4 ms·

Pull a MSDS on glycerine, you will not be happy to discover there are all manner of problems, enough mist will kill you quite effectively, externally it kills r

by VLM 11y ago

Pull a MSDS on glycerine, you will not be happy to discover there are all manner of problems, enough mist will kill you quite effectively, externally it kills rabbits at a level corresponding to swimming in it acutely, long term skin exposure is very unclear. Various governments have differing views on how much is safe to breathe in a workplace along the lines of ten or so milligrams per cubic meter which isn't much. I can't get a straight answer on oral toxicity; drinking somewhere around half a percent body weight kills half the mice, so if I did the math right in my head, if you are a man sized mouse, drinking the equivalent of a wine bottle of pure glycerin in one sitting might lead to very serious medical problems (like death, for example). The long term effects listed sound scary for kidneys and "reproductive organs". In the short term it appears fairly hard to get killed by glycerin. Long term it doesn't sound very good at all. In that way, it reminds me of benzene or PCBs where in the short term theres zero risk if you can avoid drowning, but the long term effects are pretty awful. Its definitely not as safe as water. Of course the "real" problem is likely whatever else is in the fluid. Who knows whats in there.

Zancarius 11y ago
Glycerin, taken orally, has roughly the same LD50 as table salt from the MSDS I'm looking at (glycerin = 4090 mg/kg LD50 orally for mice versus 4000 mg/kg for table salt)[1][2], lest we start a panic. Second-hand smoke is generally accepted as a bad thing, as is wood smoke, unsurprisingly. I've seen suggestions that wood smoke may be even worse simply on the merit that a great volume of nasty compounds are released, and the particulate material is substantially smaller (due to the higher combustion temperatures) and can enter more deeply into the lungs[3]. If it's a choice between cigarettes and someone sucking down glycerin vapors, I think I'd be much happier to accept the latter. [1] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927350 http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927350 [2] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593 http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593 [3] http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml

by VLM 11y ago

Zancarius 11y ago

Glycerin, taken orally, has roughly the same LD50 as table salt from the MSDS I'm looking at (glycerin = 4090 mg/kg LD50 orally for mice versus 4000 mg/kg for table salt)[1][2], lest we start a panic. Second-hand smoke is generally accepted as a bad thing, as is wood smoke, unsurprisingly. I've seen suggestions that wood smoke may be even worse simply on the merit that a great volume of nasty compounds are released, and the particulate material is substantially smaller (due to the higher combustion temperatures) and can enter more deeply into the lungs[3]. If it's a choice between cigarettes and someone sucking down glycerin vapors, I think I'd be much happier to accept the latter. [1] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927350 http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927350 [2] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593 http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593 [3] http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml