Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
A bit self-indulgent this thread, but I've just had my tonsils out. As they were putting the anaestetic in, I said (just before passing out) that I could taste it. Later, the anaesthetist came to see me and asked what it tasted of. I said it was hard to say but a bit like dry-cleaning solvent. He said that wasn't surprising as 10 years ago they used to use trichloroethylene.
This may not mean much to anyone who doesn't happen to know about chemicals, but this is the same stuff that's used in the classic vapour degreasing bath. I'm shocked, basically. That stuff is now classified as a category 2 carcinogen and a category 3 mutagen.
They said the stuff I was given was called isofluorine. To me as a chemist, that name is nonsense so I still don't know what it is. I guess my point is, should I not be given at least the same information as you are under CHIP when you order a bottle of some chemical? Surely if they're going to inject you with the stuff they owe you a greater duty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Neil
As one chemist to another, I can tell you that isofluorane is 1-chloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethyldifluoromethyl ether and you'll be pleased to hear that it has a very high LD50! If you search any of the online safety data sheet libraries for the CAS number 26675-46-7, you will find out all you ever wanted to know (and probably more besides).
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Neil This link has interesting personal experiences by an anaesthetist who used Trilene http://www.johnpowell.ne...an/contents.htm#chaptersI was surprised to read that it had some limited use as late as 1987. I remember seeing Trilene vaporisers on older machines around 1975 but I was told at this hospital that they were no longer used, halothane and enflurane having replaced it years before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Without looking at COSHH / CHIP dont think that 'medicinal drugs' come under COSHH/CDA, unless someone can correct me, more likely the CDA or something which have a much more stringent testing and acceptance procedure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Sweetman
Neil,
On a point of practicality, what's the point of having this info? Are you going debate whether they are going to give you that stuff or something else?
A familiar point of discussion is competence - do you not recognise medical staff in being competent in their role?
The info may mean something to you as a chemist but it would mean nothing to me as a layman. Maybe you would like to give everyone who you give a substance to a full breakdown of any substance that you are giving them - including a messenger carrying a parcel of something for you to a storeroom.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
Thanks for the responses, you all helped or raised interesting points. Thanks for the links, and the stuff does look alot safer than trichloroethylene.
The point of CHIP is to give non-technical people a chance of understanding the risks of substances. I don't know if there would have been any alternatives if I had objected. Of course I happily put my trust in the staff (who did a great job).
It was just an idea, I'm not up in arms or anything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.