From: stan johnson (sjohnson@gwi.net)
Date: 05/01/00-04:23:13 PM Z
** Reply to note from Darlington Media Group
<postmaster@mediaworkshop.demon.co.uk> Mon, 01 May 2000
21:37:42 +0100
> I have included a sample paragrapgh from a material safety data
> sheet for a common chemical that is in daily use.
>
> Special Hazard Precautions: IRRITATION OF THE EYES, MUCOUS
> MEMBRANES AND SKIN COULD OCCUR. MAY CAUSE NAUSEA
> AND VOMITING IF INGESTED. MAY CAUSE RESPIRATORY
> IRRITATION IF INHALED. AVOID CONTACT WITH SKIN, EYES
> ANDCLOTHING.
<snip>
>
> The name of this horrendous substance ............ distilled water!
What company, please? MSDS number? Chemical product number? Is
this available on line? I'd like to see this one! The only reason I can
imagine for such an absurd bit of nonsense is that some company has
created boilerplate language to be used on ALL their MSDS's.
Assuming this was in fact published by a vendor, rather than being an
urban legend, I can only say that it was written under the direction of a
CYA-obsessed person of some profession I'll not name, not a chemist!
The problem is that the point supported by such an example, if the
reader generalizes, can be misleading to someone not fairly well
versed in chemistry or toxicology. There *are* dangerous chemicals out
there. The fact that all material objects can correctly be said to be
comprised of chemicals does not lessen the toxicity of hydrogen
cyanide, for example. Nor the dangers of environmental mercury, nor
of lead paint in homes, nor of dioxin from improper combustion
processes.
> Chemicals get a very bad press. Many people think that they are
> evil polluting substances that should be outlawed.
Some are. Some are not. The fact that some are not doesn't change
the fact that some are. Some snakes are deadly to humans; some are
innocuous. It is just as incorrect to imply that all are harmless as to
imply that all are deadly. It is surely obvious that not all the members
of a class which includes all material objects in the phyical universe [!]
can possibly be identical in their effects on terrestrial life. IOW, putting
a common label on diverse objects does NOT make them the same.
> My advice to you, is to read everything you can about the safety
> issues concerning the materials you intend to use. Then apply a bit
> of good old common sense.
I fully agree, provided one realizes that common sense is no substitute
for knowledge. You can find excessively paranoid advice, and equally
you can find excessively optimistic advice. Both can cause problems
for the unwary. If I had to err, I'd err on the side of caution, personally.
I'd rather be needlessly careful than heedlessly dead.
stan
-- Stan Johnson sjohnson@gwi.net 05/01/00 06:21pm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:15 PM Z CST