The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
completely. Now I'm not recommending that you bathe in the stuff, but
knowing that this works might get you out of hot water with the wife the
next time you work with gorrilla glue and then she wants to go out to dinner
that evening.
--
Charley
I've been using the "upside down" storage
method for the last year or so for poly.
Works pretty good. Get's the O-2 below
the glue (spout).
Lou
In article <[email protected]>, Unisaw A-100
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Sell the stuff in mustard/ketchup pack sizes. That way we
> consumers wouldn't be throwing it away when it hardens up
> way before it's "expiration date".
>
> UA100, who really only threw away one half a bottle once but
> has never re-bought it since because he threw away one half
> a bottle of it once...
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:17:06 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > It was somewhere outside Barstow when Dave Hinz
<[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:05:26 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Acetone is only flammable as heck.
> >>> Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
> >>
> >>Do you have a calibration scale for this?
> >
> > There's a rubber bible somewhere around - or you can look it up
> > on-line.
>
> Specifically, where does "flammable as all get-out" fit in the scale?
> I googled, but didn't find anything specifically about this.
I think the relevant scale is 'flashpoint'.
Like golf, a smaller number is 'flashier'.
--
FF
> I do use gloves when using Gorrilla Glue, but I still always manage a
> few black spots on my skin someplace, and it looks really bad when I have
> to
> go out in public afterwards.
If you have to go out and find you're all out of acetone, try some
morticians makeup. It hides those spots really well.
Wood Butcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> A toothpaste tube would be nice too. Bigger & still
> keeps the damn air/moisture out after opening.
On top of that good idea... refrigeration will double the shelf life of
the poly glue that's been opened. Just make sure you have SWMBO's
approval before you do it.
Joe
aka 10x
OK. The movie analogy is not a good one, but the rest applies.
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
> writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the
> literature are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a
> "review of the literature". How do you know the authors information
> didn't come form ONE or even TWO articles? There are NO references to the
> literature, but yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A
> "review of the literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write
> a review of a movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching
> the end of it?
>
> If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style
> manual was used? If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know
> a CRC handbook was used? Unless the author told you?
>
> I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because
> it is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with
> my skin?". We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
> This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
> that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
> INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.
>
>>Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
>> except you.
>
> Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document
> but he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How
> is that done?
>
>
>
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman wrote:
>>
>>>> Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that.
>>>>> What
>>>>> makes you think he used a review of the literature?
>>>>
>>>> The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
>>> of
>>> the literature. Ok, If you say so.
>>>
>>> If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
>>> think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.
>>
>> And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
>> targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?
>>
>>>> So from whence did he find his numerous cases?
>>>
>>> Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
>>> reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.
>>>
>>> Again, this is not a review of the literature.
>>
>> Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
>> literature.
>>
>>> We have NO evidence that
>>> he
>>> used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature
>>> these
>>> "case reports" came from. Do you?
>>
>> Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
>> find them.
>>
>>>>> What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all?
>>>>> I
>>>>> see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
>>>
>>>> Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then
>>>> "one
>>>> case report"
>>>
>>> Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
>>> referencing the literature.
>>
>> Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the
>> literature"
>> except you.
>>
>>> A reference from the literature would contain
>>> a
>>> REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the
>>> source
>>> of
>>> the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain
>>> the
>>> journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
>>> Have you ever read a scientific publication?
>>
>> Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I.
>> Nobody
>> has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature",
>> only
>> that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.
>>
>>> You crack me up sir.
>>>
>>>> Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are
>>>> numbers
>>>> associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
>>>> dealing with larger populations than just you.
>>>
>>> Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
>>> recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
>>> go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using
>>> acetone
>>> (FYI).
>>
>> So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
>> concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did
>> you
>> use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
>> consider to be an "adverse effect"?
>>
>>> Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
>>> how
>>> many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?
>>
>> I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up
>> the
>> number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
>> lower bound on it.
>>
>>> Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to
>>> see
>>> what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
>>> show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would
>>> consider
>>> that a
>>> LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not
>>> just
>>> me.
>>
>> Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
>> was the totality of the research.
>>
>> Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
>> observed results, is more than you have presented.
>>
>>>> They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
>>>> government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
>>>> unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".
>>>
>>> They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
>>> just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference
>>> to
>>> the literature would be nice wouldn't it?
>>
>> The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I
>> don't
>> _care_ specifically _who_ in this context.
>>
>>> You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
>>> (A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
>>> LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
>>> volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
>>> INFORMATION).
>>
>> You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
>> studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
>> result and ignoring the rest of the document.
>>
>>> Ok, sure. Trust away.
>>
>> I shall.
>>
>>>> I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
>>>> intepretation
>>>> of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
>>>> government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".
>>>
>>> Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
>>> attacking me?
>>
>> How about you actually reading the entire document in question and
>> finding
>> something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6
>> volunteers"?
>>
>>>> If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are
>>>> responding
>>>> then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.
>>>
>>> Why should I do you any favors?
>>
>> I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
>> responsible manner.
>>
>>> Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
>>> use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.
>>
>> Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
>> "scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.
>>>
>>> Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
>>> literature.
>>
>> What difference does that make to the topic at hand?
>>
>>>>So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make
>>>>the
>>> report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.
>>>
>>> You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the
>>> document.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
>>> document that does not contain a review of the literature?
>>
>> No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter
>> to
>> write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
>> typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
>> it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that
>> does
>> not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook
>> to
>> write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one
>> uses
>> a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
>> literature survey.
>>
>>> Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?
>>
>> The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.
>>
>> <and again a duplicate post was snipped>
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
WOW! 21 hits in a half day on what I thought was a good idea, but I had a
feeling it might stir things up a bit. Sorry if I caused you EPA guys to get
fired up. I didn't mean to cause such a fuss, but I thought it was a good
idea. I do use gloves when using Gorrilla Glue, but I still always manage a
few black spots on my skin someplace, and it looks really bad when I have to
go out in public afterwards. When I found out how good a small amount of
acetone removed the spots I thought that you guys would appreciate knowing
about it. I never suggested that anyone should take a bath in acetone.
--
Charley
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> I just normally use steel wool and wax. Gives a nice soft sheen.
> >
> > How do you get her to hold still?
>
> I got 4 of those Bessey clamps Lee Valley had on sale a while back.
>
>
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:42:22 -0600, Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:03:45 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
>
> If you bathe in it for decades, sure.
If even then. The MSDS for acetone (google string "acetone MSDS") says,
among other things:
(specific URL: http://www.bu.edu/es/labsafety/ESMSDSs/MSAcetone.html )
Contact Rating: 1 - Slight
Skin Contact:
Irritating due to defatting action on skin. Causes redness, pain, drying
and cracking of the skin.
Chronic Exposure:
Prolonged or repeated skin contact may produce severe irritation or dermatitis.
Toxicological information is unremarkable.
So, while I wouldn't bathe in the stuff, telling someone it's gonna
eat their liver is, well, unsupportable.
Dave Hinz
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:37:54 GMT, stoutman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I suggested someone use methanol once for shellac solvent and a similar
> phenomenon occurred.
Good thing you didn't suggest ethanol - that stuff is _proven_ to cause
liver problems in excessive quantities.
> Some people don't know how to interpret a MSDS and blow things WAY out of
> proportion.
Exactly. Or the "it sounds similar, so it's equally hazardous" thinkers.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:05:26 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Acetone is only flammable as heck.
> Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
Do you have a calibration scale for this?
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:17:06 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was somewhere outside Barstow when Dave Hinz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:05:26 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Acetone is only flammable as heck.
>>> Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
>>
>>Do you have a calibration scale for this?
>
> There's a rubber bible somewhere around - or you can look it up
> on-line.
Specifically, where does "flammable as all get-out" fit in the scale?
I googled, but didn't find anything specifically about this.
"10x" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:120320051211054640%[email protected]...
> Wood Butcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A toothpaste tube would be nice too. Bigger & still
> > keeps the damn air/moisture out after opening.
>
> On top of that good idea... refrigeration will double the shelf life of
> the poly glue that's been opened. Just make sure you have SWMBO's
> approval before you do it.
>
Extra permission not required as long as you put it right next to the
fishing worms.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:53:57 GMT, stoutman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I give up. You guys must be right. Don't use acetone to clean glue from
> your hands.
Not much more to do than give the data. When the MSDS lists
'dries out your skin' as the top problem...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:18:19 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the ignorant
>>and uneducated.
>
> I'm sorry, but the only person who appears to be behaving ignorantly
> around here is you. Paul _agreed_ with you, posted a reasonable
> credible link to support this, then you bit his head off !
Yeah, I noticed that too.
Dave Hinz
my father is also a chemist, and was just diagnosed with bladder cancer
almost certainly from exposure to chemicals like acetone. i say protect
yourself.
stoutman wrote:
> Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>
> Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal with are
> 1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my concerns.
>
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>stoutman wrote:
>>
>>>Than Im in deep shit. We use acetone to wash our glasswear at work. I
>>>have been getting it on my hands for over 10 years with no problems.
>>>That beer you drink at night is worse for your liver than a little
>>>acetone on your hand.
>>
>>You just might be getting in deeper than you think.
>>
>>Might very well be worth a physical.
>>
>>Lew
>
>
>
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It was somewhere outside Barstow when david zaret
> <news@__REMOVE__.zaret.com> wrote:
>
> >my father is also a chemist, and was just diagnosed with bladder cancer
> >almost certainly from exposure to chemicals like acetone.
>
> I'm sorry to hear about your father, but "exposure to chemicals like
> acetone" is a long way from "exposure to acetone".
>
> No one is disputing that there are some hazardous solvents in common
> use, or recently taken out of use. But acetone isn't one of them. As
> a chemist, he's certain to have been exposed to a wide range of
> solvents, nearly all far worse than acetone.
>
Sort of like me when I have to help in radiology. After 4800 hours in
military aircraft alone, much less weapons preflights, who's to tell when I
got the dose that'll kill me.
Now those nails places at the mall - there's a liability lawyer's dream. No
more smoking, though....
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are correct there are more formal sources for acetone toxicology, even
> more formal than the one you presented (check out PUBMED). However, for
the
> purposes of this discussion wouldn't the actual usage occounts of a
chemist
> who has been using acetone (along side several other coworkers for several
> years) be sufficient?
>
"The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' "
Dean Edell
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The parts of the discussion (the majority) that pertain to the toxicology
of
> acetone are considered scientific in nature. Thus, the discussion can be
> considered a "scientific discussion"
>
> If you need more information as to its toxicity do your own research and
> come to your own conclusions about the toxicity of acetone. I am MORE
than
> confident that you will (or have already) come to the same conclusions I
> have regarding its toxicity.
>
>
>
WHAT! Empirical data, not testimonials?
That's what educated, intelligent people use.....
stoutman wrote:
>
> I will. I'm beginning to think that this guy is just trolling me.
Takes two to tango, so to speak...
> My original intentions were sincere (to be helpful), but regretful at this
> point.
I don't doubt the former, but you just can't seem to back off and
instead just got higher-pitched which sorta' negates the latter...
I'm going to take a extreme chance here and make a couple of comments
that may (or may not :) ) help in a longer-run...
First, I'm going to presume you're not particularly familiar w/
usenet--if you were, you would have already realized there was no point
in continuing a "is/is not" discussion--they never change anybody's
opinion and as amply demonstrated herein, simply degenerate--how fast
and how far is somewhat variable, but the general trend is clear.
Second, to succeed in sharing what you <do> know well in usenet, it's
much more successful to not tout personal expertise/experience (at least
directly) in the "I'm a <whatever> so it's clear I'm an expert"
mode--it's simply amazing to find the number and types of people who
either actively participate (or lurk w/ only an occasional pop-up) that
invariably have at least as much if not much more experience in your
field---remembering that initially is a good thing.
Thirdly, it's also a characteristic that there are those who simply wait
for the opportunity to pounce--unfortunately, it's a knee-jerk reaction
for many, a source of glee for others, and an occasional lapse by others
(like I occasionally find myself).
Finally, :) in the particular case, it's fine to post personal opinion
and ancecdotal accounts of work practice if they're clearly such. Where
you slipped up here was attempting to justify that as a
pseudo-scientific argument. If, when questioned you had simply posted a
link to an MSDS or referred to it as backup to your own attitude, the
tempest would have died before it got started.
When, otoh, you attempted to justify your previous claim simply by
touting your own expertise and personal experience, that simply (as you
no doubt have noticed) fanned the flames and at that point there's no
way you can <ever> "win" such an argument.
And, for one last comment, if you are going to attempt to make arguments
"scientific", at least check your spelling, grammar and use facts rather
than opinions/personal experience as the building blocks. Your
credibility will be in direct proportion to the amount of effort taken
in proofing your comments...nothing will start the usenet police off
quicker than a chance to point out what can easily come off as
pretentiousness even if as here (I'm sure) it wasn't intended.
HTH...
Charley wrote:
> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
> completely. Now I'm not recommending that you bathe in the stuff, but
> knowing that this works might get you out of hot water with the wife the
> next time you work with gorrilla glue and then she wants to go out to dinner
> that evening.
>
Never had black marks on my hands. How long do you leave it on to get
them?
I take it off my hands at the same time I'm cleaning up the squeeze
out using a rag moistened with mineral spirits as per, GASP!, the
instructions on the bottle.
stoutman wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I think you are being WAY over dramatic here. I never said acetone "Will
> not kill you". When did I write that?
Please read my post. I *specifically* avoided talking about Acetone. I
*specifically* was attacking the problem with anecdotal evidence. When I
used examples, I *never* used acetone as the example. I was not talking
about acetone. I never said you said that. I never said you said
anything; in fact, I started the whole thing saying it was not aimed at you.
