Fireproof (not flame retardent) Fabrics

[MikeVDS]

"Safe, until proven dangerous." (And spend the money yourself to find out.)
That hasn't worked too well.

The thing is you ignore all the evidence of people who live breathing this stuff (which is almost everyone in the U.S.) and never have any problems with it. It's the levels that cause problems; people exposed to small levels (which again is almost all of us) don't develop problems related to it. It's like saying, "There is no level of smog that is safe", or "There are no level of cigarettes that are safe". Sure that is true, but most people have had a few cigarettes and live with some smog, it's only the ones with high exposure that ever have any problems in our 100 year lifetimes. If we lived for 10,000 years, lower levels might have a chance of causing problems over a lifetime, the thing is, we don't, so it's not even close to a worry.

Mike, if the epa did it's job, she would never have any work.`
Her research includes examining lung tissue samples of asbestos damage.
You could do the same.

So she only deal with people who followed the EPA guidelines? Have you seen industry workers? Most people out there do not use their protection, even when dealing with large amounts of this stuff. I never said it's not dangerous. You seem to ignore everything I say. Tell me if she finds problems with people with a few fibers exposure. The answer is no. There is a huge difference between people who breathe in millions of fibers a day for years and someone who has hundreds over a lifetime.

It's really not rocket science.
The mechanism is visible.

Correct. 100% correct. It's not some crazy chain reaction, it's just scar tissue. Which is why it's insane to think that a few particles can cause problems.

Last I checked, the reason why it is fatal quickly to some and not others, is not known.
But damage is certain.

Same with cigarettes or any other harmful substance, but we still find levels that large groups of people are exposed to who never develop any problems. You completely ignore this.

We all have a more or less high baseline exposure already to asbestos from past use of the material, floor tiles, kitty litter, adhesive, roofing, brakes, heating systems, etc.

It's interesting you call this a "high" baseline, considering I've never heard of someone having problems due to normal exposure to asbestos.

[gyre]

Some materials. like cotton, can cause a fatal lung disease, but with lower exposure the body seems capable of dealing with it.
This is not the case with asbestos and silica.
If it enters your lungs and doesn't come out, you have lost some function.
It may be small. but it is not repairable.
Some asbestosis cases occur with very low exposure.
Better research is not possible due to ethical standards.
Silica is different in this respect.
It came to the attention of the us with a highway tunnel.
Every person died that worked on it, and fairly quickly, I think.
But there is evidence that knowledge of these hazards goes back into medieval history.

It is only when you have a baseline test to compare to your current state that you can detect the gradual losses.


Some of the volatiles I am familiar with are theoretically safe under certain levels.
Personality changes due to brain damage is one of the known risks.
Many experts believe damage occurs gradually with normal exposure.
Human experiments would probably be necessary to determine this.
Perhaps modern scans will answer things like this without any forbidden experiments.


Tobacco is an interesting area because I have a doctor that offers a course in blood chemistry and diet to all patients.
This is a wonderful and, actually, cost effective thing for him to do.
They taught us what tobacco does to the blood chemistry.
The changes in the blood occur in minutes and persist for a day or so.
They cancel out most of the things one tries to do to improve your heart health.
But the blood recovers when the tobacco is removed, and the negative effects cease.
Other damage is more long term.
But that's good news.

One of the smokers asked the doctor about lung cancer.
The doctor said it was a low risk because most heavy smokers had heart failure long before that could occur.

I am personally more concerned about the interaction of multiple products on the body.
Many things like asbestos and tobacco are known to interact together in increasing risk.
The more complex interactions are mostly undiscovered at this time.


My friend is focused on water at this time, diagnosing and fixing water supplies.
It seems that when a town no longer has drinking water, it becomes an important issue.
This happens more often than you would think.

[Ugly Dougly]

[MikeVDS]

Maybe what you're missing gyre is some perspective. Most worksites I've tested in older buildings have about 0.003 f/cc and I've seen up to almost 0.009 f/cc. Most humans breathe about 10,000,000 cc per day or 350,000 cc per work shift. That is about 1000 fibers per day they breathe in or 400,000 fibers a year using the 0.003 figure, which is low/typical. That's also hundreds of times less than the EPA allowed guidelines.

