Difluoroethane

[entwined]

I have a slight problem that I think one or more of you probably know the answer to.

 

I an a skeet shooter and occasionally I need to clean the trigger mechanism of one of my shotguns. I usually do this by spraying WD40 in to the assembly and then blast out the excess with compressed air.

 

Now compressed air usually has a certain amount of water in it, so I am worried about introducing moisture into the mechanism that could cause rusting to occure.

 

So, I bought a can of air duster to take the place of the compressed air. Now the ingredients are listed as simply "Difluoroethane."

 

Wikipedia says that Difluoroethane is a chemical compond that is, in part, flourine. Flourine is said to be corrosive.

 

So, my question is, am I better off with this stuff as far as rust is concerned, than I would be with compressed air, or should I just use it to dust off my keyboard like the maker intended?

[insane_alien]

the fluorine in the compound is already happily bonded to the carbon atoms. i don't think you'll have to work about it corroding your gun. the water however, could do this. if you are ultra paranoid you chould just flush it out with ether or another low boiling point organic solvent. this will dissolve the WD40, rinse it away along with anything the WD40 dissolved and then evapourate away. might want to let it air out for a while before firing though. just stick it infront of a fan or tie it to the outside of your car and go for a drive.

[DrDNA]

I agree with what the Aliene said about Fluorine being covalently bonded to the carbon. The C-F bond is VERY strong. Much stronger than a C-H bond, so it is not going anywhere. And Fluorine has dramitically different properties than difluoroethane, so the risk of contamination is essentially nill.

 

I think you have a great idea there, Entwined, and I am going to try it myself on my pistoles, hunting rifles, and shotguns.

 

Quote:

"Difluoroethane

 

1,1-Difluoroethane, or HFC-152a

Melting point: -117° C

Boiling point: -24.7° C

Molecular Weight: 66.05

Appearance: Colorless, odorless, transparent liquid

Chemical formula: CHF2CH3

F H

| |

H-C-C-H

| |

F H

Update! The Urban Legends Reference Page reports an incident of death by huffing Dust-Off brand canned air, apparently by asphyxiation. Dust-Off contains difluoroethane, and can be used to get a small and short-lived buzz from oxygen deprivation.

 

The compressed air in canned air dusters is either tetrafluoroethane or difluoroethane, both used because they have many attractive properties for a basically safe, effective, inexpensive, and convenient duster. The only real dangers are the highly unlikely possibility of asphyxiation (you'd have to be trying to kill yourself with such a small canister, and even then it probably wouldn't work) and, in the case of difluoroethane, a slight fire hazard. Tetrafluoroethane is not flammable.

 

The dangers of canned air are so small as to be all but ignorable, at least when not deliberately inhaling it. These two gasses are simple asphyxiants, which means that they displace oxygen in the area when sprayed. This isn't much of a problem for the average consumer, even though difluoroethane is heavier than air, since air dusters come in relatively small containers and are meant to be used in short, controlled bursts. Even a small room contains far too large a volume of air for asphyxiation to really become a threat.

 

Although I am unaware of anyone being overcome by canned air fumes by accident, there have been rare cases of difluoroethane catching fire. Rare because in order for this to happen, a very specific set of circumstances must be met. Difluoroethane is only flammable in a fuel/air concentration of 5.1-17.1% by volume, and is heavier than air. Most of the reported fire cases were caused by someone spraying out the catch bin of a paper shredder, where the heavier than air difluoroethane pooled at the bottom of the bin in the required concentration and was ignited by static electricity. There is no good reason to air dust a paper shredder bin anyway, so my advice is to just let those last few stubborn bits of paper go.

 

On the bright side, air dusters have many chemical properties which make them attractive for air dusting. First, they are generally non-reactive with most substances, so they are safe to use with delicate electronics and just about anything else you want to spray down (and do not contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, although they are mild greenhouse gases). Second, they are canned with a high degree of purity, meaning that there are very few substances like moisture mixed in to cause problems. Canned air is very dry and very clean, leaving no noticeable residue of any sort on your equipment.

But the most attractive property is a low vapor pressure. At 25° C, difluoroethane can be liquified at a pressure of just 87 psi. That's just over half the vapor pressure of propane. This means that a large amount of canned air can be kept at a safe pressure in a relatively small can, which is what really makes it ideal for the average consumer. At 87 psi, some of the difluoroethane will be liquid and the remainder will be gas, with the liquid level falling as the product is used. So long as some liquid remains in the can, the gas (which rises to the top) will be pressurized enough to spray a nice, clean puff of cleansing air across your dusty electronics. If kept at a constant temperature of 25° C, the pressure will only fall below 87 psi if the the liquid level falls to zero, and only rise above 87 psi if completely full of liquid and more is forced in (this should not be a situation occurring in the average consumer's home or office).

 

There is just one downside to storing difluoroethane as a compressed liquid. All cans of compressed air come labeled with a warning not to shake or tilt the can during use. Of course, most people don't bother to read the directions (it's a can of air, how complicated can it be?) and immediately give the can a good shake, because that's what you do with spray paint, hairspray, bug spray, and just about everything else that comes in a spray can. Unfortunately this defeats the entire purpose of the canned air! Shaking the can causes the liquified and gaseous difluoroethane to mix together, and some liquid will be sprayed out with the gas. But the whole reason this stuff is marketed in the first place is that it's completely dry – no moisture is supposed to be expelled with the gas.