I ACTUALLY AGREED THAT ACETONE WAS MOSTLY HARMLESS.
Does anybody actually read these messages????
My issue was with the general notion that things are either good or bad
based purely on personal experience. I am sorry no one can figure that out.
PK
stoutman wrote:
> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to reread
> his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should be ashamed of
> myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>
No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said
that acetone was pretty benign.
PK
>No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
>an
> _example_.
Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. It is appears to be a
compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.
Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific publication)
that is sighted in that web page? I could not.
They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I don't
know what is.
If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>
>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>> correct?
>>
>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>
> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
> an
> _example_.
>
>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????
>
> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>
>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>> make it credible?
>
> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be made
> available to the public.
>
> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
> google same, and come up with
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>
> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>
>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>
>>
>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>> true?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>
>>>> One more think.
>>>>
>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>
>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>> the
>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
>>> will give you more of the same.
>>>
>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
>>>> NO
>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>> foolish.
>>>
>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>
>>>>> PK
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Unisaw A-100
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Sell the stuff in mustard/ketchup pack sizes.
Years ago I shared a flat with a guy who developed the squeezable
ketchup bottle. Now this was a clever bit of plastics work -
something like 7 layers involved in it. The problem is that
polyethylene alone is permeable to water vapour, which isn't a good
thing for ketchup. I was working for the phone company at the time,
where polyethylene cables are lined with aluminium foil.
So when I threw away 2/3rd of a bottle of Balcotan PU glue, I took
steps to avoid its successor going the same way. I wrapped the
squeeable and probably permeable bottle with aluminium foil. So far
this bottle has lasted twice as long as the first and hasn't set in
the bottle. Inside the nozzle cap though, where I haven't installed a
moisture barrier, it does go hard if I don't use it for a while.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:02:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
>
>Unless of course one is allergic to latex.
Okay, nitrile, then.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Nate Perkins
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The one aspect in which acetone is considerably more dangerous than
>anything else I use is as a fire hazard. It's flammable as hell,
Acetone is only flammable as heck.
Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
I like acetone as a workshop solvent. Cheap, easily available, pokey
enough to work, nothing like so hazardous as most of the alternatives.
Scientific discussions that is. You guys sure know your woodworking.
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the
>ignorant and uneducated.
>
>
> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George wrote:
>>>
>>> "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' "
>>>
>>> Dean Edell
>>
>>
>> Ohhh, that one is great. I'll have to remember it.
>>
>> PK
>
>
I will. I'm beginning to think that this guy is just trolling me.
My original intentions were sincere (to be helpful), but regretful at this
point.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>>
>> Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:
>
> Give it a rest... :(
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
That's a statement beyond the misleading and bordering on the plain
dumb wrong.
_Vodka_ "causes liver problems", as does beer.
Of all the workshop solvents you're likely to encounter, then acetone
is just about the most benign. Its liver toxicity, both acute and
chronic, is far below that of even white spirit.
If acetone does have a liver hazard, it's that it has long been known
to have a synergistic effect with some other solvents - trike is hard
on the liver, but in combination with acetone it's much worse.
A reasonable view:
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html
You are correct there are more formal sources for acetone toxicology, even
more formal than the one you presented (check out PUBMED). However, for the
purposes of this discussion wouldn't the actual usage occounts of a chemist
who has been using acetone (along side several other coworkers for several
years) be sufficient?
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>> If thats the case than I should be dead. Acetone is NOT that bad for you
>> unless you are bathing in it.
>>
>> I get acetone on my hands 5 days a week.
>
> <not aimed at you, stoutman, just a convient place>
>
> The reliance in the ng on anecodotal evidence for saftey matters oftens
> astounds me. "I did X for 20 yrs.." and "I know a guy one who died from Y"
> and so on. You guys do realise there are excellent resource out there
> which are more formal and reliable? Good god, a stewardess once survived a
> 33,000 ft fall out of an airplane; if I could claim "My sister fell out of
> an airplane, it must be safe" does that make it true?
>
> Ok, rant off. Here is a better resource:
>
> http://www.entheology.org/tips-acetone/acetone.htm
>
> Short story: It isn't food or mouthwash, but sure seems pretty safe.
>
> PK
Charley wrote:
> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
> completely.
<snip>
NOT a good idea.
Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
Lew
>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>
> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
You did.
You referred to it as a review of the literature. do you remember typing? :
"No, _they_ used a review of the literature."
"They used" != "it was".
What?? Don't understand your comment. Please elaborate.
> Why would you expect there to be one?
Don't make me chuckle. Any decent review of the literature would CITE
references from the literature. This is NOT a review of the literature.
Have you ever read a scientific review article?
> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
> and
> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.
I never claimed to be a government agency. I never gave my OPINION. When
did I give my opinion? I stated OBSERVATIONS from my extensive experience
as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist who uses acetone on a daily basis for the past
10-years.
> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
> Administration being more credible than you are?
I don't. Never said I was more credible. I'm willing to bet I have used
acetone more than the COSHA though.
> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
Not the least bit upset.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>>No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
>>>an
>>> _example_.
>>
>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>
> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>
>> It is appears to be a
>> compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.
>
> No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences of
> acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
> government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
> public in that matter.
>
>> Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
>> publication)
>> that is sighted in that web page? I could not.
>
> Why would you expect there to be one?
>
>> They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
>> Human
>> Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
>> don't know what is.
>>
>> If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
>> inadequate so be it.
>
> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
> and
> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
> are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by a
> number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
> chemists, physicians, and other specialists.
>
> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
> Administration being more credible than you are?
>
> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
>
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>>
>>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>>
>>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>> as
>>> an
>>> _example_.
>>>
>>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
>>>> VOLUNTEERS?????
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
>>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>>
>>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>>>> make it credible?
>>>
>>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>>> made available to the public.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
>>> google same, and come up with
>>>
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>>
>>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>>
>>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>>>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
>>>>>> web
>>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>>>> the
>>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
>>>>> US
>>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> NO
>>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>>>> foolish.
>>>>>
>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PK
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --John
>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> However, for the
> purposes of this discussion wouldn't the actual usage occounts of a chemist
> who has been using acetone (along side several other coworkers for several
> years) be sufficient?
No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?
The urge to split things into "Will kill you" and "Won't kill you" is
dangerous. I would think that a chemist would understand this very well;
real danger is much more subtle. Lets say chemical "Wanko" quadrupled
you chance of lung disease. You and all of your co-workers could still
be unaffect; it is actually probably fairly likely this is so. It
doesn't make Wanko safe. The flip side is perhaps Wanko contributes to
the death of one out of a million people by very very slightly
increasing the chance of a serious asthma attack. It is quite possible
that someone on this group knew someone who died as such and could
relate the story. Does this mean Wanko should be tossed out?
So, No, your personal accounts are not sufficient. Such "evidence" might
be useful for whether I buy a Delta TS or not, but not for safety of
chemicals no. And if you are a chemist, you should be ashamed of
yourself for even suggesting that it is.
PK
> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.
REALLY? Did you read it?
We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
correct?
It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????
Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to make
it credible?
Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to make
it a credible one.(not that I do).
PAUL WROTE:
>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
true?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>> One more think.
>>
>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>
> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by the
> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
> will give you more of the same.
>
>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is NO
>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>> foolish.
>
> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.
>
>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
>>>> be
>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said
>>> that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>
>>> PK
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> As a matter of social policy concerning the production, labelling, and
> availability of such chemicals perhaps. As a basis for personal choice
> concerning such chemicals, it's a personal choice--if you want to berate
> someone for making a personal choice on the basis of evidence that he
> considers sufficient but you do not then you are being a busybody poking
> your nose into matters that don't concern you.
Personal choice? No, if people kept it to themselves, it is a personal
choice. When they tell other people their experience, it is not longer
just personal. When they invoke the voice of authority ("I am a
chemist","My father is a chemist and says...") in particular they bear
the burden of responsibility for their statements. I was not berating
him for his choice, I was berating him for implying that his personal
experience made it all ok. In fact, I wasn't actually picking on him
really; hell, he was right that it is mostly harmless, hard to argue.
Looking at my comments I could accept being accused of arrogance,
hubris, fustration, being overly harsh (the ashamed bit was over the top
I will admit), and quite a few other things, but busybody? Get serious.
I am critisizing public statements made in a public forum; hardly busy
body. Accusing me of being a busy body doesn't make sense.
And I won't apologize of wanting an *well* informed public.
PK
PS: I still don't get it. A "mind your own business" reply in a
newsgroup that reaches (if not read) millions???? Not to mention the
inevitable hyprocrisy of butting into a conversation to tell someone to
mind their own business.
"Charley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When I found out how good a small amount of
> acetone removed the spots I thought that you guys would appreciate knowing
> about it. I never suggested that anyone should take a bath in acetone.
Some of us appreciate the tip. I 've never use Gorilla Glue, b ut I have
used spray urethane and had the black sots. I'm not adverse to a little
acetone on a rag to clean up.
It might depend on the grade of acetone,
there's
low-strenght acetone,
medium-strength acetone,
high-strength acetone,
and......
KICK-acetone!
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue from
your hands and I get shit on. I described my personal accounts (10+ years
of experience using acetone) and it wasn't good enough to convince someone
that they can use it safely to get glue from their hands. If I had known
that all I had to due was post ONE link to a entheology web site and that
would of sufficed I would have done so.
-Take care
I hope you find someone else to argue with.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>
>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>> correct?
>>
>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>
> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
> an
> _example_.
>
>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????
>
> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>
>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>> make it credible?
>
> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be made
> available to the public.
>
> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
> google same, and come up with
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>
> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>
>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>
>>
>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>> true?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>
>>>> One more think.
>>>>
>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>
>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>> the
>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
>>> will give you more of the same.
>>>
>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
>>>> NO
>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>> foolish.
>>>
>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>
>>>>> PK
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
> least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
> programming language used all over the place.
>
No thanks.
> The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
> keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
> much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
> thing?
There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
makes you think he used a review of the literature? I see no evidence of
there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of writing
that documentation.
WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.
How do you consider that ADEQUATE?
> I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
> literature survey.
Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
> If the author did not use a literature survey to find
> the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
> _did_ he find them?
What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I see
NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
> Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
> and that inference is somehow not an opinion.
Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
OPINIONS as well? Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?
> And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
> attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
> because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
> insulting
> you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
> Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
> illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
> trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
> "using".
Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.
What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing on
my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
the content. Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?
> Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
> agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
> now
> retracting that statement?
Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
documentation?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>>>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>>
>> That's new to me.
>
> Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
> least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
> programming language used all over the place.
>
>>> Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
>>> herring.
>>
>> Once again, (are you hard of reading?) You referred to it as a review of
>> the
>> literature. Again your words:"No, _they_ used a review of the
>> literature.
>> They mentioned that study as an
>> _example_."
>
> The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
> keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
> much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
> thing?
>
>> They never state that it WAS or that they USED a review of the
>> literature.
>> YOU DID. They did not use or claim to use a review of the literature.
>> There is NO review of the literature in that documentation.
>
> I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
> literature survey. If the author did not use a literature survey to find
> the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
> _did_ he find them? Were they all lying on the coffee table in his
> dentist's waiting room or something?
>
>>> In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
>>> experience.
>>
>> Again, not my opinion, but rather my OBSERVATIONS. Do you know the
>> difference? I will write it again for you so you can hear me better:I
>> NEVER STATED MY OPINION.
>
> Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
> and that inference is somehow not an opinion. I guess that we should
> believe that cold fusion is in fact a nuclear reaction on the basis of the
> "observations" of a couple of chemists.
>
>>> In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.
>>
>> I think Paul said it best "Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad
>> hominem
>> attack. "
>
> And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
> attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
> because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
> insulting
> you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
> Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
> illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
> trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
> "using".
>
>>> I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a
>>> government.
>>
>> You sure like to put words in my mouth.
>
> Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
> agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
> now
> retracting that statement?
>
>>> Yeah, right.
>>
>> Spoken like a true 12-year old.
>
> What will come next from you? "Does so?"
>
> <numerous quotes rendered irrelevant by some moron's top-posting snipped>
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> I'm sorry, but they are not responsible for the actions of others. If
> others make personal choices based solely on anecdotal evidence that is
> their personal choice.
Well, perhaps in your world people are not responsible for what they do
to influence others, but in mine they are. We'll just have to chalk it
up to philisophical differences.
> If you choose differently that is your business.
> Or should everyone who does anything that you personally consider dangerous
> be muzzled and denied the right to talk about it?
Where did the courts come into this? I was using responsibility in the
conventional sense.
> If their statements cause someone to come to grief who (a) would not
> otherwise have come to grief and (b) was acting as the courts'
hypothetical
> "reasonable man" would have acted based on the information recieved, then
> they _can_ be held responsible for that occurrance.
...snip...
> He is entitled to imply any damned thing he pleases.
Um, yes, of course he can. You are *falsely* implying that I said he is
not entitled to say as he pleases or that he should be muzzled. I did no
say nor imply any such thing. I took issue with what was said, but made
no suggestion that they should shut up.
> It seems to me that you believe that you are the
> only one so brilliant and so self-confident that you can read a discussion
> such as this and decide to look elsewhere for more information before
> making your decision and that the rest of us need to be protected from our
> folly and from the risk of being led astray by these heretics and that you
> are the one appointed from on high to do that.
Yeah, that is exactly what I think. I am God. I think everyone else is
an idiot. You are highly perceptive.
