"Eric R Snow" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Of course not Harold. But you were implying that the health risks from
certain solvents were minimal because neither you or the people you
knew were apparently harmed by it. Applying your logic, exaggerated a
little, to your friend with kidney failure, led to my statement. So,
as you can see, I was being a little sarcastic. About both of your
statements. Whew!
Cheers, Harold

I figured you missed the point, and you did.

I guess what I should have told the OP was that he had but a short time
to
live, because there are cases on file that are well documented where
people
have suffered and died from the same type exposures. In some
instances,
they grew three eyes and a couple extra legs.

This person is worrying about dying because he happened to sniff some
chemicals a time or two. Being prudent, I provided a couple extreme
examples of experiences I've had, in my mind, enough to put his mind at
ease. Drawing from a group of over 100 machinists, there are none
suffering from exposure at this point in time, and the exposure was
severe.
That's not to say that some won't have trouble, but if severe exposure
has
not brought forth any health issues over such a long period of time, a
case
of simple exposure on occasion is highly unlikely too. Get it, Eric?

If you think for even one moment that I feel the use of solvents is
harmless, you're nothing short of nuts! I'm concerned each and every
time
I use anything as common as paint thinner. On the other hand, I also
realize that to try to do the things I have to do and not use such
substances is absurd. We face certain risks each and every day,
simply
by being alive. Prudent people do the best they can to avoid the
hazards, but they don't quit living to do so.

Harold

Except your sample is too small to scientifically make that
assumption. I worked at a place with a vapor degreaser. Me and another
guy were cleaning it out after all the solvent had been drained and
the unit left open to air a couple days. He went into the tank head
first. It was about 4 feet deep and laying at an angle so he only had
to bend over to get his hands to the bottom. He was nevertheless
overcome by a small amount of fumes in about 15 seconds. My job was to
stay outside and pull him out if something happened and it did. He
just stuck his head in and went limp a few seconds later. I had
breathed the solvent many times with no apparent harm. He just
happened to be sensitive to it. Still, after dragging him outside it
took a couple minutes before his breathing became regular.
Eric

That's a horrible story, and I'd certainly share your concern had I been
involved. However, there's likely more to this than just getting a whiff
of vapor. Such tanks are well known for suffocating people that enter
them due to the displacement of oxygen by the cleaning solution vapors.
That they are open makes little difference because the fumes are heavier
than air and are not displaced easily. I'm not suggesting that I know
that the person involved didn't suffer a reaction to the fumes, but I won't
discount the possibility that he was deprived of oxygen, either. However,
the fact that he recovered rather quickly when removed hints at oxygen
deprivation, not poisoning.

Here's a link that pertains to
perchloroethylene---http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/dryclean.htm

Take note of the last sentence in the last paragraph. It clearly states
that the affect of exposure relates to the amount of exposure and the
frequency.

Harold