Acetone MSDS

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:25:24 GMT, the inscrutable "Steven and Gail Peterson" spake:

Whoever said it would kill you if you used it to get glue off your hands should read this portion from the MSDS:

"Ingestion: Swallowing small amounts is not likely to produce harmful effects."

'Nuff said?

Well, _I_ thought it was, yes. Also, the antidote for it's skin contact hazards seems to be...lotion.

Not quite: When swallowing, inhilation into the lungs can cause severe damage. Otherwise it's considered to be relatively mild. But we need to define "relatively", and "small amount". Here's a blurb:

Inhalation: Inhalation of vapors irritates the respiratory tract. May cause coughing, dizziness, dullness, and headache. Higher concentrations can produce central nervous system depression, narcosis, and unconsciousness. Ingestion: Swallowing small amounts is not likely to produce harmful effects. Ingestion of larger amounts may produce abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. Aspiration into lungs can produce severe lung damage and is a medical emergency. Other symptoms are expected to parallel inhalation. Skin Contact: Irritating due to defatting action on skin. Causes redness, pain, drying and cracking of the skin. Eye Contact: Vapors are irritating to the eyes. Splashes may cause severe irritation, with stinging, tearing, redness and pain. Chronic Exposure: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may produce severe irritation or dermatitis. Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions: Use of alcoholic beverages enhances toxic effects. Exposure may increase the toxic potential of chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as chloroform, trichloroethane.

You have to remember this is the BU*H E.P.A. and all of the dangerous wording has most likely been taken out to benefit the corporations.......

Not quite. Look again - aspiration, not inhalation. It's talking about breathing in the liquid.

Wow, acetone seems docile compared to this nasty stuff:

The EPA doesn't do MSDSs.

You're really a case....

I realised that as I was writing it. However, I also realised that it was fairly synonymous. To "aspirate" is to "breath in". That also implies inhilation. If you inhale under water, you will aspirate the water into your lungs. Aspiration can also refer to transfer of a gas. ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Somehow I doubt that the wording of every MSDS on Earth has been changed to suit the preferences of the President.

And the Canadian government doesn't seem to think it's particularly dangerous either.

Yep. Even water is dangerous if you breathe the liquid.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

OK, so we get a barrelful and _drown_ him in it.

Now *that* would be aspiration!

You are ignoring that the passage uses inhalation and aspiration quite separately and very specifically. Add that aspiration is under Ingestion and not under inhalation and it is clear that Mike is correct.

Me, I would wear gloves when using it and if using a lot or for a long time a respirator (I already wear glasses).

Peter

Well yes, but asphyxiation would be the immediate cause of death...

Andy Dingley wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

A decent malmsey I pray.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:53:06 -0600, "Henry St.Pierre" scribbled:

Waste of cheap sweet wine. Stick to acetone, a whiff of which I have more than once experienced in a number of people's prized home-made vino, not to speak of some commercial offerings. Hmmm. I wonder if cheap wine could be used to remove gorilla glue stains. And it does damage the liver . . .

Luigi Replace "nonet" with "yukonomics" for real email address

Nay, not for Larry, butt for Clarence.

Thomas J. Watson - WoodDorker

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

I'm curious as to just how many people will get that.