Aluminium powder

[hindsight]

Epidemiologically speaking, correlation between an illness and exposure to a substance does not prove a causative link. However, correlation does suggest the possibility of causation.The presence of Al, which is not an essential trace metal, in patients with Alzheimer's is noteworthy. And the the nature of Al exposure for individuals who mine a clay containing Al compounds differs from pyrotechnicians who deal with airborne powdered metals. The cohort selection, the chemical and physical nature of the exposure, etc., are dissimilar. Unfortunately, there very few prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled (human) studies to assess risks of exposure to most of the compounds that are used in this hobby.

It is a matter of risk:benefit/cost:benefit ratios. Although the risks of exposures are not readily quantifiable, the potential benefits and reasonable cost of wearing a full face polycarbonate-visored respirator outweigh, I think, the costs of foregoing the protection from inhaled gases and particulate matter.

Edited September 20, 2013 by hindsight

[NeuroticNurse]

Epidemiologically speaking, correlation between an illness and exposure to a substance does not prove a causative link. However, correlation does suggest the possibility of causation.The presence of Al, which is not an essential trace metal, in patients with Alzheimer's is noteworthy. And the the nature of Al exposure for individuals who mine a clay containing Al compounds differs from pyrotechnicians who deal with airborne powdered metals. The cohort selection, the chemical and physical nature of the exposure, etc., are dissimilar. Unfortunately, there very few prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled (human) studies to assess risks of exposure to most of the compounds that are used in this hobby.

It is a matter of risk:benefit/cost:benefit ratios. Although the risks of exposures are not readily quantifiable, the potential benefits and reasonable cost of wearing a full face polycarbonate-visored respirator outweigh, I think, the costs of foregoing the protection from inhaled gases and particulate matter.

 

Correct! Consistent, replicated and generalisable correlation is something that I, and the general consensus takes as causation once other factors can reasonably be excluded. Although those findings are ALWAYS controversial, there are still jackasses out there who will bleat that climate change is not anthropogenic, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, vaccinations/water fluoridation causes autism, or that red wine prevents cancer.

On Aluminium and Alzheimers though, every systematic review has openly lambased testing methods, and most of the studies themselves confess that their methodology is questionable. Furthermore, systematic reviews of those studies have found results inconsistent. So the results would be at the very least rigorously contested, if not outright discredited.

As far as the randomised double blind sudies, it would be completely unethical to ever perform such a study on a human beings, but epidemiological evidence thus far has proven minimal correlation.

On all of the FAME categories they fall under "expert opinion" at best, which is just a polite way of saying unsubstantiated bullshit, the economic consideration is that its very cheap to avoid a potentially horrendous end of life. So I would agree with you, its not a bad idea to take precautions against breathing the stuff in.

 

But I digress, damn it! You read my interests and you got me to bite the carrot... The point that I was making before I got side-tracked are that there area lot more provably dangerous things to worry about than Aluminium exposure, and of all the things that could could be dangerous, its near the very bottom.

[hindsight]

Yes, such PRDBC studies would be unethical using human subjects, hence the parentheses. And you didn't just take the carrot, Nurse, you ran with it and almost swallowed it whole . The problem is less with epidemiology than it is with epistemology. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in this world. My goal is to to minimize risks and maximize enjoyment and wearing PPE is such an easy thing. English is not my mother tongue and the subtleties of the Australian dialect may be lost on me, but it seems we agree. And the goal was by no means to focus on the specifics of a given substance's toxicity, but the fact that we aren't sure of the consequences of unusual substances that we inhale. Perhaps you are not the Neurotic one. But hindsight is 20:20, and being once bitten, I am twice shy. Face shields as protection against blasts have been covered in another thread but this is the added benefit of the suggested PPE.

By the way, class action lawyers are excellent at discovering correlations. For instance, did you know that there is a high incidence of fever in patients taking Tylenol. I smell a lawsuit...

