Good grief. All I did was say that acetone was ok to use to get glue from
your hands and I get **** 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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
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)