4 ms·

Here's the MSDS for Vitamin D: https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&productDescription=VITAMIN+D3+5G&vendorId=VN00024248&countryCode=US&la

Here's the MSDS for Vitamin D: https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&productDescription=VITAMIN+D3+5G&vendorId=VN00024248&countryCode=US&language=en https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AAB2252406&p... It also recommends wearing all the standard protective equipment. Guess it's not safe to eat any Vitamin D, then, right? Or maybe it's the dose that makes the poison. (Fun fact: Vitamin D is more acutely toxic than glyphosate.)

stubish 3y ago
Is there a way of telling from the MSDS or other sources that you actually need protective equipment when dealing with a particular chemical? I'm sure some of the stuff my partner deals with requires it, but suspect some of the other stuff she would be safer without the protective gear making her clumsier.
- Kamq 3y ago
  > Is there a way of telling from the MSDS or other sources that you actually need protective equipment when dealing with a particular chemical? Not generally from official sources. The risk of liability is basically always going to make institutions recommend a bunch of precautions if the effect isn't perfectly known. Which, y'know, probably better safe than sorry when dealing with novel chemicals. But it's hard to distinguish between dangerous, unknown, and small risk in that kind of environment.