Talk:Acridine

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cancer link?

The section on "cancer link" looks suspect to me. The source is a paper about ICR-191, which is an acridine derivative but not the same as acridine. I've been trying to do some digging on acridine toxicity and the few sources I've found suggest that acridine itself is likely not carcinogenic. I haven't researched it thoroughly enough yet to be confident of that position though.Ashartus (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've read the ICR-191 paper and it does not support the commentary in this article. I also checked the IARC Monographs, and acridine itself does not appear. Various acridine derivatives are, however, listed. Acridine orange, benz[a]acridine and benz[c]acridine are in group 3, while dibenz[a,h]acridine and dibenz[c,h]acridine are 2B and dibenz[a,j]acridine is 2A. I'm removing the "cancer link" paragraph from the article for now. --Ben (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too - removing the paragraph looks like the right thing to do. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LD 50 data in safety disagrees with that listed in "hazards"

Under Safety, LD-50 in rats is 2000 mpk; under hazards, 500 mpk is listed.

Which is correct? Not that I'm planning to feed it to anything... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.153.3 (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing out the apparent glitch. One LD50 was for mice, one for rats. I am abstaining from it too. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photobase

Can someone explain what a photobase is? Thanks in advance for your help. Simon de Danser (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]