Most dangerous chemicals?

[Moontanman]

19 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I sort of regret my earlier post, which was meant as a bit whimsical, suggesting that sugar was the most dangerous chemical.  I did understand that danger, in the OP context, was meant in the sense of extremely toxic in tiny amounts and not "might give you pancreatitis or diabetes in a few decades of nonstop bingeing."

I was offering it in the same way that someone will say mosquito when asked what's the world most dangerous animal.  True answer, but often not what the asker had in mind.  Danger must be defined, it having multiple meanings.  Ask an electrician and they would probably say "squirrel."  🙂

There is enough dihydrogen monoxide on our lovely blue planet to kill every human on Earth many times over. Dihydrogen Monoxide... you can't live without it, but it can and often does kill people... of course I'm talking about water. Until you define what you mean by "danger" anyone is free to define danger in what ever way is most meaningful to them. To me numbers killed is most significant, to others the amount needed to kill an individual is most significant, chemical reactivity is probably closer to what the op had in mind but failed to specify. 

[zapatos]

I think we are delving into semantics and conflating 'danger' and 'risk'. As I understand it 'danger' refers to the possibility that something will cause harm. Thus botulinum toxin is more dangerous than high fructose corn syrup as it has a greater possibility to cause harm when we are exposed to both. On the other hand, HFCS is riskier simply due to the fact that you are more likely to be exposed to and harmed from HFCS than you are to be exposed to and harmed from botulinum toxin.

[CharonY]

I think I would say potential rather than possibility. The latter could also include likelihood of exposure (probably).

[John Cuthber]

On 5/16/2024 at 10:14 PM, zapatos said:

Thus botulinum toxin is more dangerous than high fructose corn syrup as it has a greater possibility to cause harm when we are exposed to both.

A femtogram of BTX is less likely to harm you than a tonne of HFCS.
Ask Paracelsus.


We are, in fact, exposed to both. (there are going to be traces of BTX in some of the things you eat).
And there's plenty of HFCS.
Which one is more likely to harm you?

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Which one is more likely to harm you?

I still think HFCS is more likely to harm you. In the US between 1975 and 2009 109 people died from botulism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460764/#:~:text=Overall mortality was 3.0% with,other%2Funknown botulism cases].

HFCS is linked to diabetes, and while I don't know to what extent, in 2021 almost 400,000 people in the US died as a result of diabetes. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad#4.-Excessive-intake-is-linked-to-diabetes

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I still think HFCS is more likely to harm you. 

I agree.
But the dose is really important.

Edited May 18 by John Cuthber

[KJW]

I'm inclined to think that "dangerous chemical" means dangerous to those who work with the chemical as a chemical as well as to those in the vicinity of any accident from working with the chemical. Dangerous chemicals require more stringent safety protocols, which reduce the likelihood of deaths but not the danger.

The danger from sugar does not come from it being a chemical, but rather from it being a food. Similarly, the danger from drowning in water does not come from water being a chemical. On the other hand, safety protocols demand that no one travel in an elevator with liquid nitrogen. That is, liquid nitrogen might not be especially dangerous, but it does have its hazards which can lead to death. Ethers are not especially dangerous... unless they're old, in which case, distilling them can lead to an explosion.

Also, dangerous chemicals need not be just about death, but also serious injury. For example, osmium tetroxide is dangerous because it can lead to blindness if any gets on the eyeball.

 

 

[MigL]

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I agree.
But the dose is really important.

Not only the dose; many other factors are involved.
My brother eats better than I do, works out with weights like a madman, and walks two hours per day.; I eat most anything I want, use sugar, and really need to get back to the gym as I'm gaining weight.
He is one year older than me, but he has diabetes ( under excellent control ), and I don't.

I gave an example of risk analysis to Dimreepr and MSC in the thread regarding the use of atomic weapons on Japan, in WW2.
The probability of an incident, and the severity of the incident, must both be considered; some, in this thread are only considering one or the other.

I work in a Chemical plant which, on a regular basis, has up to 70 000 lbs of 95 - 99.99996 % Phosphine, liquified at 700 psi.
You can look up the MSDS for yourself as to its dangers.
Yet, I worry more about the 15 min drive to work, and back home.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Not only the dose; many other factors are involved.
My brother eats better than I do, works out with weights like a madman, and walks two hours per day.; I eat most anything I want, use sugar, and really need to get back to the gym as I'm gaining weight.
He is one year older than me, but he has diabetes ( under excellent control ), and I don't.

I gave an example of risk analysis to Dimreepr and MSC in the thread regarding the use of atomic weapons on Japan, in WW2.
The probability of an incident, and the severity of the incident, must both be considered; some, in this thread are only considering one or the other.

I work in a Chemical plant which, on a regular basis, has up to 70 000 lbs of 95 - 99.99996 % Phosphine, liquified at 700 psi.
You can look up the MSDS for yourself as to its dangers.
Yet, I worry more about the 15 min drive to work, and back home.

That’s interesting. What chemical process is that?

[MigL]

20 hours ago, exchemist said:

That’s interesting. What chemical process is that?

We convert yellow/white Phosphorous to red, and sparge it with steam in a highly acidic/ hi-temperature environment to produce Phosphine gas ( Hooker Chemical patent from the 60s ), inerts and other impurities removed to about 95 % purity, then compressed.
It is further distilled to hi-purity ( 99.99996 % or better ) semi-conductor grade, for doping, mixed for use as a fumigant, or reacted with different olefins to make organo-phosphorous derivatives for mining chemicals ( extraction ), biocides, and even medications.

