web analytics

What You Don’t Know About Formaldehyde Will Floor You

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Pin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

WOMAN

This one’s the worst: “Formaldehyde Laced Laminate Flooring Causing Cancer.”

But there are plenty of close seconds.

The hysterical headlines that you have been seeing in the news about a bad batch of wood laminate flooring from China might lead you to think that formaldehyde was spewing from the floor into your home in such vast quantities that it would quickly send you to a different sort of “home” where formaldehyde is present. Lots of it. (Hint: Six Feet Under)

(Irony timeout: Why do I have this image of some guy tearing up his living room floor while smoking a cigarette, which has about a gazillion times more formaldehyde than whatever is in the floor?)

But, if you do a little research, this panic turns into a big nothing. Here are some reasons why:

  • Not only do you consume formaldehyde every time you drink fruit juice, but it’s already present in your body. Why? Because your body makes a very small amount of it because you need it. Even the ultra-cautious European Food Safety Authority acknowledges this: “Formaldehyde is an important metabolic intermediate that is physiologically present in all cells.”
  • What happens if you drink a whole lot of fruit juice? Does it start piling up in your body? No way. Not even close. The half-life (the amount of time it takes for half of something to “go away”) of formaldehyde is about one minute. This means that after five minutes, 97 percent of the formaldehyde is gone, and 99.9 percent after 10 minutes.
  • You cannot avoid the stuff — anywhere. Most formaldehyde in the air comes from car exhaust, but a trip to a pristine forest will not set you free, since it is one of the volatile chemicals that is given off by trees. According to a comprehensive review in the journal Chemical Reviews, it has been detected in forests in Germany, Portugal, and in the Amazon, in concentrations that are not terribly different than what might be found in an old home. And, it has been detected high in the Alps, albeit in concentrations that are about 10 times lower than those in the forest.
  • From the same review, a decidedly unalarming statement: “Generally speaking, exposure to formaldehyde is higher indoors than outdoors.”
  • Why is the concentration higher inside? The authors state the obvious: “This is mainly due to the stronger sources and low air exchange rates in the indoor environment.”
  • Fine. Makes perfect sense, so it is also obvious that the testing of the vapors coming from the wood be done in an environment that simulates that of a house, right? Hardly:
  • FormaldehydeChamber

 

 

 

 

 

 

A stainless steel chamber used to measure formaldehyde emissions (Source: Chemistry Reviews)

  • That is sure one ugly house.
  • The CDC, which sounded the alarm in the first place, admits that its own numbers of projected deaths are wrong: “The estimated risk of cancer is 6-30 cases per 100,000 people. Because of the very conservative (health protective) nature of the models used in this analysis, ‎the calculated risk is likely lower than our modeled estimate.” (Emphasis mine)

Here’s an educated guess: The actual number of deaths from indoor formaldehyde is probably closer to zero than 30.

This is not to say that it is a benign chemical. It is not. It is rather toxic, irritating to the eyes, nose, and throat (but only at concentrations that are far higher than what you’ll find in an average house), causes cancer in lab animals, and has been linked to certain cancers (especially nasopharyngeal) in people who are exposed to large amounts of it, mostly embalmers.

The key thing — and it is the same key that unlocks almost every chemical scare — is dose, something that scaremongers typically ignore. Embalmers, and medical students who practically do laps in the stuff, are not dropping dead all over the place. You won’t either.

Relax. Have a seat. Maybe on the floor.

Print Friendly

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Bob Greene
5 months 30 days ago

The initial cancer in lab animals were obtained by exposing rats to high concentrations (17 ppm, IIRC). Similarly exposed mice didn’t get the nasal cancers rats did. It was attributed to difference in breathing mechanisms, which resulted in the rats routinely shedding their nasal linings.

5 months 30 days ago

I have written about the gavage (dosing) into rat stomachs and use of surfactants to increase uptake that advocacy researchers have used to try and make EPA-approved pesticides look harmful, and this testing process is very similar. To separate health threats from health scares, some analog of the actual world is needed, but the sort of finding here will do nothing but make NRDC lawyers even richer than they already are.

Josh Bloom
5 months 30 days ago

Fascinating. How the hell did anyone figure that out?

Jack Everett
5 months 28 days ago

This article is written by someone that is in league with criminal importers.
Formaldehyde is deadly when confined indoors at high levels and it was also the cause of many deathd from the poison trailers Bush bought fro China to house hurricane victims in.
This is the kind of article that support corrupt business dealers.

5 months 27 days ago

There is nothing in your comment that is correct. Would you like a detailed list of all the natural places where formaldehyde levels are far higher than in those trailers? Also, it’s been 7 years. Stop blaming Bush for everything.

Frank Schnell
5 months 24 days ago
I am a retired, board-certified, PhD toxicologist who was working with the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) during the time when EPA was declaring 3 bogus “human carcinogens” into existence (i.e., dioxin, formaldehyde, and TCE) . And, I can assure you that non-irritating chronic exposures to formaldehyde simply CANNOT cause cancer at remote sites in humans. It is quite literally impossible. Even the only known non-cancer adverse effects (i.e., eye, nose & throat irritation) and the only possible cancer effect (i.e., nasopharyngeal cancer) occur only at the portals of entry and require high chronic doses which, nowadays,… Read more »
5 months 21 days ago

Dr. Schnell,

You are a priceless commodity in this world of lying toxicology.

Please make yourself available to the many think tanks and even political advocates who don’t understand the magnitude of the deception created by the scaremongers.

Carcinogens and toxins and politics and bad methodology make for a noxious (toxic?) soup.

If we had more honest toxicologists we might have a shot at turning the train wreck.

wpDiscuz
  • ACSH DISPATCH

    Subscribe to our daily dose of
    news & views - right to your inbox!
    * = required field
  • ACSH Monthly Archives


Please wait...

Subscribe to our newsletter

Want to be notified when our article is published? Enter your email address and name below to be the first to know.