Stardate 20010717.0804 (On Screen): It's interesting how you can slant a story by how you describe something. The headline on this article reads "Adhesive tubes containing poisonous, flammable ingredient recalled by..." and the ingredient they're describing turns out to be toluene. (The "adhesive tubes" they're describing is more-or-less model airplane glue.) Now toluene is indeed flammable and also poisonous, but these are not particularly unusual characteristics. There are a lot of things which fit that description which we use every day, such as isopropyl alcohol, or acetone (in fingernail polish remover). It's a matter of degree. Toluene isn't explosive, and it isn't "one whiff and you're dead" poisonous, any more than isopropanol is. As long as you're reasonably careful with flame sources and also don't drink the stuff, then you're safe -- which is why it's legal to use toluene in products like this. So what this story is about is that toluene, a legal ingredient, was used but the product didn't include it on the label, which violates regulations. The problem isn't toluene, the problem is labeling. Fair enough. But why the slant?
Toluene could just as easily have been described as "a common solvent", or as "a chemical derived from petroleum". Or if you really wanted to terrify people and raise the rabble, it could have been described as "a compound used to make high explosives" (trinitrotoluene, otherwise known as TNT). All of those descriptions (as well as the one which was used) are true, but in a sense every one of them is misleading. Why couldn't this headline have read "Model airplane glue containing toluene recalled by..."? Someone's trying to make a story where there ain't really one. (discuss)
