http://s266.photobucket.com/albums/ii279/Kamoniac/?action=view&current=0728101103-00.jpg
^That’s my ceiling in my room (and around our house). It’s been like that since I can remember. I’m 14 years old and I’m not sure how old this house is but definitely older than me and my brother (he’s 16). I never really paid attention to those commercials about mesothelioma.. Now I’m freaked out.. Is that asbestos? I’ve lived hear most my life with my dad and brother..

Although exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a slow-developing
cancer, researchers believe that infection by the SV40 virus is a contributing cause, since
in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from
healthy tissue, contain SV40

please see the above para.
whats the meaning of "since
in the United States 60 percent of tissue samples from mesotheliomas, but none from
healthy tissue, contain SV40" ?

i am confusing as the para has too many commas.
does it want to say 60 percent of tissue samples contain SV40

Asbestos?

I always notice on the oil bottles when I change my oil about how contact of oil with the skin has been tied to some kinds of cancer, or something like that. Isn’t all the grease, brake dust (asbestos), gasoline, antifreeze, freon, and oil, hazardous? Well, I know it is. I guess it’s okay if you work on your own car from time to time and you’re careful, but what about the mechanics that work on cars ALL DAY, EVERYDAY, THEIR ENTIRE LIVES – BLACK FINGERS THEIR WHOLE LIFE. This is constant exposure. Even though they’re careful and don’t DRINK the antifreeze, they are exposed to it at some small level – for a prolonged period of time. Your skin can absorb this stuff.

I’m tired of all of the chemicals and even hidden carcinogens in makeup. Most of what we put on our face is absorbed by the body.

Parabens, talc, Bismuth Oxychloride, Synthetic Dyes and FD&C Colors, even titanium dioxide! These are all things that have been linked to cancer. Most mineral makeup has talc in it. Titanium dioxide even acts like asbestos!

Is there any really healthy makeup that’s okay to use and looks great??? Thanks!!!
BTW, Bare minerals is not an option. Their makeup contains Titanium Dioxide and Bismuth Oxychloride both are known carcinogens or more aptly said, cancer causing agents.
Physicians’s formula organic brand has Titanium Dioxide and is also linked to cancer according to

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/

There are different strains of HIV and they behave differently. There is 2 types, HIV 1, and HIV 2. Under these 2 types, theres subtypes. For instance, in USA, the most common HIV is called HIV-1 Subtype-B. In Thailand the most common type is HIV-1 Subtype-E. Now tests didnt always detect the different subtypes, and some tests dont detect HIV 2 still. The subtypes behave differently too and infect people differently. HIV causes AIDS, and thats when your immune system breaks down and other diseases come on. Do you think its possible that everybody, or at least all the people who die from cancer and other diseases may have some form of HIV that is not being detected. A strain that has never been identified? I mean what if that is the reason why some people get cancers and others dont. Not because its hereditary, or because of the sun, or asbestos. But because the immune system in those people is lower because they have some form of HIV or AIDS that isnt showing up on tests.

Why couldnt this be a possibility?
Bumblebee, only 60% of people with HIV 1 get the flu like illness. HIV 2 doesnt get it. Different people behave differently, and so do different types of HIV. What if the undetected type behaves differently. If its undetected on tests, then the flu like illness would just be considered the common flu if the person got it. You said if someones immune system gets low, they would test positive. But I already said that there are many tests that dont test for HIV 2, they cant detect it. The common test in USA doesnt detect HIV 2. So what if theres an HIV 3 or one we dont know about that cant be detected by any tests? It took them 15 years to develop a test for all HIV 1 subtypes.
"Have you and every single person you know been tested and are infected? That should answer your own question."
It doesnt answer anything if the tests cant detect it. The point of this question is, DO YOU THINK THERES AN HIV SUBTYPE THAT TESTS CAN NOT DETECT
Padme, is it really so far fetched? It takes 3 to 6 months for subtype-b to show up on a test. It can take even longer for subtype-e. So the 2 strains behave differently. If subtype-e takes a little longer to show up on a test, who’s to say there isnt another subtype that takes even longer than that to show up? such as 60 years to show up, or not show up at all
KellyRM, thats incorrect. I have met people who were born with HIV in Thailand when I worked with them. Theres many people who are born with HIV.
Google the phrase: Born with HIV and see what you find.

You dont see it too often in USA because subtype-b affects mostly gays, who dont end up having children. It much more common in Africa and Thailand since more heterosexuals have HIV over there.
Dead Last, you know what you are talking about. But not all tests check for both Hiv 1 and 2. It says on the avert.org site
"However, because HIV-2 and group O infections are extremely rare in most countries, routine screening programs might not be designed to test for them. Anyone who believes they may have contracted HIV-2, HIV-1 group O or one of the rarer subtypes of group M should seek expert advice."