 

Tilting the can causes a similar but more dangerous problem, the liquid reaches the spray nozzle and is expelled in a frigid cone that can cause frostbite and crack plastic, as well as condense moisture in the air on the target area. The reason for this is the heat engine cycle, the same thing that makes a refrigerator or air conditioner work. It takes energy to compress a gas, and therefore energy is lost when the gas is de-pressurized. This manifests itself as a sudden drop in temperature, and in the case of a liquified gas this drop is substantial. This is also noticeable on a smaller scale as the product is used up in normal operation. As the liquid level drops, the can gets cold.

 

Used properly, difluoroethane air dusters are extremely safe and convenient solutions to dust problems on equipment that would be damaged by traditional dusting methods. ""

End Quote.

 

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Difluoroethane

[nitroglycol]

First, they are generally non-reactive with most substances, so they are safe to use with delicate electronics and just about anything else you want to spray down (and do not contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer, although they are mild greenhouse gases).

 

Well, actually they're not mild at all, weight for weight; it's just that the amounts are tiny compared to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

[foodchain]

I have a slight problem that I think one or more of you probably know the answer to.

 

I an a skeet shooter and occasionally I need to clean the trigger mechanism of one of my shotguns. I usually do this by spraying WD40 in to the assembly and then blast out the excess with compressed air.

 

Now compressed air usually has a certain amount of water in it, so I am worried about introducing moisture into the mechanism that could cause rusting to occure.

 

So, I bought a can of air duster to take the place of the compressed air. Now the ingredients are listed as simply "Difluoroethane."

 

Wikipedia says that Difluoroethane is a chemical compond that is, in part, flourine. Flourine is said to be corrosive.

 

So, my question is, am I better off with this stuff as far as rust is concerned, than I would be with compressed air, or should I just use it to dust off my keyboard like the maker intended?

 

Fluorine by itself is super reactive, or better yet ultra reactive really. I don’t know the reactivity on the top of my head for the compound in question though. I would think physical means could save your from your problem more so the introduction or use of various other chemicals. Such as the use of a Q-tip really, or a rag even on the end of a wire or wire guided rag use, that’s why I tend to rely on. The chemistry of the rag might be important though in relation to the surfaces and dynamics overall of its application.

 

One thing to look at is the idea that you do have fluorine present in whatever application you happen to be using. Now not knowing what type of bond the compound in question reflects, such as strong or weak or what one of those per say, it will then leave your rifle to the surrounding chemistry of your local environment. That basically means it will be free to propagate and react or what not with anything it comes into contact with, which I would safely say was not part of its designers original plan when making such a product. Also, moisture is present in the atmosphere so it will be present to some extent on your rifle if you take it into the elements. Not to say you cant defeat rust, just that I would say via use its pretty much inevitable even in the face of regular maintenance.

[entwined]

Thanks for the information guys.

 

In the reading of the above posts, a thought occured to me....If the fluorine in this compound was liable to react to metal in a corrosive way, it would probably work it's way through the bottom of the can that currently holds it...right?

 

Anyway, I gather from the above opinions that it will be safe enough to use for what I have in mind and if it sets the trigger mechanism up, well I can always buy another one from Browning....A bit expensive perhaps, but at what price is education too expensive....

[foodchain]

Thanks for the information guys.

 

In the reading of the above posts, a thought occured to me....If the fluorine in this compound was liable to react to metal in a corrosive way, it would probably work it's way through the bottom of the can that currently holds it...right?

 

Anyway, I gather from the above opinions that it will be safe enough to use for what I have in mind and if it sets the trigger mechanism up, well I can always buy another one from Browning....A bit expensive perhaps, but at what price is education too expensive....

 

Its not just that but the reality of the chemical structure as it would relate to any humans total chemistry I would think from the reality of economics was not exhausted in regards to study. I would also think from the chemical that it has say familiar chemistry to life to some extent, though I don’t know if this of course is true to any regard. I would say prolonged use of it will mean that you will then absorb through various means that chemical in some quantity, not to mention that its use will then allow it to become a "free" chemical species(?) in the environment again coming into contact with whatever it may, which I would think again from economics such a reality was not thoroughly exhausted via investigation.

[DrDNA]

He just wants to blow the excess WD-40 off his shotgun with the same canned air that is sold and used to dust off keyboards and such.

 

As long as the gun is not loaded and he doesn't stick it in his mouth, everything will be fine.

[insane_alien]

yeah and he's asking the difluoroethane in the can will corrode his gun. we answered his question. stop freaking out if we happen to go indepth into things or go of on a tangent.

[foodchain]

SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

 

Potential Health Effects:

 

Inhalation of high concentrations of vapor is harmful and may cause heart irregularities, unconsciousness, or death. Intentional misuse or deliberate inhalation may cause death without warning. Vapor reduces oxygen available for breathing and is heavier than air. Liquid contact can cause frostbite.

