Thanks for your reply. I seem to have upset you. I'm just trying to get clarification on your self-generated data. No reason to get testy and insulting.
"Your ability to draw conclusions without reading and comprehending the materials and posts presented gives me an insight into your thinking methodology..."
Umm, I don't know what that means exactly. What is my "thinking methodology? I'd like to know.
"I will not address your inaccurate and uninformed comments and accusations...."
Why not? Please, I would appreciate specific comments about specific "uniformed comments and accusations" so I can see if I made any mistakes and if I find I did, I'll fix them.
"You should really read the entire article, and take a few moments to understand what it said. You can then go back and reread my post and once again take a moment to understand what I said. You may then be in a position to offer some constructive comments in this debate."
Oh dear, you're assigning me homework again, Tom, and without responding to my actual questions. Also, I don't think you're the "standards" department in this debate and I think I'm allowed to comment, thinking or not, especially given some of the posts I've seen. Call me crazy, but I don't think you're in any position to determine when I'm in a "position to offer... constructive comments...." Just respond to my questions and quite trying to insult me and distract us all from the topic at hand (if that's what you're doing).
"You don't seem to like the numbers I came up with, so perhaps you would like to point me to other studies that reveal different amounts of chlorite used to find the lethal dose for 50% of the rats exposed. There are different breeds of rats, so that might explain the range reported in this report. If you find my numbers are off, I would be happy to adjust them."
I guess you missed most of my post, Tom, so let me repeat very quickly.
1. There are no other rat studies that I know of, and that were known by the gov't agency who wrote this report in 2004, that studied the lethality of ClO2 or chlorite.
2. Studies which are are as lethal as the one you cited, 50% rat lethality, is not considered a valid study on which to either extrapolate death rates in other species or extrapolate consumtion rates for anything but those particular rats.
3. There is no point recalculating your "numbers" because they are based on one study contained within a gov't report on minimum levels of toxicity of ClO2 and Chlorite, which reports that it is not a valid study on which to determine safe or lethal levels of above stated molecules. However, feel free to adjust your own numbers.
"The dose calculations are pretty straightforward.
If you take 1 mg of chlorite and feed it to a rat that weighs 1 kg, and do this once a day, you have a dose of 1 mg/kg body weight-day. If you take this 1 mg of chlorite and add it to 1 liter of water, you end up with 1 mg/l or 1 PPM."
Thank you for being specific and answering this question, I really appreciate it. I guess I'm a little slower than I thought, though. I still don't understand the actual conversion. You've told me that 1mg/kg body weight (yikes that's a BIG RAT) means that the 1mg of chlorite is put in 1 liter of water and that creates 1 ppm.
So, you're saying 1 mg/l = 1ppm. The problem is, you didn't tell me how you got those numbers. That's why I asked for the math. Somewhere, since you are using this conversion, you must have found some research which shows that 1 ppm is the equivilent of 1mg/l, and that 1mg should be diluted with 1 liter of H2O. That's what's missing.
Thanks in advance for passing some research on to me which demonstrates that conversation. It would make it much easier to follow your flights of calculations.