Anti-Vaxer Dr. Whitaker gets pummeled into common sense by Science, Reason &Steven Novella

[dancjm]

@RonRules

I don't get you.

You said "I believe in the non-aggression principle." yet you argue for the right to inject people against their will.

You say that people's concerns with Vaccines are "idiocy" but you must realize that peoples concerns are for the welfare of their children, and their concerns are based on scientific evidence - I assume that you recognize that vaccines carry a health risk.

For someone who claims to support Ron Paul (I assume you do based on your username), you could do with taking a leaf out of his book.

By all means make the case for the benefit of vaccines, but at the same time do not ignore all of the evidence which suggests a health risk associated with them.

Try to understand that peoples concerns are for their health and that of their families, and that in large part what they object to is not the use of vaccines for those who will voluntarily have them, but the use of force on those who chose not to have them.

As Ron Paul himself has said, vaccination must be a personal choice in a free society.

You can argue that vaccines protect society from disease, but you can also argue that spying on everyone protects society from terrorism, you can argue that banning weapons protects society from violence, you can argue that drug laws protect society from vice and poor health.

The fact is, sacrificing principle for "the greater good" is the province of dictators and tyrants. The "ends justifies the means" has been the basis for some of the ugliest things we have seen throughout history.

I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[angelatc]

Case in point: it must be true that fluoride makes you dumber, look at RonRules.

You can't refute his claims, so you call him names. Real nice.. When the dollar collapses, and daily showers become a distant memory, you will certainly console yourself with the fact that the outbreaks of disease are still somebody else's fault.

Who in their right mind wants to listen to this stuff that Ron Paul, a man of science, would almost certainly reject as nonsense?

It's some circles, it's beyond laughable that "well, they don't work for everybody, so therefore they don't work" would ever be considered a valid argument. As would, 'It's because of cleanliness!!!" But people here stand by that proudly. It should be embarrassing, not embraced.

[libertyjam]

You can't refute his claims, so you call him names. .

RR's, has no and makes no claims to refute. He just posts mean spirited ad hom. attacks, insults and degradations against an entire class of readers and posters, I figure that means that he is fair game to any and all members of that class that he derides.

[donnay]

You can't refute his claims, so you call him names. Real nice.. When the dollar collapses, and daily showers become a distant memory, you will certainly console yourself with the fact that the outbreaks of disease are still somebody else's fault.

Who in their right mind wants to listen to this stuff that Ron Paul, a man of science, would almost certainly reject as nonsense?

It's some circles, it's beyond laughable that "well, they don't work for everybody, so therefore they don't work" would ever be considered a valid argument. As would, 'It's because of cleanliness!!!" But people here stand by that proudly. It should be embarrassing, not embraced.

Oh so you are willing to admit sanitation and hygiene--not vaccines, were the reason why most of the diseases diminished?

[EBounding]

Did anyone win the debate yet?

The way I understand vaccines, is they don't work unless a large majority of the population has them. That's because they are not 100% effective, so you can still get sick even if you are vaccinated, and you most definitely will if no one else is vaccinated. But having several vaccinated people around you creates a "shield" and makes it much less likely that you will get the disease. It's called herd immunity.

I wasn't sure about vaccinations, but this video helped explain it (was this posted already?). Try to ignore the annoying condescending narrator mocking anti-vaxers:



Here's the simulation:

http://www.shanekillian.org/apps/herd.html

[RonRules]

As Ron Paul himself has said, vaccination must be a personal choice in a free society.

Show me where Ron Paul said that.

If he did, he needs to have his doctor license yanked.

[EBounding]

Show me where Ron Paul said that.

If he did, he needs to have his doctor license yanked.

I think they're referring to this:


He's not anti-vaccine, but thinks vaccines are given too often.

But one thing that's troubling to me is he says that if you don't get a polio vaccine, that doesn't affect me. Well it does, because vaccines don't work unless a large majority of people are vaccinated as well.

I don't think there should be a law compelling vaccinations, but if your child is healthy enough and not allergic to the vaccine, you have a moral obligation to do it.

[Meatwasp]

pretty much everything you wrote is wrong.. I'll leave it at that. I am sure you cannot be convinced otherwise.

good luck forcing those of us who are informed enough to see through this ridiculousness into injecting poison into the veins of those we are responsible to protect.