 

Human Health Effects:

 

Contact with the liquid may cause frostbite. Overexposure by inhalation may include nonspecific discomfort, such as nausea, headache, or weakness; or temporary nervous system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache, confusion, incoordination and loss of consciousness. Higher exposures (>20%) may cause temporary lung irritation effects with cough, discomfort, difficulty breathing, or shortness of breath-, or temporary alteration of the heart's electrical activity with irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation, abnormal kidney function as detected by laboratory tests. Gross overexposure may be fatal.

 

Individual with preexisting diseases of the central nervous or cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures.

 

http://www.sisweb.com/referenc/articles/dustoff.htm

 

I know I know, I will try better next time.

[DrDNA]

Ok then. He should be fine as long as he doesn't blow his head off, doesn't spray the canned air in his eyes, inhale a ton of it, eat it, or spray it on his testicles (because it can cause frost bite)......

 

Quote:

""SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

 

Potential Health Effects:

 

Inhalation of high concentrations of vapor is harmful and may cause heart irregularities, unconsciousness, or death. Intentional misuse or deliberate inhalation may cause death without warning. Vapor reduces oxygen available for breathing and is heavier than air. Liquid contact can cause frostbite.

 

Human Health Effects:

 

Contact with the liquid may cause frostbite. Overexposure by inhalation may include nonspecific discomfort, such as nausea, headache, or weakness; or temporary nervous system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache, confusion, incoordination and loss of consciousness. Higher exposures (>20%) may cause temporary lung irritation effects with cough, discomfort, difficulty breathing, or shortness of breath-, or temporary alteration of the heart's electrical activity with irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation, abnormal kidney function as detected by laboratory tests. Gross overexposure may be fatal.

 

Individual with preexisting diseases of the central nervous or cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures.

 

FIRST AID:

 

Eyes: Immediately flush eyes with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes while holding the eyelids open. Get prompt medical attention.

 

Skin: Immediately remove contaminated clothing; wash skin with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Treat for frostbite with gentle warming affected area if necessary. Get prompt medical attention.

 

Inhalation: Move victim to fresh air and restore breathing if necessary. Stay with victim until arrival of emergency medical personnel.

 

Ingestion: Contact local Poison Control Center or physician immediately!

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SECTION VII - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

 

The compound is untested for skin or eye irritation, and for animal sensitization. Effects in animals from single, high exposure by inhalation include labored breathing, lung irritation, lethargy, incoordination, and loss of consciousness. Cardiac sensitization occurred in dogs exposed to a concentration of 150,000 ppm in air and given an intravenous epinephrine challenge. Effects of repeated exposure include increased urinary fluorides, reduced kidney weight, and reversible kidney changes. The effects of a single, high oral dose include weight loss and lethargy.

 

Tests in animals demonstrate no carcinogenic activity or developmental effects. Tests in animals for reproductive effects have not been performed. This compound does not produce genetic damage in bacterial cell cultures but has not been tested in animals. ""

End quote.

http://www.sisweb.com/referenc/articles/dustoff.htm

 

Happy now?

[foodchain]

Ok then. He should be fine as long as he doesn't blow his head off, doesn't spray the canned air in his eyes, inhale a ton of it, eat it, or spray it on his testicles (because it can cause frost bite)......

 

Quote:

""SECTION VI - HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION

 

Potential Health Effects:

 

Inhalation of high concentrations of vapor is harmful and may cause heart irregularities, unconsciousness, or death. Intentional misuse or deliberate inhalation may cause death without warning. Vapor reduces oxygen available for breathing and is heavier than air. Liquid contact can cause frostbite.

 

Human Health Effects:

 

Contact with the liquid may cause frostbite. Overexposure by inhalation may include nonspecific discomfort, such as nausea, headache, or weakness; or temporary nervous system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache, confusion, incoordination and loss of consciousness. Higher exposures (>20%) may cause temporary lung irritation effects with cough, discomfort, difficulty breathing, or shortness of breath-, or temporary alteration of the heart's electrical activity with irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation, abnormal kidney function as detected by laboratory tests. Gross overexposure may be fatal.

 

Individual with preexisting diseases of the central nervous or cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures.

 

FIRST AID:

 

Eyes: Immediately flush eyes with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes while holding the eyelids open. Get prompt medical attention.

 

Skin: Immediately remove contaminated clothing; wash skin with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Treat for frostbite with gentle warming affected area if necessary. Get prompt medical attention.

 

Inhalation: Move victim to fresh air and restore breathing if necessary. Stay with victim until arrival of emergency medical personnel.

 

Ingestion: Contact local Poison Control Center or physician immediately!

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SECTION VII - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

 

The compound is untested for skin or eye irritation, and for animal sensitization. Effects in animals from single, high exposure by inhalation include labored breathing, lung irritation, lethargy, incoordination, and loss of consciousness. Cardiac sensitization occurred in dogs exposed to a concentration of 150,000 ppm in air and given an intravenous epinephrine challenge. Effects of repeated exposure include increased urinary fluorides, reduced kidney weight, and reversible kidney changes. The effects of a single, high oral dose include weight loss and lethargy.

