Cipher-0
If your willing to bet your own life on a single point scientific test with no peer review, be my guest. The rest of us , who are quite a skilled bunch, prefer to go with the industry accepted norms and not use a outdated solution nor assume there is no risk. We also know that MSDS in the US come with rules allowing trade secrets and not requiring the declaration of certain trace additives, or that companies would evaluate the risk of detection and not declare the additives on the MSDS.
The industry as a whole has moved off of Glycerin and onto Dihydric and Trihydric Glycols. A 1989 MSDS from ADJ is back when Glycerin would be in use, prior to the development of more modern mixtures.
Kecked was kind enough to run a single point test, but to use that data point it would need to be verified in a independent lab on a second set of machines, and over a long period of time, to verify a hypothesis. The accepted methodology of the "Scientific Method" requires that result to be validated by more tests. Even if its verified that there is no Acrolein or acceptable amounts of Acrolein present, it is still only verified for one type of fluid and one machine
You are quite a skilled debater (someone has trained you well in philosophy of debate) but you seem to be untrained in science and engineering. Your use of a single data point argument certainly verifies that fact. Basic engineering ethics requires more then one test and preferably more then one methodology.
So while you personally are allowed to argue from a single point of data, those of us who have undergone lab safety training, will not accept that as a basis of proof. We're happy that Kecked ran the tests, but we also know that without exposing the same detection machine to a small known dose of Acrolein, Kecked can only say what he did, he detected no Acrolein. He did not mention running a control group to verify the machine. It is a technicality, but for a formal test there must be a control group of samples or a calibration ran. You will find that is a requirement in the published tests for Acrolein.
Kecked did nothing wrong, part of his job is to rapidly assess many thousands of hazards and possible hazards on a huge campus while remaining within a budget. For that reason he has access to a modest amount of instruments.
We have three points of data we do know: 1. Most fog machines have heaters in them that operate significantly hotter then the temperature known to 'crack" Glycerin to Acrolein. 2. We know that Acrolein can be formed at ~280'C from the wiki, which has cited peer reviewed sources proven true by scientific method. We know that the ANSI Standard for the fluid mentions that the machine and fluid combination must be designed so as to not produce Acrolein and two other compounds.
Since those compounds are mentioned in the standard, that means it is fairly easy to make Acrolein in this type of machine, or the standards committee would not be warning systems designers to check their new designs for these byproducts. Buffo's argument that Acrolein production is possible at low temperatures is thus supported by the peer reviewed ANSI standard.
All ethical manufacturers caution that only their approved fluids are known to be safe in their machine, and now you know why.
You cannot make the unsupported statement that Glycerin and the Glycols are chemically close enough that they will react the same in in any given machine. You have no peer reviewed proof that this is so.
By your argument method, I could equally argue that since some MSDS for Water state you can aspirate it into your lungs or submerge yourself in it and drown, such that all quantities of Water are hazardous.
Case closed.
Steve
Last edited by mixedgas; 06-12-2014 at 13:01.
Qui habet Christos, habet Vitam!
I should have rented the space under my name for advertising.
When I still could have...