moradic acid?

x??VÙn7|çWt^lÉ^­%Ç?È0à#Ç1 XN? Èg?3C?C?yhµ?j?{ÚHü x9dwuuu?¿&k?§µwQý$ÄkýæѯéFE¬þ"µoðeÜíxýL¿/?ÿlwæ?¹µº?[ù £{ÐvAÎëA[i?$å5?H?Aª2P£?¥Iv*=?69£nùü?¤íH?½kd??øFÖ??!!p;ÊiÖÎ?6Fy?t¹¼¼ú&î4û9Þ}¹ov/R×ï^«¸?2F4^Ì?õ9;

Methylmercury is undoubtedly nasty, at acute LD-50's of around 10 mg/kg by inhalation or 20 mg/kg by ingestion for a quick kill, say comparable to carbon monoxide, but with cumulative and long-term effects too.

However I don't know what "tri-methyl mercury" is, and I can't place the incident you refer to.

Did she die within a day or two? Susceptibility to toxins can vary tremendously from individual to individual - less than "one drop" of nuts can kill some highly allergic people, while the rest of us would merely get stomachache after eating a kilo or so - but it sounds a bit unlikely as stated for most mercury- or methylmercury- based toxins.

The skin LD-50 dose for a 50 kilo woman might be a bit less than 500 mg, and perhaps 100 mg / 4 drops on bare skin might well kill if the lady was unlucky - I could just about accept one drop on bare skin, but I do not think one drop on the outside of a glove is nearly enough.

Incidently plutonium, considered solely as an acute heavy-metal poison, and ignoring the radioactive and long-term effects, has roughly the same acute toxicity by ingestion.

Yes - going back to earlier in the thread, it produces hydrofluoric acid gas.

will tell you about HF exposure and it's treatment.

However the authors, Honeywell, sell HF, and they kinda gloss over some of the nastier aspects, for instance: the deaths seem not to have happened; occupational or accidental exposure apparently does not cause skeletal fluorosis (anything from "scratchy" joints to crippling hunchback arthritis-like symptoms); and cutting arms and legs off is called "primary excision" and is only briefly mentioned (on page 11) with only one reference (49).

Sorry, it was di-methly mercury.

I had read about it in a NY times article I had, the best comment in it was:

"The college determined that exposure to the substance killed two laboratory assistants in 1865, shortly after it was first synthesized...."

I wounder *how* shortly?

"Hey, look what we just....."

Jim

Makes more sense now - she had over 4 mg/litre in her blood six months after her exposure - we don't know the initial exposure, but it would seem to be about 10 mg/kg, which is probably around half or a third of the acute percutaneous LD-50, and which took some months to kill her. She could perhaps have survived if she had received treatment in time (I think she would have, but that's just an opinion).

However 10 mg/kg times 50 kg is a dose of 500 mg or half a gram (an old aspirin) - the density of dimethyl mercury is about 2.5, so that's a minimum of 0.2 ml or 200ul - which is 4 "official" eyedropper drops at 0.05 ml/drop,

20 drops per ml (which is the size of drop a UK chemist would use, I expect it is the same in the US). [The larger type of traditional glass eyedropper drop is 0.05 ml = 50 ul, or 20 drops per ml - the smaller type is 20 ul and gives 50 - the size of drop depends on the size and shape of the dropper end - the larger size is usually flared out and flame rounded, the smaller isn't.

The plastic droppers integrated with medicine bottle caps tend to be a bit larger, 70 and 30 ul per drop, and are less accurate unless used at an angle of 45 degrees (the old glass eyedroppers have a bent end, so they work at the right angle automatically).

A "tap" or "faucet" "drip" (sometimes incorrectly also called a "faucet drop") is officially rated at 200 ul, or 5 drips per ml, which is the size of her dose - but that's a big, plashy drip, not a drop.

so now you know allabout drops and drips! ]

I didn't know that latex gloves were so permeable to dimethyl mercury though. Scary.

:)?/^!/?:^( ...

very like one of the chemical-warfare-neurotoxin candidates, which was reputedly rejected because at about 10 times the immediately incapacitating/lethal (one lungful and you're gone) concentration it smells of onions, and CW agents are supposed to be odourless - but I always wondered how they knew:

"Onions!"

or why they thought it important:

"Onions!"

"Onions? It's... "*

*Monty Python's Flying Circus! - sorry, couldn't resist

Acid and solvent treatments for such systems are wishful thinking, hoping against hope that excavation will not be required. Face the truth.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:03:19 -0700, Tim Killian vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

And all started by people "fighting for freedom"...shrug.

It works in the oil fields for waxed in wells..

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years, the world has a long way to go to regain its credibility and reputation with the US." unknown

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner wrote back on Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:55:02 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

We discovered that molten lead, spilled on the floor, will take care of that "waxy buildup". Not sure if you can do that in a well, though...

One of the main reasons is HCl is already fairly dilute at 34% in order to be liquid. Sulfuric can be 100%. 100% sulfuric likes water well enough to remove it from sugars, etc., leaving carbon. Which is what it'll do to you.

Pete Keillor