 

Tests in animals demonstrate no carcinogenic activity or developmental effects. Tests in animals for reproductive effects have not been performed. This compound does not produce genetic damage in bacterial cell cultures but has not been tested in animals. ""

End quote.

http://www.sisweb.com/referenc/articles/dustoff.htm

 

Happy now?

 

 

Yes, but I beat you to it though.

[DrDNA]

Yes, but I beat you to it though.

 

LOL. You sure did! But only by this >< much.

 

And I would have beat YOU if I wasn't so busy freaking out.

[foodchain]

LOL. You sure did! But only by this >< much.

 

And I would have beat YOU if I wasn't so busy freaking out.

 

I don’t know about freaking out. I have been to some pretty nasty places chemically speaking, you know people vomiting from the simple act of breathing and so on, so I have a bit of a focus I would say on the stuff. Plus You might think one person using its not much, which i would agree, but In time and the multitudes of people that do use such stuff produce a rather large amount of it in the environment. I think most people would probably venture off from such endeavors if they had some idea of what they were using. I think of it akin to mercury, people use to play with that stuff in there bear hands before understanding set it about such. Personally I look at the use of the chemical industry today as somewhat in the same light, simply put human biochemistry is not fully understood, nor is the chemistry of say earth or any of its parts and thusly I would say the relationship such shares with say all the various chemicals we produce and use in typically vast quantities with no thought of it all, in which I blame the concept of the garbage can in our lifestyles. I would easily also say if the university in reach of my lifestyle had such a degree, I would be going for A.C.S in environmental chem if at all possible, but its not.

[DrDNA]

All this stuff about chemicals and toxicity is a bunch of bunk.

I'm an organic chemist by training, so I've been exposed to more exotic chemicals than most people are in 50 lifetimes.

Except for the hives, skin sores that won't heal, kidney failure, liver scarring, skin cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, loss of muscle tone, hair loss, bleeding ulcers, depression, and blindness, I'm in great shape.

[foodchain]

All this stuff about chemicals and toxicity is a bunch of bunk.

I'm an organic chemist by training, so I've been exposed to more exotic chemicals than most people are in 50 lifetimes.

Except for the hives, skin sores that won't heal, kidney failure, liver scarring, skin cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, loss of muscle tone, hair loss, bleeding ulcers, depression, and blindness, I'm in great shape.

 

I get what you are saying but in reality humanity is typically playing catch up on such "natural disasters" after the fact. Also as a chemist you are more inclined to take precautions and posses general understanding of the reality of what you work with. I mean why do you think we need to make msds a reality in the first place? Its almost insane to me in the light of just how complex chemistry is in the real world and not the lab per say, and how we just go about injecting large amounts of non native stuff into it. Its pretty much along the same lines of carbon sinks and global warming I know, but what’s common sense to you about chemistry holding a graduate level degree in such is hardly the same equated across all of humanity or just America for example.

 

I mean do you remember the issue with Teflon and DuPont? That’s just one case study that the reality of ignorance typically sets in after the fact when dealing with issues like this. The same goes for asbestos. They are still dealing with American born cancer patients of such, and why? Its still just people playing with mercury. The other reality you have to consider is to what extent will a company go through to make sure a product is safe. Speaking of which what about diet and an item like Doritos chips. Do you think they held a large population of people over there lifespan feeding that stuff? Does being forty or being twenty have an impact on human physiology down a chemical level?

 

I am not trying to drag down the "system" if you will as much as I am just pointing at inherent flaws in it. I can go an open the cabinet in my bathroom and the reality of understanding I would need to understand all of the chemistry before my eyes in just that regard is quite astonishing, but I am sure its safe for me and whatever it comes into contact with after going down the sink or what not. Then lets think of millions of people doing pretty much the same in all reality.

[DrDNA]

I get what you are saying but in reality humanity is typically playing catch up on such "natural disasters" after the fact. Also as a chemist you are more inclined to take precautions and posses general understanding of the reality of what you work with. I mean why do you think we need to make msds a reality in the first place? Its almost insane to me in the light of just how complex chemistry is in the real world and not the lab per say, and how we just go about injecting large amounts of non native stuff into it. Its pretty much along the same lines of carbon sinks and global warming I know, but what’s common sense to you about chemistry holding a graduate level degree in such is hardly the same equated across all of humanity or just America for example.

 

I mean do you remember the issue with Teflon and DuPont? That’s just one case study that the reality of ignorance typically sets in after the fact when dealing with issues like this. The same goes for asbestos. They are still dealing with American born cancer patients of such, and why? Its still just people playing with mercury. The other reality you have to consider is to what extent will a company go through to make sure a product is safe. Speaking of which what about diet and an item like Doritos chips. Do you think they held a large population of people over there lifespan feeding that stuff? Does being forty or being twenty have an impact on human physiology down a chemical level?

