Re: Taste Testing chemicals

Joseph Portale (jportale@pimacc.pima.edu)
Fri, 15 May 1998 16:06:51 +0000

I must agree with Bob on this matter. I have been accused of being naive
and/or cavilier on this list in the past concerning chemical processes; but
one thing that I would never do is taste any photochemicals. Many chemicals
enter your body and do no damage... immediatly. Dangerous exposures can be
cumlative. That wives tale of taking a little poison every day to build up
a "resistance" is utter nonsense. The chemicals find hiding places in bone,
fat cells or organs. When enough of the chemicals are present, problems
start. A good example of this (although not an alt-photo-process item) is
automotive antifreeze. If you ingest one molecule of ethyline glycol, then
never have additional exposure, you will have that molecule in your body
until you die. Enough antifreeze, you get cancer or, as many an unfortunate
dog or cat will attest, you die. It is irresonsible for anyone to advicate
tasting photochemicals. Photochemicals are safe when they are treated with
the repect they require.

just my two cents,

Joe P.
Tucson, AZ

At 03:10 PM 5/15/1998 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>I have no fear of tasting oxalic acid and I've done it on occasion to
>>determine if it is oxalic acid or citric acid and only if I know that is
>>the only two options.
>
>
>(Wait......Let me first put up the flameproof barrier so when the flames
>arrive, I will be ready.)
>
>The above quote is absolutely reckless, and Ill advised. I do not care if
>God himself tells you it is OK to taste chemicals, it is foolish. I know
>from experience that if you say it is OK to do something, everyone will be
>doing it. Please, Please PLEASE.....do not advocate this approach to
>identifying chemicals. It is foolish. BTW: If you publish this 'Taste Test
>Tip' where someone can read it publicly, you open yourself to potential
>legal issues and problems if the reader trys it and gets into trouble.
>Suppose they do not know what a chemical tastes like and they mistake one
>of a worse one?
>
>
>RM
>
>
>
>