Introduction of benzalkonium chloride

 


'benzalkonium chloride' (http://www.useful-chemicals.com/?pU ) is
readily
soluble

in ethanol and acetone. Although dissolution in water is slow, aqueous
solutions
are easier to

handle and are preferred. Solutions should be neutral to slightly
alkaline, with
colour ranging

from colourless to a pale yellow. Solutions foam profusely when shaken,
have a
bitter taste and a

faint almond-like odour which is only detectable in concentrated
solutions.




--
vikasm

 





http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/a_relevance.htm  

 

gunner wrote:

This link could mean a lot of things.  I presume this is your way of
accusing Billy of presenting a fallacy.  If so what is the fallacy and what
is your reason for saying so?

David

 



Indeed it could,  Mr. Hare-Scott, but there is no need to presume.  billy
attacked the man, then used information out of context to make the
case that this was yet another evil chemical at work.

Two fallacies at minimum; the Ad Hominem and the Appeal to Emotion.
My question to you, is your question relevant to anything?  I.E. is it going
to change anything you do?  Research more? You going to fact check better?

As to whether the chemical in question is toxic or not, that is not the
issue here.  The issue is the use of fallacy agruments to portray it as
toxic.

The fallacies used in this knee jerk, starts typically and predictably w/
billy leading off w/ his usual Ad Hominem attack;  "Sniffing your samples
again or are you just naturally stupid?" Very familiar opening for billy.
Yet,  this was a spammer for Pete's sake!!! How bizarre  does one need to
get in establishing the pecking order with a spammer trying to sell bulk
product?

Throw in  the Appeal to Emotion, perhaps  the Appeal to Authority
fallacy also (or Appeal to Misleading Authority may be more appropriate)
billy gives a lot of cherry picked,  fear mongering "citations" ;
"CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS, MUTAGENIC EFFECTS, TERATOGENIC
EFFECTS, and DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY" .

All very scary words AND he added MSDS links with voluminous amounts of more
scary words, scientific ones even,  so it must be true!

But did you actually read any of the links?   better yet understand the
theme of the person playing them? Or did ya just glance over them and think
you know what you read? If you actually read the links you would have
noticed the solution he referenced was 50% and 100%  BAK.  Never are these
great % put into the context of application Mr. Hare-Scott..  These are just
cut and pasted facts that are irrelevant to everyday life unless you are a
warehouse or a shipper.

To quote  billy's own follow-up link : "MSDS's are not meant for consumers."
 http://www.ilpi.com/msds/FAQ/parta.html  .  You need to be able to
understand the data relevance.  Apparently that did not happen here.

This toxic poison in question is Generally Regarded as
Safe (GRAS)  by the FDA.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/apr00/040700/ack0001.pdf
Course this bit of information coming from the FDA will be  discredited as
part of the covert super secret Government/Corporate conspiracy designed to
keep the working man down and kill the earth off,  a spin off of the
military's surreptitious disposal of Agent Orange in CA Orange groves.
updated and now known as the Cheney Option.   The wingnuts use this type
fallacy argument whenever they do not have fact.  Any bets it gets played?

You did note the FDA reference showed  a GRAS OTC application as .11-.13%,
yes?  So you're not going to use a BAK solution @ 50% or even 100%,  when
the dosage in most application  is well below  <1%,  are you Mr. Hare-Scott?

example of low dose BAK concentrations in:

Neosynephrine is 0.01%
Artificial Tears is  .005-0.01%
Visine is 0.01%

In Medicines:

 Methotrexate it is 0.9%
Valium 1.5%
Compazine  0.75%

Also,  I hope you noticed billy's MSDS scary word categories listed  the
200 proof alcohol adjuvant in many, if not more,  places than the 50%
Benzalkonium Chloride Solution.  This is admittely a  chemical billy like to
self medicate with, again in lesser concentrations. Must be organic alcohol!
So go back and read them again.
Here is the first listing:

"CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: ...[Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof]."  etc. etc

If you need further examples of using facts in context go look up the MSDS
for 30% Hydrogen Peroxide  here:
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/H4065.htm

"Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Life)

Scary words again, health rating of 3 -  severe... would you use that in
your everyday household? Not likely!  What you have is ~3% H2O2 in your
medicine cabinet, a slight  bit of a difference, yes?  H2O2 is one of the
safest ingredients around WHEN USED PROPERLY but it is also a rocket fuel if
you so wish/need to call it that to impress or make a point!

Is this chemical evil?  it is GRAS in eye drops, makeup &
toweletts,  oh!  and for cold sores and vaginal crème so  billy can add it
to the home remedies  advice he gives out for yeast infections next time
around, maybe he can use it when he can't find his "red-eye"  medicine.

You can  rant ad nauseam here on many ingredients that are
used in daily households that would give all the dire warnings the Eco
fringe like to perpetuate. But let us keep the BS in context with the
application. Get beyond all the background drama, pecking order and dirt
scratching.  these goggling pasties are NOT really scary stuff when you see
what  is actually there.

So let's put these continuing  "fear-up" tactics away and  let's
stop playing into this Chicken Little BS. The world is not going to stop and
go back to the "Good Old Days" of feast and famine to let some "old-think"
get off. We use chemicals everyday, deal with it on an intelligent level

Again,  my point; two fallacy arguments,  Ad Hominem and the Appeal to
Emotion, this last one can be debated as to category, maybe Authority. he
does like to google.

 

gunner wrote:

Well why not say so to start with rather than leave us with a shopping list
of things to choose from.


My question was relevant to getting you to say what you mean which you have
now done.


Yes he did use an ad hominem and yes he has done so previously.  He also
quoted relevant material.


So to summarise you are saying the concentration of use is a key issue
regarding the degree of hazard and Billy didn't address that but substituted
scare tactics.  It's a fair point.  It would have been simpler if you said
so to start with.

And why so formal?  Unless you feel the need to put some distance between us
call me David.

David