 

I am not trying to drag down the "system" if you will as much as I am just pointing at inherent flaws in it. I can go an open the cabinet in my bathroom and the reality of understanding I would need to understand all of the chemistry before my eyes in just that regard is quite astonishing, but I am sure its safe for me and whatever it comes into contact with after going down the sink or what not. Then lets think of millions of people doing pretty much the same in all reality.

 

 

I agree with you. Just look at what they put in cosmetics and skin lotions and there is very little testing. For example ethanolamines and ethylamines are VERY common. They are also easily absorbed and quite nasty.

Two of my favorites are mercury fillings and fluoride in the water. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or a rocket scientist to know you don't want mercury in your mouth (even if it is supposed to be bound up in the silver or gold) and you should not be forced to have fluoride in your water. If I want fluoride in my or my kids' teeth, all I have to do is buy a fluoride rinse or drops a drop in dental carries just is not worth it. Fluoride is REALLY horrible stuff.

[Darkblade48]

Is water fluorination not to strengthen the enamel of teeth? Besides, not only is fluoride found in (tap) water, but a lot of toothpastes nowadays also have some degree of fluoride in them.

 

As for mercury fillings, true that you wouldn't want to put (say) metallic mercury in your mouth, but when it is amalgamated with the various metals used in dental fillings (silver, tin, etc), I thought it was bound up quite tightly. In addition, the amount of mercury leeched from such an amalgam would be essentially negligible.

[DrDNA]

Is water fluorination not to strengthen the enamel of teeth? Besides, not only is fluoride found in (tap) water, but a lot of toothpastes nowadays also have some degree of fluoride in them.

 

As for mercury fillings, true that you wouldn't want to put (say) metallic mercury in your mouth, but when it is amalgamated with the various metals used in dental fillings (silver, tin, etc), I thought it was bound up quite tightly. In addition, the amount of mercury leeched from such an amalgam would be essentially negligible.

 

As far as amalgams go, just google mercury silver amalgam and see what comes up......you might want to make sure you have a few hours.

 

Regarding fluoride.

Yes, it does strengthen the enamel on your teeth, but at what cost? Fluoride is one toxic puppy.

 

M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T

 

SECTION 1. - - - - - - - - - CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION- - - - - - - - - -

CATALOG #: S1504

NAME: SODIUM FLUORIDE CRYSTALLINE

SECTION 3. - - - - - - - - - - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION - - - - - - - - -

LABEL PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS

TOXIC

TOXIC IF SWALLOWED.

HARMFUL BY INHALATION AND IN CONTACT WITH SKIN.

CONTACT WITH ACIDS LIBERATES VERY TOXIC GAS.

CAUSES SEVERE IRRITATION.

TARGET ORGAN(S):

KIDNEYS

BONES DO NOT BREATHE DUST.

WEAR SUITABLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING.

IN CASE OF ACCIDENT OR IF YOU FEEL UNWELL, SEEK MEDICAL ADVICE

IMMEDIATELY (SHOW THE LABEL WHERE POSSIBLE).

SECTION 4. - - - - - - - - - - FIRST-AID MEASURES- - - - - - - - - - -

IN CASE OF CONTACT, IMMEDIATELY FLUSH EYES OR SKIN WITH COPIOUS

AMOUNTS OF WATER FOR AT LEAST 15 MINUTES WHILE REMOVING CONTAMINATED

CLOTHING AND SHOES.

IF INHALED, REMOVE TO FRESH AIR. IF NOT BREATHING GIVE ARTIFICIAL

RESPIRATION. IF BREATHING IS DIFFICULT, GIVE OXYGEN.

IF SWALLOWED, WASH OUT MOUTH WITH WATER PROVIDED PERSON IS CONSCIOUS.

CALL A PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY.

SYMPTOMS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO 24 HOURS DEPENDING UPON THE FLUORIDE

ION CONCENTRATION. PREVENTION OF ABSORPTION OF THE FLUORIDE ION IN

CASES OF INGESTION CAN BE OBTAINED BY GIVING MILK, CHEWABLE CALCIUM

CARBONATE TABLETS OR MILK OF MAGNESIA TO CONSCIOUS VICTIMS. CONDITIONS

SUCH AS HYPOCALCEMIA, HYPOMAGNESEMIA AND CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIAS SHOULD

BE MONITORED FOR, SINCE THEY CAN OCCUR AFTER EXPOSURE.

WASH CONTAMINATED CLOTHING BEFORE REUSE.

SECTION 8. - - - - - - EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION- - - - - -

WEAR APPROPRIATE NIOSH/MSHA-APPROVED RESPIRATOR, CHEMICAL-RESISTANT

GLOVES, SAFETY GOGGLES, OTHER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING.

SAFETY SHOWER AND EYE BATH.

USE ONLY IN A CHEMICAL FUME HOOD.

DO NOT BREATHE DUST.

AVOID CONTACT WITH EYES, SKIN AND CLOTHING.

AVOID PROLONGED OR REPEATED EXPOSURE. WASH THOROUGHLY AFTER HANDLING.

TOXIC.

SEVERE IRRITANT.

KEEP TIGHTLY CLOSED.

DO NOT STORE IN GLASS.

STORE IN A COOL DRY PLACE.

