Benzene absorption is associated with leukemia says  the article. It
says NOTHING about condoms or their use.

1. No citation for this statement.
2. No information on how much benzene may be in a condom.
3. No information on how much benzene ex;posure per coital act one may
be exposed to.
4. No reasonable belief that the use of a latex condom would have any
impact on benzene exposure.
5. Fails to recognize that any such risk is from use of GLOVES on a
daily and multi-hour basis (e.g., hospital workers).
6. Fails to recognize the exceedingly low risk of either allergy or
benzene exposure versus the demonstrable and higher risks associated
with unprotected sex (from unwanted pregnancy to diseases such as
HIV).
7. Fails to recognize the potential use of plastic condoms.

Therefore, Mark buys distal, vague and unsupported theories of RISK
when it comes to something that nterferes with making porn flicks
while ignoring vast amounts of data showing that HIV exists and causes
AIDS in the majority of untreated individuals.

Draw your own conclusions.

        George M. Carter

Having quoted text about the importance of accuracy, you immediately
ignored it and posted this vacuity:

"Large" doesn't mean anything without numeric quantities.  It doesn't
have enough significant digits... or *any* significant digits... to
be of any use.  It doesn't even have a known order of magnitude.
Are you talking grams or nanograms?  There is no way to tell.  Even if
you were being honest, your words above would reveal NOTHING about
the quantity of benzene used in condom manufacture.  (Which quantity,
by the way, is irrelevant.  The quantity condom users are exposed to
is what matters... *if* it's large enough to matter.)

Here in the real world, the only thing we can learn from your words
is that you want people to interpret this vague wave of your hand
as representing enough benzene to endanger their health.  We learn
nothing about benzene or condoms or danger from your words -- we only
learn something about you.

If you want to make your point, you need to answer these questions:

(1) By which routes -- inhalation, skin absorption, etc. -- can
   condoms expose condom users to benzene?
(2) How much exposure results, via each of those routes, from
   typical condom use?
(3) What is the relationship between the level of exposure by each
   exposure route and the resulting risk of disease or diseases?

If you can't specify the benzene exposure, in units of mass, and
the probability, in numerical form, of a disease resulting from that
exposure, then you don't know what you're talking about and you have
no rational grounds for your beliefs.  You're just a loud-mouthed
empty-headed ignoramus with an idée fixe.