> Then instead of whining and berating those who you believe are spreading
> misinformation, provide reliable information. But check it against several
> independent sources if there are such and make _sure_ it's reliable instead
> of just assuming that your opinion is in fact reliable information.
First off, I did provide reliable information. Secondly, my opinion
expressed was concerning the validity of anecodatal evidence. Thirdly,
there is not such thing as "sure". Lastly, I assumed nothing nor claimed
I was providing reliable information.
Since you have largely seen fit to attack me personally, I shall let you
have the last word in this. Life is too short to defend myself from this
kind of thing in perpetuity.
PK
By the way, my observations and experiences are empirical.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The parts of the discussion (the majority) that pertain to the toxicology
> of
>> acetone are considered scientific in nature. Thus, the discussion can be
>> considered a "scientific discussion"
>>
>> If you need more information as to its toxicity do your own research and
>> come to your own conclusions about the toxicity of acetone. I am MORE
> than
>> confident that you will (or have already) come to the same conclusions I
>> have regarding its toxicity.
>>
>>
>>
>
> WHAT! Empirical data, not testimonials?
>
> That's what educated, intelligent people use.....
>
>
Ok Paul we both agree that acetone is benign. But, you don't think I gave
sufficient evidence that it is benign. ? . ? .
You need more evidence from me to convince you that it is benign when you
already know it's benign?
You are exhausting me.
I will let you have the last word.
this is my last post on this thread.
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should be
>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>
>
> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for saying
> that the personal experience of you and your workmates was sufficient
> evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh. Again, as you so
> like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said that acetone was
> pretty benign.
>
> PK
First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the literature
are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a "review of
the literature". How do you know the authors information didn't come form
ONE or even TWO articles? There are NO references to the literature, but
yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A "review of the
literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write a review of a
movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching the end of it?
If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style manual
was used? If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
handbook was used? Unless the author told you?
I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because it
is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with my
skin?". We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.
>Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
> except you.
Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document but
he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How is that
done?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>> Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.
>>
>>
>>>> There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
>>>> makes you think he used a review of the literature?
>>>
>>> The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.
>>
>>
>> Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
>> of
>> the literature. Ok, If you say so.
>>
>> If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
>> think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.
>
> And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
> targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?
>
>>> So from whence did he find his numerous cases?
>>
>> Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
>> reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.
>>
>> Again, this is not a review of the literature.
>
> Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
> literature.
>
>> We have NO evidence that
>> he
>> used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature
>> these
>> "case reports" came from. Do you?
>
> Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
> find them.
>
>>>> What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
>>>> see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
>>
>>> Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then
>>> "one
>>> case report"
>>
>> Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
>> referencing the literature.
>
> Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the
> literature"
> except you.
>
>> A reference from the literature would contain
>> a
>> REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source
>> of
>> the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
>> journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
>> Have you ever read a scientific publication?
>
> Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I.
> Nobody
> has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature", only
> that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.
>
>> You crack me up sir.
>>
>>> Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
>>> associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
>>> dealing with larger populations than just you.
>>
>> Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
>> recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
>> go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone
>> (FYI).
>
> So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
> concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did you
> use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
> consider to be an "adverse effect"?
>
>> Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
>> how
>> many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?
>
> I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up
> the
> number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
> lower bound on it.
>
>> Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
>> what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
>> show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider
>> that a
>> LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not
>> just
>> me.
>
> Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
> was the totality of the research.
>
> Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
> observed results, is more than you have presented.
>
>>> They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
>>> government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
>>> unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".
>>
>> They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
>> just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference
>> to
>> the literature would be nice wouldn't it?
>
> The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I
> don't
> _care_ specifically _who_ in this context.
>
>> You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
>> (A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
>> LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
>> volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
>> INFORMATION).
>
> You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
> studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
> result and ignoring the rest of the document.
>
>> Ok, sure. Trust away.
>
> I shall.
>
>>> I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
>>> intepretation
>>> of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
>>> government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".
>>
>> Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
>> attacking me?
>
> How about you actually reading the entire document in question and finding
> something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6
> volunteers"?
>
>>> If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
>>> then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.
>>
>> Why should I do you any favors?
>
> I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
> responsible manner.
>
>> Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
>> use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.
>
> Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
> "scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.
>>
>> Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
>> literature.
>
> What difference does that make to the topic at hand?
>
>>>So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
>> report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.
>>
>> You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the
>> document.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
>> document that does not contain a review of the literature?
>
> No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter
> to
> write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
> typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
> it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that
> does
> not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook to
> write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one
> uses
> a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
> literature survey.
>
>> Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?
>
> The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.
>
> <and again a duplicate post was snipped>
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Just as long as non chemists. I use to work in the same lab as a retired
professor. He was in his 80's and still doing research. Back when he was a
'young chemist' they didnt know what we know today about cancer. They use
to use benznene as a 'common' solvent and they would get it all over
themselves. He is doing just fine today. He still practices chemistry
with much less care than I would. I use to catch him mouth pipetting
chemicals all the time. That was a common practice in his day, but not done
anymore. He is as a very healthy old guy.
"Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:40:14 GMT, "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>
>>Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal with
>>are
>>1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my concerns.
>
> A local chemist friend of mine constantly "jokes" about the life
> expectancy of chemists.
>
> I wish you well.
>
> Barry
stoutman wrote:
> I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the ignorant
> and uneducated.
Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad hominem attack. The sorry part
is that I never had any quarrel with you in the first place, not
disagreed with your opinion on acetone; I only disagreed that your
stated evidence supported that opinion and was actually ranting about
the general problem.
Oh well.
stoutman wrote:
> If thats the case than I should be dead. Acetone is NOT that bad for you
> unless you are bathing in it.
>
> I get acetone on my hands 5 days a week.
<not aimed at you, stoutman, just a convient place>
The reliance in the ng on anecodotal evidence for saftey matters oftens
astounds me. "I did X for 20 yrs.." and "I know a guy one who died from
Y" and so on. You guys do realise there are excellent resource out there
which are more formal and reliable? Good god, a stewardess once survived
a 33,000 ft fall out of an airplane; if I could claim "My sister fell
out of an airplane, it must be safe" does that make it true?
Ok, rant off. Here is a better resource:
http://www.entheology.org/tips-acetone/acetone.htm
Short story: It isn't food or mouthwash, but sure seems pretty safe.
PK
"Charley" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla
> glue, you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will
> remove it completely. Now I'm not recommending that you bathe in the
> stuff, but knowing that this works might get you out of hot water with
> the wife the next time you work with gorrilla glue and then she wants
> to go out to dinner that evening.
>
I've used acetone to strip poly glue spots from my hands, too. Works
great.
The mild health risk associated with acetone doesn't bother me too much.
Most of the chemicals in my shop have a similar or worse rating.
The one aspect in which acetone is considerably more dangerous than
anything else I use is as a fire hazard. It's flammable as hell, it
evaporates pretty fast, it's heavier than air, and explosive at only about
2-3% in air. I always use it with lots of ventilation and well away from
anything that would make a spark.
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> It was somewhere outside Barstow when Nate Perkins
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The one aspect in which acetone is considerably more dangerous than
>>anything else I use is as a fire hazard. It's flammable as hell,
>
> Acetone is only flammable as heck.
>
> Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
>
> I like acetone as a workshop solvent. Cheap, easily available, pokey
> enough to work, nothing like so hazardous as most of the alternatives.
>
I've never used cyclohexane (although I was a chemical engineer as one of
my past jobs).
They are both "darned flammable." Both have flashpoints around -20C, and
lower explosive limits of only a couple percent in air (e.g., about like
hydrogen). Cyclohexane's got about half the lower explosive limit of
acetone, but acetone's got a higher vapor pressure and evaporates faster.
Both are denser than air, so the vapor will concentrate along the floor.
I'm not at all saying that acetone can't be used reasonably in the home
shop; I use it, too. But people ought to watch out for ignition sources
and ventilation. It is a worse flammability hazard than more usual
solvents like mineral spirits and ethanol.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:17:06 +0000, Andy Dingley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It was somewhere outside Barstow when Dave Hinz
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:05:26 +0000, Andy Dingley
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Acetone is only flammable as heck.
>>>> Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
>>>
>>>Do you have a calibration scale for this?
>>
>> There's a rubber bible somewhere around - or you can look it up
>> on-line.
>
> Specifically, where does "flammable as all get-out" fit in the scale?
> I googled, but didn't find anything specifically about this.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/A0446.htm
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/c6886.htm
Look at the entries for flash point, flammability limit (lel), vapor
pressure, evaporation rate, and vapor density.
Enough. The information is easy to get:
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Like I said, do your own research. All I have to offer are personal
> experiences from my years of experience as a medicinal chemist. Take it
> or leave it. You need more than what I have to offer in order to make an
> educated decision as to whether or not to use acetone to clean up glue
> from your hands? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Take it or leave it.
>
>
> "George" <george@least> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The parts of the discussion (the majority) that pertain to the
>>> toxicology
>> of
>>> acetone are considered scientific in nature. Thus, the discussion can
>>> be
>>> considered a "scientific discussion"
>>>
>>> If you need more information as to its toxicity do your own research and
>>> come to your own conclusions about the toxicity of acetone. I am MORE
>> than
>>> confident that you will (or have already) come to the same conclusions I
>>> have regarding its toxicity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WHAT! Empirical data, not testimonials?
>>
>> That's what educated, intelligent people use.....
>>
>>
>
>
If thats the case than I should be dead. Acetone is NOT that bad for you
unless you are bathing in it.
I get acetone on my hands 5 days a week.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> Charley wrote:
>>> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla
>>> glue,
>>> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
>>> completely.
>> <snip>
>>
>> NOT a good idea.
>>
>> Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
>
> Wrong. _Chronic_ exposure to _high_ _concentrations_ of acetone _can_
> lead
> to liver problems. It is not the inevitable result of getting a little on
> your skin once in a while.
>
> Now, you may be one of those who believes that all exposure should be
> avoided. In the case, never, ever lose weight, because acetone is one of
> the natural products of fat metabolism.
>
>> OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
>
> Unless of course one is allergic to latex.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Lew
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
My expertise comes from several years of intustrial experience as a Ph.D.
medicinal chemist.
I'm not the one thats scared of acetone. I'm trying to explain to these
guys that acetone is not that toxic. Certaintly safe to use to get glue off
your hands.
I work with methylene chloride, chloroform, hexanes, methanol etc. all Day
Long.
Beleive me i'm healthy, I take precautions, and Im not scared. Especially
not afraid to use acetone to get glue from my hands.
Take care.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> stoutman writes:
>>
>>> Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>>
>>> Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal
>>> with are 1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my
>>> concerns.
>>
>> Ah yes, the voice of the seemingly indestructable macho male.
>
> No, the voice of someone who can actually tell the difference between his
> ass and a hole in the ground.
>
> Now let's see, his expertise comes from training as a chemist and long
> experience. Your expertise comes from?
>
> You seem determined to scare yourself to death. I'm surprised that you
> are
> willing to use power tools. After all, that ozone that they produce will
> kill you.
>
>> Lew
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Paul,
I think you are being WAY over dramatic here. I never said acetone "Will
not kill you". When did I write that?
It is safe to use to get glue from your hands. Use it in a well ventilated
area. I have never heard of anyone (keep in mind that I work "in the
field") being adversly effected by acetone exposure. This is more than 10
years of working as an organic chemists along side DOZENS of other chemists.
Not even so much as a rash. So come on Paul. If you don't want to use
acetone for the occassional glue clean up, by all means don't do it. But to
scare people that using it is making a Life and Death decision is just plain
rediculous.
>So, No, your personal accounts are not sufficient
OK, Paul don't use acetone to remove glue from your hands if you don't feel
comfortable doing so.
I should be ashamed of myself for what? For suggesting that it is safe to
use acetone to remove glue from your hands in a well ventilated area? Your
silly.
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>> However, for the
>> purposes of this discussion wouldn't the actual usage occounts of a
>> chemist who has been using acetone (along side several other coworkers
>> for several years) be sufficient?
>
> No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
> true?
>
> The urge to split things into "Will kill you" and "Won't kill you" is
> dangerous. I would think that a chemist would understand this very well;
> real danger is much more subtle. Lets say chemical "Wanko" quadrupled you
> chance of lung disease. You and all of your co-workers could still be
> unaffect; it is actually probably fairly likely this is so. It doesn't
> make Wanko safe. The flip side is perhaps Wanko contributes to the death
> of one out of a million people by very very slightly increasing the chance
> of a serious asthma attack. It is quite possible that someone on this
> group knew someone who died as such and could relate the story. Does this
> mean Wanko should be tossed out?
>
> So, No, your personal accounts are not sufficient. Such "evidence" might
> be useful for whether I buy a Delta TS or not, but not for safety of
> chemicals no. And if you are a chemist, you should be ashamed of yourself
> for even suggesting that it is.
>
> PK
>>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
That's new to me.
> Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
> herring.
Once again, (are you hard of reading?) You referred to it as a review of the
literature. Again your words:"No, _they_ used a review of the literature.
They mentioned that study as an
_example_."
They never state that it WAS or that they USED a review of the literature.
YOU DID. They did not use or claim to use a review of the literature.
There is NO review of the literature in that documentation.
> In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
> experience.
Again, not my opinion, but rather my OBSERVATIONS. Do you know the
difference? I will write it again for you so you can hear me better:I NEVER
STATED MY OPINION.
> In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.
I think Paul said it best "Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad hominem
attack. "
> I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.
You sure like to put words in my mouth.
> Yeah, right.
Spoken like a true 12-year old.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>>>
>>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>>
>> You did.
