Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Guest dreamer

1-4 B legality?

Recommended Posts

Guest dreamer

Hi this is my first post though ive often looked around these boards.Theyve been very helpful so far.

Can anyone help me on the legal status of this substance in australia

particularly re posession for cleaning purposes. It appears to be freely available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for any extraction -- the "CD cleaner" is just 1,4B and distilled water. The place CS mentioned no longer sells it, however. I think the guy who runs the site was charged with selling an unsafe dietary supplement, despite the fact the bottles were clearly marked "poison -- not to be taken." You might be able to find a similar place in Oz...if you do, enjoy it while it lasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dreamer

well i have my 1,4 now but it is set solid as a rock. How do i get it back into a liquid form so i can clean my CD's

its 99% pure. Cam you recommend a dilution factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is, yes, CS's 1,4,B rocks.

Get into it.

Great stuff, Denis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of my cds are in dire need of a clean, so i think i may have to purchase some of this stuff....

I've been reading ( a bit) about it but can't seem to find whether this affects your appearence eg dilated pupils; if so, is this very noticable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pupils won't dialate...but an inability to stand up is quite noticeable, yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i have a tendency to excitedly rush into things without really knowing what i'm doing,, a dangerous habit i know and one that i intend to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CS is a tool but his 1,4B rocks (and his mama's soooo sweet). Fast delivery, smart packaging, Get it into ya. biggrin.gif

hit him up at [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Veronica:

users should treat 1,4 Butanediol with caution due to it being suspected as have carcinogenic properties.

Could you back this up with research results or the like?

Cancer in which parts of the body?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word suspected means just that.

For example, it is prudent to regard all chemicals belonging to certain chemical classes (e.g. polycyclic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines, aromatic amines, azo dyes, arsenic compounds) as presenting a carcinogenic hazard.

The listes are out there on the net for you to look up(e.g.IARC AND NTP CARCINOGEN LIST)and theres a few more out there to.

But ha it's up to you to do your own research its your body.But me I wouldn,t touch the shit but hay thats me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NTP Summary Report on the Metabolism, Disposition and Toxicity of 1,4-Butanediol

Chemical Formula: C4H10O2

1,4-Butanediol is an industrial chemical used in the manufacture of other organic chemicals. It was nominated by the National Cancer Institute and selected for evaluation by the NTP because of high production volume, the potential for worker exposure, the lack of adequate toxicological characterization, and the lack of evaluation for carcinogenic potential.

As documented in the scientific literature, 1,4-butanediol is rapidly absorbed and metabolized to g-hydroxybutyric acid in animals and humans. A metabolism and disposition study conducted in F344/N rats by the NTP confirmed the rapid and extensive conversion of 1-[14C]-1,4-butanediol to 2. Because of this rapid and extensive conversion, the toxicological profile of 1,4-butanediol reflects that of g-hydroxybutyric acid. g-Hydroxybutyric acid is a naturally occurring chemical found in the brain and peripheral tissues which is converted to succinate and processed through the tricarboxylic acid cycle. Although the function of g-hydroxybutyric acid in peripheral tissues is unknown, in the brain and neuronal tissue it is thought to function as a neuromodulator. g-Hydroxybutyric acid readily crosses the blood-brain barrier, and oral, intraperitoneal, or intravenous administration elicits characteristic neuropharmacologic responses. These same responses are observed after administration of 1,4-butanediol.

The lactone of g-hydroxybutyric acid, g-butyrolactone, is also rapidly converted to g-hydroxybutyric acid by enzymes in the blood and liver of animals and humans. g-Butyrolactone was previously evaluated by the NTP in 14-day and 13-week toxicology studies and 2-year toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice. No organ-specific toxicity occurred in the toxicology studies. In the carcinogenesis studies, an equivocal response occurred in male mice, based on a marginal increase in the incidence of pheochromocytomas of the renal medulla. Because of the rapid and extensive conversion of g-butyrolactone to g-hydroxybutyric acid, the evaluation of g-butyrolactone was in fact an evaluation of g-hydroxybutyric acid.

This summary report presents a review of the current literature which documents that both 1,4-butanediol and g-butyrolactone are rapidly metabolized to g-hydroxybutyric acid, and the pharmacologic and toxicologic responses to these chemicals are due to their metabolic conversion to g-hydroxybutyric acid. Because the toxicity and carcinogenicity of g-hydroxybutyric acid was fully evaluated in the NTP studies of g-butyrolactone, and a lack of organ-specific toxicity or carcinogenic potential was demonstrated, it is concluded that there is a high likelihood that 1,4-butanediol would be negative in a similar set of studies. For these reasons, it is the opinion of the NTP that 1,4-butanediol should be considered not carcinogenic in animals and no further evaluation of 1,4-butanediol is needed at this time.

