"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 9/9/2012 4:07 PM, Baron wrote:
"

I hate the kind of chemo-phobia engendered by sites like this.

I'm a retired chemist, in his seventies, in good health. If chemicals
were this bad, I should have been long dead by now.

In fact, my graduate adviser, in his eighties, just got out of jail last
year after conviction 20 years ago of running a meth lab.

I'm fairly sure you did not work with the chemicals you were using
in
the same unsafe manner that cookers do in a meth lab. You were probably
in
a laboratory with soapstone horizontal surfaces and some sort of local
ventilation.




Certainly but that does not mean I was not exposed to chemicals or never
had problems with them. Had my share of fires and explosions and causing
building evacuations.

As said elsewhere, toxicity is dose related. None of the meth chemicals
appear particularly toxic.

I've become a fan of the Breaking Bad series where a chemistry teacher
goes into the meth business. He does everything safely.

You are correct. Acute toxicity is dose related. Chronic toxicity is
also dose related but requires much lower exposure levels. I would be
concerned with chronic exposure. Your own experience, while valid, is just
a single data point. It is anecdotal experience.

As for meth chemicals not being particularly toxic, it all depends on
what synthesis and conditions are being used. Off the top of my head, the
more common clandestine approaches use halogenated hydrocarbons and
anhydrous ammonia. I classify these as toxic, the ammonia acutely so.

I too am a fan of Breaking Bad. I would not hold up the lead character,
Walter White, as a typical meth cooker. Jessie is closer to reality. I
also disagree with your assessment that Walt does everything safely. He
does things in a way that minimizes the risk to himself, not to the
surroundings. His waste is obviously mislabeled and there is no reason for
him to minimize the release of vapors.