like we used to.
I had aplastic anemia as a kid. (Fixed with a bone marrow transplant.) I previously had a summer job cleaning a small PCB mfg (1983). It was fucking awful. I read that company was later fined for improper use, storage, and disposal.
Can't prove cause & effect, of course. But childhood aplastic anemia is pretty rare in my area (vs agricultural areas). So it's plausible.
I hate to ask this but is there anyone who can explain even the bulk of it for a layman?
BRB, going to write the "Benzene Diet" book.
It's also an explosive.
I'd wager most of my weight loss came from the fact that I just wasn't eating because I felt awful.
It is also why it is recommended babies consume dietary fats, low fat diets are terrible for brain development.
Want a healthy baby? Add some organ meat (check levels so as to not OD on certain vitamins) and (low/no mercury) fish skins to their diet!
I guess the plastic is decaying or reacting with something that's in it.
What’s the downside of a quack doctor selling benzene-contaminated supplements for fat loss?
I’m sure there’s a huge increase in cancer risk, but wouldn’t this cause a lot of fat loss in a human?
It's an explosive compound that causes you to overheat and die if ingested in too large a dose
If sketchy drugs are the only ACTUAL way to get the 3/4ths of the country to lose weight and be healthier, shouldn't we try it?
Though, the end result of that is probably finding out that if you are a "healthy" weight from drugs, but your diet is still mainly mcdonalds and steaks and food made mostly of butter, you probably will have just as many health problems. And there's no exercise drug.
Well the thing is, I actually am super skeptical that eating explosive poison is healthier than being a fatty. I am way more optimistic for wegovy and other hunger-regulating hormone treatments that don't seem to cause you to die from overheating, and I'm all for fat people taking them if it helps them be healthier. But like, I'd rather a fat person stay fat and work on doing runs (even though exercise doesn't help much in losing weight, exercise is still good for fat people) than change nothing about their lifestyle besides eating poison. Skinny isn't always == healthy and shouldn't be treated like an "at any costs" measure. A great way to lose 25% of your body weight is to chop off a leg, but chopping off legs is obviously a stupid way to get healthy.