Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
"Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
explosively."
So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Note to self: the internet is never a good medium for sarcasm (or
obscure references to "Cheers" one-liners).
G
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
>>learn the hard way.
>
>
> Dead positive. I know the difference, hence my emphasis on the NON. The term
> "inflammable" is only rarely used any more, precisely because of the confusion
> it often causes.
>
> Here's a link to the manufacturer's page for the product:
> http://www.dap.com/retail/retail_detail.cfm?catid=4&subcatid=8&prodhdrid=37
>
> The MSDS for the product <http://www.dap.com/msds/30534.pdf> notes the
> following:
>
> Toluene 1 to 5% by weight
> Emergency overview: Warning! Combustible liquid and vapor
> Unusual fire and explosion hazards: Combustible.
>
> From the MSDS, it's evidently a hazard only above 150 deg F, but still, it
> doesn't sound to me like it should be called non-flammable.
>
> I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a "flammable"
> liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a "combustible" liquid
> as one having a flash point between 100 and 200 deg F. So strictly speaking,
> this stuff is in fact not "flammable" even though it is "combustible".
>
> Sheesh.
>
>
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>>>
>>>"Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
>>>sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
>>>explosively."
>>>
>>>So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
Greetings and Salutations.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:55:41 -0400, Bill Rogers <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:55:20 +0000 (UTC), Chris
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
>>can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
>>word, examples:
>>
>>inhospitable = not hospitable
>>insecure = not secure
>>inadmissable = not admissable
>>...
>>inflammable = not flammable
>
>Rubbish! Webster [or any other]: Inflammable 1. Flammable 2:
>Easily inflamed ...
>
>OK flame away.
>
>Bill.
>
Or...as I say..."Ah! a NEWSGROUP!"
Regards
Dave Mundt
> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly
> and can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a
> root word, examples:
>
> inhospitable = not hospitable
> insecure = not secure
> inadmissable = not admissable
> ...
> inflammable = not flammable
>
> If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry
> classes). Asbestos is (basically) inflammable. A linseed oil soaked
> rag is quite possibly flammable.
>
> On to the original post; perhaps the nonflammable portion of the name
> refers to the _cured_ cement product; it clearly states that the vapors
> are flammable.
>
> Chris
Chris,
Ever since I was old enough to care what was on a warning label (grade
school?), this one has perplexed me.
I could only blame the obtuseness of the "English" language for this
inconsistency.
(That, and never use that term in the vernacular!)
x-- 100 Proof News - http://www.100ProofNews.com
x-- 3,500+ Binary NewsGroups, and over 90,000 other groups
x-- Access to over 1 Terabyte per Day - $8.95/Month
x-- UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>>>
>>> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
>>> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
>>> explosively."
>>>
>>> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>>
>>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>G. Lewin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
>> learn the hard way.
>
>> G
>
>Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
>can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
>word, examples:
Unfortunately, you sir, in _this_ case, "know not that of which you speak".
The words 'flammable', and 'inflammable' actually come from *SEPARATE*,
*UNRELATED* roots.
That leading 'in' in 'inflammable' is no more a negation prefix than the
leading 'in' in 'innocent', 'inside', 'inflamed', or 'inflammation' is.
Note: the seeming 'contradiction' has been in existence for a *LONG* time.
All the way back to Old Latin, in fact.
"Flammable" traces to "flamma', meaning 'flame', while "inflammable" traces
back to 'inflammare', meaning 'to inflame'. which is constructed from the
'intensifier' (!!) prefix 'in', and the root _is_ derived from 'flamma'.
In engineering circles, there _is_ a technical distinction drawn between
the two terms -- it has to do with how fast/easily/quickly combustion occurs.
One of them burns, the other burns *quickly*. Unfortunately, I can never
remember which is which.
The flammable/inflammable distinction is fairly s similar to the difference
between 'explosive' and 'high explosive'.
In article <[email protected]>, "G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
>learn the hard way.
Dead positive. I know the difference, hence my emphasis on the NON. The term
"inflammable" is only rarely used any more, precisely because of the confusion
it often causes.
Here's a link to the manufacturer's page for the product:
http://www.dap.com/retail/retail_detail.cfm?catid=4&subcatid=8&prodhdrid=37
The MSDS for the product <http://www.dap.com/msds/30534.pdf> notes the
following:
Toluene 1 to 5% by weight
Emergency overview: Warning! Combustible liquid and vapor
Unusual fire and explosion hazards: Combustible.
From the MSDS, it's evidently a hazard only above 150 deg F, but still, it
doesn't sound to me like it should be called non-flammable.
I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a "flammable"
liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a "combustible" liquid
as one having a flash point between 100 and 200 deg F. So strictly speaking,
this stuff is in fact not "flammable" even though it is "combustible".
Sheesh.
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>>
>> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
>> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
>> explosively."
>>
>> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Chris <[email protected]> writes:
>> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
>> can be dangerous.
>
>Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since defined
>flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches
>fire easily.
BZZZT! thank you for playing.
_BOTH_ terms *predate* Modern English.
They are tracable, to separate roots in Old Latin.
"Inflammable" comes from the same root as 'inflame'.
Doug Miller wrote:
> I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a "flammable"
> liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a "combustible" liquid
> as one having a flash point between 100 and 200 deg F. So strictly speaking,
> this stuff is in fact not "flammable" even though it is "combustible".
> [snippage]
I remember tanker trucks in days of yore (picture me as a child),
carrying warning signs that said "inflammable" or "non-inflammable". I
puzzled about the meanings of these words until my puzzler was sore. I
then asked my father who knew all things (and would admit to not knowing
as necessary). We agreed that these words were not necessarily
intuitive. Some time later the industry/government change to
"flammable" and "non-flammable". All better now.
mahalo,
jo4hn
whose father taught him about dictionaries and encyclopedias...
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>
> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
> explosively."
>
> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
The label or testing laboratory musta been the same one, ones that Titebond
III used. ;~)
In article <[email protected]>, patriarch <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
><snip>
>
>> I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a
>> "flammable" liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a
>> "combustible" liquid as one having a flash point between 100 and 200
>> deg F. So strictly speaking, this stuff is in fact not "flammable"
>> even though it is "combustible".
>>
>> Sheesh.
>>
>But is it _waterproof_? <GD&R>
>
They claim it is, after it's cured. Not sure how it would fare, though, if
immersed for 24 hours...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
learn the hard way.
G
Doug Miller wrote:
> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>
> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
> explosively."
>
> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a
> "flammable" liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a
> "combustible" liquid as one having a flash point between 100 and 200
> deg F. So strictly speaking, this stuff is in fact not "flammable"
> even though it is "combustible".
>
> Sheesh.
>
But is it _waterproof_? <GD&R>
Patriarch
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
> >>
> >> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from
heat,
> >> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
> >> explosively."
> >>
> >> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
> >>
> >> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> >> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> >> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
> G. Lewin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
> > learn the hard way.
>
> > G
>
> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
> can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
> word, examples:
>
> inhospitable = not hospitable
> insecure = not secure
> inadmissable = not admissable
> ...
> inflammable = not flammable
>
> If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry
> classes). Asbestos is (basically) inflammable. A linseed oil soaked rag
> is quite possibly flammable.
>
> On to the original post; perhaps the nonflammable portion of the name
> refers to the _cured_ cement product; it clearly states that the vapors
> are flammable.
>
> Chris
In the case of "inflammable" the -in is not a prefix. The original usage was
inflame, therefore, if something easily burned it was "inflammable" or
easily inflamed. Inflammation of the hemorrhoids, for example, does not mean
my piles are "not" flaming.
Just so you know.
BTW, where can I get a "Frigerator"?
<bsig>
In article <[email protected]>, Ridley Scoot <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ever since I was old enough to care what was on a warning label (grade
>school?), this one [flammable/inflammable -- dm] has perplexed me.
>
>I could only blame the obtuseness of the "English" language for this
>inconsistency.
>
There is no inconsistency, only confusion. Read my earlier posts, or Robert
Bonomi's, in this thread. The "in" in "inflammable" is not a prefix meaning
"not", it's part of the root word, which is "inflame".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
> Doug Miller wrote:
>> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>>
>> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
>> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
>> explosively."
