Caution, it causes cancer!!

undone

Almost A Member
Jan 11, 2016
178
93
WA
Name
Jody Wyse
Boat
Blue Wave
WOW. I spent 35 years spraying laquer and in the laquer thinner.
Somebody tell me that was good for me.

Sorry, you're dead.

I've never looked into any of the other solvents, but from painting 2 part paints I am sensitized to isocyanates, it's like a very serious asthma attack, your chest tightens and you can't breath. I stay completely away from isocyanates now. This was all from painting 35+ years ago, it's not a problem unless I'm around isocyanates, and has become less of a problem over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: One_Leg
Upvote 0

tj805

Member
Jan 26, 2012
328
96
Los osos
Name
Tony
Boat
19 arima sea chaser 12ft Livingston
It's good you posted this stuff.
People take for granted there personal safety .
Sure it doesn't hurt you now. But in the long run it catches up with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexvi
Upvote 0

stairman

......
May 16, 2009
5,383
3,650
ramona /ca/usa
Name
doug
Boat
yak and lowe duck hunting skiff but they identify as sportfishing crusiers
These were clean living guys that loved the ocean, they were family guys that did what they had to do to put food on the table.

Ciroc Vodka ain't cheap ;-)
omg....ive tried that exactly once....the 8 dollar 1.75 'll bottom shelf supermarket vodka is about the same
 
Upvote 0

undone

Almost A Member
Jan 11, 2016
178
93
WA
Name
Jody Wyse
Boat
Blue Wave


Human Epidemiology Studies

Collectively, the human epidemiology studies show that styrene exposure does not cause an increase in deaths due to cancer or any other disease. These studies, considered together, involved a number of employee groups (“cohorts”) totaling more than 55,000 workers in styrene-related industries in the United States and Europe, with exposures beginning at least 60 years ago in some of these workers. Also, many of the workers included in these studies worked in the industry when exposure levels were much higher than they are in today’s workplaces. Since workplace exposures to styrene are as much as 1,000 fold higher than environmental levels, a lack of effects in workers is an indicator that exposure of the general public to current environmental levels of styrene would not be expected to cause adverse health effects.

Occupational exposures to styrene are greatest in the reinforced plastics and composites (RPC) industry. There are three groups of RPC workers which have been investigated (“epidemiology” studies) for styrene-related causes of death.

• Kogevinas et al. (1994) [4] studied about 40,000 RPC workers in six European countries, with an average follow-up period of about 13 years. There were no increases in cancer deaths based on the most common exposure metrics—cumulative exposure or duration of exposure. There was a trend for increasing death from total lymphomas based on average exposure.

• Ruder et al. (2004) [5] studied a cohort of about 5,200 RPC workers in the state of Washington with a follow-up period of about 30 years. While the study is based on a relatively small group of workers, it has a long follow-up period. The authors reported no styrene-related increased cancer deaths.

• The most recent report comes from Collins et al. (2013) [6], who studied about 16,000 RPC workers from 30 U.S. companies, with a follow-up of more than 30 years. The researchers reported no increase in styrene-related deaths for any cause of death in this cohort, including total lymphomas or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma based on cumulative or average exposure, or duration of exposure. This finding addresses the result related to average exposure reported in Kogevinas et al. (1994).

Another industry in which styrene exposure occurs is the styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) industry. Delzell et al. (2006) [7] studied causes of death in a cohort of about 15,000 SBR workers, who had styrene exposures one-tenth to one-hundredth the levels of the RPC workers. There was a suggestion of increased deaths from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) possibly related to styrene. The authors of the study did not attribute this increase to styrene because increased NHL was not seen in more highly exposed RPC workers.

Animal Studies

By the early 1990s, 12 long-term studies had been conducted in which laboratory animals were exposed to styrene or a styrene ß-nitrostyrene mixture. These studies were reviewed in a report by McConnell and Swenberg (1993) [8] published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Each published study was reviewed and evaluated for adequacy of design and reported data, appropriateness of interpretation, and whether it had been peer-reviewed. The purpose of the review was to determine the weight of evidence for carcinogenic activity in animals, and to judge whether the data were adequate for drawing conclusions about carcinogenic activity. Based on the available data, the authors concluded:

• There was no convincing evidence for carcinogenic action of styrene in animals, even though it has been studied in several species and by several routes of exposure (inhalation, gavage, in drinking water, and by intraperitoneal and subcutaneous injection).

• None of the studies reviewed was well suited for extrapolating potential carcinogenic activity in humans; all had deficiencies in design, conduct, or interpretation.

• An up-to-date chronic inhalation study was therefore needed in order to evaluate this gap in the research data.

To address this need, SIRC, the U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) discussed and agreed upon the need to clarify the toxicology data on styrene through state-of-the-art chronic animal bioassays. Working in consultation with ORD and NTP on study protocols, SIRC sponsored 24-month inhalation studies in both the rat and mouse. Both studies were conducted according to internationally recognized Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards.

A final report on the rat study was released in 1996 and published in 1998 (Cruzan et al., 1998) [9]. The animals had been exposed to styrene at levels of 50, 200, 500, and 1,000 parts per million (ppm). The results showed that styrene is not carcinogenic in rats.

A final report on a two-year mouse study was issued in mid-1998 and published in 2001 (Cruzan et al., 2001) [10]. The mice were exposed at levels of 20, 40, 80, and 160 ppm. As can be anticipated due to the sensitivity of this species, increased lung tumors were found at the end of the two-year study period and did not affect survival. Malignancy occurred only in the high-dose females, and tumors were not noted during interim sacrifices at 12 and 18 months.

Given an absence of carcinogenic effect in both human epidemiology and rat chronic study data, SIRC has conducted additional research to better define the nature of the mouse lung effects. Results of this work to date suggest that the effects seen in mice are unique to the mouse, and are not relevant for extrapolation to potential human effects. Additional information can be found under “Styrene Metabolism & Mode of Action” section below
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

undone

Almost A Member
Jan 11, 2016
178
93
WA
Name
Jody Wyse
Boat
Blue Wave
I don't always believe everything in one study, I look at this as a best case scenario and expect something worse.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

monoloco

Fish Killer
Jun 27, 2009
121
83
Pescadero BCS
Name
Greg
Boat
14ft Livingston
Brain cancer. They surfed here in the Monterey Bay.

This was a surfboard factory producing a lot of boards. This wasn't some backyard operation. It's like smoking cigarettes, some people will say... I've smoked and drank for 45 years, I'm fine. Some people are lucky, that doesn't mean it's not bad for you.
I also had a friend who was a surfboard maker who died of brain cancer.
 
Upvote 0

Alexvi

Almost A Member
Aug 6, 2012
218
339
Santa Cruz, CA
Name
Alex
Boat
Rock Steady - Davis Rock Harbor #001
Undone, with all do respect. What the fuck is wrong with you. I started this thread as a word of caution and you latched on to it to make styrene your crusade. If it's so goddamn harmless, come over and I'll make you a cocktail with some styrene and ginger-ale.

My point was these are caustic nasty chemicals and should be avoided period. This was not meant as a pissing match of who has exposed themselves to the most 2-part chemicals over the decades.

With you downplaying it, some young kid will read your post and think... I don't need a respirator, or gloves, that guy did it for 45+ years and he's fine.

I'm done with this thread. I never imagined in a million years someone would be defending sytrene.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bparker1225
Upvote 0

undone

Almost A Member
Jan 11, 2016
178
93
WA
Name
Jody Wyse
Boat
Blue Wave
You seem to think I'm promoting not using any PPE, I'm not, it's the best way to prevent any possible health issues, I think I've made that clear several times during this discussion. You started off by saying "it causes cancer", that may be your opinion, but it's not supported by any of the facts at this time. All I'm putting forward is the results of studies on styrene, not every agency interprets the results in the same way, so regulations vary from region to region.

Getting mad at me doesn't change the results of the studies.

I've personally had friends and relatives die directly from alcohol related health issues, same with smoking, drugs, obesity, bad driving habits, plus many other preventable lifestyle choices. These deaths were directly attributed to activities they participated in, many studies have show that these habits can and will increase your chances of dying prematurely from their affects on your body.

Styrene hasn't shown those same direct relationships, at least not at this time, but to be safe everyone should use the appropriate PPE. I also don't know anyone that has died from health issues that were shown to be from working with polyester resins, and I've met thousands of people in the industry over several decades. I'm sure that some probably have had health issues from these resins, most likely serious ones, but not to the same degree as these other bad habits.
 
Upvote 0

undone

Almost A Member
Jan 11, 2016
178
93
WA
Name
Jody Wyse
Boat
Blue Wave
That's about the most positive study, or statement showing a relationship to cancer that I've read, they still have comments like this though,

"There is also some evidence for increased risks of esophageal and pancreatic cancer among styrene-exposed workers. Causality is not established, as the possibility that the results were due to chance or to confounding by exposure to other carcinogenic chemicals cannot be completely ruled out."

I looked at studies both pro and con, that's why I said different agency's interpret the results in different ways and put different regulations in place. Most used the same studies, some agencies said that even if there's a shred of evidence of a particular negative health affect in one of five different studies they would say it's likely to occur. Others looked all the studies and if one stood out with different results, either good or bad, they would note it, but investigate why the result may be different and may not give it the "likely to occur" designation.

What I found by looking at studies both in the US and Europe, was that in some high exposure groups they found a small amount of evidence that there could be negative health affects, but in some of these cases other known harmful chemicals were also part of the exposure. There was one study of a low exposure group that had reported health issues different than the others, but this group was also exposed to a chemical known to be a problem. Some agencies didn't differentiate this study from the others, they reported the health issues and it shows up in their findings and designation. Other agencies looked at it and said they needed to look into it further to see if the other chemical was responsible for the health issues.

What I take from all the studies is that while there most likely are some negative health effects, they don't stand out in the research like the affects of PCBs, isocyanates, tobacco, alcohol, junk food and other known harmful products do.

And as I've said in almost every post I've made on this thread, wear PPE and do what you can to prevent exposure, its the only smart thing to do. But it's not as big of an issue as other lifestyle choices people choose to make everyday.

If someone is extremely worried about health effects they shouldn't use any of the popular two part paints, or epoxy, these are far more likely to have a negative affect on your health than polyester resin.

In some reports it says that to avoid styrene, stop smoking, don't be around copiers, don't drink bottled water, plus a bunch of other every day stuff.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0