Just saw a piece on CBS News about people trying to ban the sell of methylene chloride because it can kill you: “I can walk into local stores and purchase this,” Hartley said. “It shouldn’t be that way. A caustic chemical that’s killing people should not be available for consumers to use.” It reminded me of the couple trying to get bulk caffeine power banned because their idiot son ate a bunch of it and died.
So, should every potentially lethal substance be banned from consumer use–no matter how useful it is for its intended purpose–or should people have to take their own responsibility in using the product safely when the dangers are known and precautions listed on the label?
Dihydrogen monoxide can be harmful or fatal too, if it’s misused.
Some substances need to be banned, or tightly restricted, and others should be available to the general public (or at least adults) with appropriate, easy-to-read warnings.
Actually, it is an “average, garden-variety chemical.” It’s number two on the list of chlorinated methane solvents, along with chloromethane, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride. Yes, it’s toxic, yes, it’s volatile, and yes, it needs to be used carefully, in a fume hood or with a respirator (no, it’s not in any sense caustic – irritating and carcinogenic, but not caustic). It’s vital for some laboratory work, less toxic than chloroform or carbon tet, less inflammable than comparable hydrocarbons, and on the list of evil things one might find in a chemistry lab, it’s way the fuck down there.
It’s probably reasonable to remove it from consumer products, but that wouldn’t have changed Mr. Hartley’s case – he was a professional, supposedly trained and equipped to work with it. I have my doubts – was his respirator properly fitted? Were the cartridges changed daily? Had he read the SDS and been trained on hazard communication? Was there any attempt to ventilate the bathroom? Craft and service industries are rife with shoddy training and safety practices, and bathtub refinishers are noted for dying from exposure to CH[sub]2[/sub]Cl[sub]2[/sub]. If that’s why his mask got penetrated, then Ms. Hartley needs to reconsider her target.
Big (implied) excluded middle here.
There are many regulatory options between “anyone can buy any amount of this” to “banned for everyone”.
If this particular chemical is so dangerous even professionals are frequently being harmed by it, it needs to be moved up a notch or two in terms of regulations for purchase, storage etc. If not, then not.
I’ve seen hydrochloric acid sold by the gallon on the shelf in hardware stores. I’ve never had need to buy that, but I have bought ferric chloride sold openly at Radio Shack. And I’ve casually bought a high explosive off the shelf at Michaels. And there are quite a few other chemicals sold openly on the shelves of grocery, hardware, and craft stores that will kill you dead or cripple you for life if you don’t respect them. And the reason those chemicals are sold is because they have a useful purpose.
So I guess you won’t mind if I bring some into your house and use it to produce phosgene. After all, it’s just an “ordinary” chemical, so why would you possibly mind?
I have various chemicals in my house that, when combined, could produce deadly effects, and could probably set up my very own meth lab were I so inclined to do so.
But I won’t.
I go to a lot of estate sales, and have seen items that I know have been banned since their manufacture.
The OP question (in the title) might be phrased in an inflammatory and misleading way, but in any case the answer is a resounding yes.
Not every potentially-dangerous item needs to be banned, but it’s not a choice between “ban” and “unlimited availability” - it’s balancing danger with utility.
There are always problems with this and always adjustments to be made, as more is learned and more solutions are attempted. This mess of continual change is in fact the right way to go about it. There’s no good or reasonable way to create a “set it and forget it” type of law for this problem.