>>
>> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
G. Lewin <[email protected]> wrote:
> You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
> learn the hard way.
> G
Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
word, examples:
inhospitable = not hospitable
insecure = not secure
inadmissable = not admissable
...
inflammable = not flammable
If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry
classes). Asbestos is (basically) inflammable. A linseed oil soaked rag
is quite possibly flammable.
On to the original post; perhaps the nonflammable portion of the name
refers to the _cured_ cement product; it clearly states that the vapors
are flammable.
Chris
DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Chris <[email protected]> writes:
>> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly
>> and can be dangerous.
>
> Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since
For certain values of "since". If it ever meant "non-flammable" it was
before 1605.
> defined
> flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches
> fire easily.
>
> The opposite is now "nonflammable".
>
> Sigh.
>
> The English language has been well and truly flammed.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Chris wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>>> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
>>>
>>> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from
>>> heat, sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can
>>> ignite explosively."
>>>
>>> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>>
>>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
> G. Lewin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
>> learn the hard way.
>
>> G
>
> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
> can be dangerous.
It is not a "misuse". Both Webster and Oxford define it as being equivalent
to "flammable". Oxford dates it back to 1605. It's actually something of
an archaism--if the word were being coined today it would probably be
"enflameable", but spelling in 1605 was a bit more flexible than it is now.
> The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
> word, examples:
>
> inhospitable = not hospitable
> insecure = not secure
> inadmissable = not admissable
> ...
> inflammable = not flammable
>
> If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry
> classes). Asbestos is (basically) inflammable.
Not according to standard English usage.
> A linseed oil soaked rag
> is quite possibly flammable.
>
> On to the original post; perhaps the nonflammable portion of the name
> refers to the _cured_ cement product; it clearly states that the vapors
> are flammable.
>
> Chris
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip my earlier gaffe>
> Unfortunately, you sir, in _this_ case, "know not that of which you speak".
> The words 'flammable', and 'inflammable' actually come from *SEPARATE*,
> *UNRELATED* roots.
> That leading 'in' in 'inflammable' is no more a negation prefix than the
> leading 'in' in 'innocent', 'inside', 'inflamed', or 'inflammation' is.
> Note: the seeming 'contradiction' has been in existence for a *LONG* time.
> All the way back to Old Latin, in fact.
> "Flammable" traces to "flamma', meaning 'flame', while "inflammable" traces
> back to 'inflammare', meaning 'to inflame'. which is constructed from the
> 'intensifier' (!!) prefix 'in', and the root _is_ derived from 'flamma'.
> In engineering circles, there _is_ a technical distinction drawn between
> the two terms -- it has to do with how fast/easily/quickly combustion occurs.
> One of them burns, the other burns *quickly*. Unfortunately, I can never
> remember which is which.
> The flammable/inflammable distinction is fairly s similar to the difference
> between 'explosive' and 'high explosive'.
Replies such as this should enshrined somehwere as a shining example of
good posting and a friendly attitude. Robert, I have enjoyed learning
from you. This also highlights that it has been entirely too long since
my Latin classes. :)
Yes, the English language is silly at times, but we can only do our best
to work with it and not "blow ourselves up" with cement and such.
Chris
In article <[email protected]>,
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><snip my earlier gaffe>
>
>> Unfortunately, you sir, in _this_ case, "know not that of which you speak".
>
>> The words 'flammable', and 'inflammable' actually come from *SEPARATE*,
>> *UNRELATED* roots.
>
>> That leading 'in' in 'inflammable' is no more a negation prefix than the
>> leading 'in' in 'innocent', 'inside', 'inflamed', or 'inflammation' is.
>
>> Note: the seeming 'contradiction' has been in existence for a *LONG* time.
>> All the way back to Old Latin, in fact.
>
>> "Flammable" traces to "flamma', meaning 'flame', while "inflammable" traces
>> back to 'inflammare', meaning 'to inflame'. which is constructed from the
>> 'intensifier' (!!) prefix 'in', and the root _is_ derived from 'flamma'.
>
>
>> In engineering circles, there _is_ a technical distinction drawn between
>> the two terms -- it has to do with how fast/easily/quickly combustion occurs.
