from wikipedia
Effects on humans and animals
Ethylene oxide is an alkylating agent; it has irritating, sensitizing and narcotic effects.[128] Chronic exposure to ethylene oxide is also mutagenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies ethylene oxide into group 1, meaning it is a proven carcinogen.[129][130] Ethylene oxide is classified as a class 2 carcinogen by the German MAK commission and as a class A2 carcinogen by the ACGIH. A 2003 study of 7,576 women exposed while at work in commercial sterilization facilities in the US suggests ethylene oxide is associated with breast cancer incidence.[131] A 2004 follow up study analyzing 18,235 men and women workers exposed to ethylene oxide from 1987 to 1998 concluded "There was little evidence of any excess cancer mortality for the cohort as a whole, with the exception of bone cancer based on small numbers. Positive exposure-response trends for lymphoid tumors were found for males only. Reasons for the sex specificity of this effect are not known. There was also some evidence of a positive exposure-response for breast cancer mortality."[132] An increased incidence of brain tumors and mononuclear cell leukemia was found in rats that had inhaled ethylene oxide at concentrations of 10, 33 or 100 mL/m3 (0.0100, 0.0329 or 0.0997 imp fl oz/cu ft) over a period of two years.[133] An increased incidence of peritoneal mesotheliomas was also observed in the animals exposed to concentrations of 33 and 100 mL/m3 (0.0329 and 0.0997 imp fl oz/cu ft). Results of human epidemiological studies on workers exposed to ethylene oxide differ. There is evidence from both human and animal studies that inhalation exposure to ethylene oxide can result in a wide range of carcinogenic effects.Ethylene oxide is toxic by inhalation, with a US OSHA permissible exposure limit calculated as a TWA (time weighted average) over 8 hours of 1 ppm, and a short term exposure limit (excursion limit) calculated as a TWA over 15 minutes of 5 ppm.[134] At concentrations in the air about 200 parts per million, ethylene oxide irritates mucous membranes of the nose and throat; higher contents cause damage to the trachea and bronchi, progressing into the partial collapse of the lungs. High concentrations can cause pulmonary edema and damage the cardiovascular system; the damaging effect of ethylene oxide may occur only after 72 hours after exposure.[24] The maximum content of ethylene oxide in the air according to the US standards (ACGIH) is 1.8 mg/m3 (0.00079 gr/cu ft).[135] NIOSH has determined that the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level (IDLH) is 800 ppm.[136]
Because the odor threshold for ethylene oxide varies between 250 and 700 ppm, the gas is already at toxic concentrations when it can be smelled. Even then, the odor of ethylene oxide is sweet, aromatic, and can easily be mistaken for the pleasant aroma of diethyl ether, a common laboratory solvent of very low toxicity. In view of these insidious warning properties, continuous electrochemical monitors are standard practice, and it is forbidden to use ethylene oxide to fumigate building interiors in the EU and some other jurisdictions.[137]
Ethylene oxide causes acute poisoning, accompanied by a variety of symptoms.[128] Central nervous system effects are frequently associated with human exposure to ethylene oxide in occupational settings. Headache, nausea, and vomiting have been reported.[clarification needed] Peripheral neuropathy, impaired hand-eye coordination and memory loss have been reported in more recent case studies of chronically-exposed workers at estimated average exposure levels as low as 3 ppm (with possible short-term peaks as high as 700 ppm).[133] The metabolism of ethylene oxide is not completely known. Data from animal studies indicate two possible pathways for the metabolism of ethylene oxide: hydrolysis to ethylene glycol and glutathione conjugation to form mercapturic acid and meththio-metabolites.
Ethylene oxide easily penetrates through ordinary clothing and footwear, causing skin irritation and dermatitis with the formation of blisters, fever and leukocytosis.[128]
Toxicity data for ethylene oxide are as follows:[134]
Eye exposure: 18 mg (0.28 gr)/6 hours (rabbit)
Oral: 72 mg/kg (0.00115 oz/lb) (rat, LD50), 1,186 mg/kg (0.01898 oz/lb) (rat, TDLo), 5,112 mg/kg (0.08179 oz/lb) (rat, TD)
Inhalation: 12,500 ppm (human, TCLo), 960 ppm/4 hours (dog, LC50) 33–50 ppm (rat or mouse, TC), 800 ppm/4 hours (rat or mouse, LC50)
Subcutaneous injection: 100 mg/kg (0.0016 oz/lb) (cat, LDLo), 292 mg/kg (0.00467 oz/lb) (mouse, TDLo) 900–2,600 mg/kg (0.014–0.042 oz/lb) (mouse, TD), 187 mg/kg (0.00299 oz/lb) (rat, LD50).