Now you have to look at how many fibers you'll be exposed to doing certain activities. Using asbestos fibers might make the air around you 0.01 f/cc (I'm completely making up numbers, as I said, you'd have to test to know what you're doing, but this is an example of what might be). If you wear it for a total of 10 hours a year that's an extra 4000 fibers. It's all within EPA guidelines by miles and probably less exposure than hanging out at the train tracks. You probably give yourself more life expectancy by not driving to work one extra day a year.

Better research is not possible due to ethical standards.

That's BS. We are all test subjects and there are no epidemics that I know of. Are you going to uncover the government conspiracy for us?

You seem to know a lot of people who say they know a lot of stuff, so why not share some actual information other than, "It's bad because I know people who tell me so". Back it up with some substance.

[gyre]

Mike, I think have pretty good perspective considering I've heard some of the horror stories that end up in sealed records.
I was just trying to point out why asbestos is a material best avoided when you have an alternative.

I have been exposed to heavy asbestos dust (by morons) and I have worked with glass grinders quite a bit.
I recently tried to obtain a Lustron home from the marine base that was making them available.
Asbestos was ultimately the reason I didn't get it.
I was okay with the material, as it is in hard sheets and can be removed with screwdrivers since it is a steel home.
The problem was the military was going to require me to use the same type of abatement that is required for removing asbestos with sledgehammers.
It was just too expensive.
But I would have been thrilled to have the house.


Forbidden Experiments
I know of plenty of government conspiracies, but current ethical limitations aren't one of them.
This is a reference to human experiments that put people at risk and have permanent consequences, such as MKULTRA using fatal doses of sarin, etc.
There are some things that have to be deduced without controlled experimentation.
As you said, we could all be tested for general consequences.


I found a basalt fiber.
Maybe that has potential? 1800 degrees?
http://www.sudaglass.com/fabrics.html

Not relevant, but we built a recording studio out of 'fireproof' lumber which we then covered with continuous copper sheet for electrical interference.
That really looked beautiful.
We had a lot of cut pieces of the lumber and a guy picked up truckloads to burn in a heater.
He wouldn't believe it was fireproof.
This stuff was heavily treated, weighed a ton and really did not want to burn.
I wish I could have seen him trying to burn the stuff!
He just laughed at us when we told him.


Lustron houses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustron

[MikeVDS]

Mike, I think have pretty good perspective considering I've heard some of the horror stories that end up in sealed records.

Sadly you refuse to share this information with us? Tell us the horror stories about the people exposed to these specific levels.

[gyre]

Mike, I think have pretty good perspective considering I've heard some of the horror stories that end up in sealed records.

Sadly you refuse to share this information with us? Tell us the horror stories about the people exposed to these specific levels. :wink:

I don't see why it matters.
We all get the same news channels.
PBS carries dockos on bad enough stuff.
It just gets covered up better in this country.
We've all seen the wall of mutated fetuses in Vietnam.
Same kind of thing.
And I'm not privy to all the details my friend was, you know, sealed records and all.
But I'll call and ask her to share if she can.

The Foster Grant plant caused mutations, including autism, in the children and grandchildren of kids that grew up in the area and swam in ponds.
They used to have people work on the chemicals in pvc plants and it dissolves the bones from the inside without damaging the skin.
I find that one disturbing.
I live in the area of the Velsicol plant that manufactures banned chemicals for export.
They are involved in a long lawsuit about people close by a creek exposed to dumping.
About a hundred miles away a company was convicted of covering up the toxic wastes in people's wells and killing a number of people to save money.
No adequate penalties, of course.

My friend lobbied for a long time with other activists to get some local waste dumps next to residences checked.
After many years, the epa did the surveys and then sealed the records.
No explanation.
She could never get access or any answers.
One of these was next to Hollywood on the Wolf River in Memphis.

Remember the Erin Brockovitch story?
Those records are sealed and few people know what happened all over the state with this case.
How bad was it?
I can't find out.
And if you weren't in a lawsuit, you probably can't either.
A practice that should be stopped.

There are plenty of these stories out already.

Benzene.
Memo internal Shell Oil Co 1958
"I want to bring it to your attention that the safe exposure to benzene appears to be 0 ppm."
Not admitted to for many years.
Memo came out in a lawsuit eventually.

