wogster
Member
Part of my point is that "the hazards" are subject to interpretation by the document's author. For instance, I quickly found two MSDSes for water by Googling (Dead Link Removed, two). MSDS 1 sounds quite alarming -- under "Health Hazard Information" you find all sorts of disturbing things, like "Inhalation can result in asphyxiation and is often fatal" and "Excessive ingestion of liquid form can cause gastric distress and mild diarrhea." MSDS 2 contains the simple statement "Water is non-hazardous," along with "not applicable" in the specific sub-categories in which MSDS 1 provides dire warnings. (Oddly, though, MSDS 2 does recommend use of goggles and a lab coat when handling water!) These inconsistencies are real problems for somebody who wants basic safety data on chemicals. If you didn't already know what water was, you'd have a hard time figuring out how to handle it safely from examining those two MSDSes.
Okay, we have all seen funny MSDS documents, it's not a perfect system, but it's the only system we have at the moment.
The country where the MSDS is from has a lot to do with how it's written, one from the US tends to have a lot of detail, and tends to have stronger warnings then one from elsewhere, but then in a country where you can be sued for $100,000,000 for losing a $25 pair of pants, that is to be expected.