[MrB]

Although those findings are ALWAYS controversial, there are still jackasses out there who will bleat that climate change is not anthropogenic, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, vaccinations/water fluoridation causes autism, or that red wine prevents cancer.

Um. anthropogenic, thats driven by humanity, i think? Your stating that anyone who doesn't agree that humanity is the driving force behind the climate change, is a jackass then? If thats the case, then i'm a jackass. The latest trend is that the global temperature isn't increasing, yet humanity as a whole is doing what we've been blamed to do, causing & driving the climate-change through the generation of carbon-dioxide. Mainly through the use of fossil fuels. Science reports points at a small contradiction in that the CO2 levels are higher now then they were around 2000, and have been steadily climbing since then, yet since 2000 the climate change lost it's momentum, and scientists report that the current trend is cooling, and not heating...

 

Only time will tell, of course, but for the last 15 years i've been hearing "oh no, the world is coming to an end, the ocean level will rise meters due to melting ice" yet, since i live in a harbor city, i can tell you this. It ain't happening as of yet. In fact, looking at pictures from when the inner harbor was first "built" 1867, water-levels haven't changed much. Images from 1879, when they completed the south sector of the harbor seams to indicate the same the same thing. If anything, since this part of Sweden is sinking in to the ocean at a rate of about half a mm / year, we should see a 7.5cm change in water-level that would help show of even a small change in water level due to the changing climate, but it just isn't there. Given enough time, the tidal effect from the moon will be diminished, and in the end the moon will leave it's orbit and chase after some star or another. Given enough time someone will start blaming that to on humanity. In reality the moon is simply spinning to fast for it's orbit, and as it gets further away from earth it will cause less of a tidal effect, but i'm sure someone will be able to twist it around, humanity caused a smaller tidal effect, and that chased the moon away.

 

HIV i don't know jack about, other then it's bad to be positive. Guess being positive makes you an ass. Not sure.

Flue-vaccination has been linked to narcolepsy, proving rather then linking isn't feasible, since it's at best/worst a heightened risk of getting sick, rather then a sure fire way to get sick. Going from there to general vaccination causing autism is a long jump, but vaccinations is hardly the safest thing in the world. It's done a lot of good, but so did land-mines, and rocketry. Red-wine... Cant stand the taste of it. But, the Swedish "people health-care-institute" (Folkhälsoinstitutet) suggests that 1 glas of red-wine daily is a good dose, with the intent of preventing heart conditions, and cancer. No more then 5 glasses at one sitting, and no more then 2.1L a week. On the other hand, they also recommended 6-8 slices of bread daily, with complete disregard for what type of bread, or what you put on it. Or even, how thick you slice it...

B!

[hindsight]

Jonathan, at the risk of getting even further off topic, can you expound on the use of 100 mesh Mg and hexamine as propellant for cardboard rockets. Information on techniques and relative safety of your methods would be appreciated.

[NeuroticNurse]

Mainly through the use of fossil fuels. Science reports points at a small contradiction in that the CO2 levels are higher now then they were around 2000, and have been steadily climbing since then, yet since 2000 the climate change lost it's momentum, and scientists report that the current trend is cooling, and not heating...

 

Not only is that statement not true, but provably false and the opposite is provably true. There are more than 13,000 peer reviewed studies which have found identical findings, and 100% of systematic reviews of primary research support your conclusions. Since 2000, not only have temperatures continued to rise unabated but have done so on a level unprecedented, with nine of the hottest eleven years recorded since 2000. So you're wrong.

As for the Jackass comment, I hold it true for people who spruik the idea, particularly politicians, such as our very own Cory Bernardi in SA, or for those who make money from the notion that there is none, like Lord Christopher Monckton, and for scientists who use cherrypicking and blatantly false means of analysing results and peer reviewed study, like Ian Plimer.

Neither is it up for debate whether or not we should be doing anything about it. It is such a shame that the people who bleat the loudest about its dangers, are also equally ignorant of the best solution for it; 100% nuclear power immediately, the safest, cheapest and fastest method for zero carbon power generation options.