Everyone I have talked to at Sunoco about racing fuel has lost friends to brain cancer, thought to be related to benzene exposure.

All this info is out there.
It's the stuff that is still concealed that I would worry about.

On average, I think our biggest risk is lost effectiveness of antibiotics and evolving disease.
But I do find the practice of concealing risk by industry pretty reprehensible.
And very low risk for them.

Asbestos?
I'm told each fiber does damage and it's all cumulative over a lifetime.
Even if you escape disease, losing breathing capacity doesn't seem like a good thing.
Having a margin that would allow you to survive other trauma seems extremely desirable to me.

According to the Mineral Information Institute, a lot more asbestos is still used in the usa than I was aware of, mostly from Canada.
http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photoasbes.html
It has reduced by 800,000 metric tons per year since 1973.

A possible risk I hadn't heard of-
" In addition to lung cancer and mesothelioma, some studies have suggested an association between asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers, as well as an elevated risk for cancers of the throat, kidney, esophagus, and gallbladder. However, the evidence is inconclusive." Natl Cancer Institute

The figures you give are very low, Mike.
If it was not a cumulative problem, I wouldn't give it a second thought.
It's fair enough to decide which risks to assume when you have the information.
At the moment, the only risk I worry about is crime.
It was so relaxing to visit Oakland, with it's much safer 'mean streets' than I'm used to dealing with.
It's all relative, isn't it?

[MikeVDS]

Asbestos?
I'm told each fiber does damage and it's all cumulative over a lifetime.

That's true, but it requires a certain amount of exposure to cause measurable damage. Our body likely stops most fibers from causing damage. It gets stuck to our mucus's in places where it doesn't cause damage. Heck, every day you wake up your causing permanent damage to yourself. When you walk you're wearing out your joints, by eating you put strain on your digestive system. Our bodies get used up, but we try to do things in a way where they get used up at a rate that they'll be useless long after we're already dead. Just because something "causes permanent damage" doesn't mean you need to worry about it. If it can cause enough damage to be noticeable over a lifetime, worry, if there is no way it can kill you before your time, don't.

[gyre]

The thing is that measurable and noticeable aren't the same thing.
I can tell you that from personal experience.
And joint problems?
The damage happened years before I had a problem.
Any repair is expensive, incomplete, painful and unsatisfactory.
That's usually how these things happen, a little at a time.

Maybe lung function loss will only be an inconvenience.
Better not to find out.

I am told that most surgical deaths are the result of some other impairment hampering survival and not the surgery itself.
I have put off surgery for what is, for the most part, a minor issue, hoping techniques improve.
I am told it could easily be a fatal problem if I am trying to survive trauma or some other problem and it interferes.

The ideal in racing is a car just strong enough to cross the finish line before disintegration.
That never happens.
Better to have all the margin you can.
Besides, is it possible to ever breathe too comfortably?

[MikeVDS]

The thing is that measurable and noticeable aren't the same thing.

But we can compare our measurements regarding people who have had anything noticeable in their lifetime. If no one in that ranges ever developed anything noticeable, we come to a conclusion. When you endanger yourself with something 100's of times less dangerous than what you do every day, would you really call that a danger?

[gyre]

I tend to regard a cumulative risk very differently from a risk of danger that has no consequences when safety measures work.
Risk of death may be statistically unlikely, but statistics only apply to groups.
To me, the certainty of more or less damage would be the real concern.
I would point out that, in spite of technically being aware of risk, it never seemed like a real possibility to me.
Somehow I survived the many insane risks I've taken, until it finally dawned on me that I really could get hurt.
This is something many of us have to overcome.


There are some better tests for lung efficiency than there used to be.
It might be worth getting base testing so in a few years one could see if there was a change.


And burning man is on tv right now.
Reality is bleeding through.
Some guy in a teahouse seemingly in the middle of nowhere is talking about making things from trash.
I wonder just how crazy that seems to most people?

[MikeVDS]

I tend to regard a cumulative risk very differently from a risk of danger that has no consequences when safety measures work.

So, don't get out of bed in the morning because you're doing cumulative damage to yourself every day. Avoid buildings 40 years or older, because amounts of time in there are doing cumulative damage. Go off in the middle of a forest somewhere. Do you see my point? You can avoid danger to the extreme, but only some dangers are significant enough to worry about.

