35 replies to this topic

[WebDevil]

Имам течност 24мг,но на моменти ми се струва доста тежка и искам да я разредя на 18мг,та някой знае ли дали този глицерин става,или да си взема от аптеката?
 gl.jpg   158.38KB   218 downloads

[WebDevil]

Хайде колеги,никой ли не знае?На етикета не пише дали е от растителен произход,това ме притеснява!Този от аптеките дали е VG?

[Массаракш]

Аз като бъзлива личност не бих
Като характеристики май съответства на usp grade glycerine (google ), но това нещо и в тази бутилка, кой знае дали си има изписаните качества. Глицеринът от аптеката струва стотинки или левче - аз и него не искам да ползвам
Предложение: пазиш я тази течност за "черни дни", когато ти се иска нещо силничко.

[Asia]

WebDevil,купете си от аптеката 85% глицерол.Това е VG,т.е. растителен глицерин.Той се използва като основа за никотиновите разтвори.Този на Вашата снимка е промишлен,по концентриран и не е химически чист!

[WebDevil]

Благодаря за отговорите,този глицерин явно ще го оставя за зимата,да си мажа уплътненията на колата

[vasko3dvideo]

Някой пробвал ли е микс с VG+PG400. Има ли някаква разлика между PG400 и PG? И някой пробвал ли е само PG400 да пуши?

[plambi]

Някой пробвал ли е микс с VG+PG400. Има ли някаква разлика между PG400 и PG? И някой пробвал ли е само PG400 да пуши?

Първо - не е PG400, а е PEG400 - polyethylene glycol 400 (400 се явява молекулярната маса), докато PG е пропилен гликол. В случая, PEG400 не е отровен, като обикновения полиетилен гликол (който е с много по-голяма молекулярна маса).

Твърди се, че именно заради ниската си молекулярна маса, PEG400 е по-добър разтворител за ароматите, с по-голям вискозитет и поради тази причина е опит за нова мода в разтворите за изпаряване. Друг фактор е, че е и по-евтин от пропилен гликола (PG).

Обобщение - PEG 400 e C_2nH_4n+2O_n+1, n = 8.2 to 9.0, даващо молекулярна маса от 380 до 420 g/mol, докато PG е C₃H₈O_2, с молекулярна маса от 76.09 g/mol. Следователно, разтворите с PEG400 са почти толкова гъсти като тези с VG, без да го съдържат и по този начин не дразнят хората с алергии към VG.

[gogo63]

На въпроса..ползвах преди известно време 36 мг течност, разредена с PEG400. Колегите от Варна бяха така добри да ми дадат да пробвам. Аз лично не видях никаква разлика...което ще рече, че става за разреждане и аз се обаждам като пробвал го!

[geniusloci]

по този начин не дразнят хората с алергии към VG

Това не е особено често явление, да не кажа, че надали някога ще срещнем такъв човек. По-скоро предимството е, че е по-неутрален на вкус от глицерола (който сладни), но е със същата гъстота (за сметка на това не се смесва добре с PG, както ми обясни някой, не, че съм пробвал).

[vakill]

Как мислите това дали ни засяга?

Voices Fading in the Fog

Performers say chemicals in synthetic mists on stage are health risk

Sabin Russell / SF Chronicle 2jan01

It is instant stagecraft, in a can.

For more than two decades, modern theatrical fog machines have bathed actors, singers and dancers in ephemeral mists that catch the light and capture the imagination.

But the same special effects that dazzle and delight audiences -- and garnered an Oscar for technical achievement in 1984 -- may be damaging the health of those who must act and sing and dance engulfed in an unnatural cloud.

What most audience members don't know is that these magical smoke effects typically are not made of dry ice or droplets of water. The most widely used theatrical foggers spray a warm chemical mist containing either mineral oil or a mixture of glycol alcohols like those in antifreeze.

Chemical manufacturers have disavowed the use of glycols in fog machines for stage effects, citing the potential for throat irritation and respiratory problems. Industrial customers are cautioned to avoid inhaling vapor or mist, or to use a respirator if they do so.

No such warnings are issued for synthetic fog in theatrical productions: Fog machines, of course, are designed to create a mist. Although singers and actors may be affected the most, audiences and patrons of nightclubs where fog machines are widely used may also be exposed and could be vulnerable if they have respiratory illnesses.

"The stuff is nasty," said Harry Herman, of Consultech Engineering, a firm based in Washington, D.C., that produced a critique of theatrical fog for Actors' Equity Association in 1995. Herman concluded that glycol fogs irritated and dried out the throat and "should not be used in theatrical productions."

Nowhere is the issue more sensi1tive than among opera singers, whose very livelihoods depend on the proper care of their deep lung capacity and finely tuned voice pipes.

"I have adored my job. It's the best job anyone could want," said Pamela Dale, who for 15 years has been a chorister at the San Francisco Opera. "But I feel like it is all over because of this fog. I can't breathe properly any more."