SECTION 11. - - - - - - - - - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION - - - - - - - -

ACUTE EFFECTS

HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED, INHALED, OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN.

CAUSES SEVERE IRRITATION. HIGH CONCENTRATIONS ARE EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE TO TISSUES OF THE MUCOUS

MEMBRANES AND UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT, EYES AND SKIN.

SYMPTOMS OF EXPOSURE MAY INCLUDE BURNING SENSATION, COUGHING,

WHEEZING, LARYNGITIS, SHORTNESS OF BREATH, HEADACHE, NAUSEA AND

VOMITING.

EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE:

STOMACH PAINS, VOMITING, DIARRHEA.

PROLONGED EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE:

DAMAGE TO THE LUNGS

CHRONIC EFFECTS

THIS PRODUCT IS OR CONTAINS A COMPONENT THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO BE

POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC BASED ON ITS IARC, ACGIH, NTP OR EPA

CLASSIFICATION.

TARGET ORGAN(S):

HEART, KIDNEYS

BONES

NERVES

G.I. SYSTEM

TEETH

TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND

TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SYMPTOMS OF FLUORIDE OVEREXPOSURE MAY INCLUDE SALIVATION, NAUSEA,

VOMITING, ABDOMINAL PAIN, FEVER, LABORED BREATHING. FLUORIDE ION CAN

REDUCE SERUM CALCIUM LEVELS POSSIBLY CAUSING FATAL HYPOCALCEMIA.

PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE DUSTS, VAPORS OR MISTS RESULTS IN

PERFORATION OF THE NASAL SEPTUM. CHRONIC EFFECTS INCLUDE EXCESSIVE

CALCIFICATION OF THE BONES, LIGAMENTS AND TENDONS.

TOXICITY DATA

ORL-WMN LDLO:90 MG/KG JAMAAP 81,811,1923

ORL-WMN LDLO:360 MG/KG JAMAAP 100,97,1933

ORL-HMN LDLO:71 MG/KG 85KYAH 11,1361,1989

ORL-HMN LDLO:75 MG/KG PCOC** -,1033,1966

ORL-RAT LD50:52 MG/KG NTIS** UR-3490-95

IPR-RAT LD50:22 MG/KG XEURAQ UR-154,1951

SCU-RAT LD50:175 MG/KG OYYAA2 2,411,1968

IVN-RAT LD50:26 MG/KG TXAPA9 3,278,1961

ORL-MUS LD50:57 MG/KG SHGKA3 80,1519,1980

IPR-MUS LD50:38 MG/KG IMEMDT 27,237,1982

SCU-MUS LD50:115 UG/KG NYKZAU

68(3),55P-74P,1972

IVN-MUS LD50:50830 UG/KG IMEMDT 27,237,1982

 

IVN-MKY LD50:26600 UG/KG APTOA6 22,99,1965

ORL-RBT LD50:200 MG/KG JEENAI 61,751,1968

ORL-DOM LD50:100 MG/KG NEZTAF 30,199,1982

ORL-BWD LD50:110 MG/KG AECTCV 16,483,1987 TARGET ORGAN DATA

PERIPHERAL NERVE AND SENSATION (PARESTHESIA)

SENSE ORGANS AND SPECIAL SENSES (OLFACTION TUMORS)

SENSE ORGANS AND SPECIAL SENSES (PTOSIS)

SENSE ORGANS AND SPECIAL SENSES (OTHER EYE EFFECTS)

BEHAVIORAL (SOMNOLENCE)

BEHAVIORAL (TREMOR)

BEHAVIORAL (FLUID INTAKE)

BEHAVIORAL (MUSCLE WEAKNESS)

BEHAVIORAL (HEADACHE)

CARDIAC (EKG CHANGES NOT DIAGNOSTIC OF ABOVE)

LUNGS, THORAX OR RESPIRATION (CYANOSIS)

LUNGS, THORAX OR RESPIRATION (RESPIRATORY DEPRESSION)

GASTROINTESTINAL (CHANGES IN STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION OF SALIVARY GLANDS)

GASTROINTESTINAL (HYPERMOTILITY, DIARRHEA)

GASTROINTESTINAL (NAUSEA OR VOMITING)

GASTROINTESTINAL (OTHER CHANGES)

LIVER (OTHER CHANGES)

KIDNEY, URETER, BLADDER (OTHER CHANGES)

MUSCULO-SKELETAL (CHANGES IN TEETH AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURES)

MUSCULO-SKELETAL (OTHER CHANGES)

SKIN AND APPENDAGES (TUMORS)

IMMUNOLOGICAL INCLUDING ALLERGIC (INCREASED IMMUNE RESPONSE)

PATERNAL EFFECTS (SPERMATOGENESIS)

PATERNAL EFFECTS (TESTES, EPIDIDYMIS, SPERM DUCT)

EFFECTS ON FERTILITY (FEMALE FERTILITY INDEX)

EFFECTS ON FERTILITY (MALE FERTILITY INDEX)

EFFECTS ON FERTILITY (POST-IMPLANTATION MORTALITY)

EFFECTS ON FERTILITY (OTHER MEASURES OF FERTILITY)

