Used to work in a hospital pathology department. A dilute version of formaldehyde called formalin was used to preserve and “fix” the tissue for processing. Had no idea it was that bad for you. Good thing I now work in a factory that uses asbestos insulation in the furnaces.
Thing is, if left in a stable state, asbestos is totally fine and a great engineering material. It is only ever a hazard if mechanical work is done to it that creates dust and loose fibers that you could inhale.
Devil’s always in the details.
Why haven’t we switched to using informaldehyde?
This is a black
tielung event.
Don’t worry, Trump and sycophants will make sure formaldehyde isn’t the #1 cancer causing air pollutant for much longer!
God, I love ProPublica.
Is this a scare piece or what?
Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring chemical, and we make it ourselves in our body, and exhale it when we breathe. And it’s in ALL vegetables, and despite that vegetables are known to lower risk of cancer.
Formaldehyde is harmless at low (normal) exposure, because we evolved in an environment where is abundant. But yes it becomes toxic in high doses, but there is no call for the alarmist rhetoric used in this piece.Also contrary to what is claimed in this piece, formaldehyde is in fact regulated in USA and EU
https://www.epa.gov/formaldehyde/laws-and-regulations-concerning-formaldehyde
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1464And how come that not once does the article state that formaldehyde is a common naturally occurring compound?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Processes in the upper atmosphere contribute more than 80% of the total formaldehyde in the environment.
Formaldehyde and its adducts are ubiquitous (all over) in nature. Food may contain formaldehyde at levels 1–100 mg/kg
I’m not saying it’s a complete non issue, because it IS an issue, which is why it’s also regulated.
They’re comparing actual exposure to estimated risk at that exposure. So no, we’re not doing nearly enough to limit exposure, which is the whole point.
They’re comparing actual exposure to estimated risk at that exposure.
Where? They refer to a 2003 study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14600094/ with the conclusion:
Conclusions: Exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans. However,results from other investigations are mixed,
Apparently they were unable to find further studies to support their claim where they state as FACT that causes myeloid!!
It is a chemical so pervasive that a new analysis by ProPublica found it exposes everyone to elevated risks of developing cancer no matter where they live.
This is not true. Except counting naturally occurring formaldehyde, which indeed is everywhere, but not enough to make you sick, because we evolved in it!
perhaps most worrisome, it often poses the greatest risk in the one place people feel safest: inside their homes.
This may be somewhat true, which is why you must always let the air out of your home twice a day. But that’s not because of formaldehyde alone. Also CO2 can build up, and radon can sieve in from below too. That formaldehyde is partially naturally occurring, and in homes come mostly from wood. If you have a lot of chipped wood, it has more because the glue used to make chipped wood contain it too. But this is regulated so products meet safety standards.
We had the debate here in Denmark in the 70’s, claiming this 40 year old problem is suddenly an emergency that kill more people than any other pollutant is dishonest and sensationalist.
Outdoor air is often suffused with formaldehyde gas from cars, smoke, factories, and oil and gas extraction, sometimes at worrying levels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Processes in the upper atmosphere contribute more than 80% of the total formaldehyde in the environment.
Conveniently this scare piece does not mention at all, that most formaldehyde is naturally occurring!!!
Also from the Wiki:
Formaldehyde and its adducts are ubiquitous (all over) in nature. Food may contain formaldehyde at levels 1–100 mg/kg
Which the article also completely omit to mention, it is more misleading than informative.
Again: https://www.epa.gov/formaldehyde/laws-and-**regulations-concerning-formaldehyde**
Categories which formaldehyde is regulated under the NESHAP:
Plywood and composite wood products
Vehicle emissions
Wet formed fiber glass mat production
Mineral wool production
Wool fiberglass manufacturing
Manufacture of amino/phenolic resins
Wood furniture manufacturing operations
Rubber tire manufacturing
Natural gas transmission and storage facilities
Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry
Organic liquid distribution operations
Taconite iron ore processing
Emissions for polyvinyl chloride and copolymers productionNotice that wood is included in those regulations.
Edit PS:
OK apparently some people think they know better, than someone who has followed this issue for 40 years.
Despite I’m pointing out decidedly dishonest reporting, including misrepresenting results of studies!!
However I slipped up a bit myself, and have made a couple edits for better accuracy.We can’t take the risk to zero — but we can reduce it pretty sharply. And that would be a big deal.
Absolutely, there may be areas where better regulation is required, but there is no reason to make a misleading scare piece full of lies to bring that point.
This may be true, which is why you must always let the air out of your home twice a day. Still that formaldehyde is naturally occurring, and in homes come mostly from wood. So it’s not an “industry” hazard, and it’s not an artificially produced chemical.
It looks like it comes specifically from composite wood and the glues used in making those composites, not solid wood. That seems to be supported by some quick internet searching. Regular wood appears to release formaldehyde at high temperatures.
It is true that chipboard release more formaldehyde because of the glue, which is the reason it’s regulated.
Just so you know, water is naturally occurring, yet you can die from drinking too much.
Everything is a poison, depending on the dosage.
Absolutely true. But to claim this isn’t both investigated and regulated is decidedly dishonest.