Risk of death may be statistically unlikely, but statistics only apply to groups.

Who told you that B.S.? No, you're not a curve, but you're a dot on that curve. Again this thinking means you should buy a bunch of broccoli (the only safe food?) and house yourself in a fortress made of pillows in the forest. We all take risks daily and we try to avoid the statically high risks. What we're talking about is statically lower risk than most other things that reasonable people worry about.

There are some better tests for lung efficiency than there used to be.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is California's Governator.

[gyre]

I tend to regard a cumulative risk very differently from a risk of danger that has no consequences when safety measures work.

So, don't get out of bed in the morning because you're doing cumulative damage to yourself every day. Avoid buildings 40 years or older, because amounts of time in there are doing cumulative damage. Go off in the middle of a forest somewhere. Do you see my point? You can avoid danger to the extreme, but only some dangers are significant enough to worry about.

Are you really misunderstanding me or going for effect?
All I meant was what I said, that stacking risk is different from separate risks.
In other words, if I climb a ladder today, my risk of falling off is the same as yesterday.
It is a new risk, no higher or lower.

Risk of death may be statistically unlikely, but statistics only apply to groups.

Who told you that B.S.? No, you're not a curve, but you're a dot on that curve. Again this thinking means you should buy a bunch of broccoli (the only safe food?) and house yourself in a fortress made of pillows in the forest.

Pillows? Broccoli?
Where are you getting this from?
I didn't say anything like that.
Where did I get that BS?
From the expert in statistical analysis for polling in this area, from one of the people handling statistics for the ntsb, in fact every person I've ever talked to that knows statistics brings it up, because it is so commonly misunderstood.

It means that you may be a point on a curve, but for your own use it may be a guide, but it is not a valid indicator of a single individual's risk, only the group's.
The average of a large group of people is the average of a large group of people. Nothing more.
It may be correct for a single individual, but it's accuracy may just as well be zero.
This doesn't mean that it may not be helpful to look at such averages.
It is just important to remember that that is all they are.
To be accurate, I probably should have said that group statistics don't apply to individuals.

For example, if your risk of being kidnapped by a flying saucer is 1 in 100,000, then your risk is 1 in 100,000 as long as you are looking at the group as a whole.
It's when you try to apply this to a single person, that you have to start over and decide if the group statistics apply to a single person or have to be modified.
This may sound like a narrow point but it isn't.

Most risks are highly skewed by the circumstances of the individual.

The risks of a car accident may be accurate for a group, but for them to apply to an individual, you would have to go to the nearest road and get in the first car that comes along, even if it's a stolen car in a police chase, bald tires, rain, that is the group risk, any car that comes down the road.
Every time you do anything, you separate yourself from the group.
Just being who you are may differentiate you.

Some people are dangerously allergic to peanuts.
I am not.
In a group, my risk of shock from peanuts may be 1 in 17.
As an individual, my risk is actually 0.

That's all it means.
Nothing more.
I'm not saying anything very controversial here.


It does mean that evaluating actual risks for anything, for a single person may be very difficult or impossible.
There are genetic tests that can predict issues with many drugs, but beyond that, there are few certainties.



And broccoli?
What makes broccoli a safe food?
Safe from what?
Is this a california thing?
Salad fetish, maybe?

[MikeVDS]

In other words, if I climb a ladder today, my risk of falling off is the same as yesterday.
It is a new risk, no higher or lower.

I got that point the first time you made it. You're missing my point. Cumulative is bad but if you reduce your lung capacity by 0.1% every 10 years, you'll have 1% worse lungs by the time you're 100. It's still damage but who cares? My point is that there are acceptable levels, even cumulative damage.

in fact every person I've ever talked to that knows statistics brings it up, because it is so commonly misunderstood.