Intraperitoneal injection: 750 mg/kg (0.0120 oz/lb) (mouse, TDLo), 175 mg/kg (0.00280 oz/lb) (mouse, LD50)
Intravenous injection: 175 mg/kg (0.00280 oz/lb) (rabbit, LD50), 290 mg/kg (0.0046 oz/lb) (mouse, LD50)
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) estimated in 2016[138] that for low doses, the inhalation of ethylene oxide for a lifetime could increase an individual's lifetime cancer risk by as much as 3.0 × 10−3 per μg/m3 (without considering that early-life exposures are likely more potent). The USEPA estimated the slope of the dose-response declines at higher doses, and extra cancer risk estimates for several occupational exposure scenarios are calculated.
like most chemicals long term exposure can have issues, for a one time test I doubt theres much risk.
Well it’s twice a week for however long the kids are told to do it to be fair.
Not simple enough? Strong UV light causes burns… sterilising an item with strong UV light before packaging does not mean that item can cause burns when you open and use it.
nice long read for you
Don’t bother.
Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide
Kids aren’t inhaling it.
even if they were (on an 8 hrs per day basis for 35 years ) the increase cancer risk is probably less than too many hot curries.
more here (if you go for the long read)...
Abstract
Aims: To obtain further information about the risks of cancer associated with occupational exposure to ethylene oxide.
Methods: Follow up was extended by 13 years for a cohort of 2876 men and women with definite or potential exposure to ethylene oxide in the chemical industry or in hospital sterilising units. Subjects were traced through National Health Service and social security records, and their mortality was compared with that expected from rates in the national population by the person-years method.
Results: Analysis was based on 565 deaths, of which 339 had occurred during the additional period of follow up. Mortality was close to or below expectation for all causes (565 deaths v 607.6 expected), all cancers (188 v 184.2), and for all specific categories of malignancy including stomach cancer (10 v 11 .6), breast cancer (11 v 13.2), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (7 v 4.8), and leukaemia (5 v 4.6). All five deaths from leukaemia occurred in the subset of subjects with greatest potential for exposure to ethylene oxide, but even in this group the excess of deaths was small (2.6 expected).
Conclusions: The balance of evidence from this and other epidemiological investigations indicates that any risk of human cancer from ethylene oxide is low, particularly at the levels of occupational exposure that have occurred in Britain over recent decades. This may reflect the capacity of human cells to repair DNA damage caused by the chemical, which is a potent genotoxin and animal carcinogen.
even if they were
But they are not.
People don’t understand amounts. They need to be told that whatever you use to sanitise something, the risk is all contained at source, there is zero risk from the end product when you open it. Otherwise they’ll think they’ve found a “small truth” and spread misinformation.
occupational exposure
Indeed Klunk. People who sterilise hospital equipment are put at (very low) risk by the processes used. That is irrelevant to using these swabs at home.
Likewise, if they were using steam, they could be at risk from scalding. People using whatever has been sterilised down the chain can not exposed to any risk of scalding.
That is irrelevant to using these swaps.
yeah safer than sniffing glue.
French resident here and plenty of vaccines . I am 46 and got mine 2 weeks ago , the AZ .
My mum and dad got theirs too .
All the residents in the retirement home where I work got theirs too , the 2 PZ doses .
Good news there cchris2lou. We’re a year older than you, other half has had her first AZ now. No date for second yet. No first for me yet. Anytime before the school summer holidays is soon enough for me.
Well it’s twice a week for however long the kids are told to do it to be fair.
take a look at the label on most cleaning products in your house. Now, are you going to stop cleaning your house?
Now they are just trolling the public.
The first **** that came to mind as soon as I heard about the proposed 'restrictions'. 🙄
Guardian reporting the Moderna vaccine expected in April
Which begs the question, where is it being made? US has a ban, EU..... or Switzerland?
