Talk:Dichloromethane

message: For some reason DCM is listed as having a flash point of -14C, with chemister.ru as a reference. Meanwhile, both Sigma and the EPA note that it has no discernible flash point.
Sigma: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/chemistry/solvents/dichloromethane-center.html
EPA: http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_dcm.txt
I'm not sure how much I trust this chemister.ru website. I'd change the information and references myself, but I'm unfamiliar with the code/formatting for a chemical infobox.
Achung818 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash point (again) 

message: I think the NFPA symbol is wrong.  If I'm not mistaken it should be 3 health, 1 flammability and 2 reactivity.  It's not very nice stuff to deal with.  
:Au contraire, relative to other chlorocarbons and most organics, CH2Cl2 is remarkably benign.  It does scare alarmists who are unfamiliar with chemistry.  I confirmed that the NFPA listing is current: Health Hazard of 2 and ZERO for fire and reactivity.  Great stuff compared to the seriously dangerous materials with less threatening names - say, phthalates.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFPA 

message: you should list flash point for all chemicals
* Actually DCM is a non flammable liquid thus I understand it does not have a flash point. Maybe we could put "Not Flammable" rather than "none" in the infobox? Berserker79 08:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash Point 

message: "The Environmental Protection Agency announced on Friday new limits on a lethal chemical found in paint stripping products that has been linked to more than 50 deaths since the 1980s" https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/climate/epa-paint-stripper-methylene-chloride.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.168.44.237 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA 

message: What is the meaning of this line? Does it belong in this article? If so, please rewrite in English.
"Dichloromethane is quite often used as a farming tool in Eastern and Central America as a gene adaptation tool."
RastaKins 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this vandalism? 

message: Depending on where you look, you'll find conflicting NFPA ratings. 
*Health: 3, Fire: 1, Reactivity: 0 
*Health: 2, Fire: 1, Reactivity: 0 
*Health: 2, Fire: 0, Reactivity: 0 (current article)
Can someone straighten this out, once and for all? Fuzzform (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do NFPA ratings actually come from the NFPA, or are they made up by the manufacturers? (I have no idea.) I suspect the later because I often see inconsistencies between different manufacturers and different MSDSs. --Itub (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFPA rating? 

message: Should be mentioned as a cement solvent for polycarbonate plastic though it must be carefully handled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.170.13 (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful as Plastic cement 

message: Shouldn't the title of the article be 'Methylene chloride' rather than 'Dichloromethane'?  According to IUPAC naming nomenclature, the former is correct.
John 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Titles for Wikipedia's chemistry articles are based on commonly used terms rather than IUPAC nomenclature (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry) for details).  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: The vapor pressure of methanol at room temperature is less than that of the substance it would be propelling.
Revision as of 11:22, 1 May 2009
Also used in the garment printing industry for removal of heat-sealed garment transfers. Usually sold in cans with Methanol as the propellant gas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.100.5 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methanol as propellant gas 

message: Hi, does anyone know if the boiling point listed for DCM or other solvents is the standard bp or the normal bp?  I know they are about the same, but sometimes it makes a difference.  Thank you.  El Zarco 08:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normal or Standard? 

message: There is a fundamental difference between using heat and UV light to make dichloromethane.  UV light is much easier to use and is less dangerous than heat. SchicagoS (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to claim that this is an easier way to make dichloromethane, you will need to find a reliable source that reports this. Please have a look at WP:RS and WP:V.  Thank you.  ChemNerd (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going to claim that heating up methane gas in the presence of chlorine gas to 500 degrees celcius is easier than shining blue or UV light on the two gases? You don't need a reliable source, but rather COMMON SENSE to prove that this is true. http://www.chemhelper.com/frhalog.html PROOF. SchicagoS (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly what I'm claiming.  And that is why the thermal process is used industrially, not shining light on the two gases (see the cited reference in the article).  The link you provide does nothing to support your claim.  ChemNerd (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, INDUSTRIAL chemistry *can* use that method... but ORGANIC chemists use this method.  Ya know why? because you dont risk BLOWING UP YOUR LAB if there is a leak.  It's insane to think that an individual would ever use that method in an organic chemistry lab.  It's safer to use the method that I described.  Free Radical Halogenation is a much more elegant solution and it uses less energy. http://www.cengagebrain.com/shop/en/US/storefront/US;CMGTJSESSIONID=n69CPGBNRNk2k1w4DzMs8QHBSwqgChZr5Gb9TwXGTBqJBsYDbG70!-170442550!466608370?cmd=catProductDetail&gclid=CLeVgvD5qq8CFSQCQAodFBylaQ&entryPoint=storefront&ISBN=9780840054449&cid=GS&messageType=catProductDetail P. 188 Organic Chemistry, 8th Edition McMurry  ISBN10: 0-8400-5444-0, ISBN13: 978-0-8400-5444-9 SchicagoS (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The photochemical method is not used industrially, it is done thermally from methyl chloride and chlorine according to Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chem.  That source mentions that the photochemical route is feasible, but it is not not practiced nonetheless. Photochem routes are probably not practical given the scale of the production.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Radical Substitution 

message: According to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hIyw-YgSm8 This solvent was used with an amber dye in the bubble tubes of older jukeboxes because of its low boiling point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.27.230 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialized Use: Jukebox Bubble Tube 

message: Substituted at 13:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment