@shadytreeprojects wrote:
You may find that statement that I made alarmist and irresponsible but I most certianly don't. I wanted to be 100% sure that I wasn't going to be doing anything dangerous to myself, BUT LISTEN TO WHAT I AM SAYING. The seller said it was safe and green, there was no google search results stating that aluminium silicate was dangerous or carcinogenic. And I am still uncertain if the aluminium silicate that I purchased is the same stuff that could cause you cancer, or if it would cause cancer.
Because.
I am not an expert. I rely on others to keep me safe. But i suspect that even you are finding it difficult to make 100% sure that the stuff that I purchased is safe.
I realise you're not responding to my post, but I very much doubt anyone here is an expert on the substance, which is what makes your post potentially dangerous, because it contains conclusive statements about something you know admit you don't know anything about, and have obviously done limited research on, and no one here can - with any degree of confidence - say whether they know it to be true or not, which (JMHO) is less than ideal when you could be affecting other people.
I'm not saying this to be smug - I looked at stuff for maybe 45 minutes before I made my previous post, so I also can not say with any degree of certainty what the danger in the substance (if any) is. I do know that regulations are there quite often to protect the manufacturers of products, rather than the people who use them. That's why stuff that's good to consume long after its "best before" date actually has a best before date. It's why the industrial glue I use frequently is labeled as containing known carcinogens, but there's literally been no instances recorded of it ever actually causing cancer. Sure, I take some precautions, but more cause the stuff can get you high if you don't.
When you want a definitive truth about something, or even just the most likely outcome, you need to ask a source that's reputable, reliable, and (above all) can prove what they are telling you is true, rather than find out a few facts, use them to forumlate a theory, then conclude that theory must be true. Especially if you are going to take it upon yourself to warn people in a public forum about the dangers posed by a particular substance.
Also, when researching independently, be very wary of confirmation bias (this is something that affects every single person, no matter how much they protest - when people have a conclusion they believe is right, or even if it's just the one they fear the most, they predominantly seek out information that aligns with what they already believe, which in turn makes it easier to dismiss information that contradicts what they believe. The current anti-vax movement is a classic example, albeit an extreme one, of this kind of irrationality).
Here's the thing - people like to focus on key words when they interpret something, and when a phrase says "potentially dangerous", it's common for it to be shortened to simply "dangerous" and then everyone starts repeating the "dangerous" bit and never actually looks into what the danger is - like when there were several news stories a while back that had everyone going "bacon causes cancer!".
No, it doesn't. It has the potential to increase the risk of cancer by a small percentage, which in turn means that if you have a 1% risk of developing cancer, eating a slice of bacon a week might increase that risk to 1.001% (not actual figures). Hence why you need to be careful about the warnings you issue, especially as a non-expert.