>> You referred to it as a review of the literature. do you remember
>> typing?
>> : "No, _they_ used a review of the literature."
>>
>> "They used" != "it was".
>>
>> What?? Don't understand your comment. Please elaborate.
>
> It's pretty obvious to anyone who understands the English language. Or
> are
> you having trouble with "!=" meaning "not equal to"?
>
>>> Why would you expect there to be one?
>>
>> Don't make me chuckle. Any decent review of the literature would CITE
>> references from the literature. This is NOT a review of the literature.
>> Have you ever read a scientific review article?
>
> Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
> herring.
>
>>> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
>>> and
>>> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
>>> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.
>>
>> I never claimed to be a government agency. I never gave my OPINION.
>> When
>> did I give my opinion? I stated OBSERVATIONS from my extensive
>> experience as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist who uses acetone on a daily basis
>> for the past 10-years.
>
> In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
> experience.
>
> In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.
>
>>> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
>>> Health
>>> Administration being more credible than you are?
>>
>> I don't. Never said I was more credible. I'm willing to bet I have used
>> acetone more than the COSHA though.
>
> I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.
>
>>> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
>>
>> Not the least bit upset.
>
> Yeah, right.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>>>>as an
>>>>> _example_.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>>>
>>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>>>
>>>> It is appears to be a
>>>> compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.
>>>
>>> No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences
>>> of acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on
>>> a
>>> government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
>>> public in that matter.
>>>
>>>> Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
>>>> publication)
>>>> that is sighted in that web page? I could not.
>>>
>>> Why would you expect there to be one?
>>>
>>>> They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
>>>> Human
>>>> Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
>>>> don't know what is.
>>>>
>>>> If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal
>>>> accounts inadequate so be it.
>>>
>>> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
>>> and
>>> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
>>> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.
>>> They
>>> are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by
>>> a number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
>>> chemists, physicians, and other specialists.
>>>
>>> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
>>> Health
>>> Administration being more credible than you are?
>>>
>>> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>>>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>>>> as
>>>>> an
>>>>> _example_.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
>>>>>> VOLUNTEERS?????
>>>>>
>>>>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which
>>>>> the
>>>>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make it credible?
>>>>>
>>>>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>>>>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>>>>> made available to the public.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>>>>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health &
>>>>> Safety", google same, and come up with
>>>>>
>>>
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>>>>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>>>>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study
>>>>>> to make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30
>>>>>>>years
>>>>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make
>>>>>> it true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
>>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature
>>>>>>>> of acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> NO
>>>>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just
>>>>>>>> plain foolish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist --
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too
>>>>>>>>> harsh. Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a
>>>>>>>>> URL which said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --John
>>>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --John
>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
disregard my previous message. I thought you were addressing me.
Sorry
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My expertise comes from several years of intustrial experience as a Ph.D.
> medicinal chemist.
>
> I'm not the one thats scared of acetone. I'm trying to explain to these
> guys that acetone is not that toxic. Certaintly safe to use to get glue
> off your hands.
>
> I work with methylene chloride, chloroform, hexanes, methanol etc. all Day
> Long.
>
> Beleive me i'm healthy, I take precautions, and Im not scared. Especially
> not afraid to use acetone to get glue from my hands.
>
> Take care.
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>> stoutman writes:
>>>
>>>> Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>>>
>>>> Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal
>>>> with are 1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my
>>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the voice of the seemingly indestructable macho male.
>>
>> No, the voice of someone who can actually tell the difference between his
>> ass and a hole in the ground.
>>
>> Now let's see, his expertise comes from training as a chemist and long
>> experience. Your expertise comes from?
>>
>> You seem determined to scare yourself to death. I'm surprised that you
>> are
>> willing to use power tools. After all, that ozone that they produce will
>> kill you.
>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
>
It was somewhere outside Barstow when Dave Hinz <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:05:26 +0000, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Acetone is only flammable as heck.
>> Cyclohexane is flammable as hell.
>
>Do you have a calibration scale for this?
There's a rubber bible somewhere around - or you can look it up
on-line.
Most of my solvents are scrounged from a chemist friend. Acetone
arrives in big 1l or 5l bottles labelled "Flammable". Cyclohexane
comes in small 500ml bottles labelled "Fucking Flammable"
It's an excellent wax solvent, BTW. Also useful for cleaning leather
with dry processes that don't darken it.
That was benzene not benznene. I just woke up...
"stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just as long as non chemists. I use to work in the same lab as a retired
> professor. He was in his 80's and still doing research. Back when he was
> a 'young chemist' they didnt know what we know today about cancer. They
> use to use benznene as a 'common' solvent and they would get it all over
> themselves. He is doing just fine today. He still practices chemistry
> with much less care than I would. I use to catch him mouth pipetting
> chemicals all the time. That was a common practice in his day, but not
> done anymore. He is as a very healthy old guy.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:40:14 GMT, "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>>
>>>Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal with
>>>are
>>>1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my concerns.
>>
>> A local chemist friend of mine constantly "jokes" about the life
>> expectancy of chemists.
>>
>> I wish you well.
>>
>> Barry
>
>
It was somewhere outside Barstow when david zaret
<news@__REMOVE__.zaret.com> wrote:
>my father is also a chemist, and was just diagnosed with bladder cancer
>almost certainly from exposure to chemicals like acetone.
I'm sorry to hear about your father, but "exposure to chemicals like
acetone" is a long way from "exposure to acetone".
No one is disputing that there are some hazardous solvents in common
use, or recently taken out of use. But acetone isn't one of them. As
a chemist, he's certain to have been exposed to a wide range of
solvents, nearly all far worse than acetone.
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "Charley"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
>you don't need to let it "wear off".
A particularly bad case of getting polyurethane glue on your skin
http://www.sadgeezer.com/babylon5/gkar1.jpg
Why do I have to be the OP to respond like this?
> As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
> "entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance of
> the content.
Ok lets focus in. But I think you are WAY over your head. Lets keep going.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>> Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue
>> from
>> your hands and I get shit on. I described my personal accounts (10+
>> years
>> of experience using acetone) and it wasn't good enough to convince
>> someone
>> that they can use it safely to get glue from their hands. If I had known
>> that all I had to due was post ONE link to a entheology web site and that
>> would of sufficed I would have done so.
>
> Whoa. Are you the OP? I thought that was [email protected]. If I've
> lost track of the players then I apologize.
>
> As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
> "entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance of
> the content.
>
>
>
>>
>> -Take care
>>
>> I hope you find someone else to argue with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>>
>>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>>
>>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>> as
>>> an
>>> _example_.
>>>
>>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
>>>> VOLUNTEERS?????
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
>>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>>
>>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>>>> make it credible?
>>>
>>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>>> made available to the public.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
>>> google same, and come up with
>>>
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>>
>>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>>
>>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>>>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
>>>>>> web
>>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>>>> the
>>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
>>>>> US
>>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> NO
>>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>>>> foolish.
>>>>>
>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PK
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --John
>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
I sent out a response to this message thinking you were addressing me. But
now I see you were not. The message still hasn't appeared in my server, but
...
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> stoutman writes:
>>
>>> Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>>
>>> Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal
>>> with are 1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my
>>> concerns.
>>
>> Ah yes, the voice of the seemingly indestructable macho male.
>
> No, the voice of someone who can actually tell the difference between his
> ass and a hole in the ground.
>
> Now let's see, his expertise comes from training as a chemist and long
> experience. Your expertise comes from?
>
> You seem determined to scare yourself to death. I'm surprised that you
> are
> willing to use power tools. After all, that ozone that they produce will
> kill you.
>
>> Lew
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Charley wrote:
>> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
>> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
>> completely.
> <snip>
>
> NOT a good idea.
>
> Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
Wrong. _Chronic_ exposure to _high_ _concentrations_ of acetone _can_ lead
to liver problems. It is not the inevitable result of getting a little on
your skin once in a while.
Now, you may be one of those who believes that all exposure should be
avoided. In the case, never, ever lose weight, because acetone is one of
the natural products of fat metabolism.
> OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
Unless of course one is allergic to latex.
>
> Lew
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>this is my last post on this thread.
What part of "last post on this thread" are you having the problem
with ?
The "last" part.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>this is my last post on this thread.
>
> What part of "last post on this thread" are you having the problem
> with ?
>
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Acetone isn't something you want to breathe daily, true, but
>> ferpetesake it's nail polish remover.
> <snip>
>
> Not any more.
Check again Lew. The pharmacy I go to has it with and without acetone.
The kind without acetone is mostly ethyl acetate. The MSDS for Ethyl
Acetate lists liver damage as an inhalation side effect, the one from the
same vendor for acetone does not. Further, the allowable exposure for
Ethyl Acetate is _half_ that of Acetone.
> Lew
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Tim Douglass wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:02:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
>>
>>Unless of course one is allergic to latex.
>
> Use Nitrile gloves. They are better anyway.
And then the glove gets stuck to the project, tears, you get glued to the
glove, and guess what, you get out the acetone anyway.
Never had that happen to you? Just wait.
>
> --
> "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh,
> and bring something to kill"
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> stoutman writes:
>
>> Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>
>> Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal
>> with are 1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my
>> concerns.
>
> Ah yes, the voice of the seemingly indestructable macho male.
No, the voice of someone who can actually tell the difference between his
ass and a hole in the ground.
Now let's see, his expertise comes from training as a chemist and long
experience. Your expertise comes from?
You seem determined to scare yourself to death. I'm surprised that you are
willing to use power tools. After all, that ozone that they produce will
kill you.
> Lew
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> disregard my previous message. I thought you were addressing me.
>
> Sorry
No problem.
> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> My expertise comes from several years of intustrial experience as a
>> Ph.D. medicinal chemist.
>>
>> I'm not the one thats scared of acetone. I'm trying to explain to these
>> guys that acetone is not that toxic. Certaintly safe to use to get glue
>> off your hands.
>>
>> I work with methylene chloride, chloroform, hexanes, methanol etc. all
>> Day Long.
>>
>> Beleive me i'm healthy, I take precautions, and Im not scared.
>> Especially not afraid to use acetone to get glue from my hands.
>>
>> Take care.
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>
>>>> stoutman writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal
>>>>> with are 1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my
>>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, the voice of the seemingly indestructable macho male.
>>>
>>> No, the voice of someone who can actually tell the difference between
>>> his ass and a hole in the ground.
>>>
>>> Now let's see, his expertise comes from training as a chemist and long
>>> experience. Your expertise comes from?
>>>
>>> You seem determined to scare yourself to death. I'm surprised that you
>>> are
>>> willing to use power tools. After all, that ozone that they produce
>>> will kill you.
>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Paul Kierstead wrote:
> stoutman wrote:
>> However, for the
>> purposes of this discussion wouldn't the actual usage occounts of a
>> chemist who has been using acetone (along side several other coworkers
>> for several years) be sufficient?
>
> No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
> true?
>
> The urge to split things into "Will kill you" and "Won't kill you" is
> dangerous. I would think that a chemist would understand this very well;
> real danger is much more subtle. Lets say chemical "Wanko" quadrupled
> you chance of lung disease. You and all of your co-workers could still
> be unaffect; it is actually probably fairly likely this is so. It
> doesn't make Wanko safe. The flip side is perhaps Wanko contributes to
> the death of one out of a million people by very very slightly
> increasing the chance of a serious asthma attack. It is quite possible
> that someone on this group knew someone who died as such and could
> relate the story. Does this mean Wanko should be tossed out?
>
> So, No, your personal accounts are not sufficient. Such "evidence" might
> be useful for whether I buy a Delta TS or not, but not for safety of
> chemicals no. And if you are a chemist, you should be ashamed of
> yourself for even suggesting that it is.
As a matter of social policy concerning the production, labelling, and
availability of such chemicals perhaps. As a basis for personal choice
concerning such chemicals, it's a personal choice--if you want to berate
someone for making a personal choice on the basis of evidence that he
considers sufficient but you do not then you are being a busybody poking
your nose into matters that don't concern you.
> PK
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Paul Kierstead wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> As a matter of social policy concerning the production, labelling, and
>> availability of such chemicals perhaps. As a basis for personal choice
>> concerning such chemicals, it's a personal choice--if you want to berate
>> someone for making a personal choice on the basis of evidence that he
>> considers sufficient but you do not then you are being a busybody poking
>> your nose into matters that don't concern you.
>
> Personal choice? No, if people kept it to themselves, it is a personal
> choice. When they tell other people their experience, it is not longer
> just personal.
I'm sorry, but they are not responsible for the actions of others. If
others make personal choices based solely on anecdotal evidence that is
their personal choice. If you choose differently that is your business.
Or should everyone who does anything that you personally consider dangerous
be muzzled and denied the right to talk about it?
> When they invoke the voice of authority ("I am a
> chemist","My father is a chemist and says...") in particular they bear
> the burden of responsibility for their statements.
If their statements cause someone to come to grief who (a) would not
otherwise have come to grief and (b) was acting as the courts' hypothetical
"reasonable man" would have acted based on the information recieved, then
they _can_ be held responsible for that occurrance. So what point do you
think that you are making?
> I was not berating
> him for his choice, I was berating him for implying that his personal
> experience made it all ok.
He is entitled to imply any damned thing he pleases.
> In fact, I wasn't actually picking on him
> really; hell, he was right that it is mostly harmless, hard to argue.
Damning with faint praise. It seems to me that you believe that you are the
only one so brilliant and so self-confident that you can read a discussion
such as this and decide to look elsewhere for more information before
making your decision and that the rest of us need to be protected from our
folly and from the risk of being led astray by these heretics and that you
are the one appointed from on high to do that.
