Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Greeting's All-
In how many use's does it take for Gun Scrubber too cause cancer?
In how many use's does it take for Gun Scrubber too cause cancer?
Truthfully Speaking-
- Thread starter Ala Dan
- Start date
- Status
Fly320s
Member
Is this a trick question?
I can't tell you, because I don't know. I did see a documentary on how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop. It was a short show featuring a well-spoken owl.
Real answer: it depends, like so many things in life. I'm guessing that it will take regular use over a period of years. In the meantime, wear gloves, eye protection, and use it in a well ventilated area.
I can't tell you, because I don't know. I did see a documentary on how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop. It was a short show featuring a well-spoken owl.
Real answer: it depends, like so many things in life. I'm guessing that it will take regular use over a period of years. In the meantime, wear gloves, eye protection, and use it in a well ventilated area.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Greeting's All-
I did read either here or elsewhere that prolonged use of Gun Scrubber
could, and most likely would cause cancer if used in unventilated
area's. I never have been a big fan of Gun Scrubber myself, but I do
sell a lot of it in the sporting goods store in which I work~!
I did read either here or elsewhere that prolonged use of Gun Scrubber
could, and most likely would cause cancer if used in unventilated
area's. I never have been a big fan of Gun Scrubber myself, but I do
sell a lot of it in the sporting goods store in which I work~!
Mad Chemist
Member
Nasty stuff. Don't use it indoors, and wear rubber gloves while you're using it. If you get it one your skin wash it of immediately. I used it with some cheap polyethylene gloves once, it disolved them.
JH
JH
usp_fan
Member
I thought most of those chemicals only caused cancer in California?
Seriously, It's always good to take appropriate precautions. Cumulative exposure combined with your unique genetic make up means that the answer for me and the answer for you are different.
--usp_fan
Seriously, It's always good to take appropriate precautions. Cumulative exposure combined with your unique genetic make up means that the answer for me and the answer for you are different.
--usp_fan
Dave Markowitz
Member
My suggestion would be to look up its MSDS, which should have some information on this. It's basically brake cleaner, FWIW.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Thanks Dave for the MSDS suggestion. I looked it up, and it says that
it contains a substance that to the State Of California, is known too
cause cancer~! But, I'm not about too take any chances~!
it contains a substance that to the State Of California, is known too
cause cancer~!
But, I'm not about too take any chances~!
Ala Dan said:
USP_fan hit it on the head.
There's no way to answer that question for a give individual. Each individual is different and the potential for a given material to "cause cancer" is statistical. You may be very susceptible to get cancer after exposure and I may not, but out of a population of 100,000 individuals there will be a curve established for this potential.
NIOSH has established this recommendation for the primary component in Gun Scrubber-
Trichloroethylene
NIOSH considers trichloroethylene (TCE) to be a potential occupational carcinogen and recommends a REL of 2 ppm (as a 60-minute ceiling) during the usage of TCE as an anesthetic agent and 25 ppm (as a 10-hour TWA) during all other exposures.
The ATSDR ToxFAQ for TCE has this information -
How likely is trichloroethylene to cause cancer?
Some studies with mice and rats have suggested that high levels of trichloroethylene may cause liver, kidney, or lung cancer. Some studies of people exposed over long periods to high levels of trichloroethylene in drinking water or in workplace air have found evidence of increased cancer. Although, there are some concerns about the studies of people who were exposed to trichloroethylene, some of the effects found in people were similar to effects in animals.
In its 9th Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) determined that trichloroethylene is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that trichloroethylene is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
The short form of all of this is that TCE has a potential to be a human carcinogen, but studies have not established an airtight causal relationship. High levels of exposure over long periods of time may cause cancer in humans. If you want to use the safest products you can then you use simpler solvents.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Many thanks hso my friend-
Ya'll listen up, cuz he's got knowledge~!
Ya'll listen up, cuz he's got knowledge~!
sm
member
Ala Dan- great subject!
I really do not like to use Gun Scrubber , or in my case CRC Brakleen ( similar) products for the reason already stated.