And it's true sort of, but not at all in the way you try to use it. It means that just because something is statistically unlikely that it still happens and the statistics didn't matter to those who it happened to. If something is a one in a million chance, there are still going to be a few hundred Americans that it happens to. It doesn't mean you can ignore the statistical chances of things. For example, you could only walk on the highway your whole life and get hit by a car the minute you walk on a sidewalk. Statistics didn't help that person, but it doesn't mean it's smart to walk on highways instead of sidewalks. In fact it's stupid. It's stupid to ignore extremely high dangers because there is a chance it won't happen, just as it's stupid to avoid that astronomically small dangers because it might happen to someone, someday. I've taken more statistics than most people and have to use it for work all of the time. It's not something you need to try to explain to me. You sure have a lot of friends who tell you the gist of things, eh?

Pillows? Broccoli?
Where are you getting this from?

They seem like safe things to me, and you seem to like to avoid all dangers. Can't have anything with sharp edges, you might poke your eye out.

but it is not a valid indicator of a single individual's risk, only the group's.

this is true because noting is really completely independent from other variables. With asbestos, smoking is one of the big ones we've found. There are probably other factors, playa dust could be one.

The average of a large group of people is the average of a large group of people. Nothing more.
It may be correct for a single individual, but it's accuracy may just as well be zero.

Nope and nope. Well at least the way I think you mean it. In the general sense it could mean something but then it has nothing to do with this conversation. The true average doesn't mean anything but the whole data curve is very useful information. What it tells someone is how much effort they should put into risk management. Investigating all factors for an individual the best you can you can make good risk assessments. If something is one in a trillion chance, it's probably not wise for them to take preventative measures that otherwise negatively impact their lives.

It does mean that evaluating actual risks for anything, for a single person may be very difficult or impossible.

It depends on how accurate you want it. If one in a trillion to one in 200 trillion is the range, that's not very accurate, but still very useful. If one in four to one in a billion is the range it's not very useful. Why don't you tell me where different levels of this asbestos stuff might leave someone?

And broccoli?
What makes broccoli a safe food?

I don't know, it seems like pretty good stuff. I always read good things about it and have never heard it causes cancer, heart disease or any other bad things, so I figure it must be good since just about everything else causes cancer.

[gyre]

In other words, if I climb a ladder today, my risk of falling off is the same as yesterday.
It is a new risk, no higher or lower.

I got that point the first time you made it. You're missing my point. Cumulative is bad but if you reduce your lung capacity by 0.1% every 10 years, you'll have 1% worse lungs by the time you're 100. It's still damage but who cares? My point is that there are acceptable levels, even cumulative damage.

I agree. I just think asbestos has an especially wide range of possible risk. You could be one of those who seem almost untouched by any effect other than lung damage, regardless of your exposure. Unknown though.
I agree that 1% loss in 100 years would be acceptable.
Still, you don't know how your body might react, until it's too late.
By chance, I know I am at the top .1% of the population in sensitivity to pharmaceuticals, but still in the normal range.
I take 50% to 80% lower dosages of most things that work for me.
And they consider that the normal range!
It's a big range.
And I survived an injury that should have, at a minimum, left me in a permanent coma long before I reached treatment.
And then I was not expected to survive surgery without a stroke.
At least, by anyone except me.
Statistically unlikely.
Some things are relatively more predictable.
I hope someone is researching why some people survive massive exposure to asbestos without disease.

in fact every person I've ever talked to that knows statistics brings it up, because it is so commonly misunderstood.

And it's true sort of, but not at all in the way you try to use it. It means that just because something is statistically unlikely that it still happens and the statistics didn't matter to those it happened to....

You sure have a lot of friends who tell you the gist of things, eh?

I don't actually know very much except how to find things out.
It's not by accident.
I enjoy talking to people that are smarter than I am.
I've talked to Buckminster Fuller about domes, Klipsch about speaker design, Roddenberry about writing and Star Trek, countless artists, writers, musicians, racing engineers and drivers.
I have friends at Johnson Space Center, Lockheed (whatever it's called now), Nasa, Lost Almost, and Burning Man, and so on.
I won't hesitate to call anyone to ask them a question.
Most of the time I get an answer.
I pick up a little bit along the way.
None of this should surprise you in this crowd.

Pillows? Broccoli?
Where are you getting this from?

They seem like safe things to me, and you seem to like to avoid all dangers. Can't have anything with sharp edges, you might poke your eye out.

