Chemical Exposure: Worried About Cancer?

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

The discussion centers on the health concerns related to exposure to methyl iodide (MeI) and dichloromethane (DCM) in a laboratory setting. A student chemist, John, experienced skin irritation after a spill involving a 10% MeI solution in DCM while wearing nitrile gloves, which are ineffective against DCM. Experts in the forum confirmed that MeI is classified as a suspected human carcinogen (A2 by ACGIH) but is not classified as a human carcinogen by IARC, indicating a low risk of cancer from such exposure. The consensus emphasizes the importance of using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and consulting Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for safety information.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of chemical safety protocols in laboratory environments
  • Familiarity with Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
  • Knowledge of personal protective equipment (PPE) standards
  • Basic chemistry knowledge, particularly regarding hazardous substances
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effectiveness of various glove materials against specific chemicals, particularly DCM
  • Learn about the classification and health effects of suspected carcinogens, focusing on methyl iodide
  • Study the proper use and interpretation of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
  • Explore best practices for chemical spill response and laboratory safety
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for student chemists, laboratory technicians, safety officers, and anyone involved in handling hazardous chemicals in research or industrial 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
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
27K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K