Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Says Condoms Contain Cancer-Causing Substance
Reuters ^ | Fri May 28,12:09 PM ET

Posted on 05/28/2004 3:00:49 PM PDT by Grig

BERLIN (Reuters) - Most condoms contain a cancer-causing chemical and their manufacture should be subject to greater quality control, a German scientific research institute said Friday.

The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, said it found the carcinogen N-Nitrosamine present in 29 of 32 types of condoms it tested in simulated conditions.

"N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances," the study's authors said. "There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem."

The carcinogen is thought to be present in a substance used to improve condom elasticity. When the rubber material comes in contact with human bodily fluids, it can release traces of N-Nitrosamine, the study said.

Local government officials said condom users should not stop using rubber contraceptives based on results of the study because N-Nitrosamine does not present an immediate health danger.

But Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that daily condom use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than levels naturally present in food.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: chemicals; condom; health
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 05/28/2004 3:00:49 PM PDT by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Grig

ROTFL! I'm sorry, but this is funny.


2 posted on 05/28/2004 3:02:26 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Dihydrogen Monoxide Alert!!!


3 posted on 05/28/2004 3:09:57 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Did the simulated trials cover the most likely uses or the worst case scenarios. I'm talking about the 2 minutes 2x/month vs the 1 hour 4x/week scenarios.

The vast majority of "users" of condoms would fall into the first category.


4 posted on 05/28/2004 3:11:34 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig (Permanent Source of Sarcasm. PSS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

Some days, the jokes just write themselves.


5 posted on 05/28/2004 3:12:46 PM PDT by Xenalyte (No one will be sitting in sackcloth and ashes crying, "Oh, if only we had listened to Art Bell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig

"Study Says Condoms Contain Cancer-Causing Substance"

Man, imagine how dangerous a penis must be when it ISN'T in a condom, if it can still cause cancer while INSIDE one!!! ;)

It's a wonder most boys don't die of hand cancer before they leave puberty.


6 posted on 05/28/2004 3:13:52 PM PDT by adam_az (Call your State Republican Party office and VOLUNTEER!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
But Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that daily condom use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than levels naturally present in food.

Then I guess this could be harmful to someone like Wilt Chamberlain.

7 posted on 05/28/2004 3:14:13 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
This study states they did testing on hamsters. Can you just imagine interviewing for the job.

You want me to put WHAT on the hamsters before they have sex?

8 posted on 05/28/2004 3:14:57 PM PDT by thackney (Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flyer; Eaker; humblegunner


9 posted on 05/28/2004 3:15:47 PM PDT by thackney (Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thackney
This study states they did testing on hamsters.

Must be the same size condoms DemocRATs use.

10 posted on 05/28/2004 3:19:30 PM PDT by pke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Grig
I wonder by what STR-E-E-E-E-TCH of the imagination they think this will have any effect on the use of condoms.

It was proven long ago that there is a 5% failure rate in condoms. That means that 5% of the condoms used will either not protect against a disease, or pregnancy.

Well, you say, those are pretty good odds.

Right. Unless you are one of the 5%.

Let's put that into perspective.

Let's say that I have a terrific deal for you. I have a plane that seats 100 people. I am willing to fill the plane with people wanting to vacation in Hawaii, and fly them there for free. There is only one catch. 5 seats will fall through the floor during the flight and we have no way of knowing which 5.

That's only half of the problem though.

Since folks rarely use the same condom twice, we will have to fly back in a different plane with the same problem.

Are you starting to get a picture of the problem now? EVERY time you use a condom there is a 5% chance it will not protect you.

This fact hasn't diminished the trust people put in condoms. If the threat of AIDS hasn't affected the use of condoms I doubt that the threat of cancer will either. So it is doubtful that the makers will be phased by this information.

11 posted on 05/28/2004 3:20:54 PM PDT by Veritas_est (Truth is)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
But Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment said that daily condom use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than levels naturally present in food.

Time to be serious. What level is considered dangerous? 100 times the amount "naturally present in food"? Or two times the amount "naturally present in food"? Common sense says it is likly to be closer to the first then the second. < /serious>

in 29 of 32 types of condoms it tested in simulated conditions.

I don't think I want to know. In fact I am sure I am too young and innocent to know.

12 posted on 05/28/2004 3:24:47 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Pax quaeritur bello)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

This ain't funny. If you smoke, you get lung cancer. If you chew, you get mouth cancer. If you use a condom, you get....well, when it comes to Squirmin Herman The One-Eyed German, cancer ain't funny.


13 posted on 05/28/2004 3:33:27 PM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grig
Hmmm .... well ... I will give up condoms before I give up cigarettes ... so there.

No more condoms

One evil vice down .... well .. I can live with the other one.

14 posted on 05/28/2004 3:45:23 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veritas_est

"It was proven long ago that there is a 5% failure rate in condoms. That means that 5% of the condoms used will either not protect against a disease, or pregnancy."

Someone once told me that that includes intentional sabotage. So it may be lower than 5%.


15 posted on 05/28/2004 3:48:59 PM PDT by ryanjb2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grig

"...daily condom use exposed users to N-Nitrosamine levels up to three times higher than levels naturally present in food..."



Are Germans EATING them?

I mean, if you take them OFF at the conclusion of their function, not of the evil poison enters one's body to be absorbed.

Or are they worried about certain women?


16 posted on 05/28/2004 4:02:45 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veritas_est

It was proven long ago that there is a 5% failure rate in condoms. That means that 5% of the condoms used will either not protect against a disease, or pregnancy.



Not necessarily. They are fuzzy about it depending on which way they wish to propagandize, but they are generally not talking about a per-use failure rate, but a per-user. That means that 5% of couples who rely on condoms will be disappointed over some period of time. Not that a coupe that uses them about 20 times can expect to become pregnant.

With condoms, misuse, including proceeding after breakage, is often the cause of failure. Properly used, they have nearly a 100% success rate.


17 posted on 05/28/2004 4:05:36 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Veritas_est

Well, I use birth control that is only 95% effective (spermicide), or worse, but I'm happy with those odds. A lot of the failure rate with contraceptives is user error anyway. Plus I'm 35 now and not as fertile as I used to be, I'm sure.

And since I'm happily married with three children another baby wouldn't be the end of the world anyway.


18 posted on 05/28/2004 4:11:07 PM PDT by olivia3boys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Veritas_est
It was proven long ago that there is a 5% failure rate in condoms. That means that 5% of the condoms used will either not protect against a disease, or pregnancy.

Please post the source for this. My understanding is that the 5% failure rate refers to the failure rate (chance of pregnancy) a couple would expect to experience if they used condoms correctly while having sex over the course of a year. The chance of a properly-used condom failing to protect against pregnancy for any given sexual experience is much lower than 5%.
19 posted on 05/28/2004 4:11:52 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Quit being so self centered.

They use it in nipples for baby bottles. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

You can extract it from bacon. It is only a anticipated human carcinogen which means that maybe it could possibly cause cancer. Or not.

There are no OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits Which means that they have not been able to decide at what dosage this would be dangerous if it was dangerous at all.

Having to put up MSDS for that known (according to the NTP) human carcinogen, sand I take it all with a grain of sodium chloride. For which I also had to put up a MSDS.

No cancer is not funny. But this is. They are trying to scare you. Don't let them.

20 posted on 05/28/2004 4:13:00 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Pax quaeritur bello)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson