Walmart flip-flops horror (chemical burn)

BIONIC_EARS · Post by **BIONIC_EARS** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:55 am

I don't shop at Walmart (on protectionist and snobbish grounds), and I don't like flip-flops (when women wear them, of course), but I just got this graphic link in email and thought I'd do my little part to discourage any women/girlfriends/wives from disturbing the public peace with these fashion atrocities.

http://www.lamanaphotography.com/walmart.htm

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:09 pm

holy frickin' christ, what the hell is on those flip-flops? anyone know anything about chemical burns?

BIONIC_EARS · Post by **BIONIC_EARS** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:14 pm

That was probably caused by an allergic reaction.

Edit: Or, after reading a bit of the commentary, maybe not!

JazzJackRabbit · Post by **JazzJackRabbit** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:43 pm

Damn, that is nasty. Makes me wonder what the hell those flippers were made of to cause such reaction. I wouldn't have believed it was possible without pictures.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:48 pm

It doesn't have to be a latex or rubber allergy that causes the burn, though it is highly suspect that an allergy could last that long. The extent of the burn is plausible, but not the duration. On the flipside, it would have to be unique to a small percentage of the thongs, otherwise a lot of people would be screaming about this.

There are a lot of cheap materials used to make plastics that dissolve lipids, so they'd cause cells to turn to swiss cheese, and pass the agent onto the surrounding cells. All it takes is a little dioxin and it will stick around for weeks; the body has almost no ability to break them down or expel them.

If it was PCBs or any kind of polychlorinated dioxins, they're exceptionally stable and will stick around on those thongs for years. Which is sort of good news, I guess.

They'd better pay out a shitload, because that crap is almost proven to cause cancer when enough gets into a body.

Nice Marmot · Post by **Nice Marmot** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:51 pm

How can you not like flip-flops? Must be a regional thing, I couldn't imagine life here in Florida without them. But then, even the computer nerds here have shapely, muscle-toned, tanned legs and ankles.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:52 pm

By the way, one of the most commonly-known polychlorinated benzodioxins is Agent Orange. It dissolves more than leaves...

BIONIC_EARS · Post by **BIONIC_EARS** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:50 pm

I have no problem with flip-flops beachside, but when paired with urban attire (and increasingly with formal and professional attire!) and worn out and about in a city in the northern hemisphere, the overall impression of a clappity naked-footed duckwalker is not very simpatico.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:56 pm

Heh.....Dioxin, Agent Orange. Brings back old memories, like the Times Beach saga. Supposedly the largest exposure to dioxin in the USA...a few miles west of here.......all over now, but was big news back then.

The funny part of all this......all the residents were removed, the whole town fenced in, because of the chemicals on the ground. But the deer and all the other animals in the place, thrived.....apparently un-affected by the dioxin.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:41 pm

But didn't they dig up all the streets and incinerate them? I thought that was how Superfund got started.

It occurs to me that, because the dioxins were mixed with used motor oil and tar, that the rate of decay would have been affected, accelerated.

Also, it sort of makes sense that the area wildlife wasn't hurt by it, because they don't eat or sleep on gravel. But I bet you dollars to donuts there aren't big weeds growing around where they sprayed.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:29 pm

The dioxin was mixed in with the dirt roads, and the dust scattered it all over. Plus the place got flooded frequently, further dispersing the dioxin. Really I think the whole thing was blown out of proportion. No body died, and nobody was getting sick either. After people found out about the dioxin.....they were blaming all sorts of things (never proven) on dioxin.

After standing vacant for some years, the place was packed with healthy wildlife. After one big flood, they burned all the top-soil......at great public expense of course. Political correctness at work....

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:09 pm

Yeah, I imagine Times Beach was more a media disaster than anything else, if anything, because it apparently involved the media.

Normally I'm no econut, and I only recycle because the bin is there, why not, right? and I really, really wish we had more nuclear power (only so much stuff to burn for power, how many chances do you get to burn rocks?) but chemical dumping, or in this case, mis-handling, just pisses me off.

Unlike power, where we have little global-scale alternative but burning shit, we can definitely make flip-flops without needing to harness the awesome power of grease that melts your skin and any other organic compound it interacts with. And if you eat it, it'll melt through your liver. It sure makes fishing easier, though. All you need is a net and nose plugs.

jhhoffma · Post by **jhhoffma** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:56 am

My guess is that that batch of "thong-straps" wasn't totally vulcanized (if rubber) or too much plasticiser was used (if plastic) and the person was allergic to this compound, not latex.

BTW, there is natural latex--which comes from a rubber tree--and sythetic latex, which is a generic term to describe emulsions with latex-like properties, but contain no real latex. Most people who have "latex allergies" are allergic to the compounds in "natural latex", which is like being allergic to peanuts (and peanut oil), but on the skin.

We just had a coworker come down with a diagnosed case of latex allergy. Though he's been suffering through it since late Feb. Let me tell you, it is awful. His entire body (particularly eyes, mouth, and hands) is swollen, red, and has peeling scabs everywhere. He was always cold (like when you have a fever or severe sunburn) and wore hooded sweatshirts when it was >90F in the shop. We finally sent him home and to the hospital when he agreed that he couldn't effectively work anymore. He had be under the care of a dermatologist, but she wasn't doing anything other than monitoring him and giving him some steroid creme. He's at our other facility that doesn't use chemicals and he is gradually getting better (after a stint in the hospital with IV-steroids). Latex allergies are serious stuff and can pop up at any time, so please be careful.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:27 pm

this would be a strange allergic reaction. someone would have to test her fully to see if was. not many times can a reaction be that localized and also persistent.

nzimmers · Post by **nzimmers** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:15 pm

whoa, that's some serious necrotic action there.

and that is not any kind of contact dermatitis..... you can rule out allergy.

A chemical burn would require either an acid or a alkaloid - I don't see how either could have caused the damage in those pictures.

Some kind of chemical agent got into the dermis and killed the underlying cells -

well, wallmart is officially off my list for good now.....

jhhoffma · Post by **jhhoffma** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:23 am

nzimmers wrote:whoa, that's some serious necrotic action there.

and that is not any kind of contact dermatitis..... you can rule out allergy.

I beg to differ. If you read my previous post, I detail a case where a colleague of mine was diagnosed with a latex allergy, however his was all over his body (face, hands, chest, legs) and most of it looked like that, some not quite as bad.

Some chemical allergens are absorbed into the underlying layers of skin and cause massive effects, but still remained localized to general areas. I think the duration of contact played a big roll in the localization of the wound.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:06 pm

you can rule out allergy.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:29 pm

Hey, there's more:

http://consumerist.com/consumer/recalls ... 298888.php

Tomasz · Post by **Tomasz** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:08 pm

I don't see what the fuss is about.

It looks like a classic text book case of contact dermatitis. It's relatively common. She's allergic to the cheap rubber like material Walmart used... unlucky, but nothing sinister about it. Certainly nothing worth suing over.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:16 am

Yeah, and hemorrhage just means bleeding (and what, no one ever died from blood loss?). I still think she's got a claim (since she's not allergic to the materials used there). Wal*Mart reacting to the ordeal by pulling the thongs isn't likely just to please people.

Did anyone follow that Wal*Mart SS* T-shirt fiasco?

*Schutzstaffel. That SS.