Switzerland I think.
Anyone know how GPs will be/are calling up the under 50s? I think there are 7-8M in the 40-49 group so with a restricted supply and the 2nd jabs to do it might take months to get through them.
If it’s alphabetically on surname for the whole 40-49 cohort I’ll be at the back of the queue. If it’s on age e.g. 49s first then 48 etc. then I should be near the front.
They seem to do it by age here in W Yorks
49.5 and was called up last Monday
*sigh*
Tourists back. I know that Covid is officially "over" tomorrow but it's taking the piss. Cars queueing out of big car parks and down the road here in North Yorkshire.
Just since a private coach disgorge about 50 people.
Just since a private coach disgorge about 50 people.
Pretty sure that's very illegal. Even tomorrow.
They seem to do it by age here in W Yorks
49.5 and was called up last Monday
Same here in N Yorks - 49 and had my first jab yesterday.
Do any of our experts have an opinion on mixing vaccines? I see the Uk is holding a trial on this reading out around June.
I was reading how several recent vaccines use different carriers for first and second dose to increase efficacy. Would this likely be better for protection against variants too as different vaccines target different parts of the virus?
Does anyone know when Wales is planning on opening the "border"?
In theory mixing vaccines should be fine for efficacy, potentially it could be better as the different vaccines could create a wider spread of antibodies so could cover more variants and attach to more areas of the virus.
The concerns are that it could result in some enhanced cytokine issues, maybe some auto reactivity to the host or other unkown effects.
All of the above is why we need the trials.
If shown that they are safe in trials (no reason that they shouldn't be) then i would happily have a mix. Currently on Pfizer though.
Ultimately the boosters we may need will likely be from different manufacturers as the challenge of coordinating main vaccine doses and boosters from the same manufacturer would be a right pain
Do any of our experts have an opinion on mixing vaccines? I see the Uk is holding a trial on this reading out around June.
Ultimately the vaccines are presenting a foreign protein, present on the surface of a new pathogen, to the immune system. There will be slight differences in presentation, notably in how the spike is assembled, but these will be small. Only a small part of the protein, which is a small part of the virus, is truly immunogenic. The reason people are concerned about E484K mutations is because this is a site for immune escape. There is evidence that serum from past infections has better coverage of mutants than some vaccine serum.
But I would not be worried about a boost from a different vaccine brand myself. Or indeed a technology (mRNA, dsDNA in a virus, spike, spike flowers or even attenuated virus) is be happy to mix and match.
Just since a private coach disgorge about 50 people.
Other than the poor auto correct, perhaps it was a local care home off out on their daily exercise now they've all been inoculated?
😉
Graham & TiRed - thanks - that's good news. From the front line, its going to be a logistical nightmare, especially as new vaccines come on stream, to coordinate the correct second dose for each patient. We don't know more than a few days out what we will get vaccine wise. We already use both Pfizer & AZ, sometimes both on the same day.
Oh - had my second jab the other day - only 5 weeks between, but due to no-shows we had spare at the end of shift.
If you are eligible you don't need to be called up in turn - just use the NHS website and book yourself in anywhere that has space. There is a community vac centre in my town (I'm volunteering a little to help out) and all sorts are turning up from some distance away (up to 40 miles I've seen). I'm over 50 and actually booked myself in there for a jab but then the doctor phoned up to give me an earlier appointment at the local surgery who are also doing vaccination days.
I was reading how several recent vaccines use different carriers for first and second dose to increase efficacy.
Sputnik5 works this way, first and second doses are quite different. There’s an expectation that mixing the AstraZeneca and Sputnik5 will increase their effectiveness. I linked to the announcement about trials for this a few pages ago.
Are we still making jokes about how quickly Russia and China developed, approved and started rolling out vaccines? Or, now that we ‘beat’ EU countries in the race to start rolling out vaccinations (admittedly initially with a vaccine funded, developed and produced ‘over there’) are we now less sniffy/mocking/doubtful about the impressively speedy efforts by Russia and China?
From the front line, its going to be a logistical nightmare, especially as new vaccines come on stream, to coordinate the correct second dose for each patient.
