On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 03:02:06 -0800 (PST), huntzing@pica.army.mil wrote:
>john_k...@hotmail.com (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:
>
>
Yes, it is, indeed, nonsense since it has nothing to do with whether
Deet is a human carcinogenic which long experience has shown it's not.
And you haven't produced one whit of evidence that it is either.
>
>
>> Or don't you consider them human?
>
>Literally not an excuse. Apparently, you've not heard of this either:
>
>
Ridiculous. Why don't you post a few good analysis of the Vikings
raping and pillaging Europe too while your at. The Scaninavians would
be amused.
>
>
>> 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?
That has a lot to do with Deet you cretin. So's charcoal. Have you
given up barbecuing?
>
>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:
>
>
You're a complete moron. The military has been using Deet for decades
and has all the evidence anyone needs to know that it is not
carcinogenic to humans. I guess you're so dumb you don't think that
using it on millions of soldiers constitutes proof of anything.
>
>
>
>> >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.
I didn't say the risk was zero you liar. I said that it is not
carcinogenic to humans, which it's not. There is always someone who
is allergic to anything and will get sick as a result. Including such
dangerous chemical compounds as milk you twit. You are so
monumentally stupid that you cannot even comprehend that Deet has been
used by millions for decades with no cancerous results from it by
endlessly repeating you idiotic human experimentation crap. They
don't need to experiment you idiot. They have decades of proof by
usage that it is perfectly safe. |