>> One of them burns, the other burns *quickly*. Unfortunately, I can never
>> remember which is which.
>
>> The flammable/inflammable distinction is fairly s similar to the difference
>> between 'explosive' and 'high explosive'.
>
>Replies such as this should enshrined somehwere as a shining example of
>good posting and a friendly attitude. Robert, I have enjoyed learning
>from you. This also highlights that it has been entirely too long since
>my Latin classes. :)
I'll admit, I had the 'non-opposite-ness' of those two words drummed into me
at an _early_ age. One of the hazards of growing up in a household where
*both* parents had professional journalism backgrounds. :) They did a fair
amount of writing for the construction-engineering industry, and also the
transportation industry. Using the *correct* one (basis the trade-specific
_technical_ meaning) of the two terms, in those in those environments, was
an absolute necessity.
Beyond that, I cheated. For the history, I grabbed the handy dictionary
(a serious one, with derivations), and looked up both words. Then it was
just pontification, based on the 'half a line' of derivation, in each listing.
>Yes, the English language is silly at times, but we can only do our best
>to work with it and not "blow ourselves up" with cement and such.
'Silly' doesn't _begin_ to cover it --
Have you ever heard of anyone making an _ane_ remark?
Is the politician who waffles on the issues, ever called _cisive_ ?
How about words that sound exactly alike, and have exactly *opposite*
meanings? e.g. 'raise', and 'raze'.
Seen in a science-fiction novel: "I was hardly gruntled at the summons."
(That line has been a personal favorite for many years.)
[ trivia: my spell checker questioned 'ane', and 'cisive', but did *not*
object to 'gruntled'. ]
And a sci-fi short-story (concerning an alien that crashes on Earth) that
starts out:
"I awoke with a ringing in my ears.
Two in the right, and one in the left.
But who on Earth knew *my* number?"
Then, go look up the 'Retief' sci-fi short stories, written by Keith Laumer.
And contemplate the poor editor(s) who had to _deal_ with those stories. And
the number of proof-readers that must have been driven into complete nervous
breakdowns.
Lastly, hunt up a James Thurber story called 'The Wonderful O'. The story
premise is laughable cum ridiculous, but it is _well-told_. Not unexpected,
considering the author. There's a line in that story -- "'Geep', whuppled
the parrot." -- that, _in_context_, is one of the funniest bits I have ever
read.
Chris <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Doug Miller wrote:
>
> >> Warnings on a can of Weldwood brand NONflammable contact cement:
> >>
> >> "Contains toluene ... Use in a well ventilated area. Keep away from heat,
> >> sparks, or flame. Vapors may cause flash fire. ... Vapors can ignite
> >> explosively."
> >>
> >> So... exactly how is that different from ordinary contact cement?
> >>
>
> G. Lewin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You sure it doesn't say INflammable? There's a lesson you don't want to
> > learn the hard way.
>
> > G
>
> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
> can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
> word, examples:
>
> inhospitable = not hospitable
> insecure = not secure
> inadmissable = not admissable
> ...
> inflammable = not flammable
NO! The root word is 'inflame'. The 'in' in 'inflame' is NOT
a prefix, it is part of the word itself.
OSHA, the ASTM, NBS, Underwriter's laboratory etc have agreed on
standard definiton:
Inflamable means the flashpoint is below 140 degrees F. Or, as
a practical matter, the vapors can form an explosive atmosphere
at ordinary temperatures. Example: gasoline
>
> If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry
> classes).
NO!
Combustible is not the same as inflammable. Combustible liquids have
a flashpoint above 140 degrees F. Or, as a practical matter, the
vapors cannot form an explosive atmosphere at ordinary room temperatures.
Example: kerosine.
> Asbestos is (basically) inflammable. A linseed oil soaked rag
> is quite possibly flammable.
NO! Linseed oil is combustible. Asbestos is noninflammable, also
noncombustible.
>
> On to the original post; perhaps the nonflammable portion of the name
> refers to the _cured_ cement product; it clearly states that the vapors
> are flammable.
