LettersFromFlyoverCountry
Well Known Member
You know, for the longest time, the one thing that has concerned me about building an RV is the chemicals. MEK, in particular, seems like a particularly nasty
component, although it certainly is effective at all getout.
So I was surprised to see on the AP wire today that the government no longer is requiring MEK to be on the so-called "toxic inventory list," which requries an assessment of how much is released into the environment.
In particular, this caught my eye:
"The trade group had argued MEK is not a toxic chemical under the
law, because it doesn't cause illness or injury when absorbed into
a person's body. MEK is a clear, colorless, highly flammable liquid
used as a solvent in surface coatings and adhesives.
EPA has found that inhaling it irritates the eyes, nose and
throat, and some animal studies have shown slight effects on
nerves, breathing, liver and kidneys, plus fetal malformations."
(further)
Williams wrote that EPA's decision to include MEK in its list
"is based on an impermissible construction of the statute."
"At a minimum, the chemical must cause harm via exposure," he
wrote. "Because EPA's own analysis demonstrates that MEK fails
this test, EPA's denial of the council's petition to delist was
improper."
So perhaps this stuff isn't as bad as we all thought?
component, although it certainly is effective at all getout.
So I was surprised to see on the AP wire today that the government no longer is requiring MEK to be on the so-called "toxic inventory list," which requries an assessment of how much is released into the environment.
In particular, this caught my eye:
"The trade group had argued MEK is not a toxic chemical under the
law, because it doesn't cause illness or injury when absorbed into
a person's body. MEK is a clear, colorless, highly flammable liquid
used as a solvent in surface coatings and adhesives.
EPA has found that inhaling it irritates the eyes, nose and
throat, and some animal studies have shown slight effects on
nerves, breathing, liver and kidneys, plus fetal malformations."
(further)
Williams wrote that EPA's decision to include MEK in its list
"is based on an impermissible construction of the statute."
"At a minimum, the chemical must cause harm via exposure," he
wrote. "Because EPA's own analysis demonstrates that MEK fails
this test, EPA's denial of the council's petition to delist was
improper."
So perhaps this stuff isn't as bad as we all thought?