I have to agree a with this post. After reading the Federal Register daily since 1977 and watching the usually fruitless efforts to get OSHA standards set, a substance has to be a lead, asbestos, ethylene oxide, or equally obvious hazard to get a standard of its own. And considering that most of the OSHA PELs were adopted in 1971 and unchanged since, I'd pay attention to the safety rules for any substance for which there actually is a relatively recent standard.
I also read all of the documentation and the submissions during the comment period on the methylene chloride standard. My comments on industry's arguments against this standard would be too political to air here.
Patty's was also brought up as a source on toxicology in this thread. And I'm probably shooting myself in the foot with this comment because I have a book coming out in February published by Wiley & Sons (Patty's publisher), but I stopped buying this source over 15 year ago. I consider Patty's a bad source primarily due of the bias and affiliations of most of the writers. It's become the Defendant's Handbook.
In a message dated 10/17/2010 11:11:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, don.long**At_Symbol_Here**WGINT.COM writes:
One would think that if a chemical has it's own OSHA standard (in this case 3), then it probably has some inherent dangers attached to it. See 29 CFR 1910.1052, 1915.1052, 1926.1152 as well as OSHA Publication 3144-06R, 2003. A few good bits of info concerning DCM...
The thing to remember about OSHA standards is the fact that words such as "should", "suggested" and "not recommended" turn into "will", "shall" and "shall not" as far the law is concerned.
Don A. Long
Southwest Research Institute Laboratory
Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility
PO Box 20130
White Hall, AR 71612
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post