Dale had been exposed to theatrical fog for years without any ill effect until a dress rehearsal for the opera Norma in November 1998. Breathing a combination of glycol fogs and fumes from propane torches, she became physically ill.

Since then, Dale contends, her throat and lungs have become hypersensitized to exposure to glycol or mineral oil fogs. Her doctor eventually diagnosed her condition as reactive airway disease.

The opera now excuses her from any performances where theatrical fog is used -- at least half the schedule. But Dale fears that her condition has permanently limited her lung capacity and has affected her ability to hit the high, bright notes that are crucial for an opera soprano.

"We depend upon our lungs to do our work," she said. "This stuff will make you cough. How can you sing opera if you cough?"

Yet fog-machine manufacturers staunchly defend their products, which are found not only on stage but in Halloween funhouses, dance clubs and at rock concerts.

"Millions of people have been exposed to this, over 20 years, without incident. I think that speaks for itself," said Eric Tishman, fog product manager for Rosco Laboratories Inc., of Stamford, Conn., the world's largest maker of glycol fog machines.

Hollywood also seems to share the assumption that theatrical fog is benign. In 1984, Rosco Laboratories and German inventor Gunther Schaidt won an Academy Award for "developing a nontoxic fluid that creates simulated fog and smoke."

The case against theatrical fog, Tishman said, is based on "bad science."

Still, from Broadway to San Francisco, stage fog has spawned lawsuits, workers' compensation claims and bitterness among unionized stage professionals. And even fog defenders recognize that a percentage of performers who already have asthma may be more sensitive to the irritants in some theatrical fogs.

Dale is one of three opera chorus members who have pending workers' compensation claims against the Opera Association for injuries allegedly caused by theatrical fog. Four other cases involving throat irritation have been filed, and settled, since 1990.

Acting on a complaint last year, the California Department of Health Services conducted a survey of opera employees and reported unusually high levels of respiratory problems. Among the findings:

-- 12 employees (17 percent of those surveyed) lost a day or more of work from allergic symptoms.

-- 15 employees (24 percent) reported that symptoms were triggered by theatrical smoke or fog.

-- 27 employees (39 percent) said "work-related exposures were the cause of their health problems."

"I'm not an opera expert, but it doesn't add up as a reasonable artistic endeavor to potentially disable the people who are doing the art," said Dr. James Cone, chief of the state health department's Occupational Health Branch and author of the study.

He recommended that the opera stop using glycol fogs and find a less irritating substitute for mineral oil mists.

Based on Cone's survey, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the San Francisco Opera Association for a "serious" violation of workplace safety and proposed a $2,340 fine. The citation concludes that opera employees suffered "adverse physical symptoms as a result of theatrical smoke and fog" including "coughing, sore throat, chest tightness and shortness of breath."

Opera technical director Patrick Markle said Cone's survey was flawed; nevertheless, the use of glycol foggers has been suspended this year, pending results of further testing. Mineral hazers -- which use less than a spoonful of oil in a performance -- are still in use, and opera officials are convinced they are safe. "We use it very judiciously," Markle said.

In a subsequent appeal of the citation, it was downgraded to a "general violation," and the proposed fine was reduced to $750. The Opera agreed to take numerous steps to reduce exposure to chemical fogs and to permit employees to skip performances that use it, without financial penalty.

The agency conceded that there was "insufficient evidence to prove serious physical harm." To meet that "serious" standard, the injuries to employees would need to have been severe enough to require an overnight hospital stay, according to Cora Gherga, district manager of the Cal-OSHA office.

Dale has since been peppering regulatory agencies with complaints about safety conditions at the Opera and contends that administrators still are not meeting their responsibilities. In the past year, Cal-OSHA has assessed nine separate penalties against the San Francisco Opera Association. Violations include failure to train employees in the safe use of fogs; failure to install guard rails in rehearsal spaces; failure to provide records of fog use and a full listing of occupational injuries and illnesses; and failure to correct training deficiencies after earlier warnings.

Russ Walton, director of human resources at the Opera, insisted that the organization took the fog issue extremely seriously and that staffers who had health problems with fog should not be afraid to say so. "Our singers are our lifeblood," he said. "Anything that actually, or possibly, is of concern to them is of concern to us."

Like many theater producers, Opera administrators remain skeptical that stage fog poses a health threat to any but a few highly sensitized individuals.

Several studies, they point out, have concluded that stage fog is not a significant health risk.

In 1994, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published a study of 224 actors in Broadway productions that ruled out theatrical fog as a cause of asthma. Dryness and throat irritation in "some individuals" was the limit of the problem, the study concluded.

A major new study of theatrical fog conducted by New York's Mount Sinai Medical Center -- commissioned by Actors' Equity and theater producers -- is widely expected to conclude that it can be used safely. It is also expected to propose exposure standards for glycol fogs sought by the fog machine makers.

Both actors and producers have agreed that any safety recommendations in the forthcoming report will be written into the next four-year contract, which is expected to be signed this spring.

