Dope thinner

Does Ray live in California?
Kidding aside, I just checked my thinner cabinet and the MEK can says to use instead of Acetone if slower evaporation is desired. I also checked my can of Lacquer thinner and it contains some MEK. The warnings on all of the cans are typical precautions. No alarms as some are reporting here. I will continue to use all of them with gloves in open spaces as recommended on the label.
Reply to
IFLYJ3
Loading thread data ...
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:51:13 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Morgans" instead replied:
Because it's not. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:03:49 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and The Natural Philosopher instead replied:
Yet you advise someone here to ignore warnings and use it. How odd. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
You must be a total retard. I posted a link by the USEPA which you ignore. This link provides actual data that shows you could drink one or two ounces (depending on body mass) of MEK per day each day the rest of your life and not get cancer. According to this data it would be safe to pour it in your ear to clean out earwax. I still would not suggest that application. Yet you continue to spout crap about it being dangerous.
I think you are the same tard who a year or so ago claimed acetone was a carcinogen. Your own body makes acetone every single day as part of its normal metabolism!
Bottom line is you are the one who is immoral because you insist on posting lies you make up in your own sick head. You are a total waste of oxygen and a prime example of why we need to keep abortion legal. Go stick your head in a spinning prop.
Reply to
bm459
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:28:29 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and snipped-for-privacy@scn.org instead replied:
And I have lots of information to the contrary. Deal with it. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:28:19 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote in :
MEK seems to be available at my local Home Depot:
I haven't checked since this thread began, but I did see it just sitting on the shelves with the other solvents some time in the last few years.
It's a little more expensive than acetone.
I don't think I'll be stocking up on it any time soon, but from browsing the internet, it's clear that it has some useful characteristics.
Marty
Reply to
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
When was that?
I never recommended anyone use it. I merely pointed out that it was an acceptable dope thinner.
Which it is. Its unlikely to be carcinogenic - only cyclic ring compounds (aromatics) seem to be. Wikipedia certainly thinks its only health issues are narcotic rather than carcinogenic.
formatting link
Now I wouldn't advise ANYONE to spend their life in an atmosphere loaded with organic solvents, but this one seems relatively harmless compared with - say Benzene - which has often been a gasoline additive or constituent. And has a proven record of carcinogenisis.
Lets face it, you haven't really GOT the FACTS, let alone a sensible interpretation of them.
Look up Nitromethane. More explosive power than TNT.
Or Methanol.
From Wiki
Methanol is intoxicating but not directly poisonous. It is toxic by its breakdown (toxication) by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver by forming formic acid and formaldehyde which cause blindness by destruction of the optic nerve.[2] Methanol ingestion can also be fatal due to its CNS depressant properties in the same manner as ethanol poisoning. It enters the body by ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin. Fetal tissue will not tolerate methanol. Dangerous doses will build up if a person is regularly exposed to vapors or handles liquid without skin protection. If methanol has been ingested, a doctor should be contacted immediately. The usual fatal dose is 100?125 mL (4 fl oz). Toxic effects take hours to start, and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage. This is treated using ethanol or fomepizole.[3] Either of these drugs acts to slow down the action of alcohol dehydrogenase on methanol by means of competitive inhibition, so that it is excreted by the kidneys rather than being transformed into toxic metabolites.
The initial symptoms of methanol intoxication are those of central nervous system depression: headache, dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, confusion, drowsiness, and with sufficiently large doses, unconsciousness and death. The initial symptoms of methanol exposure are usually less severe than the symptoms resulting from the ingestion of a similar quantity of ethyl alcohol.
Once the initial symptoms have passed, a second set of symptoms arises 10?30 hours after the initial exposure to methanol: blurring or complete loss of vision, together with acidosis. These symptoms result from the accumulation of toxic levels of formate in the bloodstream, and may progress to death by respiratory failure. The ester derivatives of methanol do not share this toxicity.
Ethanol is sometimes denatured (adulterated), and thus made undrinkable, by the addition of methanol. The result is known as methylated spirit or "meths" (UK use). (The latter should not be confused with meth, a common abbreviation for methamphetamine.)
Pure methanol has been used in open wheel racing since the mid-1960s. Unlike petroleum fires, methanol fires can be extinguished with plain water (while methanol is less dense than water, they are miscible, and the addition of water will cause the fire to use its heat to boil the water). In addition, a methanol-based fire burns invisibly, unlike gasoline, which burns with thick black smoke. If a fire occurs on the track, there is no smoke to obstruct the view of fast approaching drivers. The decision to permanently switch to methanol in American IndyCar racing was a result of the devastating crash and explosion at the 1964 Indianapolis 500 which killed drivers Eddie Sachs and Dave MacDonald.
One concern with the addition of methanol to automotive fuels is highlighted by recent groundwater impacts from the fuel additive methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Leaking underground gasoline storage tanks created MTBE plumes in groundwater that eventually adulterated well water. Methanol's high solubility in water raises concerns that similar well water contamination could arise from the widespread use of methanol
So you see Ray,the two main components of glo fuel are FAR more dangerous than MEK. As is gasoline.
Now what do you say about that?
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Then to quote you Ray "PROVE IT" it's put up or shut up time Ray. It is that simple...show your work or be silent henceforth.
p.s. I prefer being quiet on this group but when people spout of like ray it pissess me off.
Reply to
Keith Schiffner
That my dear sir is you are fundamentally and factually WRONG. Deal with it...it happens to everyone about something they feel strongly about.