We’ve had some information about UK trials for mix and matching UK approved vaccines earlier in this thread, they have months to go though. And we’ve had links to the advice that administrating mixed does is allowed if there is a reaction to the first dose. And a first hand example of this being used. Otherwise it’s strictly two doses of the same vaccine for now, and will be for some time, no matter what the short logistical problems of that are. Other countries are allocating both doses of the vaccine at the same time, to avoid the risk of the second dose being unavailable when the time comes to administer it. But that does, for now at least, restrict how fast you can roll out first doses.
One reason Sputnik uses two viruses is because one will make antibodies against the carrier virus. Proteins on the surface will generate their own immune response. Likely small as there is not a lot of virus (5x10^10 particles from memory) and this amplifies production of spike protein. You done want to neutralise the second dose before it gets a chance to make that second dose of protein. Whether this is a problem or not is a moot point. The ox/AZ vaccine raises a good second boost of antibodies against spike protein. I linked to the lancet study previously.
are we now less sniffy/mocking/doubtful about the impressively speedy efforts by Russia and China
They certainly released quickly but without any peer reviewed data? I never thought that was very sensible if you actually want take-up to be high numbers. Did they make it compulsory?
Plenty of real world data out there now I suppose.
That’s my memory of it, it was authorised for use at an earlier point in the process than normal. There was some incredulity at what looked like Kremlin propaganda but that’s fair game tbh.
are we now less sniffy/mocking/doubtful about the impressively speedy efforts by Russia and China
Not really speedy efforts are they, their own internal takeup is slow.
They marketed a product, tested it on some cohorts and basically exported most of it.
Low uptake at home for Sputnik. I can't think why the Russian public don't trust the state.......
Some interesting results on vaccination for those who might be taking biologicals, notably anti-TNFs for rheumatoid or crohn's disease https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.25.21254335v1 . Antibody produced following vaccination is reduced by about 70%. Since these are immunomodulators, one would expect a reduced antibody response - and this is noted. Of course all these studies measure antibody produced rather than protection, but one should not be surprised that damping down the immune system reduces immunogenic response. This is not new, and it is too small a trial to note any clinical consequences. For RA, methotrexate is used to reduce the body's immune response to infliximab (which is a chimeric mouse/human antibody).
Another day, another slogan; hands, face, space... and fresh air.
But Be warned! Don’t go taking the piss Boris says. That’ll stop ‘em.
F.. f... s...
are we now less sniffy/mocking/doubtful about the impressively speedy efforts by Russia and China
Isn’t this because the Russians essentially declared their virus ready before doing any mass testing? I know you probably don’t mean to be, but you are increasingly coming across as if you resent the success of the vaccine rollout in this country.
Some interesting results on vaccination for those who might be taking biologicals, notably anti-TNFs for rheumatoid or crohn’s disease https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.25.21254335v1 . Antibody produced following vaccination is reduced by about 70%.
Someone I know is in this predicament (was part of this, or a similar trial). Should she be pushing for dose 2 ASAP?
I know you probably don’t mean to be, but you are increasingly coming across as if you resent the success of the vaccine rollout in this country.
I absolutely don't. The more, the quicker, the sooner, the better.
I thought you was just trying to provide balance against the negative responses to the EU tosh?
Although theres a line if thought suggesting Von Der Leyen is to some degree motivated by the September elections in which the CDU might struggle
In which case, also fair game for criticism.
No, what I was interested in was how sceptical we were here in the UK (and I include myself in that) about Russia and China getting vaccines in use before others... and yet we act as if it's a conspiracy or a failure when others get vaccine into use after us. I was personally considering the EU and USA as over cautious, and Russia and China as not cautious enough... as I'm sure most people were... but now I'm wondering whether we really did take the "Goldilocks approach", or of it's just us having an understandable bias seeing things from a UK viewpoint.
Someone I know is in this predicament (was part of this, or a similar trial). Should she be pushing for dose 2 ASAP?
Her rheumatologists will inform on this. They are used to thinking about immunomodulatory treatments and their impact on vaccination (most notably for B cell therapy, which I have worked on). She can, however, point them in the direction of the study - and others.
Is this some mad puzzle that we can't interpret?
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1376573674757754888?s=20