I recall a Micro Bio PhD instructor sharing : Rule 1 - keep fingers out of mouth. Rule 2 - anything one injests or puts on their skin they can develop allergic or more serious reactions.
hso At one time I believe Rem and Hoppes both made a "Gun scrubber" product of alcohol base. I forget the carrier.
So would this not be more "friendly" to one's system? If so, what would be similar over the counter?
In the old days the business I was used T 1:1:1 , that particular product is not longer offered for that use. It sure cleaned well though. I was also using Cyanide in that business...
I'm thinking using mineral spirits and an air compressor would be better for a person. In fact a few folks have gone to using hand held air like for computers and such once a gun is cleaned with low odor spirits, or whatever.
Perhaps just hot soap and water, is the way to go. Been working for BP for some time now...
I have some friends dealing with Cancers, themselves directly or family. Add Asthma, and other allergies...
Perhaps we really could use some input for us all on this matter.
Again good topic!
I really do not like to use Gun Scrubber , or in my case CRC Brakleen ( similar) products for the reason already stated.
I recall a Micro Bio PhD instructor sharing : Rule 1 - keep fingers out of mouth. Rule 2 - anything one injests or puts on their skin they can develop allergic or more serious reactions.
hso At one time I believe Rem and Hoppes both made a "Gun scrubber" product of alcohol base. I forget the carrier.
So would this not be more "friendly" to one's system? If so, what would be similar over the counter?
In the old days the business I was used T 1:1:1 , that particular product is not longer offered for that use. It sure cleaned well though. I was also using Cyanide in that business...
I'm thinking using mineral spirits and an air compressor would be better for a person. In fact a few folks have gone to using hand held air like for computers and such once a gun is cleaned with low odor spirits, or whatever.
Perhaps just hot soap and water, is the way to go. Been working for BP for some time now...
I have some friends dealing with Cancers, themselves directly or family. Add Asthma, and other allergies...
Perhaps we really could use some input for us all on this matter.
Again good topic!
I'll provide whatever information I can.
This will not be satisfactory for many since there are very few unequivocal answers.
Chemical "A" may be good as a cleaner, but not so good for your liver. Chemical "B" may be fine on the body and as a cleaner, but be just waiting for the opportunity to burst into flames. And "C" may be stable, effective, but a teratogen (causes birth defects). They all have their limitations. :banghead:
The simple fact is the one gun cleaner that is the least risky for fire and chemical exposure is elbow grease.
This will not be satisfactory for many since there are very few unequivocal answers.
Chemical "A" may be good as a cleaner, but not so good for your liver. Chemical "B" may be fine on the body and as a cleaner, but be just waiting for the opportunity to burst into flames. And "C" may be stable, effective, but a teratogen (causes birth defects). They all have their limitations. :banghead:
The simple fact is the one gun cleaner that is the least risky for fire and chemical exposure is elbow grease.
1911 guy
Member
Genetic Make-up
I think genes have a lot to do with it. Dad's side of the family all smoked, all lived to be fairly ancient in relatively good health. Mom's side all smoked and are dropping like flies around 70-75 years of age. Makes me think I aught to quit.
I think genes have a lot to do with it. Dad's side of the family all smoked, all lived to be fairly ancient in relatively good health. Mom's side all smoked and are dropping like flies around 70-75 years of age. Makes me think I aught to quit.
Don't overreact
the standards for determining carcinogenicity are ridiculously loose. Notoriously so. Substances which have never caused a cancer in humans are "KNOWN" to the state of Kali to cause cancer???
Cancer in lab animals doesn't necessarily, or even usually, correlate to cancer in humans. And lab induction of cancers usually is accomplished with absolutely massive doses.
For a good discussion, read "Junk Science Judo" by Steven Milloy.
Remember the Alar scare? Used to keep spots off apples, then reported to be a carcinogen? Wasn't true. Now it's Teflon. Yesterday it was chemicals in french fries.
Note that "some" studies seem to show that Gun SCrubber can cause cancer. So there are probably others which don't show that. And those which do may not necessarily have been well done.