EFFECTS ON EMBRYO OR FETUS (EXTRA EMBRYONIC STRUCTURES)

EFFECTS ON EMBRYO OR FETUS (FETAL DEATH)

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL ABNORMALITIES (CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM)

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL ABNORMALITIES (SKIN AND SKIN APPENDAGES)

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL ABNORMALITIES (MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM)

EFFECTS ON NEWBORN (STILLBIRTH)

EFFECTS ON NEWBORN (BEHAVIORAL)

NUTRITIONAL AND GROSS METABOLIC (WEIGHT LOSS OR DECREASED WEIGHT GAIN)

TUMORIGENIC (EQUIVOCAL TUMORIGENIC AGENT BY RTECS CRITERIA)

ONLY SELECTED REGISTRY OF TOXIC EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES

(RTECS) DATA IS PRESENTED HERE. SEE ACTUAL ENTRY IN RTECS FOR

COMPLETE INFORMATION.

[Darkblade48]

As far as mercury amalgams go, I am quite aware of the potential danger that is carried with them; however the potential risk is so low that it is essentially negligible.

 

For example, everytime you fly in an airplane, you are exposing yourself to more cosmic radiation. Does this mean that you will should not fly in planes, lest you want an increased risk of cancer?

 

As for the fluoride; yes, fluorides are quite nasty. Let's take a look at the LD50 orally for a rat (we'll assume this to be the method of entry, I doubt very much that you will either subcutaneous apply or inject yourself intravenously with sodium fluoride); you have listed it as 52 mg/kg.

 

If we assume this LD50 holds true in humans, then we can assume it to be 52 mg/kg as well (this is not even true, the MSDS you posted has listed that LDLO for humans was 71 and 75 mg/kg).

 

Assume the average male is 65 kg. At a LD50 of 52 mg/kg, you'd need 3380 mg of sodium fluoride to kill half of the tested population.

 

Now, take my tube of toothpaste for example. It's 0.243% sodium fluoride w/v, and it comes in a 130 mL tube. If we assume that the toothpaste has a density of ~ 1 g/mL, then there would be 0.3159 g of sodium fluoride. Needless to say, this is less than the 3380 mg needed to achieve a LD50 in rats. On top of this, I don't think you'd be using the entire tube of toothpaste to brush your teeth every night...

 

Also, toothpaste packages do warn against swallowing the toothpaste, precisely due to the inclusion of sodium fluoride; however, I have swallowed it on several occasions, and I'm not dead yet...

[DrDNA]

As far as mercury amalgams go, I am quite aware of the potential danger that is carried with them; however the potential risk is so low that it is essentially negligible.

 

For example, everytime you fly in an airplane, you are exposing yourself to more cosmic radiation. Does this mean that you will should not fly in planes, lest you want an increased risk of cancer?

 

As for the fluoride; yes, fluorides are quite nasty. Let's take a look at the LD50 orally for a rat (we'll assume this to be the method of entry, I doubt very much that you will either subcutaneous apply or inject yourself intravenously with sodium fluoride); you have listed it as 52 mg/kg.

 

If we assume this LD50 holds true in humans, then we can assume it to be 52 mg/kg as well (this is not even true, the MSDS you posted has listed that LDLO for humans was 71 and 75 mg/kg).

 

Assume the average male is 65 kg. At a LD50 of 52 mg/kg, you'd need 3380 mg of sodium fluoride to kill half of the tested population.

 

Now, take my tube of toothpaste for example. It's 0.243% sodium fluoride w/v, and it comes in a 130 mL tube. If we assume that the toothpaste has a density of ~ 1 g/mL, then there would be 0.3159 g of sodium fluoride. Needless to say, this is less than the 3380 mg needed to achieve a LD50 in rats. On top of this, I don't think you'd be using the entire tube of toothpaste to brush your teeth every night...

 

Also, toothpaste packages do warn against swallowing the toothpaste, precisely due to the inclusion of sodium fluoride; however, I have swallowed it on several occasions, and I'm not dead yet...

 

I agree with you mostly and on most points. But not completely.

For example, I think it is crazy to use mercury in your mouth if you do not have to. And we do not have to. I believe that the jury is still out on the level of exposure and that it can vary and change due to body chem, what we put into our mouth (diet), how much we grind our teeth, and damage to the fillings over time. I also believe that whoever came up with the idea of putting any kind of mercury in someone's mouth (like the idea to use it to treat leather hat band material for example) was "mad as a hatter":D

 

Regarding your comments about the LD50 of fluoride. All I can say is WOW.

I try to stay at least WAY x E12 below the lethal dose expected to kill 50% of the sample population in my dosing of ANYTHING. Fluoride is known to cause or contribute to a variety of really bad symptoms LONG before it kills you (as evidenced by the MSDS). I do not want it in my or my child's drinking water or water we cook with. I think it is crazy. It being in my toothtaste is debatable.

 

The conspiracy theorists claim that fluoride in the drinking water was a result of lobbying efforts by the Aluminum industry because it is a major, toxic by product of aluminum processing which they were having issues with disposal of. I don't know how much of that is true, but I do know that it is VERY toxic and should not be in drinking water. In the war of dental caries vs death and major disease, I'll take dental caries any day.

