Doctor says "stay out of the garage"

foxtrapper wrote: From a toxicological perspective, your doctors group answer is absurd.

Do tell...

Are you a toxicologist?

I would love concrete evidence that they are wrong

Jensenman wrote: Sometimes docs let their personal prejudices get in the way. Case in point: a bud's son had a detached retina in his eye caused by being hit in the head with a soccer ball, it was tacked back with laser surgery. After that was done, there was a discussion about what could and could not be done. Soccer = OK. Dirt bikes = Not OK, 'too much vibration'. IMHO the best course of action is good ventilation.

We've had this same experience. My youngest Daughter took a tumble off her horse and broke her arm. We asked the doctor when she could return to riding and he said never. I thought he was kidding until he gave me a speech about my responsibility as a parent and not putting my kids in harms way.

We let her jump back on the horse as soon as we felt she was ready.

wayslow wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Sometimes docs let their personal prejudices get in the way. Case in point: a bud's son had a detached retina in his eye caused by being hit in the head with a soccer ball, it was tacked back with laser surgery. After that was done, there was a discussion about what could and could not be done. Soccer = OK. Dirt bikes = Not OK, 'too much vibration'. IMHO the best course of action is good ventilation.

We've had this same experience. My youngest Daughter took a tumble off her horse and broke her arm. We asked the doctor when she could return to riding and he said never. I thought he was kidding until he gave me a speech about my responsibility as a parent and not putting my kids in harms way. We let her jump back on the horse as soon as we felt she was ready.

Our doctor doesn't like the fact we use Tanner and Trevor for ameteur midget tossing. Real midgets are much more expensive and we are doing it on a budget.

MrJoshua wrote: Somebody somewhere has researched every chemical out there and has put all of the info online so you can read it.

I really wish that was true, especially since I work in a chemical manufacturing and research lab. Unfortunately, it is not.

There is an enormous quantity of chemicals out there with unknown health risks. There isn't even testing available to identify the presence of most chemicals, no less the toxicity.

In reply to M030:

Doode, let's think 'bout this. You said you got whacked by the #1 neurosurgeon in the country (Name, please? Just curious who) and he and/or his team told you no more fumes. Sorry if this messes up your hobby, but death really sucks too, especially a death by what you went through. I've seen it, many times. It really sucks.

Now, has anyone found absolute concrete link between various chemicals and brain tumors? Can't really say. Last I was involved in that stuff, I hadn't seen an "absolute concrete link." However, remember that the cigarette companies still say there's no absolute concrete evidence between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, so it probably depends on what your definition of the word "the" is and all the other lawyer games.

My step brother-in-law used to play in a vacant lot with his friends when he was a kid. He died from a malignant brain tumor. All his friends did too. The vacant lot was an old Exxon leech pit. That's what the chemical companies use to get rid of nasty stuff that they otherwise can't do anything with (like sell). They put it in a pit and let it leech into the ground. Still, there's no "concrete evidence" that chemicals cause brain tumors. It's pretty hard to find concrete evidence on anything with humans as you keep running into ethical issues, like is it OK to expose people to chemicals to see if it kills them. With Obamacare coming, these ethical issues will all go away and they'll do it anyway "for the children." (HAHA, FLOUNDER, HAHA)

So, if the medical team that saved your life tells you no more fumes, doode, your choice is no more fumes or risk another brain tumor. Take your pick.

Dr. Hess wrote: ...However, remember that the cigarette companies still say there's no absolute concrete evidence between cigarette smoking and lung cancer....

Come on now doc. The real problem here is trying to figure out why people with a pre-disposition towards lung cancer have an irresistible urge to smoke!!

I am a carpenter, and spend a lot of time in the shop. I am also allergic to sawdust (nice, huh?).

I also have a beard, and a dust mask is not an option. I wear something like this when I am generating a lot of dust:

It has a battery pack I wear on my belt and a filtered blower, which creates a positive pressure draft flow across my face. Does not need a good face seal to work well. Took some getting used to, but it's not too bad.

I don't recommend that particular product in your case, because it is filtering room air. Fine for particulate, not so good for fumes.

They are called PAPR's- powered air personal respirators. This page has a lot of options, variations on a theme:

PAPR's

Seems to me anything that created a positive pressure in the mask area so would push out fumes. Can you deal with being attached to a hose? A powered fresh air intake on a mask like the PAPR's should work.

You understand, of course, that the REAL answer is to listen to your doctor, right?

Welding fumes are toxic. Good ventilation a must.

Yeah, welding fumes are real bad news. I accidentally got a sniff once and was sick for three days.

Just about any chemical can be bad with enough constant expossure. Back when I was younger and was sure that I was invulnerable I had my hands in so many different nasty brews that I'm if I listed them here a toxicologist would faint dead away. I try to limit my exposure now.

SVreX wrote: I really wish that was true, especially since I work in a chemical manufacturing and research lab. Unfortunately, it is not. There is an enormous quantity of chemicals out there with unknown health risks. There isn't even testing available to identify the presence of most chemicals, no less the toxicity.

No MSDS protocol where you work? In most (or all? since we're dealing with OSHA here) places, that's illegal.

Granted, there are chemicals they aren't 100% sure about... but for the most part, they've developed a pretty good idea about what is tolerable and what isn't. In many cases, they know something isn't good for you, but they aren't sure just how bad... so they tend to play it safe on the overkill side.

For welding there are a number of options:

http://www.ventaire.com/welding_systems.htm

(we've spec'ed the mini-arm system, although not for welding).

Unfortunately, that's not true.

We have over 3500 MSDS's on file. Most say "toxicity effects unknown" in one way or another.

Read 'em. They don't say much.

aircooled wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: ...However, remember that the cigarette companies still say there's no absolute concrete evidence between cigarette smoking and lung cancer....

Come on now doc. The real problem here is trying to figure out why people with a pre-disposition towards lung cancer have an irresistible urge to smoke!!

i had lolz.

SVreX wrote: Unfortunately, that's not true. We have over 3500 MSDS's on file. Most say "toxicity effects unknown" in one way or another. Read 'em. They don't say much.

That's the way the lawyers like it.

There's an MSDS for water. http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/w0600.htm

Dr. Hess wrote: In reply to M030: You said you got whacked by the #1 neurosurgeon in the country (Name, please? Just curious who) and he and/or his team told you no more fumes.

Dr. Peter Black, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.

SVreX wrote: Seems to me anything that created a positive pressure in the mask area so would push out fumes. Can you deal with being attached to a hose? A powered fresh air intake on a mask like the PAPR's should work.

I really like this idea. Thank you!

I would love concrete evidence that they are wrong

Can't give you that.

My degree is engineering, but these days I work in air toxics essentially as a toxicologist.

I cannot prove you did not get a brain tumor from a chemical used in vehicle repairs. Equally, they cannot prove you got a brain tumor from those same chemicals. This is not like looking at a smashed thumb, having you tell them you were installing roofing tiles, and figuring out that you smashed your thumb from the hammer. There are no direct, clear, one to one linkages.

Drink a gallon of ethylene glycol (antifreeze) = die. That was easy. Nothing else is, particularly the subchronic non-acute symptoms. Work in a radiator shop for 20 years, splashing antifreeze on your hands and face. You're older now, and need glasses. Is that a result of the ethylene glycol, or are you just getting old? Don't jump too fast, ethylene glycol has been linked to retinal degeneration and lens crystalization (stiffening). Funny thing though, age does the same thing.

To me, it sounds very much like your doctors made the easy leap to a cause, automotive chemicals. There is no monomer published linking "automotive chemicals" with brain tumors. None. Not a one that I have ever seen or heard of (and I haven't seen or heard of most of them). There are numerous monomers published for many specific chemicals listing toxic effects that include brain tumors.

And at that, it's still not clear. It's statistical analysis. Low levels, noisy data. It leaves you, the analyst, constantly trying to figure out if you're seeing a trend, or just noise. This town over here has a 20% increased rate of skin cancer. They've also got a cement plant. People, including doctors, put two and two together constantly. Never mind that digging around through the data you find the town was colonized 50 years ago by a sun worshipping group of naturalists. And that was hard data to find. Oh wait, those people all died out. But wait, they raised their kids that way. But wait, those kids all moved out of town. Except the ones that didn't. And they all work at the local tanning salon. Etc, etc, etc.

