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.
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
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.
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:28:19 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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
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
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?
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.
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.
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:
Once again this is only a US government agency and I am sure you have
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.
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:38:38 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and firstname.lastname@example.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.
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!
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.