Talk:Ethidium bromide

message: The structure of Ethidium Bromide is "Strongly Mutagenic," and the EPA is enough of a resource for this to be AT MINIMUM cited in a specific, clearly written sentence reflecting exactly such information.  
  "maintaining datasheets also comes with responsibility:it HAS to be up to date"
: datasheets are the responsibility of the people who write datasheets.  they can be cited here with impunity.  removing them, however, is unethical, because it is potentially dangerous to real live human beings.  who gives a damn if some fool employer didn't find up to date MSDS on WIKIPEDIA...  that is their responsibility.  (keep in mind, the argument Qchristenson presents is a legal obligation, not moral, and ... not a law either, actually.)  would Qchristenson also like the EPA warnings on radioactive materials removed?  i bet they make a MSDS for those too.  shall we go and wipe them from wiki?  i smell the reek of an unethical editor, someone who, if located, could be physically found to have a legal, monetary, unethical interest in removing citations which have scary, truthful health information.  and since this is my own lovely bit of discussion, i'd appreciate it if qChr didn't "edit the discussion" as that's about as repugnant as the earlier safety edits.  i'll have this bookmarked Qchr, and I'll be watching from high high atop my moral highhorse.  i like people, happy, healthy, not ignorant people.  i hope to keep them that way.  toodles,q.  
I'm changing the page today.  EPA citation, Strongly Mutagenic, the whole scary true deletion.  
regular old wiki anon~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.158.150 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Strongly Mutagenic

message: I would like to make the suggestion to leave safety sheets out of this article and just reference to a reliable source, the body of text is simply not to wiki standards (for instance low link density). maintaining datasheets also comes with responsibility:it HAS to be up to date (new regulations etc.)
I would agree--MSDS for all toxic chemicals such as this should be referenced but not summarized.  any incorrect information could be potentially harmful.
It appears the MSDS information in the chem box is verified as correct by a bot.  I would keep it out of the text, though. Qchristensen (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSDS Information 

message: How specific is EtBr for DNA/RNA comparasons - ie. does RNA contamination effect the DNA conc returned when trying to quantify DNA? 60.234.161.83 (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specificity 

message: A discussion on the research into the toxicity of EtBr can be found at the Department of Health and Human Services here:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=6F5F63F6-F1F6-975E-79965F7EE68AE7C0
With a link the papers on EtBr toxicity here:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=6F5F64D1-F1F6-975E-764B503A71F20433
There is essential no human toxicity tests for EtBr.
There are currently no consensus waste disposal procedures.  There are a number of different methods of disposal of EtBr. 
This article here illustrates some of the confusion surrounding waste disposal of EtBr:
ftp://ftp.ncifcrf.gov/pub/methods/TIBS/jun94.txt
There are very few if any federal and state guidelines as to the disposal of non-commercial EtBr waste.  Commercially produced EtBr is subject to a number of laws, but the usage at the lab level is considered to be of a trivial quantity. Most EtBr waste is disposed of in the normal trash.  If the quantity of EtBr is large enough the mater can be incinerated or charcoal filtered, etc.
From the EPA's website quoting an NIH article on the disposal of EtBr:
"Warning: This compound is moderately toxic and strongly mutagenic." EtBr, however, does not meet the RCRA regulatory definition of hazardous waste (40 CFR 261), it is neither a characteristic nor a listed hazardous waste, and can be managed as non-hazardous solid waste (i.e., EtBr is not subject to RCRA Subtitle C management or disposal requirements). This does not mean that RCRA has no authority over the disposal of this compound. EtBr, if managed improperly, does meet the statutory definition of hazardous waste. " 
http://www.epa.gov/region2/p2/college/qa.htm
Therefore, locally responsible guidelines outlining the disposal practices of the individual lab, etc. are applicable or else you may be fined.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascotan (talk • contribs) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited this discussion and the article.  I provided many references addressing issues of waste and health.
Qchristensen (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: removed how-to information
Qchristensen (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazardous Material and Waste Handling notes 

message: The statement 'The above studies support the idea that ethidium bromide is a mutagen  . . .' seems to contradict 'The National Toxicology Program states it is nonmutagenic in rats and mice'.  The section is called 'Health Risks' so this sentence seems to imply that EtBr is a human mutagen which would seem unlikely if it is nonmutagenic in rats and mice.  Could you clarify?   ScienceGeekling (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Effects 

message: It seems like Ethyl Bromide can also be abbreviated EtBr. I suggest that EtBr should be a disambiguation page for either Ethidium Bromide or Ethyl Bromide. Although, an alternative suggestion would be to make a note in the Ethidium Bromide page that goes something like: For the other compound with the EtBr abbreviation, see Ethyl Bromide." --Hakushu8 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Becuase it's supposed to be EthBr. Karol 09:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EtBr is a widely used abbreviation for Ethidium Bromide in Biology labs.  These labs don't think about ethyl bromide much. Qchristensen (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: I'd really like to see an introductory paragraph mentioning when it was first created, by whom, and why it is named as it is.  "Ethidium" is a strange term indeed.
Leeconte (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History missing 

message: The NFPA 704 diamond on the article has a health rating of 4, meaning that "very short exposure could cause death or major residual injury." However, this is inconsistent with the passages describing its relative safety such as "Although ethidium bromide is said to be mutagenic on some circumstances of exposure, evidence shows that it is relatively safe[,] and its [alleged] high toxicity is largely a myth." Any thoughts on this? --Firestar464 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is considerable confusion on this front. Ethidium bromide has been assumed to be a mutagen for decades due to its intercalating ability, and has been treated as extremely toxic, but actual studies in animals have consistently shown it to be relatively non-toxic. One of the examples of where scientists and science aren't always on the same page. 2601:282:8900:B50:88BB:5A13:F32F:A3F3 (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFPA 704 inconsistent with the article