I figured he was one of those junk science worshipers. Right on Krotin.

[RonRules]

But one thing that's troubling to me is he says that if you don't get a polio vaccine, that doesn't affect me. Well it does, because vaccines don't work unless a large majority of people are vaccinated as well.

Clearly Ron Paul does not understand herd immunity. That's pretty sad that a doctor of his age, having gone through the polio epidemic would not understand that. He does say that the polio and smallpox vaccines has been "fantastic", but that's not enough. You need herd immunity because vaccines are not 100% effective and a small percentage of the population are allergic to vaccines. The rest have to take them.

NOT taking vaccines is a form of aggression against me and my children. I see no problem in making vaccines mandatory, just like it's mandatory that you don't throw out toilet water in the street.

[DGambler]

NOT taking vaccines is a form of aggression against me and my children. I see no problem in making vaccines mandatory, just like it's mandatory that you don't throw out toilet water in the street.

Even chickenpox? Heb b?

[RonRules]

Even chickenpox? Heb b?

Of course. Do you want to die from that:
From Wiki:
"In adults, the disease is more severe, though the incidence is much less common. Infection in adults is associated with greater morbidity and mortality due to pneumonia, hepatitis, and encephalitis. In particular, up to 10% of pregnant women with chickenpox develop pneumonia, the severity of which increases with onset later in gestation. In England and Wales, 75% of deaths due to chickenpox are in adults. Inflammation of the brain, or encephalitis, can occur in immunocompromised individuals, although the risk is higher with herpes zoster. "

"In the thirty years ending in 1934, 3,112 people are stated to have died of "chicken-pox," and only 579 of smallpox in England and Wales."

Study Shows Deaths From Chickenpox Have Dropped 88% Since Vaccine Program Began in U.S.
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/n...due-to-vaccine
(I presume that the remaining 12% were anti-vaxers and those infected by them nearby)

Chickenpox Deaths Plummet With Help Of Vaccine
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011...elp-of-vaccine

[RonRules]

This more recent study show an even better success rate:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ickenpox-down/
Deaths from chickenpox (the varicella virus) have dropped 97 percent in adolescents and children since the use of the vaccine began in 1995, new analysis shows.

"Every kid did get chickenpox and, in the pre-vaccine era, there were 3-4 million cases a year," Seward said. "What people may not have realized, every year, about 105 people died of chickenpox. About half of those were children and about 11,000-12,000 were hospitalized with severe complications. We started preventing the disease to really prevent those very serious complications."

[EBounding]

Here's a better non-insulting video:

[KingNothing]

This more recent study show an even better success rate:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...ickenpox-down/
Deaths from chickenpox (the varicella virus) have dropped 97 percent in adolescents and children since the use of the vaccine began in 1995, new analysis shows.

"Every kid did get chickenpox and, in the pre-vaccine era, there were 3-4 million cases a year," Seward said. "What people may not have realized, every year, about 105 people died of chickenpox. About half of those were children and about 11,000-12,000 were hospitalized with severe complications. We started preventing the disease to really prevent those very serious complications."

Eh, what's 12,000 kids when you can wage a Crusade built on faulty science, half-truths, paranoia, and moral indignation?

[Meatwasp]

Oh Boy, Save us from the zealots who try to spread their banner over all of us. RR loves to quote.

[luctor-et-emergo]

NOT taking vaccines is a form of aggression against me and my children. I see no problem in making vaccines mandatory, just like it's mandatory that you don't throw out toilet water in the street.

So you favor collectivized safety instead of individual freedom ?

[Anti Federalist]

So you favor collectivized safety instead of individual freedom ?

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.

Down that road lies the justification for everything government is doing right now, that we are all, I think, opposed to.

[donnay]

Clearly Ron Paul does not understand herd immunity. That's pretty sad that a doctor of his age, having gone through the polio epidemic would not understand that. He does say that the polio and smallpox vaccines has been "fantastic", but that's not enough. You need herd immunity because vaccines are not 100% effective and a small percentage of the population are allergic to vaccines. The rest have to take them.

NOT taking vaccines is a form of aggression against me and my children. I see no problem in making vaccines mandatory, just like it's mandatory that you don't throw out toilet water in the street.

If you have been vaccinated what are you worried about? Wasn't that the whole reason for taking the vaccines in the first place? Isn't it your body armor?

