From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: use bulk formaldehyde as porta-potty chemical Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:29:14 -0500 Message-ID: <i80u20hnc8iekbdq0hmrs27oe1ttkr88fo@4ax.com> Pardon my french but... F*ck-off, Janet. You don't have a clue. And boo-hoo if I hurt your tender widdle feelings. To answer the original question, "it depends". Mainly on what concentration formaldehyde you buy. It doesn't take very much concentration at all to stop critter growth. Best thing to do is experiment. Start out small, just a few ml to the tank, and see what happens. You may find out like I did, that you don't need anything at all except in the heat of the summer. Chlorine bleach (or swimming pool chlorine, easier to handle) also works well and is a LOT easier to obtain and handle. I was born with a genetic problem that resulted in the skin on my feet and hands drying out, cracking open, getting infected, going gangrenous and occasionally trying to kill me from the age of about 3 until about 18. Literally dozens of doctors tried and failed to treat the condition with everything from Grenz Rays (very high does soft Xrays) on down. One of the more interesting treatments involved my wrapping my feet in gauze, soaking the wrap in 30% formaldehyde, placing a bag over each foot and sleeping in the contraption. Took several months to figure out that it didn't work (or more accurately, it did work but quickly lost effectiveness.) Didn't do any harm either. Experiences like this (plus an education in science, of course) are why I have not patience with people like Janet who bray like jackasses with their balls in vices every time they come upon a scary sounding multi-sylable chemical name that they don't understand. John On 15 Feb 2004 03:53:52 GMT, prinjrw@aol.comupyours (Janet Wilder) wrote: >In article <1e3670a7.0402141907.6750b738@posting.google.com>, >alanh_27@yahoo.com (Alan Horowitz) writes: > >>the portable-chemical-toilet thing seems to have been originally based >>on marked-up formaldehyde solutions as the deodorant. >> >>I want to buy bulk formaldehyde and use that. How much is needed? >> > >Please go polute someone else's planet. There are Nature-friendly products out >there made of enzymes and/or bacteria that do just as good a job without >murdering drain fields and septic systems. > >Most responsible RVers don't use formaldehyde-based products any longer. > >J >The Road Princess >Residentially Challenged >Spelling and punctuation is up to my editors. I take no responsibility From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: use bulk formaldehyde as porta-potty chemical Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:23:28 -0500 Message-ID: <5rg330pv3q8hdqadj71q5hi083pqp3sv00@4ax.com> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 03:47:42 GMT, RichA <richatpa*nospam*@epix.net> wrote: > On the other hand the other non-harmful (as far as we know) chemicals >are readily available. If I need holding tank chemicals and the only >kind I can find contains Formaldehyde that's what I'm going to use. I bet most people who choose a non-formaldehyde "safe" alternative have no idea what is in it or the relative safety. Let's take Thetford's SupremeGreen, "for those who prefer non-formaldehyde", for example. Thetford has their MSDSs located here: http://www.thetford.com/msds If one looks here: http://www.thetford.com/msds/pdf_33.pdf for the MSDS on SupremeGreen, one sees that the active ingredient is Bronopol. Nice, innocuous sounding trade name for a chemical I'd never heard of. So I googled. I could not find an MSDS for the pure chemical but there is lots of info on the net. For instance, this outfit lists the stuff in its compendium of pesticides. http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/bronopol.html One interesting item is that another trade name is Myacide. Ohhhh, there is one of those "cides", you know, like, insecticide. The chemophobes are getting restless. Listed elsewhere as a biocide. Now the chemophobes are REALLY restless. If one looks at Thetford's MSDSs for the formaldehyde- and bronopol-based products, one sees that the high concentration toxicity is about the same for the two chemicals as described by their LD50 concentrations - 270mg/kg (oral) vs 270 mg/kg (skin absorption) http://www.truetest.com/templates/21.html Above is a fact sheet presented to patients who present positive to an allergy test for formaldehyde. Interesting to note down near the bottom of the page that bronopol is listed as releasing formaldehyde. Hmmmmmm.... Great unrest in the chemophobe camp. If we look at the data sheet on bronopol here: http://www.wuzhouchem.com/cataloged/WWP/biocide/bronopol.html we see that the chemical formula is C3H6BrNO4 and the chemical name is 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol. OH MY! Not only is it a chlorinated hydrocarbon, it is also an organic nitrate. And it liberates free oxygen radicals!!!!!!! The chemophobes are in open stampede. <tongue in cheek> In layman's terms, formaldehyde must be better. After all its formula, CH2O, is 5 letters shorter than C3H6BrNO4. And the name "Formaldehyde" is 19 letters shorter than 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol. Shorter is less scary and intimidating, right? <\tongue in cheek> If "formaldehyde" is too intimidating a word for you, here are some synonyms that sound much nicer: fannoform formalith formalin formalin 40 formic aldehyde formol fyde hoch karsan lysoform methyl aldehyde methylene glycol methylene oxide methanal morbicid oxomethane oxymethylene paraform polyoxymethylene glycols superlysoform Just tell your camper friends that you use paraform in your holding tank. They'll think you're dumping candles or something... Or use morbicid if you want to make people wonder about you. After all that, I want to make clear that I'm not picking on Thetford. I consider both chemicals to be perfectly safe for the intended application. I'm just pointing out that when people get that green-tinged touchy-feely all-in-harmony-with-nature feeling after buying something labeled "green", perhaps the emotion is misplaced. John From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: bulk formaldehyde, BUT WHAT OF THE DRY HANDS? Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:00:10 -0500 Message-ID: <1fn330h609nuo17n7birbjt4p2b6v0sa95@4ax.com> What I had compared to dry skin is like comparing an atom bomb to a fire cracker.... The only thing I can liken my feet and hands to are photos I've seen of limbs after an explosive detonated nearby. I don't know what the disease was. Some dermatologists called it eczema but from what I've read on the subject, eczema was just shorthand for "I don't know." The best theory was posed by the last dermatologist I visited when I was about 19. He said that this was probably genetic and that if it was it would go away at about the age of 20 or 21 and turn into hypersensitive smell, hay fever and allergies. He was spot-on. Unfortunately one allergy was to latex which brings on complications of its own. I could not (and still can't) stand any sort of perfume or artificial odorants which made dating somewhat complicated :-) The most effective treatments were cortisone compounds, starting with the original, Tarcortin. This was an evil-smelling mix of coal tar and cortisone. When the stuff broke out on my eyelids, cracking almost all the way through, the Grenz ray treatment worked remarkably well. Not so well on my hands and feet. The formaldehyde treatment worked for awhile. In fact, "worked for awhile" characterized every treatment. The term "worked" has to be defined too. "Working" meant that it controlled the cracking well enough that I could walk with my feet bandaged in <can't remember the -caine> soaked pads and well enough that they didn't go septic. Within months of my 21st birthday, all this stuff just simply vanished. The wounds healed, my skin got soft and smooth and I could walk normally. There is now no sign of the past other than the scars. I now have very occasional, minor flareups on my feet. The current drug of choice is Elidel, a prescription cream. The one before that was Valisone. Elidel is indicated specifically for eczema but none of the previous drugs were. In fact, some of the drugs they tried had nothing to do with this kind of skin disease. I now do nothing in particular for skin care. I'm not a fan of hand creams but when I do get dry skin I use the hypoallergenic Neutragena non-scented stuff. It works, is latex-free, doesn't stink and isn't greasy. Back then the docs had me use Corn Huskers lotion on my hands, which also hardened and cracked but not as bad as my feet. Seems like it helped back then. I tried it again a few years ago but didn't like it at all. In the interest of absolute accuracy, I will note that I made a small mistake in my last post. I had remembered getting the formaldehyde straight from the bottle. My memory from the pre-teens was wrong on the concentration. My uncle was a pharmacist and owned a surgical and drug supply company and compounded the various treatments when I was a kid. I inherited his formulary books and logs. I looked it up and found that the correct dose was 1 cup of 35% formaldehyde to a half gallon of water. Soak the dressing in that, wrap up the feet and bundle in plastic bags. Still a pretty good shot of the stuff. John On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:41:41 -0500, "Steve Wolf" <news@w8iz.com> wrote: > >"Neon John" <johngdDONTYOUDARE@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:i80u20hnc8iekbdq0hmrs27oe1ttkr88fo@4ax.com... >... >> I was born with a genetic problem that resulted in the skin on my feet and >> hands drying out, cracking open, getting infected, going gangrenous and >> occasionally trying to kill me from the age of about 3 until about 18. >... > >You told us what didn't work ... what happened at 18 that solved the >problem? Everyone has or will have dry skin. We all wonder what solutions >work best. > From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: use bulk formaldehyde as porta-potty chemical Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:55:54 -0500 Message-ID: <0h0530tpr4p8dvaik5gvfkutg319cq0m9f@4ax.com> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 04:41:44 -0700, "R & A" <ramandali@cox.net> wrote: > >"Neon John" <johngdDONTYOUDARE@bellsouth.net> wrote... > >> I'd be shocked, shocked if your wife's hospital didn't use >> formaldehyde. It would be perhaps the only one in the nation. It is >> universally used in the pathology department and in the morgue, among >> other places, to preserve specimens. > > I didn't say that it wasn't used. I said that it wasn't used in the >hospital. The hospital she works in is a wee bit more concerned with the >living, particularly so in the CVICU. But formaldehyde is used in the area >where those who have celestially checked out are waiting to be sent to the >morgue/mortuary. Don't try to quibble. Pathology is part of the main hospital (within a few steps of the Emergency department in both local hospitals). For that matter the morgues are part of the county hospitals in this area. Formalin is also a popular cold sterilization chemical so I'd not be surprised to find its use in other places in the hospital. <wife ranting deleted> You brought your wife into this. Since she (apparently) won't sit down and debate face-to-face, I have nothing more to say in that regard. > However, the previous couple of paragraphs are not the issue here. >So, quit trying to blow smoke and change the subject. Formaldehyde, no >matter how it may be referred to, is dangerous and should not be used. Too >much data supports that statement, as you well know. No I >DON'T< know that. Formaldehyde is, of course, dangerous in the wrong context. But so are many other chemicals we use every day, things like gasoline, drain cleaner, insecticides and who knows what else. In fact, I bet if you objectively compiled the hazards of gasoline and formaldehyde, gasoline would be far worse. But like gasoline and other chemical, formaldehyde is perfectly safe when used properly. Disinfecting and deodorizing a black water tank is one of those applications. > The following statement from Environmental Health & Safety Online should >make the topic clear, even to you. > >"Short-term exposure to formaldehyde can be fatal; however, the odor >threshold is low enough that irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes >will occur before these levels are achieved. Long-term exposure to low >levels of formaldehyde may cause respiratory difficulty, eczema, and >sensitization. Formaldehyde is classified as a human carcinogen and has been >linked to nasal and lung cancer, and with possible links to brain cancer and >leukemia." No, it is NOT clear to even me because it is wrong on several points. First off, formaldehyde >IS< detectable by odor before the onset of irritation. It's not a particularly annoying smell in low concentrations but once one knows the odor, one can detect it long before it becomes irritating. The statement that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen is flat wrong. The correct statement would read something like "formaldehyde has been linked to cancer in animals and is suspected in human cancer." The term "linked" has no causal meaning. You and I are now "linked" since we've debated on usenet. This is just so much blather. Most of this blather comes from California's infamous "known to the State of California to cause cancer" list, known as the Prop 65 list. To refresh your memory, Prop 65 was a voter initiative and not the result of any scientific work. It's a long running joke in scientific circles that some California propeller-headed granola nuts claim to know more about cancer than the rest of the world. The actual list is quite entertaining. It can be downloaded here: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/list_changes/pdf/111403lsta.pdf This is the list that until December of last year included saccharin as a chemical "known to the state of California to cause cancer." When you strip all the BS away, the main problem associated with formaldehyde is that there is a group of people out there who are extremely sensitized to the stuff. Just like there are people who are extremely sensitized to peanut protein. And that the media has sensationalized this tiny group. In both cases the response from the chemophobes is to ban the stuff. Fortunately for peanuts, the name is nice and familiar and doesn't sound like an evil chemical. Formaldehyde is like radioactivity or asbestos. When you start looking for the stuff you find that it is everywhere. It is a naturally made product that occurs widely in nature. And according to one industry web site I found, it ranks 27th in the list of chemical manufacturing volume. The thing is, unless one has a sensitivity to the stuff or reads one of these kook threads on the net, most people are never aware of the stuff simply because it doesn't matter. John From: John De Armond Newsgroups: rec.outdoors.rv-travel Subject: Re: Ewww, it STINKS in here!! Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:07:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4uflh0l52e0op2km3ill68e8t817nsf9fd@4ax.com> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:18:56 GMT, "LongCoolWoman" <dagny68@yallareahoot.com> wrote: >No, not HERE (though I suppose some would debate me on that)! > >It stinks in my home. We've been using Odorlos ever since we got our fiver, >and we've never had a single problem, not one whiff of anything at all. >Now, all of a sudden, it STINKS to high heaven as soon as you walk in the >door. The tank gets emptied and flushed out a MINIMUM of once a week, with >a high-pressure cleaning wand constructed by dear husband, but to no avail. >There are no leaks in the tank, no leaks in the hose, and no leaks in the >vent. I've found that Odorlos stuff to be pretty much worthless. I posted a few weeks back about being stuck in a transmission repair parking lot in Deeeetroit for 6 days while they hacked away on my transmission. By about the 4th day the odor was unbearable, as the tank was partially filled when the tranny blew and it was HOT. I had been using the Odorlos stuff in this (mom's) rig because she liked the smell. (We really did go down the aisle at CW and let her smell-test each brand of chemical!) By the end of that day I'd dumped in the whole jug to no avail. Fortunately there was a CW a couple miles away. A friend took me there and I bought a small container of the Thetford Campa Clean, the old reliable formaldehyde-based treatment. About a quarter of that container later, the odor was practically gone. A day later when I broke down, bought a blue turd hauler and dumped the black tank into an abandoned septic tank behind the shop, there was almost no odor. The other interesting thing was that there was NO intact toilet paper visible, only small strands. Even though we use good old Charmin. With my rig, I normally don't use any treatment unless the tank is going to have to sit with contents in it for several days. Then I use the Thetford formaldehyde stuff. In other words, the tank really doesn't need any treatment for a few days. I had always been suspicious of the Odorlos product strictly on the basis of the huge amount of money they spend on advertising. My suspicions were born out on this trip. Oh, BTW, the Thetford product is carried by Camp Wallyworld so you can get it most anywhere. John |
|