I will guess your average human emits more hazardous VOCs than a vinyl record.
I'd put this down to "someone thinks something is cool and fun! we have to show them how wrong they are!"
I'd put this down to "someone thinks something is cool and fun! we have to show them how wrong they are!"
http://www.safemarkets.org/toxic-chemicals-in-products/pvc/v...
That sounds a bit exaggerated. There is evidence that occupational exposure to PVC compounds causes liver damage or cancer, and that’s mostly regarding workers in production lines. You’d have to be closely sniffing your record collection for hours on end to get the same effect.
If this was true you’d have entire generations from the 19x0s suffering from liver failure, as vinyl was the only media available, with billions of records sold.
> Livers from rats provided with diet containing 2% DEHP show an increased number of peroxisomes after a few days
> In spite of the lack of direct evidences […] the indications so far obtained are sufficiently unequivocal not to be neglected
> We have reasons to believe that accumulating toxicity is valid for humans
> which means that evaluation of chronic human toxicity cannot be performed until around 2000 to 2020!
From that to “vinyl records will damage your liver” seems like a huge jump.
As I recall, when Benn did the test, putting the record back in its sleeve caused the air quality to go back to normal.
So whatever VOCs he is emitting, I don't think his meter picked them up.
> I'd put this down to "someone thinks something is cool and fun! we have to show them how wrong they are!"
Re-check the part about "how much my peepee hurts". I really want to like vinyls, but I'm never going to buy one if they're basically Forever Chemicals that got grandfathered in by being part of pop culture decades ago. And Benn says in the video that he could stand to make a lot of money if he sold out and had vinyls of his work manufactured.
And even of its true, reducing VOCs still sounds like a positive goal