Re: Response to Dr. Harling Who Speaks Out on Toluene on TrashTalk

[Guest guest]

Is " Dr. Harling " and MD or an engineer? I noted he has " PE " after his name. In

my book,

that is " professional engineer " .

> Thanks Lea -

>

> Response to Dr. Harling Who Speaks Out on

> Toluene on TrashTalk

>

> Posted on TrashTalk on www.junkscience.com

> Harling <john@k...

>

> Dr. Harling,

>

> I read with great fascination your message on Toluene.

> Everyone on TrashTalk seems to suddenly have become an

> expert after a few of us posted several messages on

> it.

>

> Ms. Fennell's expertise has been particularly

> revealing. Since this morning when she declared that

> it was NOT a carcinogen, she progressed to misspelling

> it three times in the early part of the day, to being

> the Scientific Guru and proclaiming that it is not a

> " proven " carcinogen. Speed Science!

>

> What is particularly enlightening about your post was

> this quote:

>

> " That's all folks. "

>

> This referred to its long term effects after

> describing serious symptoms such as pronounced nervous

> orders and liver and kidney damage. That's all

> folks?????????

>

> I am curious as to your knowledge of the longterm

> affects of TDA longterm in humans. Particularly the

> affects of polyurethane foam never meant to be in the

> human body, that was basically glued on silicone gel

> implants for somewhere between 100,000-300,000 women.

> Or what becomes of this foam? It is known that for

> thousands of women, it disintegrated off the implant

> into the body and who knows where it was deposited in

> what quantities. By the way, the reason no one knows

> for sure how many polyurethane implants there are is

> because the manufacturers didn't bother to keep a good

> inventory. Plus, some women had only one implant (post

> mastectomy) and others had several sets. Doesn't it

> seem a bit late in the game to try to determine the

> toxicity and carcinogenity in humans after implanting

> so many? What if there was just a 5% increase in

> cancers? That would be 5,000 - 15,000 women additional

> women. Or even just a 1% increase? 1,000 to 3,000. You

> tell me. What's enough? What's acceptable? Should this

> have not been determined PRE marketing and sales,

> instead of retrospectively speculating on it's

> toxicity and carcinogenity? It is apparent that even

> in the company of such august scientists as found here

> on TrashTalk, that this is a toxin that should never

> have been stashed in women's bodies without long term

> safety testing.

>

> Ilena Rosenthal

>

> Posted on TrashTalk on www.Junkscience.com

> Harling <john@k...

>

> TOLUENE is NOT a carcinogen

>

> Harling <john@k...

> 03/29/99 22:18:12

>

> I have looked for info on toluene, and I found that

> the EPA itself, which would call it a carcinogen in a

> New York minute, if it could, does NOT call toluene a

> carcinogen.

>

> From their own EPA lips (or at least their website):

> www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/dwh/c-voc/toluene.html

> ............

>

> What are the Health Effects?

>

> Short-term: EPA has found toluene to potentially cause

> the following health effects when people are exposed

> to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short

> periods of time: minor nervous system disorders such

> as fatigue, nausea, weakness, confusion.

>

> Long-term: Toluene has the potential to cause the

> following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels

> above the MCL: more pronounced nervous disorders such

> as spasms, tremors, impairment of speech, hearing,

> vision, memory, coordination; liver and kidney damage.

> ........

>

> That's all folks.

>

> Toluene has been damned because it has a benzene ring

> with a methyl group on it. That's like banning salt

> because it has chlorine in it.

>

> If you enviromorons have anything to add, let's see

> the references.

>

> Dr. Harling, PE