Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:43:45 EST
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Subject: Re: New Jersey Right to Know Fact Sheets

How are the NIOSH IPCS cards different from the NY DOH hazardous substances fact sheets (HSFS)?   Oh my dears!  All the difference in the world.

Lets just take the example of long term toxicity on one chemical about which I am very familiar to show you the VAST difference.

If you look at the IPCS card for ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol), it says:

"liquid defats the skin."

If you looked under chronic health effects in the old 2001 HSFS it said:

"According to the information presently available to the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, 2-butoxy ethanol has not been tested for its ability to cause cancer in animals."

Then the 2008 HSFS was revised due to new studies to state:

"2-butoxyethanol may be a CARCINOGEN in humans since it has been shown to cause liver cancer in animals.
2-butoxyethanol may damage the developing fetus.
There is limited evidence that 2-butoxyethanol may damage the male reproductive system ...... "   AND MORE. 

I just happen to be familiar with the studies they are talking about.  They are not being used by AGCIH or OSHA to set limits, but the chemical is now IARC 3 and it appears to me that this limited data is very convincing. At the very least, more studies should be done since practically every person in the US is exposed by both inhalation and skin contact.  The stuff is everywhere in consumer products and big time in fast cleaners.

The HSFS looks at all the data and errs on the side of caution.  And even more importantly, THEY WILL TELL YOU WHEN THERE IS NO CANCER DATA ON A CHEMICAL.

This is also the greatest advantage of the new GHS safety data sheets. They will require the entry "no data available" if any of 10 assorted acute and chronic toxicity tests have not been completed on a substance. This way people will finally be able to see that almost none of the substances to which we are exposed have been tested for chronic toxicity.

I'm currently fact checking a pyrotechnic encyclopedia that will be published next year and looking at the data on hundreds of chemicals.  Many of these are common chemicals. You'd be amazed at the number for which there are not only no chronic data, but no acute either!  We give advice and we know squat.  And it's time people knew that.


In a message dated 1/24/2011 8:19:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**NOTES.CC.SUNYSB.EDU writes:

How is the NJ information better/worse than the NIOSH Safety Cards ( I usually go to this site for information along with the ToxNet db (

Kim Auletta
Lab Safety Specialist
EH&S    Z=3D6200
Stony Brook University
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site:

Remember to wash your hands!

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.