> Looking at my comments I could accept being accused of arrogance,
> hubris, fustration, being overly harsh (the ashamed bit was over the top
> I will admit), and quite a few other things, but busybody? Get serious.
> I am critisizing public statements made in a public forum; hardly busy
> body. Accusing me of being a busy body doesn't make sense.
It never does to a busy-body.
> And I won't apologize of wanting an *well* informed public.
Then instead of whining and berating those who you believe are spreading
misinformation, provide reliable information. But check it against several
independent sources if there are such and make _sure_ it's reliable instead
of just assuming that your opinion is in fact reliable information.
> PK
>
> PS: I still don't get it. A "mind your own business" reply in a
> newsgroup that reaches (if not read) millions???? Not to mention the
> inevitable hyprocrisy of butting into a conversation to tell someone to
> mind their own business.
Yep, typical busybody reaction.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> Scientific discussions that is. You guys sure know your woodworking.
The thing is, this is not a "scientific discussion". It's beating some poor
guy up because he had the temerity to mention that you can get Gorilla Glue
off your fingers using fingernail polish remover.
> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the
>>ignorant and uneducated.
>>
>>
>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> George wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' "
>>>>
>>>> Dean Edell
>>>
>>>
>>> Ohhh, that one is great. I'll have to remember it.
>>>
>>> PK
>>
>>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Paul Kierstead wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but they are not responsible for the actions of others. If
>> others make personal choices based solely on anecdotal evidence that is
>> their personal choice.
>
> Well, perhaps in your world people are not responsible for what they do
> to influence others, but in mine they are. We'll just have to chalk it
> up to philisophical differences.
So you _do_ believe that someone expressing his opinion should be muzzled
unless you personally agree with that opinion?
> > If you choose differently that is your business.
>> Or should everyone who does anything that you personally consider
>> dangerous be muzzled and denied the right to talk about it?
>
> Where did the courts come into this? I was using responsibility in the
> conventional sense.
Define "responsibility in the conventional sense" then.
> > If their statements cause someone to come to grief who (a) would not
> > otherwise have come to grief and (b) was acting as the courts'
> hypothetical
> > "reasonable man" would have acted based on the information recieved,
> > then they _can_ be held responsible for that occurrance.
>
> ...snip...
>
>> He is entitled to imply any damned thing he pleases.
>
> Um, yes, of course he can. You are *falsely* implying that I said he is
> not entitled to say as he pleases or that he should be muzzled. I did no
> say nor imply any such thing. I took issue with what was said, but made
> no suggestion that they should shut up.
If you take issue with what he says, then demonstrate that he is wrong.
>> It seems to me that you believe that you are the
>> only one so brilliant and so self-confident that you can read a
>> discussion such as this and decide to look elsewhere for more information
>> before making your decision and that the rest of us need to be protected
>> from our folly and from the risk of being led astray by these heretics
>> and that you are the one appointed from on high to do that.
>
> Yeah, that is exactly what I think. I am God. I think everyone else is
> an idiot. You are highly perceptive.
Glad to see you admit it.
>> Then instead of whining and berating those who you believe are spreading
>> misinformation, provide reliable information. But check it against
>> several independent sources if there are such and make _sure_ it's
>> reliable instead of just assuming that your opinion is in fact reliable
>> information.
>
> First off, I did provide reliable information. Secondly, my opinion
> expressed was concerning the validity of anecodatal evidence. Thirdly,
> there is not such thing as "sure". Lastly, I assumed nothing nor claimed
> I was providing reliable information.
So it's all right for _you_ to provide information of questionable
reliability as long as you don't claim that it's reliable, but it's not all
right for anyone else to do so on the same basis?
> Since you have largely seen fit to attack me personally, I shall let you
> have the last word in this. Life is too short to defend myself from this
> kind of thing in perpetuity.
If you don't want to be attacked then don't try to be everybody's nanny.
People tend to resent that.
>
> PK
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> One more think.
>
> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
> acetone than my personal accounts?
Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by the
Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
will give you more of the same.
> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is NO
> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
> foolish.
His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.
> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman wrote:
>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should be
>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>
>>
>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said
>> that acetone was pretty benign.
>>
>> PK
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.
>
>
> REALLY? Did you read it?
>
> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
> correct?
>
> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as an
_example_.
> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????
What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
> make it credible?
It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
findings on an officially supported site as general information to be made
available to the public.
Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
"Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
google same, and come up with
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>
>
> PAUL WROTE:
>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
> true?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman wrote:
>>
>>> One more think.
>>>
>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>
>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by the
>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The US
>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone MSDS"
>> will give you more of the same.
>>
>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
>>> NO
>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>> foolish.
>>
>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal opinion.
>>
>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should
>>>>> be
>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>
>>>> PK
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue from
> your hands and I get shit on. I described my personal accounts (10+ years
> of experience using acetone) and it wasn't good enough to convince someone
> that they can use it safely to get glue from their hands. If I had known
> that all I had to due was post ONE link to a entheology web site and that
> would of sufficed I would have done so.
Whoa. Are you the OP? I thought that was [email protected]. If I've
lost track of the players then I apologize.
As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
"entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance of
the content.
>
> -Take care
>
> I hope you find someone else to argue with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman wrote:
>>
>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>> opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>
>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>
>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
>> an
>> _example_.
>>
>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????
>>
>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>
>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>>> make it credible?
>>
>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>> made available to the public.
>>
>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
>> google same, and come up with
>>
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>
>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>
>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>
>>>
>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>>> true?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>>> the
>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
>>>> US
>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
>>>>> NO
>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>>> foolish.
>>>>
>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PK
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --John
>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
>>No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
>>an
>> _example_.
>
> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
> It is appears to be a
> compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.
No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences of
acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
public in that matter.
> Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
> publication)
> that is sighted in that web page? I could not.
Why would you expect there to be one?
> They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
> Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
> don't know what is.
>
> If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
> inadequate so be it.
YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health and
safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by a
number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
chemists, physicians, and other specialists.
Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
Administration being more credible than you are?
You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman wrote:
>>
>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>> opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>
>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>
>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
>> an
>> _example_.
>>
>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS?????
>>
>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>
>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>>> make it credible?
>>
>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>> made available to the public.
>>
>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
>> google same, and come up with
>>
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>
>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>
>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>
>>>
>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>>> true?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web
>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>
>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>>> the
>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
>>>> US
>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is
>>>>> NO
>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>>> foolish.
>>>>
>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PK
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --John
>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
>>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>>
>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>
> You did.
> You referred to it as a review of the literature. do you remember typing?
> : "No, _they_ used a review of the literature."
>
> "They used" != "it was".
>
> What?? Don't understand your comment. Please elaborate.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who understands the English language. Or are
you having trouble with "!=" meaning "not equal to"?
>> Why would you expect there to be one?
>
> Don't make me chuckle. Any decent review of the literature would CITE
> references from the literature. This is NOT a review of the literature.
> Have you ever read a scientific review article?
Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red herring.
>> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
>> and
>> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
>> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion.
>
> I never claimed to be a government agency. I never gave my OPINION. When
> did I give my opinion? I stated OBSERVATIONS from my extensive
> experience as a Ph.D. medicinal chemist who uses acetone on a daily basis
> for the past 10-years.
In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your experience.
In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.
>> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
>> Health
>> Administration being more credible than you are?
>
> I don't. Never said I was more credible. I'm willing to bet I have used
> acetone more than the COSHA though.
I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.
>> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
>
> Not the least bit upset.
Yeah, right.
>
>
>
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> stoutman wrote:
>>
>>>>No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>>>as an
>>>> _example_.
>>>
>>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>>
>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>>
>>> It is appears to be a
>>> compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.
>>
>> No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences
>> of acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
>> government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
>> public in that matter.
>>
>>> Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
>>> publication)
>>> that is sighted in that web page? I could not.
>>
>> Why would you expect there to be one?
>>
>>> They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
>>> Human
>>> Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
>>> don't know what is.
>>>
>>> If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal
>>> accounts inadequate so be it.
>>
>> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
>> and
>> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
>> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
>> are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by
>> a number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
>> chemists, physicians, and other specialists.
>>
>> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and
>> Health
>> Administration being more credible than you are?
>>
>> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
>>
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>>>> correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>>>
>>>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>>> as
>>>> an
>>>> _example_.
>>>>
>>>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
>>>>> VOLUNTEERS?????
>>>>
>>>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
>>>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>>>
>>>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>>>>> make it credible?
>>>>
>>>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>>>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>>>> made available to the public.
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>>>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health &
>>>> Safety", google same, and come up with
>>>>
>>
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>>>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>>>
>>>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>>>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>>>
>>>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study
>>>>> to make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30
>>>>>>years
>>>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make
>>>>> it true?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
>>>>>>> web
>>>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature
>>>>>>> of acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
>>>>>> US
>>>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> NO
>>>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just
>>>>>>> plain foolish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too
>>>>>>>> harsh. Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a
>>>>>>>> URL which said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --John
>>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --John
>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
>>>> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>
> That's new to me.
Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
programming language used all over the place.
>> Since nobody claimed that it was a literature survey this is a red
>> herring.
>
> Once again, (are you hard of reading?) You referred to it as a review of
> the
> literature. Again your words:"No, _they_ used a review of the literature.
> They mentioned that study as an
> _example_."
The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
thing?
> They never state that it WAS or that they USED a review of the literature.
> YOU DID. They did not use or claim to use a review of the literature.
> There is NO review of the literature in that documentation.
I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
literature survey. If the author did not use a literature survey to find
the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
_did_ he find them? Were they all lying on the coffee table in his
dentist's waiting room or something?
>> In other words your opinion backed by assertions concerning your
>> experience.
>
> Again, not my opinion, but rather my OBSERVATIONS. Do you know the
> difference? I will write it again for you so you can hear me better:I
> NEVER STATED MY OPINION.
Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
and that inference is somehow not an opinion. I guess that we should
believe that cold fusion is in fact a nuclear reaction on the basis of the
"observations" of a couple of chemists.
>> In any case I'm glad that your PhD is in chemistry and not English.
>
> I think Paul said it best "Ah, if all else fails, revert to the ad hominem
> attack. "
And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm insulting
you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
"using".
>> I see. So now you're claiming more personal experience than a government.
>
> You sure like to put words in my mouth.
Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you now
retracting that statement?
>> Yeah, right.
>
> Spoken like a true 12-year old.
What will come next from you? "Does so?"
<numerous quotes rendered irrelevant by some moron's top-posting snipped>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:
>
>>They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
> Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
> don't know what is.
>
>>If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
> inadequate so be it.
They did not state that that was the entirety of the evidence, but you seem
to have a great deal of difficulty actually seeing what was written. All
that you personally have is "limited human experience" unless you've poured
it on the cat or something.
How many people do you have to try to irritate before you determine that
something is not irritating anyway?
<snippage>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> Why do I have to be the OP to respond like this?
Because I believe that all the beating that the OP took was totally
unjustified.
>> As far as this "entheology site" business goes, quit focussing on
>> "entheology" whatever that might be and instead focus on the provenance
>> of the content.
>
> Ok lets focus in. But I think you are WAY over your head. Lets keep
> going.
Coming from someone who isn't even paying enough attention to be able to
figure out that a page has been lifted from another site bodily and to then
go look at the original that's a hoot. Coming from someone who seems to be
upset that the evidence of government safety agency which basically agrees
with him is more credible than his own it's even more so.
<snip>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
>> Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn at
>> least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
>> programming language used all over the place.
>>
>
>
> No thanks.
Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?
>> The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
>> keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
>> much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
>> thing?
>
>
> There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
> makes you think he used a review of the literature?
The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.
> I see no evidence of
> there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of
> writing that documentation.
So from whence did he find his numerous cases?
> WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
> used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.
>
> How do you consider that ADEQUATE?
What makes you believe that that was the only experiment conducted? He
didn't tell how many animals they experimented on so by your logic there
must have been no animal experiments conducted. One may assume that that
was _part_ of the "limited human information". One may not safely assume
that that was _all_ of it.
>> I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
>> literature survey.
>
> Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
> REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.
>> If the author did not use a literature survey to find
>> the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
>> _did_ he find them?
>
> What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
> see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
case report" (bear in mind that this is a government agency charged with
occupational safety and health, from which one may assume that they receive
a plethora of "case reports"), then "a single case report", then "animal
and limited human information", then "there are several reports of
people . . .", then "in 3 human cases" then "in one unusual case" which
clearly was not among the 3, then "several studies report", then "animal
information suggests", then "one case report describes" then "most human
poulation studies indicate" then "in a series of studies", then "another
study which reviewed . . ." then "one other study" then "no conclusions can
be drawn from other reports . . ." then more "animal information suggests"
then "no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available studies", then "a
study of 25 men" then "a study of 891 women" then "in a Russian study",
then "one animal study showed". Now where did he find all these studies?
>> Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you observed
>> and that inference is somehow not an opinion.
>
> Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
> OPINIONS as well?
Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
with larger populations than just you.
> Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
> OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?
They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".
>> And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
>> attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
>> because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
>> insulting
>> you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
>> Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
>> illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
>> trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being" and
>> "using".
>
>
>
> Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.
Actually, for the most part statements of fact.
> What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing
> on my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
> the content.
I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".
> Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
> references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?
Please provide some evidence to support the contention that
<http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>
is an "ENTHEOLOGY web page". And why do you keep shouting "entheology".
Do you like the sound of it or something?
>> Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
>> agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
>> now
>> retracting that statement?