I'd say use it with gloves and decent ventilation but don't obsess about risk. You play with guns, after all. You are probably getting much more risk from lead than gun cleaner.
the standards for determining carcinogenicity are ridiculously loose. Notoriously so. Substances which have never caused a cancer in humans are "KNOWN" to the state of Kali to cause cancer???
Cancer in lab animals doesn't necessarily, or even usually, correlate to cancer in humans. And lab induction of cancers usually is accomplished with absolutely massive doses.
For a good discussion, read "Junk Science Judo" by Steven Milloy.
Remember the Alar scare? Used to keep spots off apples, then reported to be a carcinogen? Wasn't true. Now it's Teflon. Yesterday it was chemicals in french fries.
Note that "some" studies seem to show that Gun SCrubber can cause cancer. So there are probably others which don't show that. And those which do may not necessarily have been well done.
I'd say use it with gloves and decent ventilation but don't obsess about risk. You play with guns, after all. You are probably getting much more risk from lead than gun cleaner.
waterhouse
Member
Funny, I think one of my graphite fishing rods also has also been known to cause cancer in California. I'm very careful to only fish with it in Texas.
JohnBT
Member
I use it all of the time, mostly to rinse the goop out of the barrel after I finish brushing.
I'll worry about it after I quit smoking. :banghead:
John
I'll worry about it after I quit smoking. :banghead:
John
joesixpack
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 13
Khornet said:
That's the problem with CAs toxic laws. If everything has a warning on it, how do you know when to take it seriously? If everything causes cancer, than nothing does.
Sorry, but just because CA does things that don't make sense to you doesn't make everything they do senseless and as much as you'd like things to be the way you want them to be wishing doesn't make it so.
Yes, CA has very broad criteria for regulating materials as to their carcinogenicity, but it isn't random, senseless or based on Ouija Boards. They go through much the same scientific process that every developed country in the world does when determining the hazards of a given chemical and they get the same level of strenuous opposition from the chemical manufacturers and industries that every other government does. They do have broader standards for considering a chemical to be a human carcinogen or a potential human carcinogen, but when they fail they fail towards the protective side of the equation for you and others. As a professional do I agree with every classification they apply? No, I don't. But I'm not stupid enough to discount an entire program focused on protecting the public because they are occasionally overprotective when I've seen "safe" chemicals I trusted over the past 20 years proven to be hazardous over time.
Yes, CA has very broad criteria for regulating materials as to their carcinogenicity, but it isn't random, senseless or based on Ouija Boards. They go through much the same scientific process that every developed country in the world does when determining the hazards of a given chemical and they get the same level of strenuous opposition from the chemical manufacturers and industries that every other government does. They do have broader standards for considering a chemical to be a human carcinogen or a potential human carcinogen, but when they fail they fail towards the protective side of the equation for you and others. As a professional do I agree with every classification they apply? No, I don't. But I'm not stupid enough to discount an entire program focused on protecting the public because they are occasionally overprotective when I've seen "safe" chemicals I trusted over the past 20 years proven to be hazardous over time.
waterhouse
Member
hso,
I think the problem is that since they tend to be overprotective, the warning stops meaning anything. I wasn't kidding about my fishing pole, when I bought it it actually had the label stating that materials used in the pole were known in the state of California to cause cancer, or something similar sounding.
If you put the same warning on a fishing pole that you put on dangerous chemicals, in my mind the warning doesn't mean much. I know they do testing, and I think I understand what you are saying, but I feel they overuse the warning to the point that it can't be taken seriously.
I think the problem is that since they tend to be overprotective, the warning stops meaning anything. I wasn't kidding about my fishing pole, when I bought it it actually had the label stating that materials used in the pole were known in the state of California to cause cancer, or something similar sounding.
If you put the same warning on a fishing pole that you put on dangerous chemicals, in my mind the warning doesn't mean much. I know they do testing, and I think I understand what you are saying, but I feel they overuse the warning to the point that it can't be taken seriously.
waterhouse said:
I agree completely. Cry WOLF often enough and no one pays attention. The ultimate is having an MSDS and warning lables on distilled water. Honest to god, I'm not kidding. Some paraniod had a whole lab labeling DI water because it could asphyxiate someone. Like I'm going to drown in a 1 liter bottle of DI water.
