From: "Samuella B. Sigmann" <sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**APPSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Housekeeping chemical
Date: December 7, 2012 2:10:01 PM EST
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: <2b25a.31e6d60d.3df38e71**At_Symbol_Here**>

Love it!� You would think that at some point people selling things would want to actually put some facts in somewhere!� I once read somewhere that it is estimated that it costs around $Million to fully test one chemical (reactivity, toxicologically, environmentally, etc.) and that very few of ~70M or so registered chemicals� have been tested that extent.� I can't remember where, but I would love to find that source again!�

I love to take students in class to the CAS web site and watch the chemical registration counter tick off newly registered substances.� I counted one time and it was about 100/hr being registered. I don't know if that was a "busy day" or if that is typical.� When I did the talk in 2010, there were 50M registered chemicals, so it does not appear that we are slowing down.� Point being, we know very little about the chemicals we work with.

Site for CAS
Site for "chemical free sunscreen"� �

If anyone wants my presentation on this, let me know and I'll email directly to you.� It is on chemicals, risk v. hazard, risk perception of chemicals based on misinformation, etc.

a lobby group for pigments industry got the benzidine pigments exempted--go figure.
Yeah - and fly ash from coal fired plants is not hazardous waste either! :-)� � - tell that to the people on the Emory River in Kingston, TN where the TVA dam broke.� Some of our environmental people worked on sampling on that spill.

On 12/7/2012 1:24 PM, ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM wrote:
Samuella:� GRAND.� I'll buy most of that and sell you 4 more items on "nontoxic:

Nontoxic may actually mean:

1.� The substance has never been tested for any kind of toxicity, either acute or chronic (and there are MANY completely untested chemicals in our products).

2.� � The substance was tested for acute toxicity (LD50), but only 4 of 10 test animals died within two weeks after dosing at 5 gm/kg of body weight.

3.� The substance has been shown not to be acutely toxic, but it has never been tested for cancer, birth defects, reproductive or developmental damage, organ damage or any chronic effect (a description which fits the MAJORITY of the chemicals we use).

4.� The substance has had no chronic testing and is labeled "nontoxic" even though it is in a class of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other chronic damage.� For example in my field, 5 substituted anthraquinones are all listed as animal carcinogens by IARC and NTP, but the other 300 anthraquinone dyes and pigments are labeled nontoxic--even those in children's products.� � And the benzidine dyes are all restricted as carcinogens, the a lobby group for pigments industry got the benzidine pigments exempted--go figure.�

This whole labeling thing is so SICK.� It is not designed to inform consumers.� It is all about selling products and is completely industry-driven.� And regulators are well-intentioned, technically outclassed patsies.


In a message dated 12/7/2012 10:50:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**APPSTATE.EDU writes:

And now the fun facts!

Organic Does NOT mean

�??Chemical Free�??
And may not mean - �??Synthetic Chemical Free�??

Not impure
100 % of the substance is present with no contamination
A solution or substance which consists of a single type of atom or molecule
There are very few �??pure�?? things on earth - Refined sugar is one of the purist food substances (99.80%)� � �

All- Natural

NO regulatory control of this term
Not synonymous with �??organic�??
DOES NOT mean �??healthy�??
�??Natural foods are processed without preservatives or additives, but may have been grown with the use of pesticides or other conventional methods.�??
�??The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the term �??natural�?? only as it applies to added color, synthetic substances, and flavors.�??�


Without poisonous qualities
A substance that does not pose a hazard to humans
Non-toxic substances are safe to use, and do not harm humans and the environment� (EPA)
NO regulation of the use in advertising, labeling, etc.�

On 12/6/2012 12:15 PM, Samuella B. Sigmann wrote:
Great Post Monona -

Here are some fun facts from a presentation ( "Chemicals: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly") that I did a few years back on misconceptions about chemicals and perceived risk - mostly propagated by advertising.� My favorite commercial (have not seen it in a long time) was "chemical free" make-up.

The Washington Post's Style Invitational asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition


Don�??t always believe what you think.

Samuella B. Sigmann, NRCC-CHO

Lecturer/Safety Committee Chair

A. R. Smith Department of Chemistry

Appalachian State University

525 Rivers Street

Boone, NC� � 28608

Phone: 828 262 2755

Fax: 828 262 6558

Email: sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.