On Jun 2, 2:38Â*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 29, 9:34�am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On May 28, 8:03 am, gwatts wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

The do-gooders done did too much with all those
warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything.

If a product is dangerous, why shouldn't it have warnings?
Particularly when there are known carcinogens and other
health hazards involved?

It's not being a "do-gooder" or "doing too much"
to discover hazards
and eliminate or contain them.

I think it a matter of magnitude.

Not really. See below.

Some items such as Benzene are pretty dangerous
and have an established
track record of making people sick. Those should go
whenever possible.

Agreed.

OTOH, the little bottle of Strip-X with it's foul stench is probably not
going to cause anyone harm outside of self inflicted (i.e. suicide
attempts)

But it *is* dangerous stuff, and should have adequate warnings,
shouldn't it?

There's my magnitude issue. I'm in no way implying that there be no
warning on the bottles. I am implying that it is a useful product, and
legislating it out of existence, or just making it too much trouble for
a company to produce is not a good thing.

Something just occurred to me.

We don't *know* that Strip-X was discontinued because of health/safety/
environmental/"do-gooder" issues. That's pure speculation.

It's quite possible - in fact, probable - that the reason Strip-X was
discontinued was lack of sales. After all, the *professionals* use
solder pots, not chemicals. Amateurs who are in the know use solder
pots, or a solder blob.

I suspect that the market for Strip-X was so small it wasn't worth
producing any more.

We do have a system that is pretty good. The MSDS reports are pretty
slick and non-sensational.

Of course, they won't fit on that little bottle! 8^)

And folks have to read them and understand them.

I'd rather read that than something about what "The state of California
knows" you know, those strange postings beside gasoline pumps? This
product is know to the State of California as a carcinogen" type stuff.

I wonder how many people called up the state of California to talk about
that?

bwaahaahaaa

What does "do-gooder done did too much with all those warnings and
attempts to protect us all from everything."
really mean? Are there too many warnings on dangerous chemicals?

I don't mind the warnings too much as long as they are not stupid
warnings. What I do mind is when a useful product goes away.

But as I wrote, we don't *know* that such things got rid of Strip-X. I
say it was solder pots.

More important, do we really *know* that Strip-X isn't going to cause
anyone harm unless intentionally abused?

Or salted codfish for that matter? I know that sounds a little
sarcastic, but the point is that there is a statistical correlation
between large consumption of salted and smoked fish with stomach cancer.

Correlation isn't causation. Unless a controlled study is done that
eliminates other variables, a causation is not proven. For example, it
could be that those who eat lots of salted and smoked fish also tend
to eat lots of something else, and it's the something else which is
the real cause.

The "known to California" jargon means such controlled studies have
been done.

Did every user of the stuff do so in a "well-ventilated area"? I think
not.

One can only give guidelines, not enforce them.

Of course. And people have to read them!

Once upon a time, cars had single main hydraulic brake systems. The
master cylinder had one pump that fed all four wheel cylinders.

It was simple and effective, but a failure anywhere in the system
(wheel cylinder, master cylinder, brake lines, etc.) meant total
hydraulic brake system failure.

Then the "do-gooders" pushed for dual brake systems, on the theory
that most single failures would leave half the brake system working,
plus a warning system.

Critics said that the cost and complexity were too much, and that
complete brake failure was very rare in then-modern cars with single
systems.
The "do-gooders" won, and dual brake systems with warnings became the
standard.

Was that excessive? I guess it depends on whether you've ever had the
brake pedal go right to the floor at a critical moment.

For me at least, the comparison of mechanical with chemical issues is a
little hard to work.

Why? It's the same concept: reduction of avoidable risk.

The point is that the *professionals* who made the cars resisted
safety improvements that we now take for granted.

I have long advocated such radical technology as
strong roll cages, 5 point seat belts and fire suppression systems on
automobiles if we want to get serious about safety.

A roll cage isn't needed if the car structure is built strong enough
(roof won't collapse if car rolls over)

True harnesses are a good idea, as is fire suppression.

On the other hand, I've silvered my telescope mirrors in my garage. This
involves a litany of nasty stuff, from Silver nitrate to Â*potassium
hydroxide to nitric acid. (now that stuff is scary) And oddly enough,
sucrose and citric acid. I'd hate to be not allowed to do such things
because someone thought I might get hurt.

Hydroflouric acid is *really* nasty.

The Big Issue IMHO is whether a dangerous process can be made safer.
Is there a safer way to silver a telescope mirror?

There *is* a safer way to remove enamel from wire, and you get the
added bonus of a tinned wire. Why use a chemical at all?

---

Related topic:

The EU has regs that are essentially outlawing lead solder in
electronics. Because the EU is such a big market, most electronics
makers are following along, and rather than deal with both lead and no-
lead solders, they're going all-no-lead. With all the problems lead-
free electronic solders bring along.

But IMHO the whole thing is wrong-headed. Lead in the environment is a
problem, but the solution is recycling, not banning lead.

How ironic is it that a major rework of a car's electronics will be
done to eliminate a few ounces of lead-tin solder, while the car's
battery contains many pounds of lead and acid?

73 de Jim, N2EY