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 Toxin Charles: 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 control of conditions in society. In my opinion, talking about safety always has some political implications, 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 accident rates. Stay healthy, Chris Marlowe 42 Highlander Dr Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 908 / 754 - 5160 (home) 732 / 539 - 8128 (cell) Chrismarlowe**At_Symbol_Here**comcast.net == From: ahalltoxic**At_Symbol_Here**msn.com Date: July 25, 2008 11:09:31 PM EDT (CA) Charles, 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. ahalltoxic**At_Symbol_Here**msn.com (307) 399-1564 == From: ldoemeny**At_Symbol_Here**cox.net 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. Thanks 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. Many 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 then exposed to a new chemical and what health effect could that cause? It seems worthy of discussion through an open standard setting process and through technical programming. However, the standard setting process needs to be streamlined and significantly shortened.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post