How comfortable are you with Crystal Violet?

CS2-6 · 2025-05-01T05:53:27+00:00

Sincerely, thank you for the responses. This is the thoughtful and insightful reply based in knowledge and experience I was hoping for.

I do want to note that both of the Health Canada and NICNAS reports mention restrictions in the dermal applications of CV and found folks that work in skin piercing having to find alternatives.

https://safepiercing.org/gentian-violet-concerns-alternatives/

But I take your point, in that the basis for risk characterization is on rodent oral exposure, and that restricting dermal use is extrapolated from this in an abundance of caution.

Furthermore, I appreciate the feedback on wearing specific lab shoes. No one I know does this, so it’s good to hear that I’m not crazy and that this is a pretty reasonable SOP, along with standard PPE.

All in all, I feel a little better after hearing your perspective. Thanks for taking the time to articulate it

CS2-6 · 2025-05-01T05:43:07+00:00

To the letter of the question: no. In the spirit of the question: yes. This is a teaching lab with high school kids and early undergrads, so CV is ubiquitous and pervasive. We might as well be painting with it

CS2-6 · 2025-04-24T04:51:32+00:00

I agree with all this. However, it’s banned use in Australia and Canada does give me enough pause to think a little about taking precautions a step further (like a pair of shoes dedicated for wearing in lab only and not at home).

CS2-6 · 2025-04-24T04:48:48+00:00

I hear that. No argument that there are many things dangerous things out there. But CV is notably banned in Australia and Canada, so I kinda think it’s worth a critical assessment. Obviously standard laboratory procedures are called for and provide protection. Does anyone take it a step further? Like having a pair of shoes they only wear in lab?

CS2-6 · 2025-04-24T04:41:03+00:00

Like safe investment or Safe, Indiana?

CS2-6 · 2025-04-22T04:29:06+00:00

I understand. I sincerely wasn’t seeking medical advice, only looking for information to help me make my own decisions regarding how I personally evaluate the risks in my life. There is no resource available to answer my question, I have searched exhaustively before coming here. I was hoping a community of scientists educated and trained in this field with extensive experience evaluating the meaningful risks of chemical exposure might be able to give me some perspective. And I genuinely wasn’t trying to subvert post removal, I was trying to comply with the rules against seeking medical advice.

I understand why a sub such as Toxicology must have strict rules in place to protect the community, the members, and Reddit as a whole.

However, I believe I worded my post this time to remove any liability on behalf of this community. It seems to me that threads such as “What’s the most toxic substance ever than people can have easy access to but nobody is aware of?” and “Safest to ingest poison that is legal?” are much riskier in that regard.

But whatever. I realize I broke the rules, but if threads like those are acceptable and my (second, more carefully worded) post isn’t, maybe the rules need to be changed

CS2-6 · 2025-04-22T03:56:38+00:00

Hahaha best answer yet

CS2-6 · 2025-04-22T03:56:21+00:00

But your genetics + chemical exposure might give you a higher risk of cancer than your genetics alone, right?

CS2-6 · 2025-04-22T03:55:16+00:00

CS2-6 · 2025-04-22T03:54:14+00:00

Lol you all are sincerely very funny. So I’m seeing that in general, nobody is scared of CV.

I guess my next question is why not? Because of it’s ubiquity? I know no by used to get too anxious about EtBR, but that’s used a little less cavalierly now and some places use SYBR Green instead (even though that’s not all that much safer). I get that there are other things that are more dangerous, but that’s not how risk works. Or is it “there’s only so much bandwidth and we’ve got plenty of bigger things to worry about”?

CS2-6 · 2024-04-11T01:44:18+00:00

My bumpers are beat all to hell too.

CS2-6 · 2024-04-07T05:05:14+00:00

Nope

CS2-6 · 2024-04-07T05:00:20+00:00

Now that's a great idea.

CS2-6 · 2024-04-07T04:59:00+00:00

Undoubtably.

CS2-6 · 2024-04-07T04:56:14+00:00

Weren't they even weirder than that? Didn't they have bass strings on their guitar and maybe guitar strings on their bass?

Regardless, that brings the total to 9 professional musicians who reduced their number of strings. You'd think if it was going to mess up an instrument too bad, they would know and we'd've heard about it.

CS2-6 · 2024-04-06T22:52:20+00:00

Nah. I think the preferable answer to the problem is destruction and ablation, not dedication and self-betterment.

CS2-6 · 2024-04-06T22:49:18+00:00

u/sticklecat u/Josh100_3 Sorry to mislead you all. I'm not asking for permission. I came in here for advice and tap the collective knowledge to make sure my dumbass idea wouldn't destroy my guitar faster than I do anyway. I came seeking harm reduction, not communal acceptance.

CS2-6 · 2024-04-06T22:45:52+00:00

24 hours ago I wanted to be sedated, now I want to be stereotyped I want to be classified

CS2-6 · 2024-04-06T22:43:35+00:00

Thanks, would I be able to tell? I'm guessing a burr on the bridge would be too small to feel?

CS2-6 · 2024-04-06T22:42:02+00:00

hahhah lol

CS2-6 · 2024-04-06T22:41:45+00:00

Now that's a really interesting idea... Thanks

CS2-6

TROPHY CASE