I think you're finding subtext that isn't there.
I am aware of my mortality now.
But my race car will probably go 180, though the aerodynamics are untested past 150. Seems adequate though.
I like playing with artillery and hope to bring some black powder cannon to burning man someday.
I have some knife and sword training.
For amusement, I have been involved in painting out gang territorial markings. This involves speed, stealth, disguises, untraceable cars and weapons. It seems to disturb them.
Yesterday I upgraded my carry weapon to high capacity mags and copper Barnes hollowpoints.
I really like the big fire cannon at the burn and I'm trying to learn how to build and work on the explosives and cannon.
I did what I could last year with the pyro team for crude awakening, but I have a lot to learn. (See above re: asking questions)
Last year involved thousands of pounds of different explosives, yet I had confidence in the people and the safety protocols used.
I am aware of the immense power involved.
I was born to burn.
Still, I think the most dangerous thing I did last year was ride on the side of a trolley with a slipping clamp on the SF hills.
They finally stopped and changed the ratchet and die at an intersection.

And the highest risk thing I'm involved with, I really shouldn't talk about publicly, but if you're really curious, email me and I'll tell you about it.

But I do like to minimize risk.
If that makes me a big girl's blouse, well, you're entitled to think so.
I've taken enough risks in the past I shouldn't have.
I used to want to climb to the peak of Everest.
Now I just want to climb to base camp.
Still, I want to go.
Make of that what you will.

[oneeyeddick]

Broccoli can KILL !!!

That is, if you feed it raw to your pet rats.
Don't know why, but there is something there that is extremely bad for them.

[Taz]

Broccoli can KILL !!!

That is, if you feed it raw to your pet rats.
Don't know why, but there is something there that is extremely bad for them.

Hey, did you know that everyone that ate carrots died-----eventually. Thanks you guys for the links. I'm checking out basalt.

[MikeVDS]

By chance, I know I am at the top .1% of the population in sensitivity to pharmaceuticals, but still in the normal range.
I take 50% to 80% lower dosages of most things that work for me.
And they consider that the normal range!

Yeah, there is no way that should be called normal range and complete B.S. Usually a normal range would consider the upper and lower 5% abnormal. That is why I hate subjective terms, like, high, low, normal. They mean nothing. You need actual numbers and those can still be misleading if you don't have a good grasp on the whole picture.

[gyre]

There is a show running on the science channel in the Cool Stuff-How It's Made series on fireproofing.
They say there are four factors: fuel , air, heat, chemical reaction, that make up a fire.
Interrupting any one of these will stop the fire.
Of course, for personal protection, heat is an issue too.
They showed thermo gel being used on styrofoam cups, hands, cars and so on.
The cup melted in direct flame but never caught fire.
It seems to be using water in little cells that must each burn away for the next layer to be affected.
I think it's the same stuff based of diaper technology!
Maybe it's the same stuff used by stuntmen.
Seems that way.
One story refers to nomex soaked in gel.

The other part of the story bout nomex.
They describe a six layer fireman's turnout as insulating and carbonizing in heat, interrupting the flame and thickening.
So in enough heat, nomex may be sacrificial, but in an effective way.
The flamethrowers in the dupont lab are very impressive.
They claim it withstands far more heat than I would have guessed.

http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/a ... 9/802.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barricade_gel
http://www.thermo-gel.com/?id=9
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_19256027

[gyre]

By chance, I know I am at the top .1% of the population in sensitivity to pharmaceuticals, but still in the normal range.
I take 50% to 80% lower dosages of most things that work for me.
And they consider that the normal range!

Yeah, there is no way that should be called normal range and complete B.S. Usually a normal range would consider the upper and lower 5% abnormal. That is why I hate subjective terms, like, high, low, normal. They mean nothing. You need actual numbers and those can still be misleading if you don't have a good grasp on the whole picture.

Normal in this case is defined by the fda.
I have no idea how they have decided what is predictable and in a normal range.
Maybe it's when a certain number of people have the same side effect and it's non-lethal?
I don't know.
I presume there is a range of reactions far outside these parameters.

Actually what I said is wrong or misleading.
I test in the 0.1 percentile of the normal range, not the population as a whole.

I have never had a reaction that was unheard of, although my experience with zyrtec might be.
I had to file a report on that one.

With xalatan, I developed a headache in an area of the brain that you should never have headaches.
It turned out the side effect had appeared about a month before, so it was very new.
It took over a year for this to happen.
Somehow reassuring my doctor knew about this when there were only a few cases so far.
I got the drug very early, I think.
The substitute was only available in research bottles until recently.
I take that one half as often as "normal" and I'd titrate further, if it was possible.
The new one affects my dreams.
I don't know if that's unusual or if I notice it because I take it every 48 hours instead of every 24 hours?

It's far from the craziest side effect out there.
And bearing in mind that to make it to the warning list, a lot of people have to have it too.
I've seen gambling and sexual compulsion and very high risk behavior listed as possible side effects on some of the newer things advertised.
What the hell?
You know there are some stories behind that!

[theCryptofishist]

I've seen gambling and sexual compulsion and very high risk behavior listed as possible side effects on some of the newer things advertised.
What the hell?
You know there are some stories behind that!

Including the story of why they don't market as an aphrodesiac.

[MozyBonz]

Asbestos poses health risks only when fibres are present in the air that people breathe. How exposure to asbestos can affect you depends on:



* the concentration of asbestos fibres in the air,
* how long the exposure lasted,
* how often you were exposed,
* the size of the asbestos fibres inhaled,
* the amount of time since the initial exposure.



When inhaled in significant quantities, asbestos fibres can cause asbestosis (a scarring of the lungs which makes breathing difficult), mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the lining of the chest or abdominal cavity) and lung cancer.

The link between exposure to asbestos and other types of cancers is less clear. Smoking, combined with inhaled asbestos, greatly increases the risk of lung cancer.




Asbestosis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? •
Jump to: navigation, search
Asbestosis
Classification and external resources

Chest X-ray in asbestosis shows plaques above diaphragm
ICD-10 J61.
ICD-9 501
DiseasesDB 928
MedlinePlus 000118
eMedicine med/171 radio/52
MeSH D001195

Asbestosis is a chronic inflammatory medical condition affecting the parenchymal tissue of the lungs. It occurs after long-term, heavy exposure to asbestos, e.g. in mining, and is therefore regarded as an occupational lung disease. Sufferers have severe dyspnea (shortness of breath) and are at an increased risk regarding several different types of lung cancer.

As clear explanations are not always stressed in non-technical literature, care should be taken to distinguish between several forms of relevant diseases. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), these may be defined as; asbestosis (the subject of this article), lung cancer, and mesothelioma (generally a very rare form of cancer, but increasing in frequency as people exposed to asbestos age).
Contents


* 1 Signs and symptoms
* 2 Pathogenesis
* 3 Treatment
* 4 Legal issues
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

Signs and symptoms

The primary symptom of asbestosis is generally the slow onset of shortness of breath on exertion.[1] In severe, advanced cases, this may lead to respiratory failure. Coughing is not usually a typical symptom, unless the patient has other, concomitant respiratory tract diseases.

People with extensive occupational exposure to the mining, manufacturing, handling or removal of asbestos are at risk of developing asbestosis.[2] There is also an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Asbestosis and lung cancer require prolonged exposure to asbestos. However, cases of mesothelioma have been documented with even 1-3 months of exposure,[3][4] and only indirect exposure (through air ventilation system.) Most cases of asbestosis do not become apparent until 5-10 years after the initial exposure to the material.

[gyre]

Newtex Industries
Reflective aluminized glass
http://www.newtex.com/

[Taz]

This woman was walking at our center right after the landscapers had cut the grass. She accidentally inhaled a blade of grass. The piece went into her lung and actually cut into the tissue, we learned from the doctor.
Never believed before a piece of grass could cut human tissue. Anyway, I went with nomex.

[gyre]

I can believe it could cut, but I wouldn't have thought it could reach the lungs.

I had a microscopic splinter hit my eye from a chainsaw at least fifty feet away, while I was wearing glasses.
Another time I got a steel shard in my eye from a circular saw, while wearing safety glasses.
Both cases required surgery and can easily cost an eye if untreated.


The best suit these guys have can take 3000 degrees.
I saw a video of someone grilling a steak while holding it in their hand.
They were using a propane cannon that looked very portable and burny.
The cannon operator was subtitled as Pyromaniac

I wonder if one of their lightweight reflective suits would work for keeping cool in the sun?
Portable shade, maybe?