Benzene in Clearasil

Benzene in Clearasil

This to me a good example of gross exaggeration of risk due to overly conservative regulations.

Benzene is a common organic solvent often found in the laboratory. People virtually swim in it. It is not a deadly chemical. And I would be surprised if it is on the list of known carcinogens. Long term exposure to vapors might be hazardous, but exposure to ultratrace levels to me is a dubious hazard.

The basic law is that exposure is limited to 1/1000 of the no effect level found in animal tests. I think this rule wastes lots of resources. 1/50 might be enough.

Apparently benzoyl peroxide used to treat acne can decompose to traces of benzene. Note that gasoline routinely contains benzene. I think they decided 2% is ok last I heard. Be careful not to breathe those vapors.

Benzene is on this list:

but they fail to list big 20 carcinogens like dimethylnitrosamine or dimethyl sulfate or polynuclear aromatics (the carcinogen in smoke). Apparently a special purpose list of some sort.

And of course the list of suspected carcinogens is huge. Little evidence required.

Its interesting that I can not find a list of the big 20 known carcinogens. Most lists omit dimethylnitrosamine. Presumably their concern is occupational exposure.


And what does this have to do with Healthcare Finances? Seems like you are trying to inject politics into this discussion, since you mention nothing about paying for healthcare or even specific stocks.


This seems to be the only health subject board we have.

I see nothing political about it. Its science.

Then maybe TMF isn’t the right forum for your post.

Never mind that ‘over-regulation’ is very political.


1 Like

Would you rather see it on the METAR board? It is an economic issue with economic impact.

The fundamental problem is that our legal system depends on precedents. Hence, well intended laws get extended to absurdity because that is what precedents indicate.

How do you deal with an extension to absurdity? Run animal tests to show there is no indication of harm at absurd levels? Do you think that will win in court?

This is the essence of the issue in the J&J talcum powder lawsuits. Asbestos is a fiberous mineral. Are all fibrous minerals carcinogenic? At what level does that apply? None detectable? Ditto all the dust related cancers. Brown lung disease? Black lung disease? Silicosis? I have seen papers saying sawdust causes cancer. A very complex issue.

Well, since I don’t typically read METAR, I probably wouldn’t have seen it, which would have been just fine with me. But I certainly don’t think that a rant about “overly conservative regulation” that doesn’t give any examples of how it affects “Health Related Finances” belongs on this board, and as I said before, maybe not on TMF at all. Even the ‘economic impacts’ you try to cite aren’t really economic impacts. It’s just more ranting about regulations, with no actual economic impacts provided.


Sorry to hear you don’t do the Metar board. I think its the most active investment board we have in the new Motley Fool. You should check it out.

They are picky about what you can post there. (But not nearly as bad as Saul’s board.) The reason for posting on other boards from time to time.

Amen Brother. 9876543210

I cannot imagine any scientist who would put N-methylnitrosamine in the same carcinogen class with benzene. They almost certainly have different mechanisms.

To me this report is lawyer speak. Dubious at best, probably bad science.

We need better laws and better lawyers.