On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:48:57 +0100, Paul Carpenter
<paul@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <486a101e.590892@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>> Incandescent bulbs may be hazardous as well: Animal studies of
>> tungsten shrapnel show that it is a very powerful carcinogen. I don't
>> know how tungsten dust (which I assume must be inside the envelope
>> after the filament burns out) would behave in the lungs, but I suspect
>> the answer would be "not good".
>
>Considering the original quantity of tungsten, and distribution of
>'shrapnel', you have a low probability of ingest (stomach/lungs) enough
>tungsten to be more than a minor irritant. From recollection it is
>difficult to absorb tungsten through skin contact.
As I recall, the animal studies used tiny particles of tungsten. The
tumors were formed directly at the point of skin contact... no
absorption needed. (I believe they "implanted" the particles through
tiny incisions to hold them just under the skin surface.) But the
alarming thing was that the particles were pretty much 100% effective
at causing tumors... not like "increases the risk of", as we see for
things like smoking or radon.
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!
|