>
> Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
> documentation?
How about them? What do you know of them?
<snip>
If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
>> Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?
>>
>
> Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.
>
>
>>> There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
>>> makes you think he used a review of the literature?
>>
>> The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.
>
>
> Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review
> of
> the literature. Ok, If you say so.
>
> If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I
> think I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.
And what if your boss decided that the citations were irrelevant for the
targeted audience and told you not to waste space on them?
>> So from whence did he find his numerous cases?
>
> Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
> reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.
>
> Again, this is not a review of the literature.
Straw man. You are the only one claiming that it was a review of the
literature.
> We have NO evidence that
> he
> used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature these
> "case reports" came from. Do you?
Some body of literature that he or someone must have surveyed in order to
find them.
>>> What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
>>> see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
>
>> Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
>> case report"
>
> Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
> referencing the literature.
Another straw man. Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
except you.
> A reference from the literature would contain
> a
> REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source
> of
> the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
> journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc.
> Have you ever read a scientific publication?
Fine, you know what a "reference from the literature is". So do I. Nobody
has claimed that that web page was "a reference from the literature", only
that someone who prepared it _used_ the literature.
> You crack me up sir.
>
>> Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
>> associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers
>> dealing with larger populations than just you.
>
> Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague
> recollections. I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I
> go to work. Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone
> (FYI).
So to how much acetone were they exposed? For how long? In what
concentration? How many subjects were involved? What methodology did you
use to determine that there were no "adverse effects"? What would you
consider to be an "adverse effect"?
> Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know
> how
> many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?
I do not have to know an exact number to place a lower bound. Count up the
number of different studies mentioned by the author and that will put a
lower bound on it.
> Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
> what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people
> show up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider
> that a
> LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not just
> me.
Again you are taking one statement out of context and asserting that that
was the totality of the research.
Still, 6, observed, with some description of the methodology and the
observed results, is more than you have presented.
>> They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
>> government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
>> unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".
>
> They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
> just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference to
> the literature would be nice wouldn't it?
The many others who wrote the various results that were mentioned. I don't
_care_ specifically _who_ in this context.
> You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when
> (A.) You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to
> LITERATURE here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of
> volunteers (THEY EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN
> INFORMATION).
You have no idea how many "volunteers" were used. They mentioned some
studies that had hundreds of subjects. You are again focussing on one
result and ignoring the rest of the document.
> Ok, sure. Trust away.
I shall.
>> I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your
>> intepretation
>> of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
>> government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".
>
> Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
> attacking me?
How about you actually reading the entire document in question and finding
something to criticize other than "ENTHEOLOGY web page" and "6 volunteers"?
>> If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
>> then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.
>
> Why should I do you any favors?
I am not asking you for favors, I am asking you to behave in a socially
responsible manner.
> Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to
> use the literature to write a scientific manuscript.
Another straw man. The page in question is clearly not intended to be a
"scientific manuscript" in the sense that you mean.
>
> Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
> literature.
What difference does that make to the topic at hand?
>>So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
> report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.
>
> You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the document.
>
> Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
> document that does not contain a review of the literature?
No, I am not suggesting that. I am stating it. If one uses a typewriter to
write a document that does not mean that the document contains a
typewriter. If one uses a dictionary to write it that does not mean that
it contains a dictionary. If one uses a style manual to write it that does
not mean that it contains a style manual. If one uses the CRC Handbook to
write it that does not mean that it contains the CRC handbook. If one uses
a literature survey to write it that does not mean that it contains a
literature survey.
> Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?
The only thing I see you beating is straw men and your own chest.
<and again a duplicate post was snipped>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
> writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the
> literature
> are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a "review of
> the literature". How do you know the authors information didn't come form
> ONE or even TWO articles?
Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies. You seem to have trouble
distinguishing between a "study", a "paper", an "article", and a "section"
by the way. You might want to work on that.
> There are NO references to the literature, but
> yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A "review of the
> literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write a review of a
> movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching the end of it?
No "review of the literature" gets everything.
> If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style
> manual
> was used?
Generally because the style is in the manner prescribed by that style manual
and not by another one. The Chicago manual differs in several particulars
from the New York Times manual for example, and the New York Times manual
differs from the style specified by Physical Review, and no, I am not going
to write a dissertation on the differences between various style
manuals--if you really care to know you should be able to find the major
ones any decent library.
> If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
> handbook was used?
Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between the
lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.
> Unless the author told you?
>
> I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because
> it is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with
> my
> skin?".
That is the title of the study? How do you know this? With all your
whining about how he does not give the source of his information here you
go asserting that you know the title of one of the research items on which
he based the page.
The full content of the SECTION (not "study") entitled "What happens when
acetone comes in contact with my skin" is as follows:
"Acetone is either slightly irritating or not irritating, based on animal
and limited human information. Application of 1 mL of acetone in a small
glass tube to six male volunteers for 30 or 90 minutes resulted in only
mild redness and swelling at 90 minutes.
"The risk of developing health effects following the absorption of acetone
through unbroken skin is very slight. There are several reports of people,
usually young children, becoming ill following skin exposure to acetone
while lightweight casts were being put on broken limbs. The symptoms
experienced were similar to those described following high inhalation
exposures. In all cases, a large amount of acetone came into contact with
the skin for several hours and inhalation exposure may also have occurred.
These reports are not considered relevant to people exposed to acetone at
work."
Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited human
information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was applied
to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On what
basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
"limited"?
Note by the way that there is an implication of at least two studies, one
with animals, one with humans. Further, since the animal information is
not described as "limited" one may conclude that the author regarded the
number of experiments performed and their nature to be sufficient to allow
anything that might be learned in that area from animal experimentation to
have been learned, which suggests that there were a number of animal
studies.
He goes on to discuss "several reports of people. . ." with details
different from the experiment involving 6 volunteers. That implies at
least two additional data points. So we can put the lower bound on the
number of documents used in the preparation of this section at 4.
> We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
> This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
> that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
> INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.
More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more clear,
is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.
>>Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
>> except you.
>
> Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document
> but
> he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How is
> that done?
By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
literature of course.
<snip>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
stoutman wrote:
> Clarke, what literature was reviewed? If you claim the documentation to
> be authored by someone who "used a review of the literature" than show me
> the
> literature was used?
He does not say what specific literature was used.
> The author made NO citations to the literature. I
> would like to read it.
Then call the agency and talk to the guy who wrote the page if it's _that_
important to you.
> No references were cited, but yet you claim (your OPINION by the way) that
> the documentation was written by somebody who used a review of the
> literature".
Yes, my opinion that he used a literature survey. If you want to believe
otherwise, feel free.
>> Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
>> necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies.
>
> He mentions studies? Or does he provide information from studies?
There are fourteen separate mentions of "study" or "studies".
> Where in the "literature" do these studies come from?
Some publication or other.
> And why do you
> assume they come from the literature?
Where else would they come from?
> He mentions various studies, therefore they must have come from the
> literature. Ok, if you say so Clarke. For all you know the studies were
> done by unqualified graduate students and the data was NEVER published,
> therefore NOT IN THE LITERATURE.
If they were never published and NOT IN THE LITERATURE then how did some
bureaucrat writing a web page for the Canadian government happen to come
across them?
> Clarke, do not respond to this post until you can provide me with support
> that any of the studies in that document are from the literature.
> Otherwise, you are wasting my time.
No, you are wasting your time. If you are too busy to participate in this
discussion then go do whatever you consider to be more important.
> Mentioning various studies does not equal "he used a review of the
> literature".
So how did he find them?
> Stop with the straw man comments and come back with some real support for
> your argument.
When you stop introducing straw men then I will stop pointing them out.
>> Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
>> human
>> information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
>> applied
>> to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
>> particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On
>> what
>> basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
>> total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
>> "limited"?
>
> I am not interested in animal data. It can be misleading. Why are you
> harping on the animal data?
I should not have to explain things in this degree of detail to a person
whose IQ is sufficient to allow him to obtain a PhD. But I will
nonetheless give it another shot. This is becoming rather tedious by the
way.
He states that there was limited human research, then mentions a specific
study with 6 volunteers. From this you conclude that there was _no_ other
human research. By that reasoning, since he did not provide details of any
of the animal research, there must not have been any. You're the one
jumping to conclusions here and I'm trying to point out to you that you are
doing so. If you can't follow that line of reasoning then God help you.
>>> If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
>>> handbook was used?
>>
>> Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
>> the
>> lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.
>
> You can tell if someone uses a CRC handbook to write a document? Ok. You
> are really talented. Talk about "beating your chest".
I did not say that I could do so infallibly, but it is possible to do so in
some cases.
>> More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
>> clear,
>> is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.
>
> Here you are clearly stating YOUR OPINION. By the way (talk about having
> a blind spot), I NEVER GAVE MY OPINION as to the toxicity of acetone.
Only if we accept your claim that your statement of opinion was in fact not
an opinion is that true.
>> By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
>> literature of course.
>
> Show me EVIDENCE that he used the literature. You are the only one that
> claims that literature was used.
Tell me where else he would find at least 14 studies, some of which use
hundreds of human subjects.
> Until you can provide me with the above request I am finished here.
Hope springs eternal.
> I
> will
> let you have the last word.
Didn't you say that about 20 posts back?
> I'm sure it will be something along these
> lines:
>
> "He mentions studies therefore he used a review of the literature. Or
> a study with 6-people is more than adequate or
> You have a blind spot or
> straw man or
> you can't read or
> na nany boo boo."
Really hurts that you can't bullshit me or intimidate me or force me to
accept your redefinition of the English language, doesn't it professor.
Although I'm feeling remorse now because I'm sure you're going to take your
frustration out on some hapless victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudent.
> Later Clarke
That's odd, I thought you said that this was your last post to me. Can't
even keep your story straight for ten lines.
<snip>
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the ignorant
and uneducated.
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George wrote:
>>
>> "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' "
>>
>> Dean Edell
>
>
> Ohhh, that one is great. I'll have to remember it.
>
> PK
Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:
>They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited Human
Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I don't
know what is.
>If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
inadequate so be it.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>>No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study as
>>>an
>>> _example_.
>>
>> Wrong. It is FAR FROM A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>
> Who claimed that is was? "They used" != "it was".
>
>> It is appears to be a
>> compilation of "case reports" from an unknown source.
>
> No, it appears as a popular-level discussion of the health consequences of
> acetone exposure prepared by a government bureaucrat to be placed on a
> government web site for the purpose of assuaging the curiosity of the
> public in that matter.
>
>> Can you show me ONE reference from the literature (a scientific
>> publication)
>> that is sighted in that web page? I could not.
>
> Why would you expect there to be one?
>
>> They state that their skin contact information was based on "Limited
>> Human
>> Information". If that's not the epitome of "insufficient evidence" I
>> don't know what is.
>>
>> If you find "limited human information" adequate and my personal accounts
>> inadequate so be it.
>
> YOU SIR are not a government agency charged with safeguarding the health
> and
> safety of the workforce and the general population. The agency which
> created that page was such. You are just some guy with an opinion. They
> are a bureaucracy in which nothing goes out unless it's been reviewed by a
> number of levels of the chain of command and vetted by their staff
> chemists, physicians, and other specialists.
>
> Why do you have a problem with the Canadian Occupational Safety and Health
> Administration being more credible than you are?
>
> You seem to be determined to be upset about this.
>
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> REALLY? Did you read it?
>>>>
>>>> We are discussing the toxicity of acetone by putting it on your hands
>>>> correct?
>>>>
>>>> It says its skin contact information was based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>>>> INFORMATION" They used 6-MALE VOLUNTEERS.
>>>
>>> No, _they_ used a review of the literature. They mentioned that study
>>> as
>>> an
>>> _example_.
>>>
>>>> Come on. What kind of a credible study only uses 6-MALE
>>>> VOLUNTEERS?????
>>>
>>> What leads you to believe that that is the _only_ evidence on which the
>>> government of Canada based their conclusions in the matter?
>>>
>>>> Would it take me publishing my findings on some ENTHEOLOGY web page to
>>>> make it credible?
>>>
>>> It would take your persuading the Canadian government to publish your
>>> findings on an officially supported site as general information to be
>>> made available to the public.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps you simply failed to note that little line at the bottom
>>> "Copyright ©1997-2005 Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety",
>>> google same, and come up with
>>>
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>,
>>> which is _exactly_ the same content right down to the formatting.
>>>
>>> Now would you care to shout "CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
>>> SAFETY" the same way you should "ENTHEOLOGY"?
>>>
>>>> Paul seems to think it takes more than Millions of people in a study to
>>>> make it a credible one.(not that I do).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PAUL WROTE:
>>>>>No. Millions of people can say that they have been smoking for 30 years
>>>> and are still fine, so you should feel free to do it. Does that make it
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One more think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway)
>>>>>> web
>>>>>> page about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of
>>>>>> acetone than my personal accounts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, actually the web page in question was a copy of one provided by
>>>>> the
>>>>> Canadian government's Center for Occupational Safety and Health. The
>>>>> US
>>>>> government has a page with similar information. Googling "Acetone
>>>>> MSDS" will give you more of the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> NO
>>>>>> than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
>>>>>> foolish.
>>>>>
>>>>> His one link is a Hell of a lot more credible than your personal
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> stoutman wrote:
>>>>>>>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for
>>>>>>> saying that the personal experience of you and your workmates was
>>>>>>> sufficient evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh.
>>>>>>> Again, as you so like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which
>>>>>>> said that acetone was pretty benign.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PK
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --John
>>>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --John
>>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
It was somewhere outside Barstow when [email protected] wrote:
>I think the relevant scale is 'flashpoint'.
