Re: tasting chemicals

[Joel Baumbaugh <baumbaug@nosc.mil>]

Radsafers,

While I am not an "old timer" in the Health Physics field (< 20 years), I still have to side with those who have written suggesting a more hands-on/practical/less analytic approach to identifying some substances (i.e. unknowns).  While there are a LOT of substances (organic or inorganic [known to be radioactive or not]) that I would "NOT" stick my tongue to (grin) - I was taught in more than one geology class (I just called to confirm that the practice was still being taught) that "taste" will help you identify some unknowns "out in the field".  Of course, I am a "geology" amateur, it takes an "educated" pallet to differentiate between some chemically close minerals - just like fine wines (although I'm usually a beer drinker).  As Rick and Chris mentioned below, it sometimes helps to know ([by taste] or by smell) what you're working with... Does it smell like a petroleum product... is that liquid an organic acid (e.g. acetic [vinegar smell]) or inorganic (e.g. Sulfuric [rotten egg smell]) before it "mixes/combines/reacts" with something else... BTW, the two mixed together react quite violently...

I am also professionally trained in HazCat Identification of unknowns and routinely I.D. unknowns prior to disposal (saving you the tax payer LOTS of money I might add).  If I was forced to identify all unknowns with nose plugs up my nostrils, I would be severely handicapped in my work.  I think that the "key-word" here is "prudence".   Would I stick my tongue into a pile of "yellow-cake" - Never!.  Might I check to see if a salt had the correct "taste".  Not today!!  The analytical technology - especially in a cook-book type processing plant is just too good...but thirty years ago - maybe... Hind-sight is always 20-20...and I've learned a lot in 30 years...

Ok - just my 2 cents,


Joel Baumbaugh
baumbaug@nosc.mil


..


At 08:57 AM 6/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>> I guess I've reached the age where one dislikes admitting to retrospecively 'stupid' things.  But I seem to 
>>recall in my chemistry classes of my youth that when one had positive knowledge of a chemical stew that it 
>>was not unusual to 'taste' or even sniff vapors for identification purposes.  I even remember (horror of 
>>horrors) doing mouth pipetting.  While our current safety standards render such practices today as 'stupid' is 
>>it appropriate to describe accepted practices of more than 30 yrs ago in that manner?
>
>While I don't advocate tasting chemicals and sniffing vapours it is still true that a number of film processing 
>errors can be identified using our own senses. Sulphiding in silver recovery units is a very distinctive odor, 
>and the conversion of the insoluble silver ammonium thiosulphate to soluble silver ammonium dithiosulphate 
>is accompanied by a change in taste of the film emulsion from sweet to tasteless.
>
>
>Chris Jeffery
>Senior Lecturer in Radiation Science
>Canterbury Christ Church College,   UK
>
>
>
>


Joel T. Baumbaugh, MPH, MHP
baumbaug@nosc.mil
Radiation Safety Officer
SSC San Diego, CA


NOTE:	The contents of this message have not been reviewed, nor approved by
the Federal Government, the U.S. Navy, my bosses or my wife...

How times change - how everthing remains the same:

2000 B.C.     "Eat this root."
1000 A.D.     "That root is heathen.  Say this prayer."
1850 A.D.     "That prayer isn't medicine.  Drink this potion."
1940 A.D.     "That potion is snake oil.  Swallow this pill."
1985 A.D.     "That pill is ineffective.  Take this antibiotic."
2000 A.D.     "That anibiotic is ineffective.  Eat this root."