 

Only time will tell, of course, but for the last 15 years i've been hearing "oh no, the world is coming to an end, the ocean level will rise meters due to melting ice" yet, since i live in a harbor city, i can tell you this. It ain't happening as of yet. In fact, looking at pictures from when the inner harbor was first "built" 1867, water-levels haven't changed much. Images from 1879, when they completed the south sector of the harbor seams to indicate the same the same thing. If anything, since this part of Sweden is sinking in to the ocean at a rate of about half a mm / year, we should see a 7.5cm change in water-level that would help show of even a small change in water level due to the changing climate, but it just isn't there. Given enough time, the tidal effect from the moon will be diminished, and in the end the moon will leave it's orbit and chase after some star or another. Given enough time someone will start blaming that to on humanity. In reality the moon is simply spinning to fast for it's orbit, and as it gets further away from earth it will cause less of a tidal effect, but i'm sure someone will be able to twist it around, humanity caused a smaller tidal effect, and that chased the moon away.

 

The fact that Al Gore Bullshitted in his film An Inconvenient Truth, something which I called him out for in my second as an undergrad, does not mean the premise is false. As for what you said, again, it is completely false. Arctic Ice loss has increased significantly since the 1980s and continues to do so. Ice from lower lying Greenland has been lost through melting faster than it has been replaced, and Himalayan Glaciers have been shrinking continuously. Does that mean flooding and massive sea level rises? Of course not, and thats a strawman of what science says. It is to the turne of milimetres and these catastrophic changes are to take place over long periods not immediately.

It would be completely accurate however to say, that Al Gore is an alarmist idiot, and so are his rabid disciples. But that does not change the fact that it is dangerous and that we should do something about it, and nor is it a hole in the fact that climate change is anthropogenic.

 

HIV i don't know jack about, other then it's bad to be positive. Guess being positive makes you an ass. Not sure.

 

Nice strawman there. Not at all, having HIV will give you AIDS if left unmanaged, that is all. There are people though who think otherwise.

 

Flue-vaccination has been linked to narcolepsy, proving rather then linking isn't feasible, since it's at best/worst a heightened risk of getting sick, rather then a sure fire way to get sick.

Going from there to general vaccination causing autism is a long jump, but vaccinations is hardly the safest thing in the world.

 

No it doesnt (Tsai et-al 2011, pp.702-703).

Tsai TF, Crucitti A, Nacci P, Nicolay U, Della Cioppa, Ferguson J, Clemens R, "Explorations of Clinical trials and pharmacovigilance of MF59 adjuvanted influenza vaccines for associated cases of narcolepsy, Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases Vol. 43, No. 9 , pp. 702-706

 

 

 

 

Vaccinations are safe, effective and cost efficient ways of preventing some very real and dangerous diseases. There is no reason for anyone not to have the flu vaccine, MMR or any other routine vaccination except for the immunocompromised or those suffering from catastrophic adverse reactions. And for the record, vaccinations ARE the safest thing in the world to prevent a disease outbreak, and they ARE the ONLY way that the world will ever see the end of a particularly nasty disease like Smallpox, and hopefully soon to follow, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Polio.

 

Red-wine... Cant stand the taste of it. But, the Swedish "people health-care-institute" (Folkhälsoinstitutet) suggests that 1 glas of red-wine daily is a good dose, with the intent of preventing heart conditions, and cancer. No more then 5 glasses at one sitting, and no more then 2.1L a week. On the other hand, they also recommended 6-8 slices of bread daily, with complete disregard for what type of bread, or what you put on it. Or even, how thick you slice it...