Depends on how you're trying to set fire to it. Flashpoint is widely
misunderstood (actually it's very rarely understood at all). Think of
it not as "the temperature at which it _will_ ignite" but rather as
"the temperature at which it _can_ ignite". Formally it's the
temperature above which a flammable liquid gives off enough vapour to
form a flammable atmosphere. You still need to supply an ignition
source.
Most materials have flashpoints well above room temperature. The ones
we think of as flammable are those where the flashpoint is at some
temperature that's easily achieved - room temperature or thereabouts.
In practice this means that a spill of it forms a flammable atmosphere
and just needs a spark to light it. A liquid with low flammability
would have to be heated before you could even begin to try igniting it
(of course a flame or heat source might achieve both simultaneously).
Strictly speaking, "flammable" (in some countries) is for a flashpoint
of between 23-61°C ("room temperature" is about 23°C) and "highly
flammable" is a flashpoint below this. AFAIR, in the USA these
definitions are different and it's 100°F that's the break for
"flammable"
Some other aspects of "risk of fire" are the minimum energy needed to
cause ignition (this is why we can easily demonstrate that static
discharges won't cause dust collector fires) and also the range of
mixtures (fuel/oxygen ratio) which form a flammable mixture. This is
the reason why gasoline is so hazardous - almost any proportion is an
explosive mixture.
In the case of cyclohexane vs. acetone, they both have similarly low
flashpoints (-20°C and -18°C) but the autoignition temperature of
cyclohexane is only 2/3rd that of acetone (260°C vs. 538°C). With the
vapour around (and this is almost inevitable) then a much lower energy
of spark is needed to ignite cyclohexane than acetone.
A useful handy resource with the numbers:
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/lowflashpoint.html
--
Smert' spamionam
Clarke, what literature was reviewed? If you claim the documentation to be
authored by someone who "used a review of the literature" than show me the
literature was used? The author made NO citations to the literature. I
would like to read it.
No references were cited, but yet you claim (your OPINION by the way) that
the documentation was written by somebody who used a review of the
literature".
> Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
> necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies.
He mentions studies? Or does he provide information from studies?
Where in the "literature" do these studies come from? And why do you assume
they come from the literature?
He mentions various studies, therefore they must have come from the
literature. Ok, if you say so Clarke. For all you know the studies were
done by unqualified graduate students and the data was NEVER published,
therefore NOT IN THE LITERATURE.
Clarke, do not respond to this post until you can provide me with support
that any of the studies in that document are from the literature.
Otherwise, you are wasting my time.
Mentioning various studies does not equal "he used a review of the
literature".
Stop with the straw man comments and come back with some real support for
your argument.
> Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
> human
> information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
> applied
> to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
> particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On what
> basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
> total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
> "limited"?
I am not interested in animal data. It can be misleading. Why are you
harping on the animal data?
>> If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
>> handbook was used?
>
> Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
> the
> lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.
You can tell if someone uses a CRC handbook to write a document? Ok. You
are really talented. Talk about "beating your chest".
> More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
> clear,
> is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.
Here you are clearly stating YOUR OPINION. By the way (talk about having a
blind spot), I NEVER GAVE MY OPINION as to the toxicity of acetone.
> By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
> literature of course.
Show me EVIDENCE that he used the literature. You are the only one that
claims that literature was used.
Until you can provide me with the above request I am finished here. I will
let you have the last word. I'm sure it will be something along these
lines:
"He mentions studies therefore he used a review of the literature. Or
a study with 6-people is more than adequate or
You have a blind spot or
straw man or
you can't read or
na nany boo boo."
Later Clarke
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>> First of all, writing a document using a "review of the literature" and
>> writing a document using a couple or even a few articles from the
>> literature
>> are not the same. Second, you have no evidence that he used a "review of
>> the literature". How do you know the authors information didn't come
>> form
>> ONE or even TWO articles?
>
> Because he mentions far more that ONE or even TWO (why do you feel it
> necessary to SHOUT by the way?) studies. You seem to have trouble
> distinguishing between a "study", a "paper", an "article", and a "section"
> by the way. You might want to work on that.
>
>> There are NO references to the literature, but
>> yet you think a "review of the literature" was used. A "review of the
>> literature" implies a degree of totality. Could you write a review of a
>> movie by only watching the middle of it? Or only watching the end of it?
>
> No "review of the literature" gets everything.
>
>> If one uses a style manual to write something how do you know a style
>> manual
>> was used?
>
> Generally because the style is in the manner prescribed by that style
> manual
> and not by another one. The Chicago manual differs in several particulars
> from the New York Times manual for example, and the New York Times manual
> differs from the style specified by Physical Review, and no, I am not
> going
> to write a dissertation on the differences between various style
> manuals--if you really care to know you should be able to find the major
> ones any decent library.
>
>> If one uses the CRC Handbook to write it how do you know a CRC
>> handbook was used?
>
> Depends on what specifically he was doing. It's called "reading between
> the
> lines", a skill that you might want to attempt to learn.
>
>> Unless the author told you?
>>
>> I refer to the inadequate study (the one with only 6-volunteers) because
>> it is the one entitled: What happens when acetone comes into contact with
>> my
>> skin?".
>
> That is the title of the study? How do you know this? With all your
> whining about how he does not give the source of his information here you
> go asserting that you know the title of one of the research items on which
> he based the page.
>
> The full content of the SECTION (not "study") entitled "What happens when
> acetone comes in contact with my skin" is as follows:
>
> "Acetone is either slightly irritating or not irritating, based on animal
> and limited human information. Application of 1 mL of acetone in a small
> glass tube to six male volunteers for 30 or 90 minutes resulted in only
> mild redness and swelling at 90 minutes.
>
>
> "The risk of developing health effects following the absorption of acetone
> through unbroken skin is very slight. There are several reports of people,
> usually young children, becoming ill following skin exposure to acetone
> while lightweight casts were being put on broken limbs. The symptoms
> experienced were similar to those described following high inhalation
> exposures. In all cases, a large amount of acetone came into contact with
> the skin for several hours and inhalation exposure may also have occurred.
> These reports are not considered relevant to people exposed to acetone at
> work."
>
> Note carefully that he starts out by mentioning "_animal_ and limited
> human
> information". Then he mentions one experiment in which acetone was
> applied
> to the skin of human volunteers. From this you conclude that that
> particular experiment was ALL of the "limited human information". On what
> basis do you conclude this? Do you also conclude that that was the sum
> total of _all_ of the "animal information", which he does _not_ claim is
> "limited"?
>
> Note by the way that there is an implication of at least two studies, one
> with animals, one with humans. Further, since the animal information is
> not described as "limited" one may conclude that the author regarded the
> number of experiments performed and their nature to be sufficient to allow
> anything that might be learned in that area from animal experimentation to
> have been learned, which suggests that there were a number of animal
> studies.
>
> He goes on to discuss "several reports of people. . ." with details
> different from the experiment involving 6 volunteers. That implies at
> least two additional data points. So we can put the lower bound on the
> number of documents used in the preparation of this section at 4.
>
> > We are talking about using acetone to get glue from our hands.
>> This is the part of the document that would apply the most and it is here
>> that the author states that the study is based on "LIMITED HUMAN
>> INFORMATION". Yet you find this adequate.
>
> More adequate than YOUR opinion, which, it is becoming more and more
> clear,
> is that of someone who has difficulty interpreting what he reads.
>
>>>Nobody claimed that he was "referencing the literature"
>>> except you.
>>
>> Ok, you think he used a "review of the literature" to write the document
>> but
>> he does this with out referencing the literature. Interesting. How is
>> that done?
>
> By not calling out a reference for every statement he takes from the
> literature of course.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:02:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
>
>Unless of course one is allergic to latex.
Use Nitrile gloves. They are better anyway.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> In the case, never, ever lose weight, because acetone is one of
> the natural products of fat metabolism.
>
In that case, Need your furniture stripped? I can help.
Don't you worry. Im healthy.
Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal with are
1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my concerns.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>> Than Im in deep shit. We use acetone to wash our glasswear at work. I
>> have been getting it on my hands for over 10 years with no problems.
>> That beer you drink at night is worse for your liver than a little
>> acetone on your hand.
>
> You just might be getting in deeper than you think.
>
> Might very well be worth a physical.
>
> Lew
Capital idea!
A toothpaste tube would be nice too. Bigger & still
keeps the damn air/moisture out after opening.
Art
"Unisaw A-100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sell the stuff in mustard/ketchup pack sizes. That way we
consumers wouldn't be throwing it away when it hardens up
way before it's "expiration date".
UA100, who really only threw away one half a bottle once but
has never re-bought it since because he threw away one half
a bottle of it once...
Yea, right! Mortician supplies are the LAST things that I'll have in stock
around here.
Don't you guys have things to build, wood to cut, stains to apply? I've got
plenty to do, so I'm outta here. Go swimming in acetone or formaldehyde for
all I care.
--
Charley
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I do use gloves when using Gorrilla Glue, but I still always manage a
> > few black spots on my skin someplace, and it looks really bad when I
have
> > to
> > go out in public afterwards.
>
> If you have to go out and find you're all out of acetone, try some
> morticians makeup. It hides those spots really well.
>
>
One more think.
So your ONE link to some entheology (what the hell is that anyway) web page
about acetone is greater evidence regarding the benign nature of acetone
than my personal accounts?
Do you consider your ONE link "sufficient evidence"? If your answer is NO
than you are a hypocrite. If your answer is YES than your just plain
foolish.
"Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>> You are entitled to your opinion, but with all do respect you need to
>> reread his posts. In particular the one where he wrote that I should be
>> ashamed of myself for describing the benign nature of acetone.
>>
>
> No, I said you should be ashamed of yourself -- as a chemist -- for saying
> that the personal experience of you and your workmates was sufficient
> evidence. I will agree it was over the top and too harsh. Again, as you so
> like to ignore, I actually pointed out a URL which said that acetone was
> pretty benign.
>
> PK
A Dr. Scholl's Heel Scraper makes quick work of it with no chemicals...
DAMHIKT.
"Charley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
> completely. Now I'm not recommending that you bathe in the stuff, but
> knowing that this works might get you out of hot water with the wife the
> next time you work with gorrilla glue and then she wants to go out to
> dinner
> that evening.
>
> --
> Charley
>
>
I suggested someone use methanol once for shellac solvent and a similar
phenomenon occurred.
Some people don't know how to interpret a MSDS and blow things WAY out of
proportion.
As long as you don't take a bath in your solvents or drink them and use them
in a well ventilated area you will be OK.
"Charley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> WOW! 21 hits in a half day on what I thought was a good idea, but I had a
> feeling it might stir things up a bit. Sorry if I caused you EPA guys to
> get
> fired up. I didn't mean to cause such a fuss, but I thought it was a good
> idea. I do use gloves when using Gorrilla Glue, but I still always manage
> a
> few black spots on my skin someplace, and it looks really bad when I have
> to
> go out in public afterwards. When I found out how good a small amount of
> acetone removed the spots I thought that you guys would appreciate knowing
> about it. I never suggested that anyone should take a bath in acetone.
>
> --
> Charley
>
>
>
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >> I just normally use steel wool and wax. Gives a nice soft sheen.
>> >
>> > How do you get her to hold still?
>>
>> I got 4 of those Bessey clamps Lee Valley had on sale a while back.
>>
>>
>
>
It was somewhere outside Barstow when "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the ignorant
>and uneducated.
I'm sorry, but the only person who appears to be behaving ignorantly
around here is you. Paul _agreed_ with you, posted a reasonable
credible link to support this, then you bit his head off !
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:10:38 -0600, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>stoutman wrote:
>>
>> Please directly respond to my previously ignored statements:
>
>Give it a rest... :(
One of these guys is acting like a total dick. Unfortunately I haven't
been able to figure out which one it is.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Than Im in deep shit. We use acetone to wash our glasswear at work. I have
been getting it on my hands for over 10 years with no problems. That beer
you drink at night is worse for your liver than a little acetone on your
hand.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charley wrote:
>> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
>> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
>> completely.
> <snip>
>
> NOT a good idea.
>
> Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
>
> OTOH, a box of disposable surgical gloves does the job and is low cost.
>
> Lew
>
>
Thu, Mar 10, 2005, 5:42pm (EST+5) [email protected] (stoutman) claims:
Than Im in deep shit. We use acetone to wash our glasswear at work. I
have been getting it on my hands for over 10 years with no problems.
That beer you drink at night is worse for your liver than a little
acetone on your hand.
Duuno, but my dad used to work with a guy who rinsed the grease off
his hands with some type of chemical cleaner on a daily basis. He was
told it wasn't a good idea, but did it anyway. Then all of a sudden his
hands just kinda wrinkled up, and went all white. Never did hear the
final outcome.
With Titebond water cleanup works. Cool.
JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
It was somewhere outside Barstow when [email protected] (J T)
wrote:
> Duuno, but my dad used to work with a guy who rinsed the grease off
>his hands with some type of chemical cleaner on a daily basis.
Any degreaser is bad new on your hands - humans are just made out of
too much grease. Anything that cleans them is also degreasing the
skin. There's a reason why my workshops always have barrier cream and
handcream to hand. (These days it's tradefair shea butter stuff -
much nicer than Nivea or Oil of Oily)
>Then all of a sudden his
>hands just kinda wrinkled up, and went all white.
He was lucky. Most of the workshop solvents that really are harmful
cause liver damage. Very nasty way to go 8-(
If the skin went white, might it have been hydrogen peroxide he was
splashing about ?
