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" wrote in message
...
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" 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)

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)