| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Shivachemist
Harmless
Posts: 30
Registered: 1-2-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Metal fume fever
Well, metal fume fever is rare. Of course, it does not happen to all. It depends on the individual and the rate of exposure. It mostly happens only
when a person working a lot with metal powders or their oxides. I do not think other compounds of a metal will have the same effect on you. I had some
breathing difficulties once when I was working with Copper oxide. It lasted nearly for an hour. It was really irritating. That's why we should avoid
windy situation when we are handling metal powders and their oxides. We won't like them when they get into your nose.
|
|
|
Random
International Hazard
Posts: 1120
Registered: 7-5-2010
Location: In ur closet
Member Is Offline
Mood: Energetic
|
|
Reading through this thread dash of homeopathic medicine would cure the problem.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
Zinc gluconate and zinc citrate are used to treat colds, but not by inhalation.
One interesting side note is that inhalation of zinc oxide builds up a tolerance.
Ie. brass foundry workers would experience metal fume fever after
work on monday and then be fine the rest of the week.
Metal fume fever used to be fairly common in brass foundries.
It probably is still common but they are all in china now, so
the problem isn't getting reported.
Welders get metal fume fever when welding galvanized metals
without proper protection. One would hope they use proper
protection and ventilation but since it still happens they obviously
don't.
I would not say it is uncommon or hard to get in the right conditions
but welders are trained about the dangers of galvanized metals.
And as I said most brass foundries are now in china.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Drinking milk doesn't assist with metal fume fever, nor does milk serve as a sponge. Union contracts, laws, etc. don't need to match scientific fact
to be written. In this instance, milk is ingested and fumes are inhaled. The average alpha half life for absorption is essentially always lower for
inhalation all administration. This means absorption is always (? Can't think of any exceptions) faster, and incidentally has nothing to do with
gastric content any more than IVing a substance would be impacted by co-ingestion of the antidote during the latency to onset. Absorption for ingested
substances is predominantly a factor of gastric transit time, highly influenced by gastric opening.
Stomach acidification can also vary somewhat considerably depending on how much base is consumed, but I highly doubt enough milk could be ingested to
neutralize stomach acid without triggering stretch receptors to release more acid predominantly through enterochromaffin like cells. Even extended
release antacid formulations don't last very long relative gastric opening times. The protein content could increase gastric emptying, and the liquid
could dilute an ingested poison, but this is different. Quote: Originally posted by Pasrules  |
Source: Australian rabbits where tested by painting their skin with myxoma virus which had no effect until a promotor was added and it also had no
effect if done in the incorrect order. |
First, animal models are not always comparable to humans. I have
spoken about this elsewhere, but they are very specific. Second, in part due to the nature of the lifecycle of the model, just because no effect was
seen during experimental time limits in a rabbit doesn't mean an exogenous tumor promoter is necessary for carcinogenesis or progression, unless you
include general nutrients and oxygen in that category, which is difficult to prevent coming into contact with a cancer cell that doesn't apoptose or
get phagocytized (though carbon monoxide adjunct to traditional chemo therapies is a somewhat new protocol).
Quite the contrary; frequently hormones or normal growth factors are more than adequate for cancer progression. Every cancer is unique. Cancer would
be much easier to prevent if an exogenous promoter were necessary. Unfortunately, the variety of tumor suppressor and proto-oncogenes complicate
matters.
Likewise, not all mutagens are equal, or even have the same mechanism. Intercalation is not strand break, is not dimerization, etc.
By the way, I think you are misconstruing a few things here: http://www.phagehunter.org/2008/03/myxoma-virus-from-rabbits...
| Quote: | | This is why some people who have a family history are given a "chance" of getting cancer because an event must occur which changes the way the cell
replicates this can be based on a biological clock due to epigenetics but more often than not it requires some form of promotor.
|
The manner of replication isn't really affected as much as the rate, often from cell cycle checkpoint
protein variations, which can be completely separate from invasivity and de differentiation, which get more nuanced. Usually this risk assessment for
cancer you mentioned, based on familial history and genetic testing, is more of a double hit hypothesis issue, though with low grade prostate cancer,
progression is typically slow enough versus life expectancy not to warrant surgery, which impacts quality of life.
| Quote: |
Heathly tip: Chemists always eat their cereal, keep regular fiber in your diet as it reduces the time for a stool to pass which in turn reduces the
chance of any carcinogenic substances within the stool to have affect aswell as the milk thing I mentioned earlier. |
this was believed in the 70s but is essentially completely unsubstantiated by modern medicine. Gastric transit time doesn't have
any clear correlation with incidence of cancer. Numerous sources for this including the primary literature, national cancer institute, American Cancer
Society, and WebMD.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/fiber-cancer
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber-and-colon-...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/welding/illness.htm
best not to give medical advice unless you are a healthcare professional for numerous reasons, not least of which being legal. Medical professionals
carry insurance for a reason. Readers would have to be utterly moronic to trust themselves to differentials diagnose various toxidromes and treat
themselves based on information in open source websites unless they already have enough toxicological education/training not to need resources.
Anything else is totally rolling the dice with false empowerment. Medical complications can arise from underlying conditions that require immediate
care.
| Quote: | Psssst ADMINs make a medical thread so we have something to reference in case of our ourselves or others becoming poisoned. I can guarantee someone
has gotten sick without going to hospital on fear of legalities and members like Cou can have something more personal to refer too rather than generic
chemical advice found elsewhere. Anyone agree?
|
If you poison yourself see a physician. In person. Let them handle the medicine, hobbyist or otherwise.
Treatment protocols and medication approval can vary depending on your locale. What is legal for you medically might get me arrested and vice versa.
References all available on request. And when advised not to induce vomiting, it is probably best not to. Some substances are caustic, and trying to
vomit a caustic substance is a really great way to perforate your esophagus. Poison control can tell you if you need to ingest charcoal, vomit, etc.
|
|
|
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The reasoning for not inducing vomiting that I've heard is that this can aspirate droplets of the toxin into your lungs, where it can be absorbed much
more readily.
Great post, Chemosynthesis.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks. That is an excellent point on aspirating on toxicant laced vomit. It seems particularly risky if you are alone as you may lose consciousness
after taking syrup of Ipecac or something, then vomit.
Even with just a caustic alkaline material, the chemical and thermal burns can cause fibrotic stricture that permanently impacts your life if you
induce emesis. It is completely stochastic whether the substance fully neutralized and in the heat of the moment, perception of time falters.
Oh, and I noticed that readers may assume I think ECL like cells secrete gastric acid based on my phrasing. Not the case, clearly. Histamine is just
the predominant factor in secretion. I suppose one could also parse whether vagal afferents were technically what were stimulated to. So be it.
Doesn't matter what your doctoral degree is in when you work in a professional lab... When you are exposed to something dangerous, be it azides, HIV,
or whatever, you are examined by other medical professionals. It isn't just to reduce workplace disability fraud. Medicine, clinical or research,
takes groups of highly trained professionals because no one person knows it all, even when they are an unbiased observer and not potentially impaired
from a toxicant. Also part of the reason aren't supposed to work in labs alone, even though this one gets broken a lot.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