 

I'm familiar with that case, which is why I mentioned it in my rant earlier. Reversatrol , taken from grape skins NOT from red wine, does indeed... when poured on tumours in a petri-dish... inhibits their growth. So the conclusion being that the same reversatrol found in red wine stop cancer, sadly that just isnt proven, and every drink you have increases your risk of cancer that little bit more. There are possible benefits from drinking, for instance, occasional drinking does increase your survivability for a CVA, or an MI, and it could well be good for your CVS, but that just isn't proven conclusively yet, and there have been zero RCTs done on the matter. So I'll just say, it's possible.

As for your source, the fact that you mentioned that would make me very skeptical of that source to begin with.

 

Anyway, once again, damn you for sticking out that carrot you knew I'd find difficult to resist!

[MrB]

Not only is that statement not true, but provably false and the opposite is provably true. There are more than 13,000 peer reviewed studies which have found identical findings, and 100% of systematic reviews of primary research support your conclusions. Since 2000, not only have temperatures continued to rise unabated but have done so on a level unprecedented, with nine of the hottest eleven years recorded since 2000. So you're wrong.

Funny, IPCC, that otherways seams to be held in such high regards by people claiming that humanity is the solitary reason, and responsible for the climate change, have huge issues explaining exactly why we should remain panicking since they cant point to a statistically significant temperature change over the last 10 years. Currently they blame it on the oceans "probably" containing the misplaced heat, but fail to have a model for how much heat, or how it will act further down the line.

 

Neither is it up for debate whether or not we should be doing anything about it. It is such a shame that the people who bleat the loudest about its dangers, are also equally ignorant of the best solution for it; 100% nuclear power immediately, the safest, cheapest and fastest method for zero carbon power generation options.

At least we agree on something. Here in Sweden we are currently phasing out nuclear power in favor for brown coal power imported from central/east Europe. All in the name of the environment. People are huge dicks.

 

Arctic Ice loss has increased significantly since the 1980s and continues to do so.

Meanwhile the Antarctic ice ties with last years maximum size. Statistic significance, none. Were measuring a 150 year period, where we don't even have proper data until fairly recently, and apply them to a data model we don't really understand. Climate changes. Thats pretty much all we know. It's done it before, and it will do it again.Until we actually understand why it changes, we aren't going to know what is statisticly significant, but for a process that takes a place a couple of times over a million years i'm having a hard time seeing 150 year as a firm footing. More on target for the "since 1980's the ice is shrinking". Of course it is. memory is short, i know, but leading up to 1980's everyone was certain we were heading for a new ice age, and we recorded new record lows for temperatures pretty much everywhere, year after year. The ice is now returning to a size that is balanced against our current temperature, which as far as i know, is still lower then it was before the "mini ice-age cooling started. Again, all this really shows is that we don't have significant statistic data to base our models on.

 

There is no reason for anyone not to have the flu vaccine, MMR or any other routine vaccination except for the immunocompromised or those suffering from catastrophic adverse reactions.

Funny. Swedish goverment had the same opinion, but have since retracted that statement in the light of what studies show as the aftermath. As with any medical treatment, it's hard, not to say impossible to prove that A causes B, when B only shows up in 7% of the population. But narcolepsy went up with a statistically significant number in people who did receive the flu shot, where as it didn't in the rest of the population. It's a casual link, at best. Medical theory have started thinking of narcolepsy as a autoimmune issue, which might turn out to be a lot worse then having the flu, especially since the death-tool turns out to be less then 0.4% for the flue we had when everyone got vaccinated. The 7% increase in narcolepsy is affecting a lot more people then the 0,4% of the whole Swedish population.

 

As for your source, the fact that you mentioned that would make me very skeptical of that source to begin with.

Actually, i can't disagree with you there, which was why i tossed in the sandwich thingy. What i wanted to show is that it's not as clear cut as you paint it out as. In Sweden, that has one of the worlds hardest policies on alcohol, (Well, the so called free world, or pretty much anywhere where alcohol isn't out right banned, anyway) the government actually suggests you get near shitfaced on red wine daily, to prevent cancer. (Ok, so i don't drink much, if ever, but the daily recommendations would definitely leave me dazed.)

 

B!