4 ms·
You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I nowhere said that I thought there was a causal link. I cited well-known medical organizations that said it was
by PakG1 3y ago
You seem to have reading comprehension issues. I nowhere said that I thought there was a causal link. I cited well-known medical organizations that said it was probable. I in no way put my own feelings into that statement. You were reading things that weren't there and then making incorrect inferences. I'm certainly not clinging to anything. But I do still think it's wild to say that it's perfectly fine to drink 111-trichloroethane. If you think it's not wild to say this, perhaps we can meet up, I'll pour 111-trichloroethane into a cup, and you can drink it in front of me. Me, I'll continue to say it's wild to say it's OK to drink the stuff.
- avar 3y ago> You seem to have reading comprehension issues. You seem to have a particular obsession with drawing equivalences between the safety ratings of industrial chemicals and their ingestion. Of course I wouldn't drink 111-trichloroethane, I wouldn't drink bitumen either. Neither is intended for human consumption, so these safety ratings need to be considered in the context of their intended uses. The CDC source you cited notes that it was phased out due to damage to the ozone layer, which is orthogonal to any human safety concerns.