R: Strong contamination with ethidium bromide

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









Prof. Piero Sestili
Istituto di Farmacologia e Farmacognosia e
Centro di Ricerca sull'Attività Motoria
Università degli Studi di Urbino "Carlo Bo"
Via "I Maggetti" 26
61029 URBINO (PU)
Tel. 0722 303414; 0722 305524
Fax 0722 303401

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).

In article <466863c5$0$25493$[Only registered users see links. ]>, "Jim 3975" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Something like 200X more if my memory serves me.

DK

You probably mean

[Only registered users see links. ]

It's a (the?) description of the Ames' test.

EtBr is mentioned therein, but I couldn't find anything on smoking.

Wo

Have you the reference of this paper ? As you can expected I am very interest
!



Jim 3975 wrote:

--
View this message in context: [Only registered users see links. ]
Sent from the Bio.net - Methods mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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:
[Only registered users see links. ]

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" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]. net...