But yes, you are right about another subtype now being found in Cameroon. That is what made me start thinking about subtypes that we dont know about, and ones which may not show up on standard tests. The new subtype is different and they said it adapted to human cells somehow.
I think your average person who gets cancer, or one of the diseases that presents with AIDS, would not get an in depth test for HIV. If the subtype behaves differently than the HIV we usually see, then theres no signs that would cause a doctor to think its HIV so they wouldnt even look into it as a possibility, and they wouldnt order futher testing for rarer strains.
Dead Last, Subtype E behaves differently than Subtype B, so they are not exactly like their type.

to promote equality by discussing issues that affect all of us?

If you’re not here for equality, then simply don’t respond.

I’ve grown very concerned that autism will prove to be like mesothelioma, i.e., that we will ultimately discover that autism is directly caused by some common substance (like a flame retardent or insecticide), just like mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos. Get rid of asbestos and mesothelioma goes away. Get rid of XYZ substance and autism goes away.

I’m concerned that we as human beings are leaving a natural wilderness (as we cultivate civilization) only to create a new one.

I have been looking into finding safe sands for play and have found that most play sand for the sandbox can certainly come with better quality. Silica is quartz, but the most important concern is free silica dust or crystalline silica and asbestos. Play sand with dust most likely have one or both of these, and they are a hazard to a child’s developing lungs. These sharp glass-like particles become trapped in the lung tissue causing scar tissue, slow progressing lung disease and cancer. Now workers who work on a regular basis with these elements are more likely to develop this problem, but that doesn’t mean that it is okay for our children to play with such dangerous sand particles. I have found some sands which may be safe including Sandtastik and Safe Sand. These however may have asbestos even though they are silica free, and are expensive. The MSDS for these state that the ingredient for the sand is used to make fiberglass and other such products, and that the main ingredient is feldspharic inorganic minerals. Many white sands contain asbestos and/or crystalline silica dust unless stated otherwise…very rare for them to state free of both dangers.

Well, the best I have found so far is Crayola colored play sand. I called the company n2m group who makes the sand, and have found that the quartz particles are rounded by tumbling for 45 minutes, is 100% asbestos free and free of crystalline silica dust particles, the dye is acrylic based and safe, the product does not stain though it may appear so as the tiny particles wedge into areas, is washed and goes through a dust collecting process, does not require that warning label for lung disease, and is certified with high standards and well tested. Completely non-toxic AND irritant free. There was one case where two children broke out in a rash…they ended up being allergic to sand in general. It had nothing to do with the colors or quality, and was an isolated case. For anyone looking for this good quality sand, it is only currently sold at Wal-mart and soon Toys R Us. So far this is the only sand I will use.

Most other sands I have found are Quikrete, Play Sand from Fairmount Minerals, and Beach Sand brand from Busy Beaver. I have been unsatisfied with their quality. Most are not tumbled to round the edges, or are only tumbled for 12 hrs….not near the 45 minutes used to prepare Crayola sand, which makes Crayola sand much more reassuring.

My question is, does anyone else have knowledge of equal quality sands, and what is your experience with Crayola sand?
My sandbox has a lid and I have not had any problems with cats, etc. Anyway, my question is specific and not about potential pest/sanitary problems. I have done my research. I appreciate answers specific to my question. Thank you
The Toys R Us sand is likely the Play Sand brand from Fairmount minerals. I found that it did contain a hazard based on the msds sheet. Also Crayola is the only sand so far that has significantly rounded edges. A good thing. Some people might not like the colors getting into the yard though…it is more noticeable. I’m more concerned about safety though

Okay, okay. I read in all these female magazine that the bc pills prevents cancer. Then, I found on some website that has a "list" of known carcinogens, (household cleaner chemicals, asbestos, chewing tobacco, food preservatives, etc. etc. )
That all birth control pills are carcinogenic, even the tri-phasic ones!!!
I need a little help here..

For example, this moronic study http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer/19348936?icid=main|main|dl1|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fstudy-in-singapore-links-sugary-soft-drinks-and-pancreatic-cancer%2F19348936

Claims sugar causes cancer – if the sugar is in the form of soda pop. So you find out where the study came from and it’s from the government of Singapore – the country that whips you with 7 foot long Ratton canes soaked in water on the bare assss if you spit on the sidewalk.
You obviously can’t trust THAT study.

Similarly, the global warming scam – government-sponsored "scientists’ using back-filled data and 100 iterations to reach the pre-determined "conclusion".

The cell phone cancer scare, funded by trial lawyers, salivating over the next "asbestos" type lawsuit lottery.

It never stops. Should we conclude that all "scientific" studies that are widely published on lowest common denominator sites like AOL and Yahoo news are fraudulent?