As a result of all this fluff I did a load of research, read what was wrote, read what was on MY tin, and came to the conclusion its really nothing specially hazardous at all.
Ray made a big mistake, but not as big as his pride.
A person who never admits they are wrong is empirically unreliable as a purveyor of information.
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:18:05 -0700, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and snipped-for-privacy@scn.org instead replied:
It's clear to me that the inmates now run the asylum.
I give up. You are absolutely correct. According to you, MEK is safe enough to drink, use as aftershave, deodorant and mouthwash. After all, you have documents to prove it.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:01:56 +0100, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and The Natural Philosopher instead replied:
Odd. You admit here that it is hazardous but not "specially" so. How did you determine that?
Hazardous materials require special attention not casual use. I have been consistent in stating that. Your pride is the only thing keeping you from admitting that. Don't try to wipe it on me, mate.
Let's see. Have YOU ever admitted you were wrong? Are you wrong now? Yes to the last one, mate. You are wrong. MEK is hazardous. Period.
I think it would be instructive for all if you will show exactly where he used those words. While I can see that you have done your level best to put them in his mouth, I have yet to see him or any other poster accept your wordsmithing for them. In other words, prove he actually said those things and do so without saying it is the same thing as saying it. Anything less is beneath what you would like to be.
You want more words? Prove he said the words you keep trying to tell us he said because I have not been able to find them. Anything less might be considered as proof that you are what others are beginning to say about you.
I did learn something from this whole thread. Not about MEK, though. If anything, I came away thinking that MEK is not quite as bad as I had thought. I also did the research.
I learned that glow fuel is more nasty that I had ever thought. I will take more care not to get it on my skin, (or in my mouth) from now on.
How bad is nitromethane residue, after it has already burned and is all over your plane? Anyone know?
Strangely, I didn't find that info on the material safety data sheets!
Okay chicken...you've finally proven to me once and for all that after being here off and on for going on 10 years now that you can't be relied upon for ANY honest thought out answers.
First person I've flushed down the rabbit hole in years.
PLONK.
p.s. simply put you just aren't worth the time to delete.
He said it didn't cause cancer and wasn't particularly hazardous: If you think that aftershave deodorant and mouthwash is the test, you should look at some of what goes in them: Far more lethal.
As far as drinking goes, about a 1/4 pint would probably kill you, if you could keep it down.
Now go and look at all the other things in your house which are far more deadly.
Bleach. Gasoline. Paraffin or diesel. Screenwash. Screen cleaner. Nail varnish remover. ALL these things are pretty much something that will kill you if you drink them. So indeed is whisky,if you drink a pint or two.
Either you have to extend your category of 'particularly lethal' to cover half the organic and inorganic chemicals in common use, or you have to shut up Ray.
In particular your proven habit of denying what you have actually posted, whilst ascribing things that have not been said by others to them, is particularly unpleasant.
I have admitted I am wrong on numerous occasions, This ain't one of them. I never said MEK 'wasn't hazardous'. In fact I was at pains to point out that everytinhg is hazardous. The question is one of degree. MEK is NO MORE hazardous than any other dope thinner. That's where this whole issue started. You jumped in and claimed it was banned, caused cancer, and should never been used again.
After considerable research, I discovered that it wasn't banned, didn't cause cancer and was no more hazardous than any other solvent in general use for dissolving cellulose type compounds.
I was prepared to take your assertions at face value till I DID THE RESEARCH. And discovered the pot I have here and read the label. Its certainly not banned, because I bought it, and I have failed to find ANY reference to it being associated with any increased risk of cancer at all.
Now if you had muttered 'sorry, I was thinking of XYZ' all would have been well. Instead you have launched a series of personal attacks, raising one straw man after another, ascribing statements to people who didn't make them,and denying things you have said.
Thats your problem. As a result of your buffoonery you are likely to end up in so many peoples killfiles that you will be crying in the wilderness shortly.
Methyl ethyl ketone peroxide is not a catalyst for curing polyesters. The only catalyst in the system is the cobalt, or occasionally other two valent transition metal, compounds. It is an initiator which is very different from a catalyst. There are polyester systems which do not even need a catalyst.
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.