Chemical Exposure: Worried About Cancer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stadtjunky
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around concerns regarding potential cancer risks associated with exposure to methyl iodide (MeI) and dichloromethane (DCM) in a laboratory setting. Participants share personal experiences, safety practices, and varying opinions on the severity of the exposure and its implications for health.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • John expresses concern about cancer risk after a spill of methyl iodide, despite wearing nitrile gloves, which he believes may not have provided adequate protection.
  • Some participants note that nitrile gloves are not effective against DCM, suggesting that alternative protective equipment should be used.
  • There is a discussion about the classification of methyl iodide as a suspected human carcinogen, with references to different safety standards and classifications.
  • Several participants argue that accidental and temporary exposure to small amounts of chemicals like methyl iodide is generally not dangerous, emphasizing the need for caution without excessive fear.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes of past chemical exposures, indicating that such incidents are common and often do not lead to serious health issues.
  • There is a suggestion that John should focus on safety practices and not dwell excessively on the incident, with some humor about the risks of everyday life compared to lab accidents.
  • Some participants recommend consulting Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for proper safety protocols before working with chemicals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the severity of the risk posed by the exposure. While some downplay the danger and suggest that John should not worry excessively, others acknowledge the potential risks associated with chemical exposure and emphasize the importance of safety precautions.

Contextual Notes

There are varying opinions on the effectiveness of nitrile gloves against DCM and the classification of methyl iodide as a carcinogen. The discussion reflects a range of personal experiences and safety practices, highlighting the complexity of assessing chemical exposure risks.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for chemistry students, laboratory personnel, and individuals concerned about chemical safety and exposure risks in academic or professional settings.

  • #31
MSDSs are full of cover-your-*** nonsense written by lawyers.

If you try and teach young chemists that every single chemical is highly dangerous, they will come to understand that you're exaggerating and they won't learn where *real* dangers exist.

Understanding, for example, the possible formation of organic peroxides in THF (and many other organic solvents) is very important. Understanding, for example, that DCM will go straight through nitrile gloves is very important.

Replacing real education and real chemistry literacy and real understanding of the realistic hazards of different chemicals with the overzealous language of MSDSs, implying that every chemical there is is scary, insidious and lethal is a mistake.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #32
minerva said:
MSDSs are full of cover-your-*** nonsense written by lawyers.

If you try and teach young chemists that every single chemical is highly dangerous, they will come to understand that you're exaggerating and they won't learn where *real* dangers exist.

Understanding, for example, the possible formation of organic peroxides in THF (and many other organic solvents) is very important. Understanding, for example, that DCM will go straight through nitrile gloves is very important.

Replacing real education and real chemistry literacy and real understanding of the realistic hazards of different chemicals with the overzealous language of MSDSs, implying that every chemical there is is scary, insidious and lethal is a mistake.

Nice try, but in addition to the legalese are the warnings you really DO need to know. I don't think anyone has suggested "Chemistry-By-The-Labels", so your education argument is a bombastic one, and a straw man. Read the label is a good idea, and no one is saying it's the ONLY thing you should do.
 
  • #33
minerva said:
If you try and teach young chemists that every single chemical is highly dangerous, they will come to understand that you're exaggerating and they won't learn where *real* dangers exist.

Funny, because that's exactly how I learned these things.
By reading the relevant MSDSes for every chemical I was about to handle before every lab. Yes at first glance 'everything' would seem dangerous (and everything is, to an extent). But if you read more than one of them you quickly get a good understanding of relative dangers. An LD50 of 1000 mg/kg is quite safe, 1 mg/kg is not.

I think you're underestimating the ability of students to interpret and evaluate the data, and that the attitude you're espousing ("Don't bother reading the MSDS, it just says everything is bad!"), is a lot more dangerous than reading an MSDS ever would be.
 
  • #34
alxm said:
Funny, because that's exactly how I learned these things.
By reading the relevant MSDSes for every chemical I was about to handle before every lab. Yes at first glance 'everything' would seem dangerous (and everything is, to an extent). But if you read more than one of them you quickly get a good understanding of relative dangers. An LD50 of 1000 mg/kg is quite safe, 1 mg/kg is not.

I think you're underestimating the ability of students to interpret and evaluate the data, and that the attitude you're espousing ("Don't bother reading the MSDS, it just says everything is bad!"), is a lot more dangerous than reading an MSDS ever would be.

This is the sensible approach in my view. If you can't figure out labels, maybe you shouldn't be in chemistry? :biggrin:
 
  • #35
To be honest, I have to agree with previous comments. When you start out in chemistry it's not clear what's dangerous and what's not. And it doesn't help that you're not medically trained, so when you see "may cause cancer" or "may cause death" or whatever, it's difficult to interpret these warnings initially in any other way apart from "be extremely extremely careful" such that you're almost afraid to touch the bottle.

Look at the MSDS for DCM for example, it makes it sound like a chemical warfare agent...hence why I was frightend of alkyating agents like MeI...
 
  • #36
alxm said:
Funny, because that's exactly how I learned these things.
By reading the relevant MSDSes for every chemical I was about to handle before every lab. Yes at first glance 'everything' would seem dangerous (and everything is, to an extent). But if you read more than one of them you quickly get a good understanding of relative dangers. An LD50 of 1000 mg/kg is quite safe, 1 mg/kg is not.

I think you're underestimating the ability of students to interpret and evaluate the data, and that the attitude you're espousing ("Don't bother reading the MSDS, it just says everything is bad!"), is a lot more dangerous than reading an MSDS ever would be.

Agreed, but most young student chemists aren't taught about LD50 values, at least I wasn't. You have to learn for yourself.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
10K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
27K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
15K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K