All fiberous materials, including natural wool or polyfill are a risk, and rockwool is seen as one of the most safe forms of fiber, that's why it's approved by EU protocols, wich are the strictest of the world. And K&T are no scientific institution, it's a hobbuclub of speaker buildes with a commercial agenda because they sell products to build speakers. I rather believe in science than in rumours launched by a commercial gain.
Occupational exposure to rock wool and glass wool and risk of cancers of the lung and the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed
Carcinogenicity of the insulation wools: Reassessment of the IARC evaluation - ScienceDirect
Occupational exposure to rock wool and glass wool and risk of cancers of the lung and the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed
Carcinogenicity of the insulation wools: Reassessment of the IARC evaluation - ScienceDirect
Sorry to hear that Greg. I for one greatly appreciate both your friendship, and everything you have either taught me (and sometimes have to remind me about
) or gently prodded me toward investigating and figuring out for myself. Last I checked, providing accurate / technical information is certainly not 'pressuring' anybody, neither is expressing an opinion based either on that, personal preference, or any combination thereof.
That is from 2002!
Look what is happening now:
Workers and homeowners deserve protection from mineral wool health risks - EU Today
EU urged to act on the possible health risks of mineral wool
Last edited:
...and the peer-reviewed monographs in accredited journals supporting it are?
Perhaps things have changed, and I will be very interested to see the scientific data, and will as necessary adapt my views accordingly. But I will not do so without seeing properly conducted tests with data published in peer-reviewed journals.
Perhaps things have changed, and I will be very interested to see the scientific data, and will as necessary adapt my views accordingly. But I will not do so without seeing properly conducted tests with data published in peer-reviewed journals.
"At first glance it is baffling as to how asbestos was essentially replaced by another material that was just as deadly, and in many ways so similar to asbestos. It becomes less baffling once the testing process is examined. Mineral wool was originally classified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Agency on the Research on Cancer (IARC) as carcinogenic and hazardous to humans. The mineral wool industry then altered the composition of their product, which then underwent further tests. In 2002 mineral wool was declassified as a carcinogen. However, it has now emerged that the product as tested was different from that which is commercially available, in that an important ‘binder’ had been removed. There are calls for the European Chemicals Agency (ECA), based in Helsinki, to carry out retesting on the product as sold.
It is clear that prospective MEPs and other policymakers should be focusing on this issue and making clear that they plan to start protecting European construction workers and homeowners.
There are three very obvious steps that must be taken. The first action is the re-testing of the product. There is evidence of the carcinogenic hazards of mineral wool, as attested by the WHO and IARC classification in 1988. The subsequent declassification in 2002 was based on tests carried out on products that did not accurately represent mineral wool as they are used commercially and by consumers. There is therefore a clear and urgent need for retesting these products as they are used in practice."
From EUtoday.
It is clear that prospective MEPs and other policymakers should be focusing on this issue and making clear that they plan to start protecting European construction workers and homeowners.
There are three very obvious steps that must be taken. The first action is the re-testing of the product. There is evidence of the carcinogenic hazards of mineral wool, as attested by the WHO and IARC classification in 1988. The subsequent declassification in 2002 was based on tests carried out on products that did not accurately represent mineral wool as they are used commercially and by consumers. There is therefore a clear and urgent need for retesting these products as they are used in practice."
From EUtoday.
Last edited:
That article just state that one member of the parliment says that it need to be investigated. So no proof, not even a real pointer that it could be a real danger or concrete scientific info for this.
And that magazine is not an EU parlement initiative, it's a British commercial business that reports on the activities of the parlement, from a very critical anti-eu point of view and at the same time is used as a lobbying service for big companies to influence the EU...
waxx: "So no proof, not even a real pointer that it could be a real danger or concrete scientific info for this."
Read it please before you come up again with further utterly nonsense: "There is evidence of the carcinogenic hazards of mineral wool, as attested by the WHO and IARC classification in 1988."
Read it please before you come up again with further utterly nonsense: "There is evidence of the carcinogenic hazards of mineral wool, as attested by the WHO and IARC classification in 1988."
Last edited:
Your sources are two sensationalist articles in the popular press, with partial (selective) quotations, and devoid of referencing.
EU Today and The Parliament Magazine are not acredited, peer reviewed scientific journals with rigourous standards imposed to ensure data accuracy. Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific articles which have the data supporting the contentions / allegations. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm asking you to provide them so I can read them and draw conclusions from a proper evidential basis.
EU Today and The Parliament Magazine are not acredited, peer reviewed scientific journals with rigourous standards imposed to ensure data accuracy. Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific articles which have the data supporting the contentions / allegations. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm asking you to provide them so I can read them and draw conclusions from a proper evidential basis.
Last edited:
You are like a stubborn child and I'm not responsible for your education. You claimed that there is no evidence that mineral wool is hazardous! That's plain absurd!
IARC Publications Website - Man-Made Mineral Fibres and Radon
But maybe you and waxx are the real experts on mineral wool and the WHO and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) are complete idiots...
IARC Publications Website - Man-Made Mineral Fibres and Radon
But maybe you and waxx are the real experts on mineral wool and the WHO and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) are complete idiots...
Last edited:
You are like a stubborn child and I'm not responsible for your education. You claimed that there is no evidence that mineral wool is hazardous! That's plain absurd!
IARC Publications Website - Man-Made Mineral Fibres and Radon
But maybe you and waxx are the real experts on mineral wool and the WHO and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) are complete idiots...
Yours is the 1987 version that was recalled as not true in this WHO publication of 2002:
IARC Publications Website - Man-made Vitreous Fibres
You are like a stubborn child and I'm not responsible for your education. You claimed that there is no evidence that mineral wool is hazardous! That's plain absurd!
IARC Publications Website - Man-Made Mineral Fibres and Radon
But maybe you and waxx are the real experts on mineral wool and the WHO and IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) are complete idiots...
If you could stop blaspheming that would be super.
Now, the monograph linked to was superceeded in light of subsequent research. Which is a simple matter of historiographical fact, not opinion, whether you like it or not. The onus on proving statements rests on those who make them. I have indicated several times that I am perfectly willing to read the peer-reviewed scientific data and revise my views if that data points to it, yet, mysteriously, you refuse to do so. What I am not willing to do is accept at face value sensationalist articles in the popular press devoid of any kind of referencing, peer review, fact checking, or editorial neutrality.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.