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

We convert yellow/white Phosphorous to red, and sparge it with steam in a highly acidic/ hi-temperature environment to produce Phosphine gas ( Hooker Chemical patent from the 60s ), inerts and other impurities removed to about 95 % purity, then compressed.
It is further distilled to hi-purity ( 99.99996 % or better ) semi-conductor grade, for doping, mixed for use as a fumigant, or reacted with different olefins to make organo-phosphorous derivatives for mining chemicals ( extraction ), biocides, and even medications.

Thanks. Always interesting to get an insight into another industry. Phosphine as a fumigant strikes me as bloody dangerous, though.

[MigL]

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Phosphine as a fumigant strikes me as bloody dangerous

Less than 2% by weight.
Mixed with either CO₂ or N₂.

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Less than 2% by weight.
Mixed with either CO₂ or N₂.

Odd question... is phosphine heavier than air? 

[MigL]

It is.
And at very low concentrations ( less than 10 ppm ) tends to smell of garlic and makes me hungry.
( seriously, limits are 0.3 ppm; at higher concentrations you lose the ability  smell it )

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

It is.
And at very low concentrations ( less than 10 ppm ) tends to smell of garlic and makes me hungry.
( seriously, limits are 0.3 ppm; at higher concentrations you lose the ability  smell it )

Now can I get it in a spray can to use against yellow jackets! 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Odd question... is phosphine heavier than air? 

Yes.

[MigL]

On 5/20/2024 at 11:36 AM, Moontanman said:

Now can I get it in a spray can to use against yellow jackets! 

The low concentration fumigant would work if the YJ were contained in, say, a grain silo.
Higher concentration Phosphene would result in a blowtorch.

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

The low concentration fumigant would work if the YJ were contained in, say, a grain silo.
Higher concentration Phosphene would result in a blowtorch.

There is a thread about eliminating yellow jacket nests in people yards without getting stung or destroying the yards or using persistent poisons, everything from dry ice to vacuum cleaners have been proposed. Phosphine does seem to be a bit over the top but since its heavier than air it might work. 

[LuckyR]

On 5/16/2024 at 8:35 AM, sethoflagos said:

Sugar is simply not in the same league. It just happens to be something many of us choose to consume to great excess despite knowing that it will harm us.

I managed to wean myself off sweets in childhood to the extent that even artificial sweeteners can make me feel quite nauseous.

Yet the moment my weight drops below 70 kg (bout of malaria) I experience an intense craving for sweet tea. Quite a shock the first time it happened. But I learned that when my body really needs some glucose fast, it will tell me in no uncertain terms.

So I don't buy that sugar is intrinsically 'deadly': quite the opposite. The real problem lies elsewhere.

Describing overcomsumption of sugar as a "choice" ignores the main danger of the product, it's effect on the brain. 

[bananaharvester]

On 5/16/2024 at 4:00 PM, Moontanman said:

There is enough dihydrogen monoxide on our lovely blue planet to kill every human on Earth many times over. Dihydrogen Monoxide... you can't live without it, but it can and often does kill people... of course I'm talking about water. Until you define what you mean by "danger" anyone is free to define danger in what ever way is most meaningful to them. To me numbers killed is most significant, to others the amount needed to kill an individual is most significant, chemical reactivity is probably closer to what the op had in mind but failed to specify. 

Right, I'm sure quantity of chemical, concentration of chemical, as well as what chemicals one is around would determine what is the most "dangerous" chemical is for someone.

[sethoflagos]

On 9/22/2024 at 6:27 PM, LuckyR said:

Describing overcomsumption of sugar as a "choice" ignores the main danger of the product, it's effect on the brain. 

Sounds rather like a plea of 'not guilty' on grounds of diminished responsibility.

Good luck in court with that argument. State of mind is rarely uninvolved in any significant choice we make. 

[John Cuthber]

On 5/20/2024 at 6:22 PM, exchemist said:

Yes.

By about 17%
Probably not going to make a difference.

[LuckyR]

On 10/8/2024 at 10:50 AM, sethoflagos said:

Sounds rather like a plea of 'not guilty' on grounds of diminished responsibility.

Good luck in court with that argument. State of mind is rarely uninvolved in any significant choice we make. 

Nope, doesn't really "sound like" what I referenced, namely the effect of sugar on the pleasure center of the brain. 

 

Are you denying the effectiveness of the advertising industry? 

[sethoflagos]

On 9/22/2024 at 6:27 PM, LuckyR said:

Describing overcomsumption of sugar as a "choice" ignores the main danger of the product, it's effect on the brain. 

Does that effect actually prevent one from choosing to reduce sugar consumption? 

14 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Are you denying the effectiveness of the advertising industry? 

Does adverising actually prevent one from choosing to reduce sugar consumption?

If your answer to either of these questions is something other than 'no' then I refer you to Bob Newhart:

Maybe I'm missing your point. But for now I'll stick with the word 'choice'.

[LuckyR]

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Does that effect actually prevent one from choosing to reduce sugar consumption? 

Does adverising actually prevent one from choosing to reduce sugar consumption?

If your answer to either of these questions is something other than 'no' then I refer you to Bob Newhart:

Maybe I'm missing your point. But for now I'll stick with the word 'choice'.

"Prevent"?, who said prevent? That's a false choice. We're talking about influence not mind control.