Condoms

[CoffeeCatholic]

93% of condoms tested had a seriously high level of n-nitrosamines, a chemical which caused a massive recall of baby bottles and the such. It's found in rubbery things, and it relatively safe EXCEPT when it comes in contact with bodily fluids. Then, for whatever reason, it releases a highly carcinogenic compound.

After the study was completed, the condom companies that were among that 93% bribed the research company in Germany to keep their mouths shut as to which ones where dangerous because it would not be cost effective for those companies to completely redo the recipe for their condoms.

[catholicinsd]

How about someone actually tests them??

[Didymus]

[quote name='CoffeeCatholic' post='1424356' date='Nov 24 2007, 08:09 PM']93% of condoms tested had a seriously high level of n-nitrosamines, a chemical which caused a massive recall of baby bottles and the such. It's found in rubbery things, and it relatively safe EXCEPT when it comes in contact with bodily fluids. Then, for whatever reason, it releases a highly carcinogenic compound.

After the study was completed, the condom companies that were among that 93% bribed the research company in Germany to keep their mouths shut as to which ones where dangerous because it would not be cost effective for those companies to completely redo the recipe for their condoms.[/quote]

is there a place i can cite for this? this is some juicy material...

[CoffeeCatholic]

I'd have to find that for you- it's deep in the files of food not condoms. And honestly, i haven't really updated anything there in forever. Here's the blog post i wrote about it awhile back. If you can't find the research by googling, which is how i found it, let me know and I'll search deeper.

[i]In 2004 a study was released from a well respected German research company that had been studying the components of condoms. The results of the study were simple, but profound. Nearly all condoms studied (including all major American brands) contained high amounts of a toxic chemical known as N-Nitrosamine which has been proven to cause cancer. This carcinogen was banned from all children's toys and some other appliances, causing massive recalls in the late 1990's. It is responsible for helping the latex in the condom stay elastically and is often found in elastic-like material. "If it's so toxic," you ask, "then why is it found in so many materials but banned from others?" The answer is simple. N-Nitrosamine is only able to enter your body through contact with your bodily fluids (i.e. saliva, mucus, blood, semen, and vaginal discharge). So products that contain N-Nitrosamine but are never intended to be in contact with these substances are allowed. However, the big stink over this chemical came when it was banned from baby toys because there is no way to limit which toys an infant puts in her mouth, thus causing concern. The only other product that was ever considered were kitchen appliances, like spatulas and rubber spoons. With condoms only purpose being to come between 2 people and prevent the passage of bodily fluids, shouldn't they be considered for the chemical ban? The FDA said no, but only after testimony by big business condom makers like Durex and Trojan about how much money they would loose from such a ban.

Now our culture is at a cross-road. Much of our energy and resources goes towards fighting diseases like Cancer, which is a major killer of people world wide. But we are also constantly promoting the concept of "Safe Sex" which undeniably includes the consistent use of condoms by all sexually active people. They are given out for free in many places, including college health centers. But with this study we are forced to decide between what seems like two bad options. Either we must quite using condoms in order to prevent getting cancer, but risk contracting STD's like Herpes or AIDs from our sexual partners, or continue using the carcinogenic condom and theoretically protect ourselves from other diseases. It's a choice between 2 (or more) equally as gruesome fates.

Or is it? There is always a third choice! The third choice in this case would be to stop using condoms, which lead to cancer and may lead to other health problems, and stop having sex with multiple partners! As counter-cultural as that seems, isn't that the only way to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases anyway? If everybody on this planet decided today to stop having sex with more than one person, and only had one sexual partner for the rest of their life, then in approximately 3 generations all Sexually Transmitted Diseases would be functionally wiped out! And then there would be no need for condoms to begin with.

"But that'll never happen" you say. To that, we reply that it'll never happen if you never do anything about it. Perhaps it will take more than 3 generations, but the more people who have more than one sexual partner, the less spread of disease will occur. Most specifically, if you stop having sex with multiple partners and wait for your "one and only", you will have almost 0% risk of contracting an STD.
One last note: The researches in this study refused to release the information to the public about which brands of condoms fell in the highly toxic category, and which did not. Why? Because they are afraid of big companies like Durex and Trojan suing them for their well-done research which exposed their product's flaw. The big companies think that what we don't know won't hurt us, but that is a lie. No matter what, a condom that contains carcinogens will still give you cancer, whether you knew about it or not. Don't play Russian roulette with your life by hoping that the condom you're using is part of the 7% who passed…. Be smarter than that![/i]

[Justin86]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1424382' date='Nov 25 2007, 12:36 PM']How about someone actually tests them??[/quote]
They do, otherwise we wouldn't have the stats.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Justin86

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1424355' date='Nov 25 2007, 02:02 AM']Condoms just encourage people to have sex thinking it's always successful againist STDs and pregancy however that's NOT the case. There is no 100% effective method againist either.[/quote]

A total hysterectomy is quite effective against pregnancy, though it has to be said it's a big step for anyone to take.

[Justin86]

Ok, so? We're talking about condoms here not ridiculous scenarios maybe less than 1% of the population would ever even consider doing for contraceptives purposes.

[Lil Red]

thanks coffee cath

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1424305' date='Nov 24 2007, 10:28 PM']So statistically speaking, one is at severe risk at least once out of every 50 times one uses a condom during sexual activity.

to really heed this stat, which even the Alan Guttmacher Institute uses, one should limit the number of times they have sex to less than fifty times in their entire life, lest they contract HIV and live with it the rest of their lives.[/quote]

That's not true. For that to work each of the fifty encounters would have to be with a different sexual partner, preferably one who had already had multiple partners him/herself. A long-term couple who were virgins when they got together, have regular sex, and use condoms each time are not at risk of contracting HIV. There is a serious moral problem with what they're doing, yes, but it won't increase their chances of getting the disease. Your opponents will pick up on this. They will talk about 'responsible sex'. They will say that your argument isn't applicable to people like them. It's their guaranteed comeback. You need to cover this base.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1424665' date='Nov 26 2007, 06:37 AM']That's not true. For that to work each of the fifty encounters would have to be with a different sexual partner, preferably one who had already had multiple partners him/herself. A long-term couple who were virgins when they got together, have regular sex, and use condoms each time are not at risk of contracting HIV. There is a serious moral problem with what they're doing, yes, but it won't increase their chances of getting the disease. Your opponents will pick up on this. They will talk about 'responsible sex'. They will say that your argument isn't applicable to people like them. It's their guaranteed comeback. You need to cover this base.[/quote]
How many people actually have that kind of relationship?