Popping of Soda Can

Because this is not a TRT thread, and I would like to keep to the subject.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...pplements_SI_guidance__Jan_2012__DH_FINAL.pdf

 

Well, PM me a doctor in the UK which is good at what you like doing. And I'll try it and see if it's as good as you make out.

 

@Thongjy , I couldn't agree more with Dr. Nagler and linearb. There is no way that popping a soda can could damage your hearing.

And I would ignore comments like "take NAC to prevent further damage" because there is no damage in the first place.

 

Good information. Thank you.

 

Not interested. But I nonetheless wish you well with it, and I sincerely hope you find the peace you seek.

 

No problem. You have to remember I'm from the UK, the FDA doesn't apply to me.

 

That's not nice? Why can't you recommend me a doctor? You do with other people. So why won't you help me?

 

Well, I know your relation to pills but wouldn't it still be better to give the truth especially when it is more cost effective than buying some pills and getting a placebo effect?

Btw, what are you trying to accomplish by harassing Dr. Nagler? Why don't you let it go? Don't make a fool of yourself.

 

I'm not harassing him. To be honest, I don't want harass anyone.

 

I don't want to "win", Danny, and I am truly sorry if I came across as antagonistic -- which I think I did, re-reading what I wrote.

Truth be told -- I have a bottle of NAC sitting on my bathroom sink at home. I experimented with taking it on a regular basis at one point to see if it would help my T (it didn't). I have still taken it very occaisionally after doing things that seemed to stress my ears out (motorcycles, etc) -- because I've read all the same research you have, I personally find it compelling.

So, I'm not saying "don't take NAC", I'm just saying, approach it with the same caution that you would approach any experimental drug that you're taking, from manufacturers who may or may not be shady.

Dr. Nagler isn't saying that NAC is more dangerous than a benzo, he's saying that a benzo manufactured in an FDA facility is more likely to really be a benzo and nothing else, than an NAC pill is. Many, many suppliments made for the US/Euro market, are manufactured in China. And, on that note -- quality control is hard. There are plenty of cases of drugs made in the US, in FDA approved facilities, which end up being contaminated or having impurities.

The most horrifying example I can think of along those lines dates back to the 50s, when literally tens of thousands of schoolchildren in the US were accidentally exposed to a virus known to be severely carcinogenic to monkeys, as a result of a tainted batch of one of the first polio vaccines.

Basically, any time you put anything in to your body, there is a non-zero risk that it's going to give you cancer or kill you.

No, this isn't true at all. I can pretty much guarantee you that some of the stuff inside some of the suppliments sitting on the shelves of your local drugstore would absolutely horrify you.

http://theconversation.com/safety-o...l-supplements-cant-be-left-to-consumers-39901

http://anh-europe.org/How_contaminated_are_your_food_supplements

Heavy metals and steroids, yum yum.

 

Well, we can't win can we? The world is a big mess it seems. You should see what they put in soaps and cosmetic products...lead in lipstick, gross....

 

Solving the whole world's problems is outside of scope here!

For me, "winning" is having a nice day and enjoying the time I have here. I'm posting this from inside a flying aluminum can, fifteen thousand feet over sunny mid-western America. When I get out of this contraption, I'll be a thousand miles from where I woke up today, I'll have the sun on my face and an ocean breeze at my back, and spend the next several days shacked up in a huge house with a bunch of my awesome co-workers, alternately working on hard software problems and drinking fancy booze and playing cards. Sounds like winning to me!

Yes, meanwhile, ISIS continues to gain ground, the US presidential race is a three-ring circus, my health is gradually losing the battle with the unstoppable march of time, and the ice caps are melting. So it goes!

 

As for chlorella and spirulina, I get mine from soil association certified companies and they are very strict and stringent.

 

Nicely done @linearb , I didn't get him to think critically and see the big picture after discussing 2 whole pages of one thread. You did it in one post ;D

 

Does sound pretty awesome! For me I'm playing Heavy rain, the video-game.

 

I like to hear myself talk and sometimes I think people just give up when they realize I am willing to dump wall of text after wall of text

 

Who said I agree? I still believe NAC can help. You just need to get it from a good source.

 

You can disagree and still think critically and see the big picture. Can you see it?

 

During the past two decades, the food industry has taken over much of the FDA’s role in ensuring that what Americans eat is safe. The agency can’t come close to vetting its jurisdiction of $1.2 trillion in annual food sales.

In 2011, the FDA inspected 6 percent of domestic food producers and just 0.4 percent of importers. The FDA has had no rules for how often food producers must be inspected.

The food industry hires for-profit inspection companies — known as third-party auditors — who aren’t required by law to meet any federal standards and have no government supervision. Some of these monitors choose to follow guidelines from trade groups that include ConAgra Foods Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Wal-Mart.

The private inspectors that companies select often check only those areas their clients ask them to review. That means they can miss deadly pathogens lurking in places they never examined.

And they do.

Food sickens 48 million Americans a year, with 128,000 hospitalized and 3,000 killed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. The rate of infections linked to foodborne salmonella, which causes the most illnesses and deaths, rose 10 percent from 2006 to 2010.

The U.S. had 37 recalls of fruits and vegetables in 2011, up from two in 2005. Many of the victims of contaminated food are those with under-developed or weakened immune systems, such as children and the elderly.

