Could barefoot road running cause cancer?

Everyone is being so ironic in threads recently that intensive linguistic analysis is required to work out what our views actually are.

Yeah, I've already had several members seeking out my 10% PR reduction services! Had to break it to them easily so as not to upset them too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee
Everyone is being so ironic in threads recently that intensive linguistic analysis is required to work out what our views actually are.

Not sure if we should use a smiley/emoticon for when we are being ironic/sarcastic or when we are serious after reading this in this weekend's Wall Street Journal:


  • By
  • KEITH HOUSTON
This summer, Facebook rolled out "stickers" on its website: cartoony takes on the emoticon for users to post in their chats, from a love-struck cactus to a pizza-eating cat. Still, for many of us, the simple sideways smiley face still reigns in electronic communication.
RV-AL679_EMOTIC_DV_20130927221733.jpg
Ben Wiseman​
It started 31 years ago, when a joke about a fake mercury spill at Carnegie Mellon University was posted on a digital message board and mistaken for a genuine safety warning. The board's users cast about for a means to distinguish humorous posts from serious content. On Sept. 19, 1982, faculty member Scott E. Fahlman entered the debate with the following message:
I propose that [sic] the following character sequence for joke markers:
:)
Read it sideways. Actually, it is probably more economical to mark things that are NOT jokes, given current trends. For this, use:
:-(
full article here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304213904579093661814158946.html
 
I'm not sure why but in the actual article the yellow smiley is not there, just the regular emoticon from the keyboard strokes like the one below it, but smiling. Somehow when I copied/pasted the beginning of the article it got translated to a real smiley! Is that a function of our site?
 
I knew that, I was just adding some info since I figured there would be plenty of anti-vaccine people reading this and challenging your obvious pro-vaccine stance.
Sorry, we don't interact that much, so I wasn't sure. My bad.
Not sure if we should use a smiley/emoticon for when we are being ironic/sarcastic or when we are serious after reading this in this weekend's Wall Street Journal
Sarcasm or irony works if you say one thing but mean another. If you have to signal that you mean something else, the effect is lost. It's no fun anymore. Plus I feel like I'm too old to use emoticons.
 
Everybody's eventually going to die of something.
I highly doubt that I will witness someone's demise from carcinoma attributed to absorption of chemicals through their bare soles while running on pavement during my lifetime.
If it does indeed get reported in the literature long after I'm gone please text me so I can stand corrected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barefoot Dama
I don't mind the black soles from new asphalt, however when I see strange wet spots that are not water based (not drying in the sun) I avoid them. There are farms where I run, and industries which use toxic chemicals. I may be overreacting, however I don't want sticky or corrosive stuff on my feet. Cow manure and road kill are tolerable.;)

s-exercise.png
 
http://www.martinmarietta.com/products/MSDS-Asphalt.pdf
"In general, the oxidation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons destroys their carcinogenic potential."

Personally, I don't worry about asphalt, especially old asphalt covered in dirt/dust. However, I avoid fresh asphalt while it's still airing out, as that stuff smells pretty nasty.
My soles get a bit dusty, and I'll wash them off with soap and water. As for your gunk, who knows? Just how gunky do they get? Do you run on industrial roads? Perhaps, consider contacting an analytical testing lab, if you are worried enough.

Personally, I don't run on busy roads, because I don't like breathing in exhaust and particulates.
www.msdsonline.com/blog/2010/08/does-osha-require-an-msds-for-exhaust/


I try to avoid busy roads for the same reason.

Ah, I should have thought to consult an MSDS. Sounds like old asphault should be pretty safe to run on, as long as a lot of quartz dust isn't being kicked up, so that goes back to your second point again.

This is still just informed guesswork to this point though. I like your point about contacting an analytical lab. It would be interesting to check my urine/blood before and after a "heavy" road week (heavy is only 20 miles to me right now). Maybe I should contact Daniel Lieberman.
 
Back to possible dangers of cancerous stuff being absorbed by the soles of the feet. That's exactly the question I asked myself when I decided to try out barefoot!
But then I thought of all the cats and dogs touching these surfaces during all their life without shoes on their paws: of course, there are cats and dogs with cancer. There are also shoe wearing humans with cancer. I'm not sure the cancer in animals is caused exclusively by cancerous stuff on the ground as cancer in shoe wearing humans has definitely other origins...
So in the end I decided that barefoot on asphalt is probably less dangerous (in terms of cancer) than say smoking or eating weird E -numbers in your food...


I think there's some merit in that line of thought, but we live far longer than cats or dogs, and have different biology, of course. Plus, I don't know about you, but I get cuts/abrasions/blisters on my feet once every three months or so during a run, whereas paws seem to be hardier.

I think it is a low risk but it comes down to Sid's point that we would need to contact an analytical lab to be sure.