IS IT SAFE AND OKAY TO PAINT YOUR TORTOISE???

[sibi]

No it doesn't IF you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not acceptable to paint your tort with nail polish regardless of whether one believes the polish to be "safe" BECAUSE I believe there is no nail polish that doesn't have at least one of the many toxic ingredients. And because it isn't safe, it's not acceptable, in my opinion. That doesn't mean they CAN'T do whatever they want to their torts. Do you see now?

 

[Baoh]

I understand perfectly the point of OSHA. I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON OSHA. YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THE TESTS THEY'VE CONDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS. YOU ARE NOT A CHEMIST.
If any study, report, opinion, law, findings or analysis don't agree with what YOU THINK YOU KNOW about the toxicities in paint, lacquers, polish, or acetone, you ridicule, poke fun at, undermine, intimidate, or otherwise dismiss any claims as irrational, amusing, fascinating, or sad (your words, not mine). It makes me wonder if you have stocks in nail polish, or are you just s*****! Look, most members here have common sense. If common sense have many breeders, experts in their respective fields of study, including veterinary medicine say they would NOT paint their animals carapace and/or growth lines, wouldn't you think that there just might be a good reason for it? Common sense also dictates that anyone (YOU) who would use acetone on their torts is not credible and is no expert in the field. You keep doing what you want to do, but we have no reason to believe you or trust YOUR opinion!

You have a fundamental misunderstanding right there.

I am a chemist. Also, a biologist. Also, a biotherapeutics development scientist. By on-the-job training and/or higher education, all. I started in analytical chemistry in 2005. I started in regulatory toxicology in 2007. I am paid for this knowledge and know-how and I have had the good and bad opportunities to wear many hats.

I use the information generated to formulate a conclusion. I leave generation of a hard conclusion before being informed to others or I restrict myself to the realm of what a hypothesis is.

Are you a chemist?

Common sense was derived from "commoner's sense" like common knowledge from "commoner's knowledge". These are said to have been coined when most people could neither read nor write. It is not the most flattering shawl to put around one's shoulders for comfort.

It was a matter of knowledge exposure and then understanding. One typically requires the former coke to forge the latter in the fires of one's intellect.

Your understanding of chemistry thus far is exactly what you claim it is, but not what you believe that to mean.

 

[sibi]

Okay, you say you are a chemist. Well, then you have either been exposed to some of those toxic fumes to such a degree that you cannot tell the difference when one makes a blanket statement such as "common sense," and how it's used today, and how it was originally used. Get off your high horse and provide FACTS that nail polish doesn't contain toxic, thus harmful ingredients as you claim, Mr Chemist.

I understand perfectly the point of OSHA. I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON OSHA. YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THE TESTS THEY'VE CONDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS. YOU ARE NOT A CHEMIST.
If any study, report, opinion, law, findings or analysis don't agree with what YOU THINK YOU KNOW about the toxicities in paint, lacquers, polish, or acetone, you ridicule, poke fun at, undermine, intimidate, or otherwise dismiss any claims as irrational, amusing, fascinating, or sad (your words, not mine). It makes me wonder if you have stocks in nail polish, or are you just s*****! Look, most members here have common sense. If common sense have many breeders, experts in their respective fields of study, including veterinary medicine say they would NOT paint their animals carapace and/or growth lines, wouldn't you think that there just might be a good reason for it? Common sense also dictates that anyone (YOU) who would use acetone on their torts is not credible and is no expert in the field. You keep doing what you want to do, but we have no reason to believe you or trust YOUR opinion!

You have a fundamental misunderstanding right there.

I am a chemist. Also, a biologist. Also, a biotherapeutics development scientist. By on-the-job training and/or higher education, all. I started in analytical chemistry in 2005. I started in regulatory toxicology in 2007. I am paid for this knowledge and know-how and I have had the good and bad opportunities to wear many hats.

I use the information generated to formulate a conclusion. I leave generation of a hard conclusion before being informed to others or I restrict myself to the realm of what a hypothesis is.

Are you a chemist?

Common sense was derived from "commoner's sense" like common knowledge from "commoner's knowledge". These are said to have been coined when most people could neither read nor write. It is not the most flattering shawl to put around one's shoulders for comfort.

It was a matter of knowledge exposure and then understanding. One typically requires the former coke to forge the latter in the fires of one's intellect.

Your understanding of chemistry thus far is exactly what you claim it is, but not what you believe that to mean.

 

[Baoh]

Okay, you say you are a chemist. Well, then you have either been exposed to some of those toxic fumes to such a degree that you cannot tell the difference when one makes a blanket statement such as "common sense," and how it's used today, and how it was originally used. Get off your high horse and provide FACTS that nail polish doesn't contain toxic, thus harmful ingredients as you claim, Mr Chemist.

I understand perfectly the point of OSHA. I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON OSHA. YOU ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THE TESTS THEY'VE CONDUCTED TO ARRIVE AT THEIR CONCLUSIONS. YOU ARE NOT A CHEMIST.
If any study, report, opinion, law, findings or analysis don't agree with what YOU THINK YOU KNOW about the toxicities in paint, lacquers, polish, or acetone, you ridicule, poke fun at, undermine, intimidate, or otherwise dismiss any claims as irrational, amusing, fascinating, or sad (your words, not mine). It makes me wonder if you have stocks in nail polish, or are you just s*****! Look, most members here have common sense. If common sense have many breeders, experts in their respective fields of study, including veterinary medicine say they would NOT paint their animals carapace and/or growth lines, wouldn't you think that there just might be a good reason for it? Common sense also dictates that anyone (YOU) who would use acetone on their torts is not credible and is no expert in the field. You keep doing what you want to do, but we have no reason to believe you or trust YOUR opinion!

You have a fundamental misunderstanding right there.

I am a chemist. Also, a biologist. Also, a biotherapeutics development scientist. By on-the-job training and/or higher education, all. I started in analytical chemistry in 2005. I started in regulatory toxicology in 2007. I am paid for this knowledge and know-how and I have had the good and bad opportunities to wear many hats.

I use the information generated to formulate a conclusion. I leave generation of a hard conclusion before being informed to others or I restrict myself to the realm of what a hypothesis is.

Are you a chemist?

Common sense was derived from "commoner's sense" like common knowledge from "commoner's knowledge". These are said to have been coined when most people could neither read nor write. It is not the most flattering shawl to put around one's shoulders for comfort.

It was a matter of knowledge exposure and then understanding. One typically requires the former coke to forge the latter in the fires of one's intellect.

Your understanding of chemistry thus far is exactly what you claim it is, but not what you believe that to mean.

Your understanding of logic is incomplete.

One does not prove a negative. One only establishes a reasonable degree of safety and handling capability for its use case. As I have already explained, toxicity is determined by dose.

Your ad hominem went for sophistry with the word "either", but then you did not follow up with a second option to try to assert I was stuck between that and the first (neither of which would have been likely to be correct). Imagine my disappointment at the fragmentation of the attempt at a personal attack.

Are you a chemist? Do you understand chemistry?

 

[jaizei]

I think we're straying off topic. Any further posts concerning the other person instead of focusing on the topic will be deleted.

---

Closed by request