Additives and health risks.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
322
Location
California
Hi,

I translated the article from:
http://www.motortuning.ru/swong/er/index.htm
on effects of such additives like ER/Dura Lube/Motor Up because I was one of the unfortunate users of ER. I hope this info would be useful for some of you here. I can not be responsible for the correct content of this article. I tried to translate it as close as possible keeping the structure and information. Some technical terms and chemical names/reactions were translated approximately, because I’m not familiar with all of them. I’ll try to translate another article on additives with MoS2 if I have a time to do so.


________________________________________________________________________

ER:
Made from chlorinated paraffin 100%
Does not contain Fe, and is actually an oil thickener required to be added during the oil change.
Company which produces it guarantees nothing.
Chlorinated paraffin is prohibited for sale in the US [I don’t know where they got this info] and companies (ER/Dura Lube/Motor Up) producing it were fined $2000000.

Chlorinated paraffin is carcinogen. Using such product you expose yourself and your relatives to sufficient risk of developing cancer.
Because of high toxic activity not a single oil company in the world using it as an oil additive.
The cost of chlorinated paraffin is much cheaper than motor oil. By using it, you give companies to enjoy 1000% (not a typo) profit.
Chlorinated paraffin does not need any specialized synthesis and is ready to use if you buy it bulk.

Chlorinated paraffin, as well as a number of other chlorinated organic products, when exposed to the conditions which present in IC engines (high temperature, high pressure, presence of oxygen and carbon complexes) form a number of very toxic products. The most toxic are:
2,3,7,8 – tetra-chloro-dibenzo-para-dioxin (the most toxic known organic product, which is extremely stable in natural environment (i.e. does not decompose easily)) and
2,3,7,8 – tetra-chloro-dibenzo-furan, which toxic level not far below the previous product.

[From the link on dioxins]
[Another link you can get info on dioxins in English: http://www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact225.html ]

Toxic level of dioxins.

Not right away the opinion about dioxins and related to them products formed that they are the most poisonous man-created chemicals during the whole history of mankind. Careful approach of specialists on dioxins can be observed from annual conference, during which problems related to widespread presence of dioxins in the natural environment are discussed. Interesting to note that even oil consortium meetings, which everyone is aware of, which discuss the importance of petroleum in life are held only once every 4 years. Dioxins are not even produced commercially, and their practical applications are unthought-of. Attention to dioxins was only to one reason – poisonous level. Super poisonous – this is the quality which overshadows any other features of dioxins.

What do we know about toxic level of dioxins?

As we know, dioxins as well as other chlorinated organic complexes – are extremely toxic, stable pollution agents. They are often called “hormones of degradation” or “hormones of accelerated aging.” Dioxins rated as the most dangerous organic pollutants because of very high resistance to photosynthesis, chemical, or biological decomposition. As a result they are able to exist in natural environment for a very long time. Consider another fact – dioxins do not have a “level of tolerance,” meaning that even one molecule is capable of initiating abnormal cellular activity and cause a chain reaction affecting normal functioning of organism.

From pollution source dioxins and dioxin-like elements are transported into the air, then in soil, where they can stay for a very long time at the depth of 1-2 inches (2-5 cm), and being gradually consumed by vegetation. Danger is that they do not decompose, but steadily condense in all levels of food chain until reach humans. From plants – they move to milk and meat, from water – fish, and seafood. Any level of food chain can add to a whole level of dioxins for every human. Most part of it we simply consume with food – about 95%. Although levels of dioxins are minuscule and measured in nano-grams (10 to the -9 power) and pico-grams (10 to the -12 power) per kilogram, ability to condense in fats and stay there for a long time causing different diseases, makes dioxin a super toxic elements. In human body dioxins concentrate in bone narrow, liver, spleen, kidneys, and lungs. Research results of ecological studies show that dioxins affect endocrine system and reproductive functions of human body.
In minuscule concentration doses dioxin causes genetic deformations in cells of affected organisms and increase frequency of cancer diseases, i.e. possesses mutagen and carcinogen properties. In February 1997 International Agency of Cancer Studies placed dioxins in the first group of carcinogen danger, i.e. fully accepted them as directly dangerous to humans.

