john_k...@... (John Kulp) wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> >
> >In essence, there's enough evidence to suggest that it is also a
> >carcinogen in humans such that a controlled medical trial to prove the
> >link would be unethical...and in any country that signed the Helsinki
> >Accords...illegal.
>
> That's complete nonsense. =A0There is no such proof and the military has
> been using it for years with no such effect. =A0
Here's some "nonsense" for you:
Plus the Belmont Report:
> Or don't you consider them human?
Literally not an excuse. Apparently, you've not heard of this either:
> What has that got to do with your screwball and unsupported claim that
> it is a human carcinogen? =A0
Are cigarettes bad for you? Cause of cancers, etc?
Well, because of the above, the direct objective medical tests to 100%
prove the connection have never been done either. Its not because it
isn't, but because it is unethical to incur the risk on a volunteer.
See also:
> >BTW, (and for humans) it is categorized as a Toxicity Category III
> >(low acute); note that reported side effects include 'slurred speech',
> >which is kind of hard for an insect, dog or pig to report. =A0FYI, I
> >still use DEET too, but do so with care and caution...and context.
> >For example, DEET doesn't do jack shit to stop Tzetze flies.
>
> Which is low, acute and not chronic and appears almost exclusively in
> children.
It still proves a chemical interaction with the human biology.
Bottom line is that your attempts to claim that the risk is zero is
untrue. We simply don't know the full extent of the risk profile, and
given the laws on human experimentation, it is unlikely to be an area
that the risk:benefit allows much more testing.
-hh |