Synonyms: Butanediol, butane-1,4-diol, 1,4-butylene glycol, 1,4-dihydroxybutane, 1,4-tetramethylene glycol, butylene glycol, tetramethylene 1,4-diol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OSHA Regulated Carcinogens (29 CFR 1910.1000, Subpart Z)

B.I.A.R.C. Identified Carcinogensa

Group 1 "Agents that are Carcinogenic to Humans"

aflatoxins production

4-aminobiphenyl

analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin

arsenic and arsenic compounds

asbestos

auramine, manufacture of

azathioprine

benzene

benzidine

betel quid with tobacco

N,N-bis(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine (Chlornaphazine)

bis(chloromethyl) ehter and chloromethyl ether (technical-grade)

boot and shoe manufacture and repair

1,4-butanediol

dimethanesulphonate (Myleran)

chlorambucil

1-(2-chloroethyl)-3(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosour ea (methyl-CCNU)

chromium compounds, hexavalent

coal gasification

coal-tar pitches

coal-tars

coke production

cyclophosphamide

ciethylstilboestrol

drionite

furniture and cabinet making

haematite mining, underground, with exposure to radon

iron and steel founding

isopropyl alcohol manufacture, strong-acid process

magenta, manufacture of

melphalan

8-methoxypsoralen (methoxsalen) plus ultraviolet radiation

mineral oils, untreated and mildly-treated

MOPP (combined therapy with nitrogen mustard, vincristine, procarbazine and

prednisone) and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents.

mustard gas (sulphur mustard)

2-naphthylamine

nickel and nickel compounds

oestrogen replacement therapy

oestrogens, nonsteroidal

oestrogens, steroidal

oral contraceptives, combined

oral contraceptives, sequential

the rubber industry

shale-oils

soots

talc containing asbestiform fibers

tobacco products, smokeless

tobacco smoke

treosulphan

vinyl chloride

The following list compiled by the NTP are such materials known to be carcinogenic:

Aflatoxins (CAS No. 1402-68-2)

Aminobiphenyl (CAS No. 92-67-1)

Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin

Arsenic and certain arsenic compounds

Asbestos (CAS No. 1332-21-4)

Azathioprine (CAS No. 446-86-6)

Benzene(CAS No. 71-43-2)

Benzidine (CAS No. 92-87-5)

Bis(Chloromethyl)ether and tech-grade chloromethyl methyl ether (CAS Nos. 542-88-1 and 107-30-2)

1,4-butanediol dimethyl-sulfonate (MYLERAN) (CAS No. 55-98-1)

Chlorambucil(CAS No. 305-03-3)

(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (MeCCNU) (CAS No. 13909-09-6)

Chromium and certain chromium compounds

Conjugated estrogens

Cyclophosphamide (CAS No. 50-18-0)

Diethylstilbestrol(CAS No. 56-53-1)

Erionite (CAS No. 66733-21-9)

Melphalan (CAS No. 148-82-3)

Methoxsalen with ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)

Mustard gas (CAS No. 505-60-2)

2-Naphthalamine (CAS No. 91-59-8)

Radon(CAS No. 10043-92-2)

Thorium dioxide (CAS No. 1314-20-1)

Vinyl chloride (CAS No. 75-01-4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here we go.

That ,ore than answers my question.

The old case of conservative Science against progressive science or call it what you want.

I've trained myself not to believe conservative science too much, as they normally just blabberout what law makers have indoctrinated into them.

Marihuana is a good example.

The conservative scientists said it's csrcinogenic, today it's used in the fight against cancer.

Or LSD supposedly "fries" your brain, as scientists say. No permanent braindamage through LSD has been proven.

LSD was also said to damage Chromosomes.

No proof has been found.

And at the same token most of these scientists probably go home and drink alcohol.

Alcohol has proven to myself to be the worst depressant there is.

Prolonged alcohol consumption causes negative thinking, depression, temporary damage in the associative part of the brain,and in short is one of the major reasons of society being the way it is today: Cold, uncaring, egotistic and unable to love. Yeah you all can laugh your heads off now, but I can see that all this is true. I would declare alcohol including beer to be a lot worse than 1,4,B, and it will also cause cancer to various organs of the body after extended years of use.

To be straightforward, I also believe that using 1,4,B over many years could also cause cancer since it is a synthetic.

But I also want to raise the question, if 1,4,B could be called an entheogenic, as I have had truely enlightening experiences while taking it, for example looking at plants and being drawn in by their spirit or meditating about life and kind of feeling close to god, which is a very rare thing for me these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by gomaos:

I've trained myself not to believe conservative science too much, as they normally just blabberout what law makers have indoctrinated into them.

