Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but reflect that everything causes cancer. I was reading the other day about the influence of hot tea on throat cancers, for example.

With that in the background, I'm struggling to distill this article into a "so what". The article suggests the EPA limit is one incidence of cancer in a million people per lifetime. If they've underestimated the risk from formaldeyhyde by one or two orders of magnitude I'm still not seeing what the problem here is. Odds of prostate cancer in men is double digits over a lifetime. This seems like something of a non-issue. If anything, if formaldehyde is industrially useful, the EPA is probably doing the right thing bending the rules. We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes.

View on HN

The tea thing seems to be really only for drinking it while it's still extremely hot (over 60° C) and the few studies showing any link are mostly from places where there are many other factors (like high smoking rates, frequent exposure to things like smoke from open fires used for cooking etc.).

It's very unlikely that there is almost any real risk from hot tea, as long as you let your tea cool down to a reasonable temperature (especially compared to a risk factor like smoking).

One point on this - formaldehyde fumes from furniture will make anyone in the room sick, regardless of any long term cancer. It’s got a distinctive odor, causes lung and eye irritation in any significant quantity, and generally just really sucks to be around long term.

It’s been really nice having it phased out for indoor uses.

> We literally don't know how to sustain modern society without some deaths from industrial processes.

Of course we do. It would just reduce profits. Individual workers accept these risks under the hope that they can eventually improve their or their families lot in life.

No, we can't. Not every material or chemical has an entirely safe replacement. PPE isn't perfect. Let's say all industrial workers wore air-tight safety suits, then the suits themselves would still be somewhat toxic.

I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process. Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit? And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then?

Ultimately, though, probably just going to end up using robots. These typically aren't highly skilled labor positions.

> I think you're moving the goalposts. You invoked deaths directly attributable to industrial process.

Directly or indirectly, industrial processes are always going to be somewhat dangerous. TFA is discussing indirect deaths due to formaldehyde.

> Are there recorded deaths from long term wearing of a positive pressure suit?

Not that I know about, but then again I wouldn't be surprised if there were deaths due to equipment failure and suffocation. The materials used in them certainly contain various low level carcinogens.

> And why exactly would that be "somewhat" toxic? Is it "somewhat" lethal then?

Point is it's balancing risks. It isn't lethal directly at levels used in many industrial processes, but exposure over a long time does increase cancer risk and fatality risk. Then again so do many other common materials.

> It isn't lethal directly at levels used in many industrial processes

Other than production itself. I was assuming that was our starting point. The TFA mentions some sources but does not limit exposure to only these indirect sources, nor does the EPA study.

> but exposure over a long time does increase cancer risk and fatality risk

Which is relative to the actual industry. The plants where formaldehyde is produced is likely highest in danger. It's also somewhere that you can easily see some changes in production process could actually measurably save whole numbers of lives within the next decade.

Likewise since it's produced and added intentionally to glues and finishes it's entirely possible it could be eliminated from the supply chain particularly in products that diffuse it out poorly before reaching the customer. Where not possible the products could be held and treated in such a way to extract and filter out the compound.

It's just weird to go "well.. the first world apparently requires human sacrifice" especially in the face of so many options. Anyways.

You think we can reach zero industrial deaths worldwide? I think that's a "hell no", not an "of course we could".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com