[Mr Skeptic]

Fluorine is also a necessary trace element, important for both bones and teeth. It is nearly impossible to be fluorine deficient. It is best to keep it a trace, too, as it can be very nasty. I think it is best to not use fluorinated water and apply extra fluorine directly to the teeth for cavity prevention purposes. Also, avoid all toothpaste with "whitening" unless you brush your teeth after every snack or meal.

[DrDNA]

Fluorine is also a necessary trace element, important for both bones and teeth. It is nearly impossible to be fluorine deficient. It is best to keep it a trace, too, as it can be very nasty. I think it is best to not use fluorinated water and apply extra fluorine directly to the teeth for cavity prevention purposes. Also, avoid all toothpaste with "whitening" unless you brush your teeth after every snack or meal.

 

Regarding it being a necessary trace element. I did not know that.

 

Elemental fluorine is F-F (as in F2). Fluoride is a salt, F- (such as in NaF or KF). NaF is the stuff generally added the city water supply and toothpaste. The fluoride anion is what strengthens teeth. Is the fluoride anion the one considered a "necessary trace element" (although it is not elemental fluorine)?

 

I've wondered what those "whitening" factors are but haven't taken the time to look them up. What are they, Mr Skep?

[Darkblade48]

Yes, indeed, fluorine is an important trace element. It can bind to the hydroxyapatite found in our tooth enamel and strengthen it (for one).

 

Since you are not staunchly opposed to fluoride in toothpaste, then I will drop my argument for the fluoride in it. However, I still believe that water fluorination is definitely an advantage. Most cities or municipalities fluorinate water at very low concentrations; for example, my city's annual water report cites that we had approximately 0.12 - 0.67 mg/L of fluorine in the water. If we take the higher value of 0.67 mg/L

 

As stated previously, the LD50 oral for a rat was 52 mg/kg. Using this value and extrapolating for a 65 kg "average" human male, the LD50 was 3380 mg.

 

Dividing this by 0.67 mg/L, we get 5044.78 L. Keep in mind that this is a number erring on the low side (recall that LDLO for humans was 71 to 75 mg/kg, and that my city's fluorine can be as low as 0.12 mg/L).

 

As for tooth whiteners, I believe most of the products on the market today are peroxide based (i.e. carbamide peroxide). In essence, you are bleaching your tooth enamel everytime you brush your teeth in order to get that bright white smile.

[DrDNA]

Wow. OK then, drink away.

 

But you still might want to read this article:

Quote:

"SUMMARY: The acute toxic dose of fluoride has been believed to be 2 to 5 mg or 8 mg/kg of body weight. However, acute fluoride poisonings have occurred at doses of 0.1 to 0.8 mgF/kg of body weight in the USA."

.......................

DISCUSSION

"Fluoride poisoning has occurred in the USA because of pump trouble, and from fluoride mistaken ingestion by mistaken use of fluoride. However, fluoride poisoning has also occurred from recommended use of fluoride. This fact suggests that the toxic dose is lower than widely believed. The 1991 Ad Hoc Committee,36 another 1991 USA workshop,1 a 1992 workshop in Canada,2 WHO in 1994,3 and the American Society of Pediatrics,37 all promoters of fluoride use, have begun to re-examine the daily dose of fluoride because of the increased incidence of dental fluorosis.38-40 This increase may be attributable to increased daily fluoride intake from fluoride-containing toothpaste, fluoride mouth rinsing, fluoride tablets and drops, from beverages, especially juices and juice-flavored drinks,41 and from fluoridation of water supply systems.

WHO, in its report,3 recommended that fluoride mouth rinsing should be restricted to persons at moderate to high risk of dental caries. Therefore, subjects for fluoride mouth rinsing should be pre-selected. Medical treatment such as fluoride mouth rinsing should not be performed extensively and indiscriminately for public health at schools. Children under 6 years of age are prohibited from fluoride mouth rinsing. A recent increase in daily fluoride intake and an associated elevation of serum fluoride may predispose to acute fluoride poisoning. Moreover, there is a common situation in the assessment of toxic fluoride doses and in the evaluation of dental fluorosis, a chronic fluoride intoxication. Mild cases of dental fluorosis are usually neglected, and only moderate and severe dental fluorosis are taken into consideration. In acute fluoride poisoning, diarrhea and abdominal pain are regarded as minor transient side effects, and only severe symptoms and critical conditions in which patients need hospitalization are counted among toxic symptoms of fluoride. Kasahara et al estimated the minimum toxic dose of fluoride at about 0.2 mgF/kg.42 They reported that 60 persons took 10 mg amounts of fluoride and more than 90% of them had symptoms. Asou selected 0.1 mgF/kg as the minimum toxic dose.43

 

Fluoride mouth rinsing is considered a drug treatment that should be strictly controlled. Evaluation of chronic fluoride intoxication should be reviewed, and a new assessment of the toxic dose of fluoride based on scientific data is urgently needed."

End Quote.

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/97-30-2/302-89.htm