Science desk
< January 24	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 25[edit]

hazard classification of hexafluorosilicic acid[edit]

I recently saw this image: file:NFPA 704 label of hydrofluosilicic acid.jpg which describes a chemical with a health hazard level of '1', no flammability hazard, a reactivity level of '1', and a special note that it is corrosive. The chemical is labelled 'hydrofluosilicic acid', which as far as I can tell from casual web searching is the same as hexafluorosilicic acid (modulo hydrated/anhydrous preparations); however, that article does not give a hazard description of 1-0-1-COR, but rather 3-0-0-COR. Either I falsely conflated two different chemicals, or one or the other source for the hazards is incorrect (I'd tend to believe the article's sources over the sign creators), or I suppose some other explanation I have not anticipated. Which is it? Arlo James Barnes 00:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each manufacturer arrives at their own numbers, so they don't have to match.

Abductive (reasoning) 02:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. I must admit that I only now read the NFPA 704 article (instead relying on my memory of a hazcom crash course I took, which is a mistake as my memory is patently unreliable), which does not discuss how manufacturers arrive at the numbers* or if there are consequences for them publishing wildly incorrect numbers. Perhaps it should? I note that talk:NFPA 704 is full of these sorts of discrepancies, and wonder if this poses a sourcing challenge for Wikipedia. Are there no canonical testing laboratories? (*Well, the descriptions of the hazard categories imply that they might expose them to rising heat or shock, and presumably reference case literature for the other quadrants?)

Arlo James Barnes 06:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed to GHS for the hazards info for the article. Note that the LD-50 for rats is 430 mg/kg. This is not actually very low, and for example sodium fluoride is about 10 times more toxic (Rats oral 32.0 mg/kg). Common salt is about 7 times less toxic (LD50 Rat oral 3000 mg/kg). So it may not he as hazardous as we think it should be. Though here:[1] it supports the health rating of 3. Note that the product sold will be a water solution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People with influenza drinking tea[edit]

If a person contracts influenza, is it considered safe or medically desirable for him or her to drink tea? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Ruslik_Zero 08:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for serious answers only. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] only prescribes water. Bazza (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The doctors will always say water, because it is the safest option. However I have never heard that tea is contraindicated in case of influenza. Ruslik_Zero 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far to say it's contraindicated but some sources recommend against it because of the caffeine [3], either over concerns of the Diuretic effect [4] [5] or the stimulant effect on body temperatures [6] That said, since any effect it relatively small [7] and drinking tea (or even coffee, energy and colas) will rehydrate [8] provided you don't limit your fluid intakes, I don't think this advice is particularly strong. (It may be stronger for the other beverages for other reasons.) Especially in a case where a person's fluid intakes are too low on water but they are will consume adequate amounts if given tea, I doubt anyone who isn't crazy is going to recommend against it. And to be clear, such concerns don't arise with decaffeinated teas, or herbal teas without significant caffeine. Note that as with everything, you should ensure you don't go overboard with your fluid intake anyway [9] [10] (neither of these were about influenza but the general idea that you can take things too far almost definitely still applies). Also as the first source says, if your dehydration is severe enough, it needs to be treated with the assistance of medical personnel, not at home. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If tea doesn't help, there is always gin.[11] 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:4FFF (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe? Yes. Is it medically desirable? Yes, it is important to maintain a high level of hydration. Is it medically desirable to drink nothing but tea? No, there is nothing medically beneficial about the flavouring we call tea. A little vitamin C each day will be beneficial. Dolphin (t) 03:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that legal or medical advice is prohibited at the Wikipedia reference desk. --Lambiam 03:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear about it, I was not and am not asking for legal or medical advice. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about vitamin C appares to be medical advice, though, and dubious at that. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should they be drinking human blood instead?Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]