Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:42:21 -0400
Reply-To: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>
Subject: 4 more RE: [DCHAS-L] U.S. Rushes to Change Workplace Toxin Rules

From: Beth Shepard 
Date: July 25, 2008 2:52:15 PM EDT (CA)

I've heard the argument too many times that industry wouldn't pollute  
the environment, cutting safety corners, etc. even if the laws were  
not there, it's bad business.

Well, when the laws weren't there, companies did pollute the  
environment, ignore worker safety, ignore the safety of their  
customers, that's where most of these laws came from in the first  
place (Love Canal, phosphates in the Great Lakes, asbestos lung  
injuries, coal miners & black lung disease,...). While it can be true  
that the regulations are poorly written, or overly conservative, there  
all came from an existing problem.

Political or not, it is also true, based upon the evidence uncovered,  
that this particular administration has spent a significant amount of  
effort in diluting or censoring scientific evidence that did not fit  
its agenda (global warming, endangered species, formaldehyde in FEMA  
trailers,...), usually by running the scientific reports through a  
political office. That's been documented more that once.

Beth Shepard
Technical Specialist, Regulatory Compliance
Sigma-Aldrich, Milwaukee
Phone: (internal) 6-414-5471
Phone: (external) 414-438-3850 ext 5471
FAX: 414-438-4235 or 6-414-5432


From: "Chris Marlowe" 
Date: July 25, 2008 3:20:28 PM EDT (CA)
Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] 3 RE: [DCHAS-L] U.S. Rushes to Change Workplace  


I don't think it's possible for us to completely avoid political issues.
Managing safety requires control over conditions in the workplace, and
politics is what we call the endeavor of making decisions about the  
of conditions in society.

In my opinion, talking about safety always has some political  
just as talk about taxation, law, or business management do.

That said, I sometimes grow impatient with those who, I believe, are
interested in discussing safety (or environmental quality) only  
because it's
embarrassing to those in power. I am, apparently, more tolerant than  
you of
those who believe that a political action will increase or decrease  

Stay healthy,

Chris Marlowe
42 Highlander Dr
Scotch Plains, NJ  07076
908 / 754 - 5160 (home)
732 / 539 - 8128 (cell)

From: 	ahalltoxic**At_Symbol_Here**
Date: 	July 25, 2008 11:09:31 PM EDT (CA)

If someone tried to draft me to be the US President, I hope I'd have  
the sense to go running screaming naked into the desert, never to be  
seen again.   And I'm certainly not suicidal, I'll do anything I can  
to make the world a better place, and I'd make a better president than  
either of the somewhat surviving candidates, neither of whom are bad  
persons, but neither of whom should be the President of the United  
States, at least in my humble opinion.  I truly wish Colin Powell  
hadn't thought he did too much (and he did -- how I admire that man),  
just for another 4 years --too much to hope for.

But here's my professional concern:  workers should be protected the  
best ways we know how.  We aren't always perfect, but we try as hard  
as we know how.  They deserve that, they expect it of us, and we  
should do everything we can to see that it happens. Those of us who  
work in the field are very knowledgeable about chemical safety.  If we  
have to kick a politician in the tush sometimes, them we'd better have  
the knowledge and the intestinal fortitute to do so.  OSHA, NIOSH,  
ACGIH, CDC, the ATSDR, and EPA didn't come about (whatever their  
faults) because lots us didn't care and work our guts out.  But we can  
always be better and therefore serve workers better.  In my not-so- 
humble opinion, that's what we're for.

So however we go about it; politcal nonsense that could harm workers  
needs to be addressed in a professional and responsible manner.  I'll  
do my part when I figure out what that is.  Any advice would be welcome.

Alan H. Hall, M.D.
(307) 399-1564

From: ldoemeny**At_Symbol_Here**
Date: July 25, 2008 2:52:15 PM EDT (CA)

I can't say that this form has become a political.  This one posting  
and the
responses don't make it political. Here is how I feel about this
administrations action.  Please give me your reaction and if you think  
it is
political let me know and how it could be made non-political.


While I am very concerned how the administration is going about this, it
does seem reasonable to have a discussion of how to determine risk.   
workers are no longer keeping the same job for a lifetime, the  
workplace is
under constant change, the chemicals that are used today may be  
replaced by
others and workers while no longer being exposed to one chemical are  
exposed to a new chemical and what health effect could that cause?  It  
worthy of discussion through an open standard setting process and  
technical programming.  However, the standard setting process needs to  
streamlined and significantly shortened.

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.