Quote of the day: "OK, you bring your needle and I'll bring my 45 and we'll see who makes the bigger hole" ~Michael Badnarik (Libertarian candidate for President in 2004)

[RonRules]

If you have been vaccinated what are you worried about? Wasn't that the whole reason for taking the vaccines in the first place? Isn't it your body armor?

Again you still don't understand that vaccines are not 100% effective. If less than around 80% of the people are vaccinated, some of the vaccinated people can still get infected.

A very high percentage of vaccination is necessary to reduce the virus progression. It's not complicated.

What you advocate instead is reckless. Kids are dying every day because of this anti-vax nonsense.

[donnay]

Again you still don't understand that vaccines are not 100% effective. If less than around 80% of the people are vaccinated, some of the vaccinated people can still get infected.

A very high percentage of vaccination is necessary to reduce the virus progression. It's not complicated.

What you advocate instead is reckless. Kids are dying every day because of this anti-vax nonsense.

And you still don't understand; all the toxins that are in vaccines. And you still don't understand; they were caught red-handed putting cancer in their vaccines. And you still don't understand; that most diseases in this country started to go down before vaccines were even introduced. And what you still don't understand; that the studies are biased and most of the time, if you research it, you'll fine that Big Pharma has paid for these studies--which certainly isn't very independent, but a conflict of interest! And what you still don't understand is; that you and no one else HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE TOXINS ON ME AND MY FAMILY!!

If God wanted me to have a vaccine he would have NEVER given me an immune system!!

[RonRules]

And you still don't understand; all the toxins that are in vaccines.

NO there is NOT.

Whatever trace you can find in any vaccine is completely harmless. You have toxins in every food you eat, every liquid you drink.

People like you are extremely dangerous to society.

Vaccines save millions of lives. Anti-Vaxers need to be put in their place.

[puppetmaster]

NO there is NOT.

Whatever trace you can find in any vaccine is completely harmless. You have toxins in every food you eat, every liquid you drink.

People like you are extremely dangerous to society.

Vaccines save millions of lives. Anti-Vaxers need to be put in their place.

I think you should remove yourself from our society...then you will be safer.

[donnay]

NO there is NOT.

Whatever trace you can find in any vaccine is completely harmless. You have toxins in every food you eat, every liquid you drink.

People like you are extremely dangerous to society.

Vaccines save millions of lives. Anti-Vaxers need to be put in their place.

You are dangerous to Liberty and EVERYTHING is stands for! As I asked another pro-vaxer about the fact there is formaldehyde (which I got no answer from) in vaccines. Formaldehyde is poisonous at any amount especially when it is going right into your blood stream. Usually it is pumped into dead corpses to preserve them. So you are saying giving a new born baby (weighing-in at 5 to 10 lbs) whose little brain is not nearly developed small trace amounts of toxins and heavy metals that deposit in their brain? From newborn to age 6 a child is inundated with 36 vaccines!!

If you think that is okay, you are reckless in your thinking!

INFORMED CHOICE - Vaccine Ingredients
http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

[Anti Federalist]

People like you are extremely dangerous to society.

Vaccines save millions of lives. Anti-Vaxers need to be put in their place.

Put in their place like this, right?

[Zippyjuan]

And you still don't understand; all the toxins that are in vaccines. And you still don't understand; they were caught red-handed putting cancer in their vaccines. And you still don't understand; that most diseases in this country started to go down before vaccines were even introduced. And what you still don't understand; that the studies are biased and most of the time, if you research it, you'll fine that Big Pharma has paid for these studies--which certainly isn't very independent, but a conflict of interest! And what you still don't understand is; that you and no one else HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE TOXINS ON ME AND MY FAMILY!!

If God wanted me to have a vaccine he would have NEVER given me an immune system!!

We have discussed the "cancer put in vaccines" thing before. When the polio vaccine was being developed, a lot was unknown about vaccines. In this case, cultures for the vaccine were grown from cells which included a type of cancer- but that was not known as there was no way to know it. Your line

caught red-handed putting cancer in their vaccines.

is very misleading- it was not added nor there deliberately. Once it was identified that it was in the vaccine, it was removed and tests for vaccines improved to be sure it did not happen again (this was 60 years ago and has not occured since and there has been no observed increases in cancer directly related to the incident).