Dvora Djoraev, who played one of the Valkyries in the San Francisco Opera's acclaimed Ring cycle, said it was frustrating to be among those who were affected by fog. She has filed a workers' compensation claim, charging that exposure to fog triggered a deep cough, sinus pain, headache and dizziness.

"I think some people think it's all in our minds," she said. "Others who are affected by it, but not as much, are very worried it will get worse in the future."

Monona Rossol, safety director for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees in New York, has been battling theater producers over fog for 20 years. "This is a very touchy subject, well known in the business but not well understood by the general public," she said.

Rossol takes issue with industry studies that have downplayed the health effects of chemical fogs. "A little dry throat, night after night, is the end of a career for an opera singer," she said. "And what about the audience? They have no business spraying them with anything. You've got children with asthma, and people in wheelchairs on life support."

According to the San Francisco Opera's Walton, a notice posted in the lobby at the Memorial Opera House tells patrons whether fog effects, loud noises or strobe lights -- which pose some risk of triggering epilepsy -- will be used in a given production.

Rosco Laboratories' Tishman hopes that the latest Broadway study of fog safety, and new standards being developed by the trade group Entertainment Services and Technology Association, will put the long-running controversy to rest.

And the theater industry, facing competition from the pyrotechnics and computer animation of movies, shows no sign of backing away from the audience- pleasing spectacle of fog.

For Pamela Dale, such prospects are just a continuation of a nightmare. She does not want a special effect to destroy the artistry of other performers. "I'm 52 years old," she said. "That's too young, in opera, to be over-the-hill.. . . I can't believe this is happening."

HOW FOG IS MADE

Glycol foggers: A mixture of glycol alcohols is vaporized by heating them to about 650 degrees Fahrenheit. As the hot vapor rushes into cooler air, the alcohols condense into a warm mist of highly reflective, microscopic droplets. Because it is warm, glycol fog lingers in the air for a long "hang time."

Dry ice: An old mainstay of the stage, dry ice is carbon dioxide gas frozen at minus-112 degrees F. When a stream of water droplets or steam passes over the dry ice, it produces a cloud of water droplets that, because they are cold, tend to cling closely to the stage floor and disperse quickly.

Mineral oil: Food-grade mineral oil is dispersed in an extremely fine mist using high pressure air or carbon dioxide that forces particles through microscopic holes. The particles create a haze that accentuates and magnifies the beams of spotlights. They may linger on stage for several hours.

Liquid nitrogen: A spray of extremely cold liquid nitrogen (minus-325 degrees F.) condenses moisture already present in the air, creating a cold fog of water droplets..Source: Entertainment Services & Technology AssociationChronicle Graphic

Източник : http://www.mindfully...ge-Fog-Risk.htm

Edited by vakill, На 9.08.11 г. в 16:57.

[geniusloci]

Не е същото - аз имам машина за дим, ползва се с около 10% глицерин (останалото дестилирана водичка) - може и повече, зависи колко гъст дим искаш. На мирис (щото има мирис, едно остро такова) и усещане при вдишване (тотална сухота) няма нищо общо с изпарен от цигарата глицерин - при това в цигарата си го слагам 85%, както идва от аптеката

Подозирам, че става въпрос за изпаряване при значително по-висока температура, но дали е така - хич и не съм търсил (някак нямам мания по машините за дим ) - причината да го мисля е, че съм виждал как излиза пара от атомайзер, който грее до жълто (като крушка) - израза е "суха", направо ме задави.

[venci2205]

Този 85% глицерол, може ли да се ползва, като единствена течност или е само за разреждане.

[geniusloci]

Принципно - може, но няма да има никакъв аромат (само леко сладни). Не на последно място - какъв е този? Онзи из аптеките не е с растителен произход, доколкото ми е известно, но... така де, предполагам, че съм виждал само един от предлаганите.

[nikolce]

Принципно - може, но няма да има никакъв аромат (само леко сладни). Не на последно място - какъв е този? Онзи из аптеките не е с растителен произход, доколкото ми е известно, но... така де, предполагам, че съм виждал само един от предлаганите.

Аз пък реших да се обадя директно на основният производител на глицерин, който се намира по аптеките ->Химакс Фарма<- . Направих се на ударен, че ми трябва за производство на лекарство, като помощно вещество, не им казах какъв търся!
Отговориха ми: "Глицерина който произвеждаме е от растителен произход, и е произведен по европейска фармакопея. Няма проблем да се ползва като помощно вещество за лекарствени продукти, както и за козметични цели".

Според мен става,...

[www.PV-BG.com]

Главата не ми го побира защо някой би ми докладвал това мнение

[Mitazi]

А дали наистина го е докладвал?

Вчера и онзи ден имаше някакъв проблем с отбелязване на новите мнения - стари мнения бяха маркирани като нови, а когато кликнеш да отидеш на новото мнение платформата те хвърляше на някое старо в същата тема. Може да е от това или пък някой докато се е опитвал да "изчисти" маркираните като нови мнения е кликнал по погрешка