I think many manufacturers don't know how to comply with the law and they overreact by having a lawyer who is only interested in the civil liability question tell them to put a label on an item (EPA and OSHA treat an item differently than the chemicals used to make it) based on the warnings on the components used to make it. In the case of your fishing rod the label may have been a warning about grinding or drilling it (I'm guessing) because of the fiber or because of the epoxy. It could have also been because of an attorney having his client putting a warning label in place to ward off civil liability. I've seen people treat items like the chemical components before for waste and safety compliance when it just wasn't required.
JohnBT
Member
"I hope Hoppe's isn't bad for you"
They took the nitrobenzene out of the formula a few years ago and that was the most dangerous chemical in it. You can still get the old stuff if you shop around a little.
John
They took the nitrobenzene out of the formula a few years ago and that was the most dangerous chemical in it. You can still get the old stuff if you shop around a little.
John
Model520Fan
Member
23, with a standard deviation of 1.7. The first symptoms appear in 7 years, with a standard deviation of 1.2 years. Death usually occurs around age 68, with a standard deviation of 5.1 (much more deviant than the general population).
Of course, that is with all other carcinogenic factors removed. In real life. a person who lives in a non-smoke-free environment, eats fast food, cleans guns with said solvent and runs with scissors can expect to die before he is old enough to marry (except in West Virginia). Astute interpretation of these data make apparent that society as we know it cannot reproduce itself without sex before marriage, and that there will soon be no one old enough to raise children who is not living in a smoke-free natural-food commune without scissors or clean guns. Thus, "It takes a village to raise a child" will actually be true in the near future.
The horror of it!
Of course, that is with all other carcinogenic factors removed. In real life. a person who lives in a non-smoke-free environment, eats fast food, cleans guns with said solvent and runs with scissors can expect to die before he is old enough to marry (except in West Virginia). Astute interpretation of these data make apparent that society as we know it cannot reproduce itself without sex before marriage, and that there will soon be no one old enough to raise children who is not living in a smoke-free natural-food commune without scissors or clean guns. Thus, "It takes a village to raise a child" will actually be true in the near future.
The horror of it!
HSO,
"and they get the same level of dtrenuous opposition from chemical manufacturesr and industries"...
That's no refutation of my point, I'm afraid. But if we play the game that way, I must point out that there is a legion of groups with an equally big economic interest in labelling all kinds of substances carcinogenic. Government, environmentalists, trial lawyers, and even competing chemical producers all have a strong pecuniary interest. So arguing motives is uselsess.
The plain fact remains that the labelling of many of these substances as carcinogenic to humans--as opposed to a different species at impossibly massive doses-- has very shabby scientific support.
You argue, reasonably, that it's wise to err on the side of caution. But that in turn depends on the magnitude of the error you make. Following the precautionary principle, as government does, and esstablishing ridiculously low safe exposure levels, is very destructive. The direct economic costs are large, the loss of trust from crying wolf larger, and the encouragement of a culture of litigiousness and fear is even more destructive.
"and they get the same level of dtrenuous opposition from chemical manufacturesr and industries"...
That's no refutation of my point, I'm afraid. But if we play the game that way, I must point out that there is a legion of groups with an equally big economic interest in labelling all kinds of substances carcinogenic. Government, environmentalists, trial lawyers, and even competing chemical producers all have a strong pecuniary interest. So arguing motives is uselsess.
The plain fact remains that the labelling of many of these substances as carcinogenic to humans--as opposed to a different species at impossibly massive doses-- has very shabby scientific support.
You argue, reasonably, that it's wise to err on the side of caution. But that in turn depends on the magnitude of the error you make. Following the precautionary principle, as government does, and esstablishing ridiculously low safe exposure levels, is very destructive. The direct economic costs are large, the loss of trust from crying wolf larger, and the encouragement of a culture of litigiousness and fear is even more destructive.
- Status