Yes, there are things in vaccines (again, I have gone through many of them) which in large amounts can be hazardous but the amounts in a vaccine are so incredibly small they are not of any significance (in some cases, your own body is producing them already in higher amounts- including formaldehyde you mention above- and in others even eating food or drinking water exposes you to significanty higher doses than all of the vaccines you ever get would contain).

http://certifiablygreenblog.com/?p=679

As a matter of fact, your own body is producing formaldehyde right now. So are most other living organisms, including plants and animals. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring byproduct of normal metabolic processes. It’s also found naturally in the air all around us.

[Anti Federalist]

We have discussed the "cancer put in vaccines" thing before.

RR seems to think that people who do not wish to take a certain medication are a cancer on society, a dangerous and deviant abnormality that should be, well, I'm not really sure what he suggests should be done, outside of forcibly medicating them.

Are you in favor of sending men with guns to people's homes, strapping them down at gunpoint, and injecting unwanted medications into them?

[RonRules]

Formaldehyde is poisonous at any amount especially when it is going right into your blood stream.

Formaldehyde is produced in your own body. How come you're not dying from it right now?

[donnay]

We have discussed the "cancer put in vaccines" thing before. When the polio vaccine was being developed, a lot was unknown about vaccines. In this case, cultures for the vaccine were grown from cells which included a type of cancer- but that was not known as there was no way to know it. Your line

is very misleading- it was not added nor there deliberately. Once it was identified that it was in the vaccine, it was removed and tests for vaccines improved to be sure it did not happen again (this was 60 years ago and has not occured since and there has been no observed increases in cancer directly related to the incident).

Yes, there are things in vaccines (again, I have gone through many of them) which in large amounts can be hazardous but the amounts in a vaccine are so incredibly small they are not of any significance (in some cases, your own body is producing them already in higher amounts- including formaldehyde you mention above- and in others even eating food or drinking water exposes you to significanty higher doses than all of the vaccines you ever get would contain).

Zippy and I also pointed it out how they were caught. They CONTINUED to use it, regardless of their findings!




You aha! moment is nothing. Because again I submit to you that giving a newborn to six years of age 36 vaccines, whose brain is still not fully developed trace amounts of toxins and heavy metals bars criminal intent.

[RonRules]

RR seems to think that people who do not wish to take a certain medication are a cancer on society, a dangerous and deviant abnormality that should be, well, I'm not really sure what he suggests should be done, outside of forcibly medicating them.

Are you in favor of sending men with guns to people's homes, strapping them down at gunpoint, and injecting unwanted medications into them?

If you don't want to take chemo when you get cancer, that's your problem. It does not affect me and others, except your own family.

If you don't want to immunize your children and mine get sick or die, then THAT's a problem.

Again, you're the aggressor when you don't immunize.

Just like if you refuse to use the sanitation facilities. In this case you would also be the aggressor spreading bacteria.

It's not complicated if you use the non-aggression principle.

[donnay]

Formaldehyde is produced in your own body. How come you're not dying from it right now?

Formaldehyde-- naturally occurring in the human body and helps with your metabolism. Again they inundate an infant up to six years old with 35 vaccines.

Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk
Key Points

Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building materials and to produce many household products.
Formaldehyde sources in the home include pressed-wood products, cigarette smoke, and fuel-burning appliances.
When exposed to formaldehyde, some individuals may experience various short-term effects.
Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde have suggested an association between formaldehyde exposure and several cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia.

What is formaldehyde?

Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building materials and to produce many household products. It is used in pressed-wood products, such as particleboard, plywood, and fiberboard; glues and adhesives; permanent-press fabrics; paper product coatings; and certain insulation materials. In addition, formaldehyde is commonly used as an industrial fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant, and as a preservative in mortuaries and medical laboratories. Formaldehyde also occurs naturally in the environment. It is produced in small amounts by most living organisms as part of normal metabolic processes.

How is the general population exposed to formaldehyde?

According to a 1997 report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, formaldehyde is normally present in both indoor and outdoor air at low levels, usually less than 0.03 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm). Materials containing formaldehyde can release formaldehyde gas or vapor into the air. One source of formaldehyde exposure in the air is automobile tailpipe emissions.

During the 1970s, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) was used in many homes. However, few homes are now insulated with UFFI. Homes in which UFFI was installed many years ago are not likely to have high formaldehyde levels now. Pressed-wood products containing formaldehyde resins are often a significant source of formaldehyde in homes. Other potential indoor sources of formaldehyde include cigarette smoke and the use of unvented fuel-burning appliances, such as gas stoves, wood-burning stoves, and kerosene heaters.