To get an exact picture of their toxic level we can compare dioxins to toxic (poisonous) level of cyanide and strychnine. The most toxic of dioxins containing in its molecule 4 atoms of chlorine in side positions 67000 [not a typo] times stronger than cyanide, and 500 times stronger than strychnine which is normally used to kill rats and which kills almost every form of live – from bacteria to mammals. We can add that dioxin is much more toxic compared to military poisons: exceed Zarin 26 times, VX – 5 times. We have to note that dioxins are not the most poisonous elements in nature; they are lower compared to [sorry for translation] botulitic and difteri toxin. However, these toxins are not yet synthesized in labs, they are natural poisons, but dioxins are man-made.

Average deadly dose of dioxin for the human during oral intake is about .05 -.07 milligrams per 1 kilogram of weight, this comes out at 3.5 – 5 milligrams for a human weighting 70 kg (about 154 pounds). This value was calculated using mathematical model, which could be questionable, but there is no alternative. [I suppose author talks about impossibility of testing the value on humans… Well duh…]

Whatever toxic level of dioxins and related chemical complexes might be, it seems that we must be cautious for a different reason. Deadly dioxin poisoning is highly unlikely. As previously stated they are not manufactured in industry, but obtained by special laboratory synthesis for analysis of properties in amounts of hardly exceeding few grams. Dioxins which are spread as by-pass products during chemical and combustion processes are dissolved in such a low concentration that could not pose a real danger of deadly poisoning.

When we talk about unique toxic level of dioxins, we first of all mean their chronic toxicity, i.e. ability to cause severe health problems during daily consumption in very small amounts. Minimal, but sufficient dose for chronic disease, for oral intake approximated to be .1 microgram (gram * 10 to the -6 power, i.e. one millionth of a gram) per 1 kilogram of weight. This value is 500-700 times lower than a deadly dose.

During chronic poisoning by dioxins or related to dioxins complexes certain diseases arise and practically eliminating aerobic (requiring oxygen) forms of life.

[Author talks about the way how dioxins circulate in human body in the next 2 paragraphs, what effects they have on human health and development, possible diseases, how it affects children, and etc.]

Today dioxins and dioxin-like elements recognized as super toxic, and a threat which they post for humanity – “slowly developing catastrophe.” They are very stable – no fire, no water, no alkaline elements, not even acid can destroy them. Danger of contamination with dioxins is comparable with radioactive contamination - unseen and posses a total destruction.

_______________________________________________________________________


Regards,
 
ER is "Energy release" product which they claim is suitable for use anywhere in the car: engine, transmission, power steering, differentials and etc. I saw a few other tests which indicate that adding ER to the motor oil gives an effect approximately equal to adding gear oil in the same amount as ER to the same motor oil.

ER is contains, as mentioned in the article chlorinated paraffin. Other addtives which have the same chlorinated base are: motorUP, duraLube, Mega Power, and proLong.

The more I learn about oil and addtives the more I'm persuaded that additives do not help in the best case, in most cases it seem they only harm the unit.
 
Titanium_Alloy, Thanks for translating and posting that article. It is really frightening how mankind is destroying the Earth with pollution and overpopulation.

[ December 15, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Sin City ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
The defoliation chemical, "Agent Organge" used in Vietnam, was primarily dioxin.

Molakule,
what's your take on "triclosan", the new wonder additivein toothpastes, deodorants, and powders ?

Looks like a couple of benzene rings with some chlorines hanging off the sides.
 
It appears similar to "hexachlor" a disinfectant in hospitals.

In the synthesis of Triclosan, some dioxin and other components may be present, but in very low (molecular) levels. The question will then become: How careful in the synthesis will Cieba and others be when synthesizing this antibacterial compound, to reduce the dioxin levels?

It also appears that Citricidal(TM) may be more effective and less risky.

Here are some references: (reference 3 contains the crux of more scientific information).

http://www.consciouschoice.com/health/triclosan1207.html

http://www.quantexlabs.com/triclosan.htm

http://www.herc.org/abstracts/triclosan.htm

http://sci-toys.com/ingredients/triclosan.html

Molecular Activity of triclosn:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v398/n6726/full/398383a0_r.html

Some products containing Triclosan:

http://home.intekom.com/pharm/index/index_G_triclosan.shtml

St. Jude did some research on Triclosan:

http://www.kidsource.com/health/enzyme.html

BTW, there is no such thing as a zero-risk society.

[ December 16, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
 
While technically it is true, there is no such thing as a zero risk society, the nature of the conversation changes when the one at risk is yourself. For instance, it is all fine and good for people to say that air travel is safer than driving your car, but if you are on the crashing airplane, the statistics aren't much consolation.
 
True, but remember the radon scare and when all radiation was BADDDD?

Well,you don't want to inhale air that contains radon in large volumes or for long periods of time, but they found that natural "background" radiation is good for you.

Only when houses started becoming 'tight' did radon buildup, but the radiation coming from natural sources (at low levels) have actually found to be beneficial.

The crux of the matter is twofold:

1. Concentration of substance (How much);
2. Duration of exposure (How long).
 
To compliment the topic with the recent article I found today at: http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/8009659p-8946009c.html

______________________________________________________________

Scientists begin measuring pollution in human bodies
By PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Davis Baltz shops for organic food and otherwise tries to live as healthy as he can.
So he was shocked to learn that the pollutants collecting inside his body sounded much like a Superfund cleanup site: pesticides, flame retardants and other nasty, man-made chemicals turned up in a recent test.

"What that told me is that no matter what I tried to do, the plumes of chemicals that we are passing in and out of everyday give us exposure," said Baltz, who works for Commonweal, an environmental group in Bolinas.
For decades, researchers have sampled the air, land and sea to measure pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles.

Now, in a process called biomonitoring, scientists are sampling urine, blood and mother's milk to catalogue the pollutants accumulating in humans. They call the results "body burden." Commonweal and the Washington-based Environmental Working Group funded tests for Baltz and eight others at $5,000 apiece.

Though the tests are yielding scary lists of contaminants found in the body, their links to disease are less clear. Nonetheless, proponents say such testing will help researchers learn what role the environment plays in causing disease and how to treat it.

Many chemicals such as PCB and DDT, both banned decades ago, remain in the environment for years and build up in the body over a lifetime.

It's not a new phenomenon. Rachel Carson wrote about the poisons in her 1962 book "Silent Spring," which is widely credited for jump-starting the environmental movement.

But until now, researchers were left mostly to guess exactly how much and how many of the toxins lingered in our bodies.

Few of the estimated 75,000 chemicals found in the United States have been tested for their health effects, Baltz and other biomonitoring proponents say.

But several studies have been completed:

- In March, California researchers reported that San Francisco-area women have three to 10 times as much chemical flame retardant in their breast tissue as European or Japanese women.

- Indiana University researchers reported at the same time that levels in Indiana and California women and infants were 20 times higher than those in Sweden and Norway, which recently banned flame retardant.

- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this year released data from 2,500 volunteers tested for 116 pollutants and found such chemicals as mercury, uranium and cotinine, a chemical broken down from nicotine.

The CDC also reported that Mexican-American children were found to have three times the amount of a chemical derived from DDT compared with other children. Scientists suspect that Mexico and Latin American countries may still be using the banned chemical.

There's still a debate among advocates over which of the 75,000 chemicals to look for when biomonitoring. And even when chemicals are found, there's little an individual can do.

Next month, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz plans to renew calls for California's polluters to finance testing of contaminants in mother's milk.

"This will allow women to better make informed decision about their health," said Ortiz, a Democrat. "And the information will help researchers and public health officials."

But some fear that biomonitoring results could be misinterpreted and frighten new mothers from breast-feeding their babies.

"We are clearly concerned about what effects the stories of biomonitoring will have," said Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action nonprofit advocacy group. "Any rational woman will say to herself, 'Should I be breast-feeding?'"

Others see political motives behind some of the tests.

"Everyone's exposed to substances and there's no evidence that the low levels people are exposed to are harming anybody," said Steven Milloy, author of "Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares and Scams." "It's a waste of time and money that only serves to scare people."


On the Net:

Baltz's test results: http://www.bodyburden.org

CDC: http://www.cdc.gov

California Sen. Ortiz: http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/ortiz/

____________________________________________________________________

To remind: SF Bay Area has one of the highest Breast Cancer rates in the country (quite possibly the highest).

Thanks,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top