Re: Caught in rain

On 5/8/2025 3:43 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> writes:
 

On 5/8/2025 8:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/8/2025 7:12 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 5/7/2025 7:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 7 May 2025 07:24:50 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

I rinse mine for a few minutes in a coffee can with brake cleaner
(https://www.grainger.com/product/CRC-Brake-Cleaner- Solvent-35WT64)

>
Almost pure dry cleaning solvent:

>
Yup, and it works great as a degreaser.
>

>
<https://www.grainger.com/sds/pdf/259633.pdf>
    Chemical name:  tetrachloroethylene
    Common name and synonyms:  perchloroethylene
    CAS number:  127-18-4
    %  90 - 100%
>
"EPA Proposes Ban on All Consumer and Many Commercial Uses of
Perchloroethylene to Protect Public Health"
<https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-ban-all-
consumer-and- many-commercial-uses-perchloroethylene-protect>

>
I'm not to worried about this administrations actions having
anything to do with protecting public health. Quite the opposite,
in fact.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/epa-rollback-
environmental-regulations-zeldin-rcna196112
>

>
"Risk Management for Perchloroethylene (PCE)"  (Dec 2024)
<https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals- under-tsca/
risk-management-perchloroethylene-pce>
"EPA has set a 10-year phaseout for the use of PCE in dry cleaning to
eliminate the risk to people who work or spend considerable time at
dry cleaning facilities."

>
It's a good thing I'm not using it for dry cleaning then. In the
meantime, there's no talk of banning it as an industrial solvent
(degreaser).
>
I agree with limiting it in cases where people may be exposed to it
all day everyday, like dry cleaner employees. For people that use
it a couple time a week in a garage, not likely that big of a
deal. For someone who uses a pint to clean a batch of bike chains
every couple of months - there's more risk from the diesel fumes I
inhale during my commutes.
>
>

+1
A little perspective can be quite helpful.
A distinct outlier is California's Prop 65:
https://oag.ca.gov/prop65/faq
which requires notice for anything with 1/1000 of the lowest
reported harmful level by any study for any material or product.
That has crossed from safety into harassment.

>
I don't necessarily disagree with requiring notifications. At that
point the decision to use the product then falls on the user. This
doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable burden.

 When almost literally everything has a prop65 notice no useful
information is given.  Users have no way to distinguish potentially
dangerous products from those that have the notice only as legal self
defense.  MSDSs, on the other hand, while they may err on the side of
caution at least impart some useful information.
 Prop65 is a little boy crying wolf every day, all the time.  It's worse
than useless.
 

See also every user manual for every consumer item. The actual text begins after several pages of, "WARNING- Risk of death or serious injury."  Which no one reads or takes seriously on the way through to find information.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971