Industrial workers who produce formaldehyde or formaldehyde-containing products, laboratory technicians, certain health care professionals, and mortuary employees may be exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde than the general public. Exposure occurs primarily by inhaling formaldehyde gas or vapor from the air or by absorbing liquids containing formaldehyde through the skin.

What are the short-term health effects of formaldehyde exposure?

When formaldehyde is present in the air at levels exceeding 0.1 ppm, some individuals may experience adverse effects such as watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde, whereas others have no reaction to the same level of exposure.

Can formaldehyde cause cancer?

Although the short-term health effects of formaldehyde exposure are well known, less is known about its potential long-term health effects. In 1980, laboratory studies showed that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal cancer in rats. This finding raised the question of whether formaldehyde exposure could also cause cancer in humans. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure (1). Since that time, some studies of humans have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with certain types of cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen (2). In 2011, the National Toxicology Program, an interagency program of the Department of Health and Human Services, named formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its 12th Report on Carcinogens (3).

What have scientists learned about the relationship between formaldehyde and cancer?

Since the 1980s, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has conducted studies to determine whether there is an association between occupational exposure to formaldehyde and an increase in the risk of cancer. The results of this research have provided EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with information to evaluate the potential health effects of workplace exposure to formaldehyde.

The long-term effects of formaldehyde exposure have been evaluated in epidemiologic studies (studies that attempt to uncover the patterns and causes of disease in groups of people). One type of epidemiologic study is called a cohort study. A cohort is a group of people who may vary in their exposure to a particular factor, such as formaldehyde, and are followed over time to see whether they develop a disease. Another kind of epidemiologic study is called a case-control study. Case-control studies begin with people who are diagnosed as having a disease (cases) and compare them to people without the disease (controls), trying to identify differences in factors, such as exposure to formaldehyde, that might explain why the cases developed the disease but the controls did not.

Several NCI surveys of professionals who are potentially exposed to formaldehyde in their work, such as anatomists and embalmers, have suggested that these individuals are at an increased risk of leukemia and brain cancer compared with the general population. However, specific work practices and exposures were not characterized in these studies. An NCI case-control study among funeral industry workers that characterized exposure to formaldehyde also found an association between increasing formaldehyde exposure and mortality from myeloid leukemia (4). For this study, carried out among funeral industry workers who had died between 1960 and 1986, researchers compared those who had died from hematopoietic and lymphatic cancers and brain tumors with those who died from other causes. (Hematopoietic or hematologic cancers such as leukemia develop in the blood or bone marrow. Lymphatic cancers develop in the tissues and organs that produce, store, and carry white blood cells that fight infections and other diseases.) This analysis showed that those who had performed the most embalming and those with the highest estimated formaldehyde exposure had the greatest risk of myeloid leukemia. There was no association with other cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems or with brain cancer.

A number of cohort studies involving workers exposed to formaldehyde have recently been completed. One study, conducted by NCI, looked at 25,619 workers in industries with the potential for occupational formaldehyde exposure and estimated each worker’s exposure to the chemical while at work (5). The results showed an increased risk of death due to leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, among workers exposed to formaldehyde. This risk was associated with increasing peak and average levels of exposure, as well as with the duration of exposure, but it was not associated with cumulative exposure. An additional 10 years of data on the same workers were used in a follow-up study published in 2009 (6). This analysis continued to show a possible link between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems, particularly myeloid leukemia. As in the initial study, the risk was highest earlier in the follow-up period. Risks declined steadily over time, such that the cumulative excess risk of myeloid leukemia was no longer statistically significant at the end of the follow-up period. The researchers noted that similar patterns of risks over time had been seen for other agents known to cause leukemia.

A cohort study of 11,039 textile workers performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) also found an association between the duration of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths (7). However, the evidence remains mixed because a cohort study of 14,014 British industry workers found no association between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia deaths (8).

Formaldehyde undergoes rapid chemical changes immediately after absorption. Therefore, some scientists think that formaldehyde is unlikely to have effects at sites other than the upper respiratory tract. However, some laboratory studies suggest that formaldehyde may affect the lymphatic and hematopoietic systems. Based on both the epidemiologic data from cohort and case-control studies and the experimental data from laboratory research, NCI investigators have concluded that exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans.

In addition, several case-control studies, as well as analysis of the large NCI industrial cohort (6), have found an association between formaldehyde exposure and nasopharyngeal cancer, although some other studies have not. Data from extended follow-up of the NCI cohort found that the excess of nasopharyngeal cancer observed in the earlier report persisted (9).

Earlier analysis of the NCI cohort found increased lung cancer deaths among industrial workers compared with the general U.S. population. However, the rate of lung cancer deaths did not increase with higher levels of formaldehyde exposure. This observation led the researchers to conclude that factors other than formaldehyde exposure might have caused the increased deaths. The most recent data on lung cancer from the cohort study did not find any relationship between formaldehyde exposure and lung cancer mortality.

What has been done to protect workers from formaldehyde?

In 1987, OSHA established a Federal standard that reduced the amount of formaldehyde to which workers can be exposed over an 8-hour workday from 3 ppm to 1 ppm. In May 1992, the standard was amended, and the formaldehyde exposure limit was further reduced to 0.75 ppm.

How can people limit formaldehyde exposure in their homes?

The EPA recommends the use of “exterior-grade” pressed-wood products to limit formaldehyde exposure in the home. These products emit less formaldehyde because they contain phenol resins, not urea resins. (Pressed-wood products include plywood, paneling, particleboard, and fiberboard and are not the same as pressure-treated wood products, which contain chemical preservatives and are intended for outdoor use.) Before purchasing pressed-wood products, including building materials, cabinetry, and furniture, buyers should ask about the formaldehyde content of these products. Formaldehyde levels in homes can also be reduced by ensuring adequate ventilation, moderate temperatures, and reduced humidity levels through the use of air conditioners and dehumidifiers.

Where can people find more information about formaldehyde?

The following organizations can provide additional resources that readers may find helpful:

The EPA offers information about the use of formaldehyde in building materials and household products. The EPA can be contacted at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Indoor Environments Division
Mail Code 6609J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20460
202–554–1404 (EPA Toxic Substance Control Act (TCSA) Assistance Line)
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has information about household products that contain formaldehyde. CPSC can be contacted at:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
1–800–638–2772 (1–800–638–CPSC)
301–595–7054 (TTY)
http://www.cpsc.gov

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains information about cosmetics and drugs that contain formaldehyde. FDA can be contacted at:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002
1–888–463–6332 (1–888–INFO–FDA)
http://www.fda.gov

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has information about formaldehyde exposure levels in mobile homes and trailers supplied by FEMA after Hurricane Katrina. FEMA can be contacted at:

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Post Office Box 10055
Hyattsville, MD 20782–7055
1–800–621–3362 (1–800–621–FEMA)
http://www.fema.gov

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has information about occupational exposure limits for formaldehyde. OSHA can be contacted at:

U.S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20210
1–800–321–6742 (1–800–321–OSHA)
http://www.osha.gov

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program of the Department of Health and Human Services that was created to coordinate toxicology testing programs within the federal government; to develop and validate improved testing methods; and to provide information about potentially toxic chemicals to health, regulatory, and research agencies, scientific and medical communities, and the public. NTP is headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is part of NIH. NTP can be contacted at:

National Toxicology Program
111 TW Alexander Drive
Building 101
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919–541–0530
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov

Selected References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Report to Congress on Indoor Air Quality, Volume II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air Pollution, 1989.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (June 2004). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogr...ol88/index.php Exit Disclaimer.

National Toxicology Program (June 2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. Retrieved June 10, 2011, from: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12.

Hauptmann M, Stewart PA, Lubin JH, et al. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(24):1696–1708.
[PubMed Abstract]

Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003; 95(21):1615–1623.
[PubMed Abstract]

Beane Freeman L, Blair A, Lubin JH, et al. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: The National Cancer Institute Cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(10):751–761.
[PubMed Abstract]

Pinkerton LE, Hein MJ, Stayner LT. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: An update. Occupational Environmental Medicine 2004; 61:193–200.
[PubMed Abstract]

Coggon D, Harris EC, Poole J, Palmer KT. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003; 95(21):1608–1615.
[PubMed Abstract]

Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(12):1117–1130.
[PubMed Abstract]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...k/formaldehyde