Last I heard of fiberglass as a potential carcinogen was that Germany
researchers and Europe was implicating fiberglass as a carcinogen but
that the results were preliminary.

Subject:
tentative-proof that Fiberglass is relatively harmless

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, I believe) had declared

"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0309262347.62f9d3d9@posting.google.com...
Subject:
tentative-proof that Fiberglass is relatively harmless

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, I believe) had declared
fiberglass wool a 2 B carcinogen but backed down to class 3. OSHA still
requires warning but is non-specific. Any inhaled material that is not
expelled or dissolves in lungs can be harmfull.
Frank

Further NTP (National Toxicology Program) has listed. Unfortunately their

"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0309262347.62f9d3d9@posting.google.com...

Last I heard of fiberglass as a potential carcinogen was that Germany
researchers and Europe was implicating fiberglass as a carcinogen but
that the results were preliminary.

Any fibrous material that enters the lungs is bad for them. Cotton, wool,
inorganic fibres, all have deleterious effects. These are not necessarily
carcinogenic.

The German approach was to formulate insulation glass fibres so that they
dissolved in the pulmonary fluids, rather than remain as fibrous bodies. The
specification was known as KI-40.
--
Terry Harper

"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0309262347.62f9d3d9@posting.google.com...
Subject:
tentative-proof that Fiberglass is relatively harmless

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, I believe) had declared
fiberglass wool a 2 B carcinogen but backed down to class 3. OSHA still
requires warning but is non-specific. Any inhaled material that is not
expelled or dissolves in lungs can be harmfull.
Frank

Subject:
Re: tentative-proof that Fiberglass is relatively
harmless
Date:
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 03:18:12 -0500
From:
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@dtgnet.com
Reply-To:
NOdtgEMAIL
Organization:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of
the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Newsgroups:
sci.materials, sci.environment

Frank Logullo wrote:

"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0309262347.62f9d3d9@posting.google.com...
Subject:
tentative-proof that Fiberglass is relatively harmless

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, I believe) had
declared
fiberglass wool a 2 B carcinogen but backed down to class 3. OSHA still
requires warning but is non-specific. Any inhaled material that is not
expelled or dissolves in lungs can be harmfull.
Frank

Frank, is there any data on the frequency of lung cancer in places
where
there is alot of windstorms blowing alot of dirt, dust and sand
around? I
remember seeing an Iraq windstorm as the troops marched on Baghdad.
Whether lung cancer has higher frequency in those places over other
places.

There is a lot of stuff out there. Here's a first Google hit:

There is a lot of stuff out there. Here's a first Google hit:
http://annhyg.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/3/193
Frank

"Frank Logullo" <frankPERIODlogullo@dol.net> wrote in message
news:<xRUdb.2638$if4.2042328@newshog.newsread.com>...

(snipped what I wrote)

There is a lot of stuff out there. Here's a first Google hit:
http://annhyg.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/3/193
Frank

I don't think that report is sound in that the smokers were amoung the
statistics.

I am not saying that an environment of silicon dust or fibers is
nonharmful.
I am saying that the millions of years of evolution of the human lung
is able to cope in a sand-silica dust storms.

I was asking for a report as to whether geography of sand dust storm
regions of the Earth have a higher rate of Lung cancer than does other
regions. I was not asking for a report on people in an artificial
environment of purified silica.

I think you missed my point. There is a lot of data out there and it is up

But I think the claim -- "Any fibrous material that enters the lungs
is bad for
them" needs science research for an answer.

"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0309280845.5ce1be7d@posting.google.com...

But I think the claim -- "Any fibrous material that enters the lungs
is bad for
them" needs science research for an answer.

There has been medical research for at least a century on the effects of
fibrous materials on the lungs, be that material cotton or an inorganic
like
asbestos or very fine glass fibres. If you want to do scientific research,
why not read up the literature on what has been done already before you
start hares running?

"Terry Harper" <Terry.Harper@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:blndk2$60a$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Archimedes Plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:618e71c0.0309280845.5ce1be7d@posting.google.com...

But I think the claim -- "Any fibrous material that enters the lungs
is bad for
them" needs science research for an answer.

There has been medical research for at least a century on the effects of
fibrous materials on the lungs, be that material cotton or an inorganic
like
asbestos or very fine glass fibres. If you want to do scientific
research,
why not read up the literature on what has been done already before you
start hares running?

All AP can run is his mouth and he hasn't read the operator's manual for
that.

That's a good way to put it! Archie is somewhat naive but he does help keep