Talk:1-Bromopropane

message: I added a cleanup tag, because this new section on degreasing has a few problems.  It is useful content, but it's in the wrong style:
* Statements are made that read like an opinion - probably from someone working for a company that sells propyl bromide as a degreasing agent.  While that may give the person expertise, it does not necessarily give a balanced view.  Wikipedia needs facts to be presented, and these are then ideally backed up by inline citations.  
* The source given is a company website, from a company selling this as a product.  This is not a reliable source, according to the standards given at WP:RS.  There are websites selling purified water as a homoeopathic cure for many diseases, or claiming to sell the cheapest Viagra on the planet - would you regard these as reliable?   A company website can provide useful information - I used the Dow website a lot when adding content about Dow's products in the Dow Chemical Company article - but they can not be used to back up what some may regard as controversial assertions.  
I'd be happy to work with the author on this - I'm an organic chemist who worked for 12 years in the chemical industry - so I'll contact him in a day or two. Walkerma (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: This would be a better article if it was not all under one heading: "Use as a degreasing agent". The nonflammability and the British misclassification as flammable merits a separate heading. Also of merit would be sections on its relative nontoxicity (if any) compared to other solvents and another on its VOC inhibition. Notice that perc is the most prevalent dry cleaning solvent and nPB is a safer alternative might also be appropriate. New information about how it compares as a solvent relative to its cousins ethyl bromide and isopropyl bromide would also be of merit. Safety precautions for use of this substance should be stated forcefully, in a separate section, without reference to the user's leisure. Reasons should be given for such precautions. Dlw20070716 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More subheadings, please! 

message: The NYT's article documents a general failure of OSHA to adequately control long term exposure to a wide variety of mildly hazardous substances and the difficulty of manufacturers in controlling industrial and other end users with respect to adequate ventilation and safety equipment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use Talk pages as a forum for discussing your personal views on topics.  These pages exist for discussing articles, not us.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't see a neutrality problem with mentioning the OSHA stuff if it's mentioned in the article. You just say, according to the New York Times so-and-so considers it to be an OSHA failure, and OSHA replied blah-blah-blah. It may not belong because it's somewhat irrelevant and undue weight. And yes, content should not deleted from talk pages except but the author, that is a big no-no. Fnordware (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: OSHA regulation

message: I removed perchloroethylene from the "Its industrial applications increased dramatically in the 21st century due to the phasing out of chloro­fluoro­carbons, per­chloro­ethylene, and chloro­alkanes such as 1,1,1-Trichloro­ethane under the Montreal Protocol." sentence because the sentence implied that it was also phased out under the Montreal Protocol. Saint concrete (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perchloroethylene is not phased out with the Montreal Protocol