use bulk formaldehyde as porta-potty chemical

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:45:17 +0000, Dave Fawthrop <[Only registered users see links. ].uk>
wrote:


You might want to read my previous post on the subject. The active
ingredient, Bronopol, is a chemical that is equally toxic as formaldehyde to
humans and indeed, releases formaldehyde as part of its biocide action.


Like Aqua Kem Green?

John
---
John De Armond
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
Cleveland, Occupied TN

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:33:50 -0500, Neon John
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

| On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:45:17 +0000, Dave Fawthrop <[Only registered users see links. ].uk>
| wrote:
|
| >On 14 Feb 2004 19:07:50 -0800, [Only registered users see links. ] (Alan Horowitz) wrote:
| >
| >| the portable-chemical-toilet thing seems to have been originally based
| >| on marked-up formaldehyde solutions as the deodorant.
| >
| >Formaldehyde based toilet fluids are still available. They are often
| >coloured blue, which in the UK indicates poison and *danger*. The
| >manufacturers will have got the concentrations right. I *used to* use
| >them and treated the stuff with extreme care, and have now changed to Aqua
| >Kem Green because of the danger
|
| You might want to read my previous post on the subject. The active
| ingredient, Bronopol, is a chemical that is equally toxic as formaldehyde to
| humans and indeed, releases formaldehyde as part of its biocide action.
|
| >
| >DIY use of *dangerous* *poisons* is, as others have said, a *bad* idea.
|
| Like Aqua Kem Green?

I treat *everything* from the toilet with care.

It is all in the dose.
You forget that large amounts of both water and salt are toxic, each kills
one or two people in the UK each year.

--
Dave Fawthrop <[Only registered users see links. ].uk> Killfile and Anti Troll FAQs
at [Only registered users see links. ].

The Lord alerted my mind to the presence of this EVIL article by Dave
Fawthrop, and I thusly replied:


Idiot.

--
The Reverend Parson Peter Parsnip
Smiting Sinful Usenet Users Since 1874

"A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his
tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
- Deuteronomy 23:2

"Frank Logullo" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message > I agree with you
but all the cancer agencies have designated

I worked for one of the largest producers and users of formaldehyde in the
world until
my business unit was acquired by another company last year.

There seems to be little doubt that formaldehyde poses a risk.

Still, we had not seen the cancer development that might have been predicted
from the
scientific data.

Being exposed to unsterilized poop is a risk, driving is a risk. Hell, I
don't know the answers.

But, I am still alive at the ripe age of 62 and have all 10 fingers. That
has to count for something.

"HLS" <Sorry@nospam> wrote in message
news:1035hrbp1elk3ee@corp.supernews.com...
predicted
That
I'm a little older and still have all my parts although some are wired
together. As most chemists, I've been exposed to more so called
environmental hazards than the average person and so far survived them all.
A study years ago showed that chemists have longer than average lifespans.
I'll bet if they did an epi study on embalmers, biologists, producers and
others with long term formaldehyde exposure, there would probably be no good
correlations. But, hey, we're dealing with government here where rats rule

Frank

"Frank Logullo" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<rKJYb.2089$[Only registered users see links. ]>. ..

Is this really true? Did the study compare chemists with other
educated workers from a similar socioeconomic background, or with the
general public? I am truly curious about this. I've known several
chemists who have contracted cancer, some of whom died in their 30s.
On the other hand, I'veknown plenty of non-chemists who hae gotten
cancer. As for myself, I made a switch from being a laboratory
chemist to a computational chemist some years back, and I have always
wondered about the effect on my life expectancy. Will I live longer
because I am no longer exposed to those nasty chemicals, or will I die
sooner because I spend my time in front of a computer instead of
scurrying around a lab? (I write software for a major provider of
analytical equipment, btw, so there are some chemicals around, but I
don't have any noticable exposure to anything particularly nasty.)

-Bob

Something I read maybe 30 years ago in C&E News. Do not remember details.
I do know that companies such as DuPont, who I worked for, do
epidemiological studies on worker's heath statistics. DuPont and other
large chemical companies would do their own toxicity and carcinogenicity
studies and even set their own threshold limit values for chemicals.
Workers might be pulled from sites where chemicals had potential for certain
problems from animal studies, e.g. liver damage if their liver enzymes
increased. Most problems I have seen develop with chemicals were outside
the chemical population and in general industry that did not pay enough
attention to the information supplied about the chemical.
Frank