On 18/6/03 18:34, "William Chops Westfield" wrote: > The thought is legitimate however. Tests for cancer inducing > potential are expensive to conduct so they are run with doses > just short of lethal. > > LD50 doesn't have anything to do with cancer-causing potential. If the > MSDS says it's a carcinogen, you really have to dig to find out what that > really means. (for example, dichromates have a dangerous reputation, but > you end up noticing that the data is that chrome plating workers, who work > near huge vats of the stuff, for hours every day, end up having a "higher > incidence" of mouth and throat cancers. Fine. Reasonably nasty stuff, but > I don't think I need to go the full hazmat clothing route to use some > dilute solutions for assorted photography experiments a couple times a > year.) I really, really, HATE MSDS. All they end up telling you is > "everything is dangerous", a view that induces either paranoia or > complacence, and is therefore dangerous in itself. As I said on my original post, read the MSDS for H2O ;-) -marc -------------------------------------------------- Marc Nicholas Geekythings Inc. C/416.543.4896 UNIX, Database, Security and Networking Consulting -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.