Reply to
Keith Schiffner
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:02:40 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Keith Schiffner" instead replied:
Too easy. Read the label.
Really? Sounds like a personal problem to me. Perhaps counseling would help you get over it? All I have been stating is that advice to those who are asking questions should be based on reality not on the theory that "If I use it, it must be OK" or the idiotic notion that water or the sun is just as deadly so let's ban life itself.
The fact is that YOU can choose to ignore safety warnings all you wish. I'm not trying to change YOUR mind about anything you believe about MEK and its use or misuse. All I have ever stated is that this is YOUR choice and nothing more. Based on labels printed directly on the can of MEK which you can buy in the US, you are warned exactly as I have warned others here. Note that I have never stated that it should NEVER be used at all but have simply offered straight forward and accurate information on warnings regarding its use to someone who came here asking about its use.
You are free to dispense your notions that MEK is safe to use in any circumstance. You are also free to remain angry about my disagreement with you. Or, you can simply allow that there are differences of opinion regarding that use. But you begin to look like a petulant child stomping his feet when you demand that I prove something to you that is already proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
Do carry on with your stomping. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:04:06 -0600, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Keith Schiffner" instead replied:
Note the child stomping his feet begging attention.
Do carry on. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
"Ray Haddad" wrote
What a waste of skin.
Hold your breath, Ray. You're using oxygen someone else might need.
Reply to
Morgans
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:24:21 -0400, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and "Morgans" instead replied:
What a waste of bandwidth, Jim.
So, do you drink MEK with your breakfast? -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
The only possible explaination for your pig headedness is you are either a politician (either party, they both act the same) or a newscaster (again conservative or liberal makes no difference, they both act the same). You think if you say something enough times with enough forcefulness you will make it come true. I do not give a hoot what some label put on by a manufacturer says. That label is not science and often has nothing at all to do with science. You seem to deny this and feel the label information you CLAIM you have read is better then scientific facts. This makes you a simple minded fool pure and simple. Further I doubt that the label says it is a carcinogen unless you live in CA or the material was packaged in CA. The latter is unlikely as there is little chemical industry in CA. If you do live in CA I would not be at all surprised at anything on the label. After all the politicians there decided they knew more about science then anyone else and passed laws on what labels have to say regardless of the scientific facts.
Frankly I do not give a hoot about what you decide you should believe. But I think it is very unfair and immoral to state nonsense the way you are stating nonsense as there are lots of folks who are not expert and you simply mislead them by lying to them. It is no different then shouting fire in a crowded theater, an act that is illegal if there is no fire.
To claim you have better information then the USEPA is simply crap. The truth is you have no information at all that has the slightest reliabilty and seem too stupid to know it.
Meanwhile not a word out of you about nitromethane! Simply amazing as it is a carcinogen. Perhaps you only fly electrics? If you happen to fly glo engines you better never use fuel with nitro in it again due to your false perception of the extreme health hazard. I also suggest you not stand close to any glo engine for fear of fumes or fuel splashes if you want to be consistant. I think you should start a movement to ban use of nitromethane in our fuels. If you think I am making it up that nitromethane is a carcinogen here is the link:
formatting link
Once again this is only a US government agency and I am sure you have better information.
Of course your idiot clone brother Ed has to pop in and hand out irrelevant crap to boot. The guy is so stupid he does not know the difference between methyl ethyl ketone and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide! I guess because both have letters in them they must seem the same to him. I would suggest he substitute peracetic acid for acetic acid in his next salad. Then maybe we would not have to put up with his drivel for a while until he healed.
I have said it before and will say it again. If you use even the most modest care when using methyl ethyl ketone you have nothing to worry about. Do not drink it. Try to not splash it on your skin or clothing. If you get it in your eye rinse your eye under running water for 30 seconds. Use it in a reasonably ventilated area. Dump waste outside or down the drain with lots of water rather then letting it stand in an open container in your work area and evaporate. Do not use it near open flames or electric heaters as the stuff is fairly flamable. As chemicals go it is one of the safer ones a consumer can buy. It is actually considerable safer then many laquer thinners as they sometimes have some pretty bad actors in them.
It will not give you cancer.
Reply to
bm459
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:38:38 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and snipped-for-privacy@scn.org instead replied:
All that potential to learn something and you remain dumb. Pity that. Read what I wrote, you idiot. You are not even close. -- Ray
Reply to
Ray Haddad
I know you are but Jim isn't.
Fresh out, guess I'll have to go to the hardware store and pray they have some on hand. OBTW did you know the dihydrogen monoxide is found in the body of EVERY cancer patient in the world? That it is the most singularly deadly liquid in the world when you go by the number of people killed yearly, world wide? I quit using that stuff in my house and feel safer for doing so!
Reply to
Keith Schiffner
That is not what I said. I asked you to PROVE it. Not tell people to read it for you. Find it, post it and prove it or admit you are wrong. Now man up or be quiet.
Reply to
Keith Schiffner
Using a different term for "water" is one of those indicators that separates people who think critically from those who just attack opposing points of view by reflex. Guess which side you're on! You're very much like people who think all "chemicals" are deadly, even though you probably think you're very different.
Reply to
mjc1
"Keith Schiffner" wrote
Wow, Frozen MEK. What a concept! I had never considered what could be done with an icecube of frozen MEK!
I could put it in my afternoon Coke, for a pick-me-up!
Reply to
Morgans

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.