>
"Flammable' and 'Nonflammable' are recently coined words invented in
a hopefully nonfutile effort to keep people such as yourself from
being burned.
Don't trust me, consult a dictionary.
--
FF
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> From the MSDS, it's evidently a hazard only above 150 deg F, but still, it
> doesn't sound to me like it should be called non-flammable.
>
> I found out what's going on with that, though: OSHA defines a "flammable"
> liquid as one having a flash point below 100 deg F, and a "combustible" liquid
> as one having a flash point between 100 and 200 deg F. So strictly speaking,
> this stuff is in fact not "flammable" even though it is "combustible".
>
It used to be inflammable iwth a flash point below 140. Has
that changed recently?
> Sheesh.
Indeed.
--
FF
DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chris <[email protected]> writes:
> > Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
> > can be dangerous.
>
> Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since defined
> flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches
> fire easily.
>
> The opposite is now "nonflammable".
>
> Sigh.
>
> The English language has been well and truly flammed.
There was an old George Carlin routine...
"Flammable, nonflammable, noninflammable... why are there three?"
-CJ
In article <[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
>can be dangerous.
Indeed it is, and you unfortunately are contributing to the confusion with
your own misuse of the word.
>The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
>word, examples:
>
>inhospitable = not hospitable
>insecure = not secure
>inadmissable = not admissable
>....
OK so far...
>inflammable = not flammable
.. but this is _dead_wrong_.
In this case, "in" is NOT a prefix applied to the root word and meaning "not"
but rather part of the root word itself, which is "inflame". "Inflammable" =
"capable of being inflamed", i.e. synonymous with flammable.
>If something will combust it IS flammable (remember your chemistry
>classes). Asbestos is (basically) inflammable.
No, it's not. Asbestos is absolutely non-flammable. Gasoline, e.g., is
inflammable.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, DJ Delorie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Chris <[email protected]> writes:
>> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
>> can be dangerous.
>
>Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since defined
>flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches
>fire easily.
They have *always* meant exactly the same thing. There has been no
redefinition.
>
>The opposite is now "nonflammable".
"Now"?
The opposite of "flammable" has *always* been "nonflammable".
"Inflammable" does not mean, and never has meant, "not flammable". The root
word of "inflammable" is "inflame". The "in" part is not, and never has been,
a prefix.
It is precisely because of this confusion that the term "inflammable" has been
largely abandoned in favor of the clearer and _absolutely_synonymous_ term
"flammable": too many people mistakenly thought that "inflammable" was a
synonym for "nonflammable".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:49:11 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In engineering circles, there _is_ a technical distinction drawn between
>the two terms -- it has to do with how fast/easily/quickly combustion occurs.
>One of them burns, the other burns *quickly*. Unfortunately, I can never
>remember which is which.
The inference there is that the latter is the more rapid perhaps, but
that is not a genereal inference. They are generally synonymous.
Bill.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:55:20 +0000 (UTC), Chris
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
>can be dangerous. The prefix in- is a negation when applied to a root
>word, examples:
>
>inhospitable = not hospitable
>insecure = not secure
>inadmissable = not admissable
>...
>inflammable = not flammable
Rubbish! Webster [or any other]: Inflammable 1. Flammable 2:
Easily inflamed ...
OK flame away.
Bill.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>It used to be inflammable iwth a flash point below 140. Has
>that changed recently?
>
Dunno if it changed... but DAGS on <inflammable OSHA>, and the first hit you
get is http://www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/flammable.html
"The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) defines a
flammable liquid as "any liquid having a flash point below 100 deg. F. (37.8
deg. C.), except any mixture having components with flash points of 100 deg.
F. (37.8 deg. C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99 percent or more of
the total volume of the mixture. Flammable liquids shall be known as Class I
liquids."
Compare this definition to combustible, which indicates a liquid that is
somewhat harder to ignite (flash point above 100 oF)."
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Chris <[email protected]> writes:
> Sorry to gripe here, but the misuse of the word "inflammable" is silly and
> can be dangerous.
Because of that, sadly enough, the English language has since defined
flammable and inflammable to mean exactly the same thing - catches
fire easily.
The opposite is now "nonflammable".
Sigh.
The English language has been well and truly flammed.