For any chemical you've got multiple degrees of certainty regarding cancer(s). Known, probable, possible, unlikely, etc. The various categories of unknown differ from the people doing the studies to the definitions.

So, one cannot say "that caused your tumor". At the most, one can say "that specific chemical is known to cause this type of cancer". And that is the absolute most one can say with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

So what would I do in your shoes? Well, by and large I am in your shoes. I would continue to work in a hobby I enjoy, and take what I consider to be reasonable safety precautions. I cannot guarantee you will never see a brain tumor again if you go back to playing with cars in a garage. Wouldn't pretend I could. But I'm equally confident I cannot simply blame automotive chemicals for your brain tumor.

Good summary, foxy!

I would add that you should also try to quantify the quality of life issues. Alongside the discerning of the risk, is the value of the hobby. Does anyone want cancer? Obviously not. What is the hobby worth to you, and what are the tradeoffs that are reasonable to you?

If a mask and a fresh air hose make your life quantitatively better, then it's a no-brainer.

Blessings!

A female friend of mine had a brain tumor when she was a freshman in high school. She in not a "car" person and does not deal with many chemicals except household cleaners. When she turned 26 they found another one growing where the had taken out the last one. It really sucks to be her. Now she cannot drive, can barely speak and walks with a cane (sometimes two)

The docs don't know why and have said so.

I would go with lots of ventilation. You pays your money, you takes your chances.

I'd err on the side of caution, especially since the desire to be around as my children grow to adulthood outweighs my passion for cars.

Did the doctors indicate what chemicals may have been involved? You indicated earlier that gasoline exposure may have contributed. Have you considered continuing your interests, but concentrating on electric power?

PeteWW wrote: Did the doctors indicate what chemicals may have been involved? You indicated earlier that gasoline exposure may have contributed. Have you considered continuing your interests, but concentrating on electric power?

Interesting suggestion. It is a neat time to be an electric fanatic. The hobby has a large enough following and support base to be usable and reasonably priced, but not so much that you see your build twin everywhere you go.

I agree! Great suggestion!!

Just move south. or out to the desert... and work outside year round.

In all seriousness though, I hope things go well for you and you live a nice long happy life. Best of luck to you. I'll keep you in my prayers.

Get a copy of the NIOSH Guide to Chemical Hazards.

Or, just look here:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/

Just for the fun of fit, I checked through the NIOSH guide on the CDC.

There's about 2600 names listed on that list. Of course, many of them are duplicates (multiple names for the same product).

Of the 32 products my company is currently manufacturing, 3 of them are in that list. Most of them are products you come in contact with every day, like food flavorings, fragrances, and paint additives.

Of course, that's the final products. The ingredients to make this stuff involves over a hundred different compounds, which I didn't check.

There are more than 39,000 commonly used industrial chemicals. That's a lot more than the 2600 on the NIOSH list. Plus, even if I pick an obvious one, like Asbestos, the NIOSH site doesn't specifically call it a carcinogen or a hazard- they call it a "potential occupational carcinogen". That's not much help.

All I'm saying is that there is not comprehensive toxicological information on an awful lot of common stuff out there.

And just as an aside, and one which the original poster, myself, and anyone else who's had a brain tumor resected is keenly aware of. As in, it's a great night when the thought doesn't keep you awake...

They are recurrent most of the time. Even in a best of all possible scenarios such as my own (found incidentally, years or decades before it became symptomatic, slowest growing type, best possible location other than in someone else's head, very cleanly differentiated, clear margins) it's impossible to get every cell, and they grow in the the glial cells. So whether or not you wash up in the Safety-Kleen tank, a person who has had a lesion with an area of higher grade removed is unfortunately quite likely to deal with it again.

In my case I go to NIH, about 2 miles from my house where the government pays for the best perfusion contrast MRI of my noggin money can buy, and the results are compared to my previous tests to watch for any trend indicating that my little friend is back. Also, I have a genetic marker that indicates that in the event it does that I'll respond to orally administered chemotherapy, likely in conjunction with fractionated radiation. In my case I should live a long time, but it's also more likely than not that I'll have to deal with it again eventually.

So I enjoy my time in the garage and shop and minimize my exposure to the bad stuff. But it's pretty clear that's just a good idea whether or not it's what caused the whole deal.