> You seem to have reading comprehension issues. You seem to have a particular obsession with drawing equivalences between the safety ratings of industrial che

> 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.