Wow.
I mean wow.
Is it just J&J baby powder?
What happens here?
It applies to all talcum powder.
You have to make sure you not breathe it.
Cheers.
Had a Google. Apparently corn starch is used in healthier alternatives for babies.
Suggest you Google again.
Cornstarch is bad as it can actually add to skin rashes with many, especially yeast infections that are common with babies.
In fact any powder or dust is bad if inhaled and should not be used. Cremes for nappy rash are more effective and safer.
3 Likes
Next they will be telling me that the MSG in my 2 minute noodle are no good for me!
1 Like
Well I’m rooted then.
Use baby powder most days to dry areas a towel doesn’t do a great job and the stuff goes everywhere when I deadlift (use it to reduce bar drag on my thighs).
Pretty sure they would have removed the asbestos by now.
You’d hope so lol
yes and no. I hear what you are saying and kida agree, but also strongly disagree.
Basically, the groupings are:
- Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
- Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans
- Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans
- Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans
- Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans
So, for most fair-minded people, if something directly causes cancer - it directly causes cancer!
What happens is, over time more and more research is done and the links and correlations become clearer and clearer.
Ie the times when research showed a link between smoking and cancer, but the tobacco industry lobbying would grab hold of any doubtful links in research, or flat out sponsor their own tainted research to confuse the masses.
I am sure there has been millions if not billions of $$$ (or research hours) spent on the links between tobacco/asbestos over history as compared to the relatively new meat findings etc.
In 50 years, we may be having a vastly different conversion.
I am a simple man - if the WHO tells me that there is a direct link between processed meat and cancer, there is a direct link! I have cut it out of my diet!
I dont want to sound like the generation of smokers before me - oh, but my old smoked for 60 years and never got cancer, I’ll be fine etc… He later got cancer.
I don’t know why anyone is worried about this. We’ll all die from the mobile phone cancer long before the talc cancer kicks in.
1 Like
I’m on a drug which is technically group 1 carcinogen, but is also used for cancer patients. So work that out.
There is a proven increase in risk of cancer, but in the big picture it’s still tiny. It’s important to read and learn what the actual increase in risk is, not just scream and run away because there is a risk.
1 Like
No they haven’t and in any case all dust contains fibres and little bits that can do long term damage to your lungs. Bakers who work all day in a flour filled atmosphere suffer from lung complaints and truckies driving all day in environments full of diesel exhaust fare badly as well.
Not to mention literally everything we do has some sort of risk attached to it.
I could choke on my lunch and die, I could slip on my way to the car and die, I could crash my car and die, I could get hit in the head during our intraclub match and die, a tree could fall on my bedroom while I’m sleeping and I could die.
Not to mention Coal dust and the dreaded Black Lung.
I wonder if that is still a thing in the days of Open Cut, … I imagine there’s still a shitload of dust in the air around workers there, … 
And the dust from cutting benchtops.
Pragmatism is often a good thing, so cutting it out of your diet is a smart thing to do if you are concerned. I definitely agree with you on that.
However, it’s not that simple. Tobacco and asbestos were definitely covered up by the respective industries, but the evidence on their respective abilities to cause lung cancer is very clear, and has been for a long time (see the British Doctors Cohort Study in the 1950’s). Lung cancer in those not exposed is a very rare outcome. In those exposed the rate of disease is increased somewhere between 20 and 50 times for smoking, and racking my brains through old epidemiology lectures, about the same for asbestos.
With processed meat, that risk is about 1.2 times for colorectal cancer. Expressed as percentage, you are comparing (conservatively) 2000% increased risk in cancer from smoking, to 20% from processed meat (or about a 100x stronger link). Hence, they are most certainly not equivalent.
2 Likes
And the lifetime risk of developing cancer is for males about 7% for lung cancer and about 5 % colo-rectal. Lifetime risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and lifetime risk of dying from any cancer is about 20%.
I’m not giving up all processed meat for a change in overall cancer risk from maybe 40 to 41%, but I will eat a bit less than if I was unaware of the risk. A mate has had colon cancer and it doesn’t seem to be a lot of fun.
Btw above was something about chalk/talc. Climbers/ gymnast chalk for grip and I presume what is used for grip in lifting is magnesium carbonate, and talc is magnesium silicate (used I think by lifters for lubrication on thighs rather than grip on hands). They are no the same and in fact serve opposing functions - grip vs lubrication! (Used to climb a bit and son is starting to with his mates so I checked it out.) anyway I don’t think there’s risk of asbestos in grippy chalk, while it’s a real risk in talc.