Mon, Mar 14, 2005, 12:09am (EST+5) [email protected]
(Andy=A0Dingley) wonders:
<snip> If the skin went white, might it have been hydrogen peroxide he
was splashing about ?
Nope, a 55 gallon drum of some chemical they dipped tools in, on a
wire, to degrease them. Something like carb cleaner, apparently. That
guy was the only one that wanted it on his skin. The rest of 'em, if it
splashed on their hands, they went and washed with soap and water.
Strictly for degreasing/cleaning metal.
JOAT
Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
- David Fasold
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Mon, Mar 14, 2005, 12:09am (EST+5) [email protected]
(Andy Dingley) wonders:
<snip> If the skin went white, might it have been hydrogen peroxide he
was splashing about ?
>Nope, a 55 gallon drum of some chemical they dipped tools in, on a
>wire, to degrease them. Something like carb cleaner, apparently. That
>guy was the only one that wanted it on his skin. The rest of 'em, if it
>splashed on their hands, they went and washed with soap and water.
>Strictly for degreasing/cleaning metal.
Could have been 1-1-1-tricholoroethylene, although it's more effective as a
vapor degreaser. And I wouldn't want it on my hands.
todd
I give up. You guys must be right. Don't use acetone to clean glue from
your hands.
In fact tell your wives to stop using finger nail polish remover. You might
just save their lives.
I'm done here.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You are correct there are more formal sources for acetone toxicology,
>> even
>> more formal than the one you presented (check out PUBMED). However, for
> the
>> purposes of this discussion wouldn't the actual usage occounts of a
> chemist
>> who has been using acetone (along side several other coworkers for
>> several
>> years) be sufficient?
>>
>
> "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' "
>
> Dean Edell
>
>
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:03:45 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Acetone in contact with your skin leads to liver problems.
If you bathe in it for decades, sure. I'm on the tree-hugger end of the
spectrum when it comes to hazardous chemicals, but one has to keep some
perspective. Acetone isn't something you want to breathe daily, true, but
ferpetesake it's nail polish remover.
Not that gloves aren't a better choice--better to keep the gunk off you in
the first place.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:34:34 -0500, f/256 wrote:
> #80 sandpaper works too, follow it with #240 and #600 if the evening
> includes caressing sensitive/soft areas, like her face, for instance
You ever felt the stuff they rub on their faces? Ground up almond shells,
ferpetesake.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:56:06 -0800, mp wrote:
>> #80 sandpaper works too, follow it with #240 and #600 if the evening
>> includes caressing sensitive/soft areas, like her face, for instance ;-)
>
> I just normally use steel wool and wax. Gives a nice soft sheen.
How do you get her to hold still?
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
The parts of the discussion (the majority) that pertain to the toxicology of
acetone are considered scientific in nature. Thus, the discussion can be
considered a "scientific discussion"
If you need more information as to its toxicity do your own research and
come to your own conclusions about the toxicity of acetone. I am MORE than
confident that you will (or have already) come to the same conclusions I
have regarding its toxicity.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>> Scientific discussions that is. You guys sure know your woodworking.
>
> The thing is, this is not a "scientific discussion". It's beating some
> poor
> guy up because he had the temerity to mention that you can get Gorilla
> Glue
> off your fingers using fingernail polish remover.
>
>> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>I sometimes forget how difficult it is to have discussions with the
>>>ignorant and uneducated.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Paul Kierstead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.' "
>>>>>
>>>>> Dean Edell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ohhh, that one is great. I'll have to remember it.
>>>>
>>>> PK
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?
>
Ok, I'm surrounded by lostness.?.?.? Only when I read YOUR responses.
>> There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
>> makes you think he used a review of the literature?
>
> The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.
Mentioning a number of cases (from an UNKNOWN SOURCE) = he used a review of
the literature. Ok, If you say so.
If I were to write a document and used a "review of the literature" I think
I would at least CITE the review articles that I used in doing so.
> So from whence did he find his numerous cases?
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. We don't know where he got the "case
reports" from do we? That's what I mean by: NO REFERENCES ARE CITED.
Again, this is not a review of the literature. We have NO evidence that he
used a review of the literature. We don't even know what literature these
"case reports" came from. Do you?
>> What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
>> see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
> Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
> case report"
Mentioning case reports from an unknown source is not the same as
referencing the literature. A reference from the literature would contain a
REFERENCE. Do you know what a reference is? It would contain the source of
the literature that was used to write the document. It would contain the
journal, authors, publication source, volume, issue, pages, date, etc. Have
you ever read a scientific publication?
You crack me up sir.
> Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
> associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
> with larger populations than just you.
Ok, lets exaggerate a little. My observations are not vague recollections.
I use and I am around people that use acetone EVERY DAY I go to work.
Nobody had any adverse effects again today from using acetone (FYI).
Many researchers? How many? If you think it's many than you must know how
many. Come on man spill the beans man. How many?
Larger populations? 6-male volunteers = large population. I hate to see
what a small population is to you. When you throw a party and 2-people show
up (I wouldn't expect any more than that) I guess you would consider that a
LARGE party. I am surrounded by DOZENS using acetone, it is not just
me.
> They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
> government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
> unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".
They are reporting the observations of WHO? You said many others. Name
just ONE. Who are these mystery people you call "OTHERS"? A Reference to
the literature would be nice wouldn't it?
You trust the author of a document regarding the safety of acetone when (A.)
You don't know where the information came from (I am referring to LITERATURE
here) and (B.) A study that uses an inadequate number of volunteers (THEY
EVEN STATE THAT THE STUDY WAS BASED ON LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION).
Ok, sure. Trust away.
> I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
> of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
> government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".
Whatever. How about focusing on this discussion instead of personally
attacking me?
> If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
> then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.
Why should I do you any favors?
Please do yourself a favor and educate your self as to what it means to use
the literature to write a scientific manuscript.
Read a few scientific review articles. See how many actually CITE the
literature.
>So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.
You wrote that he used a "review of the literature" to write the document.
Are you suggesting that he used a review of the literature to write a
document that does not contain a review of the literature?
Sir this horse is dead. Must I keep beating it?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> stoutman wrote:
>
>>> Well if you're going to use the Internet it would behoove you to learn
>>> at
>>> least a small amount of the vernacular. You'll find idioms from the C
>>> programming language used all over the place.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No thanks.
>
> Determined to remain surrounded by lostness, eh?
>
>>> The guy who wrote it no doubt used a computer as well, but I don't see a
>>> keyboard or a CRT or the like on the site either. Why are you having so
>>> much trouble with the fact that using a thing is not the same as being a
>>> thing?
>>
>>
>> There is no way he used a review of the literature to write that. What
>> makes you think he used a review of the literature?
>
> The fact that he mentioned a number of cases.
>
>> I see no evidence of
>> there being a review of the literature conducted for the purposes of
>> writing that documentation.
>
> So from whence did he find his numerous cases?
>
>> WHAT PART OF "LIMITED HUMAN INFORMATION" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? They
>> used 6-male volunteers? Do you consider that sufficient? I sure do not.
>>
>> How do you consider that ADEQUATE?
>
> What makes you believe that that was the only experiment conducted? He
> didn't tell how many animals they experimented on so by your logic there
> must have been no animal experiments conducted. One may assume that that
> was _part_ of the "limited human information". One may not safely assume
> that that was _all_ of it.
>
>>> I did not at any time claim that any part of that "documentation" was a
>>> literature survey.
>>
>> Your right. You don't even remember what you wrote. You wrote he used a
>> REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
>
> So? If one uses a typewriter to produce a report, that does not make the
> report a typewriter. You seem to have a real blind spot in this area.
>
>>> If the author did not use a literature survey to find
>>> the articles that he read before he wrote the page, then how, precisely,
>>> _did_ he find them?
>>
>> What evidence do you have that the author used any articles at all? I
>> see NOT ONE REFERENCE TO THE LITERATURE.
>
> Well, let's see, he mentions "one study", then "other studies", then "one
> case report" (bear in mind that this is a government agency charged with
> occupational safety and health, from which one may assume that they
> receive
> a plethora of "case reports"), then "a single case report", then "animal
> and limited human information", then "there are several reports of
> people . . .", then "in 3 human cases" then "in one unusual case" which
> clearly was not among the 3, then "several studies report", then "animal
> information suggests", then "one case report describes" then "most human
> poulation studies indicate" then "in a series of studies", then "another
> study which reviewed . . ." then "one other study" then "no conclusions
> can
> be drawn from other reports . . ." then more "animal information suggests"
> then "no firm conclusions can be drawn from the available studies", then
> "a
> study of 25 men" then "a study of 891 women" then "in a Russian study",
> then "one animal study showed". Now where did he find all these studies?
>
>>> Fine, you observed something and made an inference from what you
>>> observed
>>> and that inference is somehow not an opinion.
>>
>> Why do you not refer to the OBSERVATIONS made by those in documentation
>> OPINIONS as well?
>
> Because the observations are not vague recollections. There are numbers
> associated with them. They represent the work of many researchers dealing
> with larger populations than just you.
>
>> Because they published it on a web page, thus they are
>> OBSERVATIONS and not OPINIONS? They also made observations did they not?
>
> They are reporting the observations of many others. Further, I trust a
> government agency more than I trust a random stranger who seems to be
> unable to understand the difference between "is" and "used".
>
>>> And you don't know the difference between an insult and an "ad hominem
>>> attack" either. "You're an illiterate idiot" is an insult. "He's wrong
>>> because he's an illiterate idiot" is an "ad hominem attack". I'm
>>> insulting
>>> you because you are exhibiting reading skills on the level of Danforth
>>> Quayle's spelling abilities, not because I am attempting to use your
>>> illiteracy to invalidate your argument. But you probably have as much
>>> trouble with that distinction as with the distinction between "being"
>>> and
>>> "using".
>>
>>
>>
>> Blah Blah Blah, personal attack, Blah Blah Blah, personal attack.
>
> Actually, for the most part statements of fact.
>
>> What was it you said before? something along these lines: Quit focusing
>> on my grammar and instead focus on the provenance of
>> the content.
>
> I'm not "focussing on your grammer". I am focussing on your intepretation
> of someone else's grammar. And your insistence that the Canadian
> government is "an ENTHEOLOGY web page".
>
>> Or should we focus in on the fact that you like scientific
>> references from ENTHEOLOGY web pages?
>
> Please provide some evidence to support the contention that
> <http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/acetone/health_ace.html>
> is an "ENTHEOLOGY web page". And why do you keep shouting "entheology".
> Do you like the sound of it or something?
>
>>> Nope, you claimed more experience with acetone than that of a government
>>> agency charged with determining the safety of such substances. Are you
>>> now
>>> retracting that statement?
>>
>> Ok, how about those that conducted the experiments referred to in the
>> documentation?
>
> How about them? What do you know of them?
>
> <snip>
>
> If you are going to top-post the entire text to which you are responding
> then please be kind enough to trim it afterwards.
>
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Charley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The next time you get black marks on your hands from using gorrilla glue,
> you don't need to let it "wear off". A little Acetone will remove it
> completely. Now I'm not recommending that you bathe in the stuff, but
> knowing that this works might get you out of hot water with the wife the
> next time you work with gorrilla glue and then she wants to go out to
dinner
> that evening.
#80 sandpaper works too, follow it with #240 and #600 if the evening
includes caressing sensitive/soft areas, like her face, for instance ;-)
stoutman wrote:
> Than Im in deep shit. We use acetone to wash our glasswear at work. I have
> been getting it on my hands for over 10 years with no problems. That beer
> you drink at night is worse for your liver than a little acetone on your
> hand.
You just might be getting in deeper than you think.
Might very well be worth a physical.
Lew
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:40:14 GMT, "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Don't you worry. Im healthy.
>
>Im a chemist so im around solvents all day long. Most that I deal with are
>1000000X worse than acetone. Acetone is the LEAST of my concerns.
A local chemist friend of mine constantly "jokes" about the life
expectancy of chemists.
I wish you well.
Barry
Like I said, do your own research. All I have to offer are personal
experiences from my years of experience as a medicinal chemist. Take it or
leave it. You need more than what I have to offer in order to make an
educated decision as to whether or not to use acetone to clean up glue from
your hands? DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Take it or leave it.
"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "stoutman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The parts of the discussion (the majority) that pertain to the toxicology
> of
>> acetone are considered scientific in nature. Thus, the discussion can be
>> considered a "scientific discussion"
>>
>> If you need more information as to its toxicity do your own research and
>> come to your own conclusions about the toxicity of acetone. I am MORE
> than
>> confident that you will (or have already) come to the same conclusions I
>> have regarding its toxicity.
>>
>>
>>
>
> WHAT! Empirical data, not testimonials?
>
> That's what educated, intelligent people use.....
>
>
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:34:04 GMT, [email protected] (Lawrence
Wasserman) wrote:
>It might depend on the grade of acetone,
>there's
>
>low-strenght acetone,
>
>medium-strength acetone,
>
>high-strength acetone,
>
>
>and......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>KICK-acetone!
Which is what you get from a well set-up electric guitar with a
mega-amp that goes to "11".
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:21:43 GMT, the inscrutable david zaret
<news@__REMOVE__.zaret.com> spake:
>my father is also a chemist, and was just diagnosed with bladder cancer
>almost certainly from exposure to chemicals like acetone. i say protect
>yourself.
He breathed in chemicals 8 hours per day for HOW many years before it
happened?
Yes, be careful, not paranoid. Wear gloves and ventilate when using
solvents. It's common sense.
--
Life's a Frisbee: When you die, your soul goes up on the roof.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development