Do you apply less critical thought to other systems of belief then? The fact tht you have corralled one possible way of emplaining the universe and segragated it as inherently inferior when compared to other belief systems sounds more like prejudice than objectivity wink.gif

The conservative scientists said it's csrcinogenic, today it's used in the fight against cancer.

Most conservative scientists don't study marijuana. They may have prejudices about pot which hve nothing to do with their scientific work but that's a very different thing.

The message that science ays marijuana is bad comes via the press and the govt, both of which have a wide variety of scientific publications available to them of varying degrees of merit. Some of those publications will inevitably disagree with eaach other, but the tabloid press is hardly going to print a page 3 article which says that the major damage from marijuaa use is to Tim Tams are they?

[bNo proof has been found.[/b]

Proof for anything rarely is. The public suffers from the delusion that a scientific statement is in fact a truth. It is not. A scientific statement represents the result of an empirical, (theoretically ) careful and repeatable set of parameters. These may be disproven at any time.

Unfortunately, like most closed systems including many religions, the only acceptable refutation of a scientific statement is acheived via science. However, unlike many other closed systems, science is ( theoretically )self correcting. You rarely get religions saying Hey Guys We Got It Wrong.

I'm tired of ppl bagging science. I used to have the uncritical belief that science is inherently wrong, but that was prolly cos I hung out in an area full of useless boring hippies ( my prejudice ) who would rather parrot each other than indulge in thorough speculative thought of any kind.

Science is merely one way of explaining the world. It is only as good as the ppl who contribute to it, whether in a functional or social sense. It is capable of recognising its own shortcomings far more readily than most other belief systems and it accepts that there are thing whih have not been sufficiently explained as yet. And without science we would have no Gary Larson cartoons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi darklight, thanks for answering.

First of all I want to say that I agree with most of what you say.

Originally posted by Darklight:

Do you apply less critical thought to other systems of belief then?

I must say, because the public is used to mindlessly accept what scientists tell them, as long as those scientists are in line with what the governsment wants, I tend to "believe" more what "alternative" scientists say. For example, A. Shulgin is still being portrayed by the press as "the evil drugmaker", while in reality he has provided a large number of people with unknown pleasures. No doubt there would be any number of "conservative"scientists who oppose him and his work.

Sure, some people have died as a result of taking his drugs, but, had they not known HIS drugs, they may very well have taken other ones and died overdosing on them. Every life lost is precious, but how many people die all the time from alcohol-related "accidents"?

The fact tht you have corralled one possible way of emplaining the universe and segragated it as inherently inferior when compared to other belief systems sounds more like prejudice than objectivity wink.gif

Sounds true, but have I really segregated it as inherently inferior? I would like to think not. But admittedly I am very suspicious of everything that is published by or in line with the authorities.

unlike many other closed systems, science is ( theoretically )self correcting.

True. Good.

I'm tired of ppl bagging science.

I'm not bagging science.

I'm trying to bag "established science", those people who are accepted as "authorities" on their specific realms of science but really have closed minds against facts which may proove them wrong.

, but that was prolly cos I hung out in an area full of useless boring hippies ( my prejudice ) who would rather parrot each other than indulge in thorough speculative thought of any kind.

I know what you mean.

But I haven't been living with people like that for a long time since I've been in the CITY for the last 5 years, and sometimes I'd rather live with some "boring hippies" instead. But generally, you are right.

And without science we would have no Gary Larson cartoons.[/b]

I'm gonna look up that name on the net since I've never come across it.

I really thing science appropriately used is great, and without it we'd still be hanging around in caves and killing each other for, say, territorial reasons, or sexual partners, or for food.

Of course we wouldn't do that today.

And hey, without science we had no internet and would be doomed to eternal lack of knowlegde and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I thought I would get a good heathy reaction.

I didnt now much about 1,4 Butanediol before reading her that people where ingesting this cd cleaner,Whitch rang alarm bells to me.

So I thought I would look it up a see what it was all about And yes I admit(I jumped the gun).Every thing I found about it lead to carcinogenic,so with out furtherudo and investigation thought I would post it to see what sort of reaction I would get,and (to my so called finding)and yes Chemical shamen you got me to look a little further and yes now I am starting to sway.I dont now weather I would take 1,4 Butanediol or not, but I know now that it is safe and I dont think it is carcinogenic.

This is why I think this forum is so good(to enlighten the unenlightened).

Sorry Chemical Shamen didnt mean to get you worked up like that but you now what us chicks are like smile.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Chemical Shamen didnt mean to get you worked up like that but you now what us chicks are like

Are you kidding? You mean CS has the manual?

*sigh* Women. I am one and I don't understand us either wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Darklight (edited 11 September 2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×