I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but I'm not sure I can agree about 'misinformation'.. Being US based studies, does that negate any plausibility? Does it have to make the papers in the UK to become a real concern?Maviarab wrote:The asbestos claims were purely North America based. Never even made the news here in the UK/Euro. Also, this was also primarily linked to cancer within females, not males. A sper usual, the amount of media misinformation around (and on here also) is astounding.-Ragnar66- wrote:Tried initially with standard talcum but figured my skin (more so the "sensible" parts) reacted with some allergies.So got instantly rid of it, washed my toys intensively and used corn starch since then. Yet just on certain body parts, not all powdered up. I´m fairly fine with my dolls skin even if slightly sticky (I do baby oil and vaseline maintenance on a frequent basis). Just if I read talcum is compared with asbestos, I get more like just uneasy feeling....
You will be fine with talc/baby powder...unless your throwing half a bottle around your room with no ventilation (bit then neither would cornstarch be healthy either lol)
I assert that talc is not fit to consume. For best results, humans should neither breath it nor swallow it.
Anyhow, it's not just women and their ovaries, the concern for me is the lungs, not restrictive to gender. I've read dozens of articles about this subject and they all pretty much say the same thing, which is that while in recent years, studies show talc is largely free of asbestos, it remains a potential risk during mining and processing the talc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Safety
Talc powder is a household item, sold globally for use in personal hygiene and cosmetics. Suspicions have been raised that its use contributes to certain types of disease, mainly cancers of the ovaries and lungs. It is classified as a group 3 agent in the IARC listing.[13] Reviews by Cancer Research UK and the American Cancer Society conclude that some studies have found a link, but other studies have not.[14][15]
The studies discuss pulmonary issues,[16] lung cancer,[17][18] and ovarian cancer.[19] One of these, published in 1993, was a US National Toxicology Program report, which found that cosmetic grade talc containing no asbestos-like fibres was correlated with tumor formation in rats forced to inhale talc for 6 hours a day, five days a week over at least 113 weeks.[17] A 1971 paper found particles of talc embedded in 75% of the ovarian tumors studied.[20] Research published in 1995 and 2000 concluded that it was plausible that talc could cause ovarian cancer, but no conclusive evidence was shown.[21][22]
Industrial grade
In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have set occupational exposure limits to respirable talc dusts at 2 mg/m3 over an eight-hour workday. At levels of 1000 mg/m3, inhalation of talc is considered immediately dangerous to life and health.[23]
Food grade
The United States Food and Drug Administration considers talc (magnesium silicate) generally recognized as safe (GRAS) to use as an anticaking agent in table salt in concentrations smaller than 2%.[24]
Association with asbestos
One particular issue with commercial use of talc is its frequent co-location in underground deposits with asbestos ore. Asbestos is a general term for different types of fibrous silicate minerals, desirable in construction for their heat resistant properties.[25] There are six varieties of asbestos; the most common variety in manufacturing, white asbestos, is in the serpentine family.[26] Serpentine minerals are sheet silicates; although not in the serpentine family, talc is also a sheet silicate, with two sheets connected by magnesium cations. The frequent co-location of talc deposits with asbestos may result in contamination of mined talc with white asbestos, which poses serious health risks when dispersed into the air and inhaled. Stringent quality control since 1976, including separating cosmetic- and food-grade talc from "industrial"-grade talc, has largely eliminated this issue, but it remains a potential hazard requiring mitigation in the mining and processing of talc.[27] A 2010 US FDA survey failed to find asbestos in a variety of talc-containing products.[28] A 2018 Reuters investigation has asserted that pharmaceuticals company Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that there was asbestos in its baby powder.[29]
