[PW] Science Direct article?
bethania at snopes.com
Sat Aug 13 10:00:49 PDT 2016
Thanks everyone! I was able to get the article in question sent to me and I
also appreciate all your tips for future reference and ideas on this topic!
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Mike Hindin <mike.hindin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I dont have access at the moment. My first response before seeing the
> link was probably not any risk. The abstract of the the study pretty much
> nailed it for me. First, any toxic effect depends on the toxicity of the
> ingredients including the scent, route of exposure and
> the dose which consists of the concentration of the potential toxin, time
> of exposure and in the case of many carcinogens, long term or repeated
> exposures. Another complication is predicting what chemicals are created
> when you burn the scent. In the case of the study abstract, the exposure
> is very small. You are about 95% water. Water is mostly considered non
> toxic but if it gets into your lungs you are in trouble as in drowning. If
> you drink 5 gallons in a day you may die. Carbon dioxide is another
> example. Animals produce carbon dioxide.
> Michael N Hindin, MPH
> St Louis Park, MN 55426
> On Aug 12, 2016 7:44 PM, "Bethania Palma" <bethania at snopes.com> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > I am new to the list so please forgive any awkwardness. Just wondering if
> > someone has access to this study in full?
> > I'm a writer at Snopes looking into whether scented candles present a
> > cancer risk.
> > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230014000348
> > Any help is much appreciated, thank you!
> > Bethania
> > _______________________________________________
> > Project Wombat - Project-Wombat-Open
> > list at project-wombat.org
> > http://www.project-wombat.org/
> Project Wombat - Project-wombat
> list at project-wombat.org
More information about the Project-Wombat-Open