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)
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)
I agree too - removing the paragraph looks like the right thing to do. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
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)