From: bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: Methylene Chloride
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:06:58 GMT
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <36875@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, dadmun@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:
> Back to the original concern of the husband and wife, and the drum of CH3Cl
> in the ocean.  How did it get there?  MeCl may not be very hazardous, but
> do we want it (or other more nasty things) floating around in the lifesource
> of the planet?  We can debate this issue to death - as we have proven here,
> but who is doing anything about it?  A very small percentage.  We should take
> action to prevent careless dumping in our oceans - or anywhere.  I must admit

Calm down a bit.  First of all, we are talking about

Methylene chloride             not         Methyl chloride
      ***

While I admit that netters are not the best spellers in the world, 
your mistake is indicative of the problem here.  Your reaction is so 
reflexive that you didn't stop and carefully read what was being 
posted.  This is the problem which many of us have with the public's 
reaction to the word "chemical."  Also, if you want to convince people 
that careless dumping in our oceans is a problem, you discredit your 
argument right away if you don't have your facts straight.

> that I have been somewhat concerned about MeCl since my undergrad experience.
> During my final semester, I used it a lot as a solvent for UV-Vis spectroscopy
> and washing NaCl plates, etc.  If your a chemist, you use the stuff.  It 
> says right on the bottle that it is a liver toxin and suspect carcinogen.
> Nonetheless, it always seemed more of a hassle to me to protect myself with
> gloves than to spill a little filling cuvettes.  It evaporates so quickly
> that usually all you feel is a cold hand.  Well, everyday exposure is not 

If it had been *methyl chloride* you would be *dead*.  Methyl chloride 
is a gas under ordinary circumstances, and quite toxic by inhalation.

> needed by me.  Who cares if it is not THAT bad.  The fact is that it should
> not be taken as no threat at all - and I am not just talking about MeCl.  Do

Obviously, *you* don't care because it was "a hassle" to protect 
yourself with gloves.

> you think that just because the ocean is SO BIG and the garbage so little that
> it doesn't matter - It Does, and it will more and more if it slides.  What

Where did you get the idea that any significant number of people in 
this newsgroup think "it doesn't matter"?  Where did you get the idea 
that only "a very small number" of people are "doing anything about 
it"?  Many of us devote our careers to "doing something about it" and 
all of us are more or less involved in pollution issues if only in the 
way we do our work.

> if a nice tuna happened to get a localized spill and you ate it.  YUM.  So,
> I am not so concerned about the MeCl on the beach as I am about the fact that
> anything is on the beach in a 55gal drum.  Look at how much damage we humans
> have done in 100 years.  Well that's industrialization for ya.  Not that I
> am against it.  We just have a growing lack of moral responsibility.  As  

No, that is not industrialization for ya.  Garbage on the beach is due 
to lack of care, either accidental or intentional, in disposal, and is 
hardly limited to chemical waste.  There was far more pollution per 
capita in pre-industrial society (sewage) and toxic effects therefrom 
(disease).  Without industrialization the entire human waste load of a 
coastal city would wind up on that beach.

> technology increases our need for human interface decrease and we become more
> egocentric.  Let's look out for each other.

Scientists are *people*, Andy, and some of us are egocentric and some 
of us are more concerned about looking out for each other.  I have 
never seen any evidence that scientists are really any different in 
their attitudes and outlook than anyone else in the population.

Finally, getting back to the original concern:  The concern of the 
people on the beach was about possible toxic or mutagenic effects of 
whatever slight exposure may have occurred.  The opinion seems to be 
that they have nothing much to worry about, and given the evidence 
that is probably good advice.  To leap from that to the idea that 
the people giving that advice don't care about illegal dumping, 
pollution, or anyone else's welfare but their own is completely 
unwarranted and unfair.

> Andy 


--Electric Monk            (Bruce Gaede); 
                            e-mail: bjgaed@ccmail.monsanto.com

"...and then time started seriously to pass."
--Douglas Adams, _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_