Strong contamination with ethidium bromide

Jim 3975 via (by jim3975 from
Sat Jun 9 04:36:01 EST 2007

See the post of 'WS', who is right that the paper does not mention cigarette 
smoke. That must have been somewhere else, can't find it anymore

See also this discussion:

Just to make sure: I do not advise anyone to have  EtBr for breakfast, I am 
just putting things in perspective. See also the other thread where Piero 
Sestili mentions the importance of persistant exposure to most mutagens: You 
normally don't get cancer from smoking three packs of cigarettes _once_. (Or 
maybe you have a 0.01% increased chance that is not detectable using 
statistical methods).

"Undergrad" <sylvain.bauer from> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1420.1181314273.5139.methods from
> Have you the reference of this paper ? As you can expected I am very 
> interest
> !
> Jim 3975 wrote:
>> To get cancer, 16 years is nothing. People who start smoking at 16 don't
>> get
>> lung cancer until 40, 50 years later. (Average age of lung cancer death 
>> is
>> ~70)
>> Bruce Ames showed in a PNAS paper in the seventies that smoking is more
>> mutagenic than ethidum bromide (using fairly realistic doses of both).
>>>"Prof. Piero Sestili" <sestili from> wrote in message
>>>news:mailman.1372.1181135432.5139.methods from
>>>Nothing to do with the past contamination!  Probably few EB molecules
>>>penetrated to the germinative layer of your skin and most of it was
>>>cleared by corneum.  Just forget it!  16 years ago I noticed an EB stain
>>>on my right hand, due to unexpectedly broken gloves: I'm still here,
>>>writing with the same hand....
>>>For the future simply wear two pairs of lattice gloves when using EB:
>>>normal gloves do not protect so much...and go on with your PhD
>> _______________________________________________
>> Methods mailing list
>> Methods from
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> Sent from the - Methods mailing list archive at

More information about the Methods mailing list