OSHA warning on DMFA

  1. OSHA warning on DMFA


    Hey gang. Just found this for all you homebrewers.

    http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/hib/hib_...b19880217.html

  2. oops! Old news. Sorry.


    Sorry gang, it is dated 1988. Was doing a google search on DMFA and this was first item that came up and on google it said November 6, 2003.
    My bad.

  3. Geez Michael...

    Let me summarize the OSHA INFORMATION BULLETIN. There are actually 2 studies presented by this bulletin. The first addresses workers at an aircraft repair facility where they were exposed to inhalation of pure DMFA. The second deals with leather workers that were also exposed to inhalation of pure DMFA.

    Factors that increase the possibility of testicular cancer:
    • family history of abnormalities
    • history of hernia
    • mumps
    • maternal hyperemesis gravidarum
    • prenatal ionizing radiation exposure
    • rural residence
    • exposure to pesticides or unrefined petroleum products
    • testicular trauma
    • wearing jockey-type undershorts
    • bicycle or horseback riding


    According to the bulletin, riding a bike regularly is just as bad as inhaling pure DMFA for 3-15 years. In case you don't know...your lungs are much more efficient in getting things into your body than applying them to your skin. After all, your skin is designed specifically to keep things out. At a minimum we can conclude that application of DMFA to the skin should not be in excess of 3 years continuously. If one felt the need to dose a lotion for that long it would be in their best interest to look into other life saving measures such as therapy for their low self esteem.

    STUDY #1 - AIRCRAFT REPAIRMEN
    • 3 men were diagnosed with testicular cancer.
    • They set the time required for exposure at 3 years continuously before onset of symptoms. 3 YEARS!!!


    STUDY #2 - LEATHER TANNER WORKERS
    • 3 men were diagnosed with testicular cancer
    • In the first case, the man inhaled pure DMFA for 13 years before onset of symptoms.
    • In the second case, the man inhaled pure DMFA for 14 years before onset of symptoms.
    • In the third case, the man inhaled pure DMFA for 8 years before onset of symptoms.


    As a direct comparison for applying a diluted solution containing DMFA this bulletin is poor. It does shed some valuable insight into the safety of the compound however. First, it should be common knowledge that inhalation standards are MUCH, MUCH lower due to the efficiency of your lungs at getting gasses into your body (and out). So, after 3-14 years of continuous inhalation there will be some complications.

    DO NOT INHALE A BDC LOTION FOR 3-14 YEARS CONTINUOUSLY.

    DO NOT APPLY A BDC LOTION FOR 3-14 YEARS CONTINUOUSLY.
    •   
       


  4. Originally posted by Chemo
    .

    DO NOT INHALE A BDC LOTION FOR 3-14 YEARS CONTINUOUSLY.

    DO NOT APPLY A BDC LOTION FOR 3-14 YEARS CONTINUOUSLY.
    This the new wanring?

  5. BTW, there are other things that can be toxic as hell if one is exposed to it for a long period of time, not just DMFA.

    BTW, good observation on the bike riding and testicular cancer. This made me think if that could have anything to do with Lance Armstrong's case of testicular cancer.

  6. Originally posted by size


    This the new wanring?

    There goes my 3 year cycle.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  7. Damn, i've been on for five, you think I should stop?

    I wouldn't worry too much about the warning. OSHA even has warnings for persons working with NaCl..table salt. They require people to wear gloves, eye protection et cetera. It's their job to be overly cautious.

  8. OSHA is overly protective w/o doubt. Also makes running businesses more difficult than it has to be. I worked in a clean room for a few years and I laughed at some of the regulations.

  9. That post was not meant to trivialize safety as the intent of OSHA recommendations are to protect the masses. They are set that low because they are safe (at least according to the government).

    There are competitors and haters in general that would make it sound like I shot Christ on the cross since it is in the formula. My reply point is that if exposed to amounts within OSHA recommendations then it is still highly effective and safe as well.

    Chemo

  10. Well, your stuff hasn't killed me yet, so I trust you, but if it does kill me, man am I going to be pissed

  11. Originally posted by Chemo
    That post was not meant to trivialize safety as the intent of OSHA recommendations are to protect the masses. They are set that low because they are safe (at least according to the government).

    There are competitors and haters in general that would make it sound like I shot Christ on the cross since it is in the formula. My reply point is that if exposed to amounts within OSHA recommendations then it is still highly effective and safe as well.

    Chemo
    Understood completely, I just thought it was a wise idea to address the situation rather than hope it goes away.

  12. It's OSHA's job to protect people from a liability perspective. They are trying to avoid claims for overexposure, etc.

    I have a BS with a minor in occupational safety. You'd be surprised at some of the hazardous material warnings issued for normally harmless household substances. I wouldn't worry about DMFA, at least based on this warning.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Confusion on types of test
    By Matthew D in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-12-2011, 12:57 PM
  2. EPO: FDA Issues New Warnings on Anemia Drugs
    By yeahright in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 10:59 PM
  3. Consumers Warned on Home DNA Tests
    By yeahright in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2006, 06:05 PM
  4. AMA Wants Warning Labels on High-Salt Food
    By yeahright in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2006, 12:48 AM
Log in
Log in