Strong contamination with ethidium bromide
(by jim3975 from nospamTRTnet.nl)
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
"Undergrad" <sylvain.bauer from laposte.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1420.1181314273.5139.methods from net.bio.net...
> Have you the reference of this paper ? As you can expected I am very
> Jim 3975 wrote:
>> To get cancer, 16 years is nothing. People who start smoking at 16 don't
>> lung cancer until 40, 50 years later. (Average age of lung cancer death
>> 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 uniurb.it> wrote in message
>>>news:mailman.1372.1181135432.5139.methods from net.bio.net...
>>>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 net.bio.net
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Bio.net - Methods mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Methods