Bloomberg notes the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act, but doesn’t note a key stumbling block: The White House has not yet finalized rules to put the act into effect. From HeraldOnline.com:

Late in 2010, Congress [passed] the Food Safety Modernization Act, giving the FDA not only more regulatory authority over food producers, but the power to hold foreign food producers to the same standards as those in this country.

But two years later, rules that require food producers to evaluate the hazards in their operations and that give the FDA access to such records have yet to be released. The Food Safety Modernization Act rules remain under review by the Office of Management and Budget at the White House, though officials there won’t say why. Once released, the rules will need to go through a public review and comment process before taking effect.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...61bae2-a55b-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

The disagreements, it turns out, are more than skin deep.

Concerned about generations-old regulations that have left it with little power to ensure the safety of thousands of consumer products from shampoo to shaving cream, the Food and Drug Administration launched talks with the cosmetics industry more than a year ago. The goal was to reach a deal on a regulatory regime that has not changed since 1938.

The regulator and the regulated appeared to reach a rare kumbaya moment last summer — an agreement on the outline of legislation to beef up the agency’s authority while giving the industry greater certainty. But the talks collapsed, and those once-promising private discussions have given way to public pronouncements of disillusionment, frustration and distrust.

In a letter Thursday, a top FDA official charged that the cosmetics industry’s latest proposals would undercut the government’s already weak authority, prevent states from undertaking enforcement actions and “put Americans at greater risk from cosmetics-related illness and injury than they are today.”

In his letter, FDA Deputy Commissioner Michael Taylor told two trade groups representing the $60 billion-a-year industry that there is no longer enough common ground to “justify devoting further taxpayer resources to this negotiation.”


The Personal Care Products Council, which represents an estimated 600 companies, quickly rejected the notion that it wants to weaken federal oversight of cosmetics, and it said suggestions that cosmetics products are dangerous are reckless, counterproductive and not supported by data.

“We are extremely disappointed that FDA has indicated they will not participate in further discussions,” Lezlee Westine, the group’s president, said in a statement. “We all share in the common goal of protecting consumers. In fact, product safety is the cornerstone of all that this industry represents. . . .We will work with Congress to pursue meaningful solutions.”

The stalemate has proved particularly galling to consumer advocacy groups, who have long pushed for more government oversight over the chemicals used to produce millions of products used by Americans every day, from lipstick and hair spray to toothpaste, deodorant and baby lotion.

Janet Nudelman, director of the California-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, said the industry’s proposals — which could put the onus on the FDA to prove that questionable chemicals are unsafe and could preempt some state regulations — are “a slap in the face” to Americans who expect transparency about the products they use.

“Industry simply should not be calling the shots anymore,” she said. “They’ve been calling the shots for over 75 years in what little federal regulation there is.”

She cited tests that have turned up lead in lipstick, formaldehyde in hair careproducts and mercury in face cream. The cosmetics industry has called some of those findings misleading and unnecessarily alarming, noting that the FDA found no level of lead in lipstick that would pose health concerns.

Compared to its authority to oversee pharmaceuticals and foods, the FDA remains virtually toothless when it comes to regulating cosmetics. It has no power to review products before they go on the market. Companies do not have to list all of the ingredients in their products, and they do not have to register their manufacturing facilities with the government. They also are not required to report “adverse events,” making it difficult for regulators to spot potential problems.


Other countries have put in place far more stringent regulatory systems. The European Union, for example, has banned the use of about 1,300 chemicals in consumer cosmetics products. By comparison, the FDA has banned fewer than a dozen, most of which were listed in the 1970s and 1980s, the agency said. FDA and industry officials began working on a regulatory framework at the urging of members of Congress, who have yet to act on proposed bills to update the regulation of cosmetics.

The two sides reached an agreement on a basic outline, according to the FDA: The FDA would gain the ability to review specific cosmetics ingredients before products were put on sale. Companies would be required to notify the agency of health problems that their products caused, and the FDA could order a mandatory recall of a dangerous product. The agency also would create a set of accepted manufacturing practices and would collect about $20 million a year from the industry in user fees.

That tentative bargain did not last. FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg told industry representatives that their “change of heart” amounted to “a missed opportunity to better serve the public and strengthen your industry.” An industry group replied that companies “have not had a change of heart in their commitment to work with FDA, and we continue to operate in good faith.”

Despite that rift, some companies have made changes in the wake of consumer demands. Johnson & Johnson recently reformulated its iconic baby shampoo and other products after pledging to remove formaldehyde and another chemical that regulators have deemed potentially harmful, even as it has maintained that the products were safe.

 

@Danny Boy I can click the link so you can just paste the link. No need to spam this thread with copy/paste. And secondly, I have nothing to contribute to discussion about FDA etc.

 

All I'm saying is, you lot are saying about how the supplements industry isn't regulated but neither is the cosmetic industry nor is the food industry in America. All I'm saying is, there are dangerous chemicals in cosmetic products and the food industry is no better. We are not safe either way.

 

you can not use any of that shit, grow your own food, and still get struck by lightening. And even if you don't, something is going to kill you sometime in the next 80ish years.

Life is a bitch!

 

Ok...well, I'm not interested in this topic so direct your copy/pastes to someone else. Like linearb

 

I agree with you. The only thing that will nearly kill me is tinnitus to be honest.

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

bottom line: a pop can opening is still not a reason to take NAC or steroids.

**cracks another beer on the plane** PSSSSH

 

Yes there are if taken regularly.

 

Taking medical advice from a support board is ridiculous. Research for yourself the answer to this question.