Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:43:12 -0500
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: "Floyd, Karon" <Karon.Floyd**At_Symbol_Here**DHS.GOV>
Subject: Re: CO Monitor Video

How do we get the video?
Karon L. Floyd,
Center Safety Officer
Plum Island Animal Disease Center
Direct: (631) 323-3332
Fax: (631) 323-3097
Email: karon.floyd**At_Symbol_Here**
Never esteem anything as of advantage to you that will make you break 
your word or lose your self-respect. -Marcus Aurelius Antoninus


From: DCHAS-L Discussion List on behalf of ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Sent: Wed 1/26/2011 6:47 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] CO Monitor Video

Bless your heart, Frank.  That's really needed.  When all else fails, we 
have used the type of household monitor that will register the highest 
ppm reading attained between settings and then instruct our workers to 
test and reset every 30 minute to 1 hour.  We do this whenever we can't 
get those bums to stop using fuel-burning lifts and cranes in an indoor 
movie location. As soon as we see a peak exposure of 35 ppm, I send my 
guys packing.  That's way below the OSHA 8 hour 35 ppm standard and not 
very defensible since we don't know what the average would be over time. 
 I don't care.  Outa there!  You want the work done? Get electric lifts 
or get lost.

There is also a monitor sold to airplane pilots that will register and 
alarm at 9 ppm after a matter of minutes, at 16 ppm with a stronger 
alarm, and a really annoying alarm somewhere above that. 

But of course, the best ones are the continuous reading ones.  I specify 
these for ceramic kiln rooms, glass blowing facilities, etc.

I have a data sheet prepared for our workers that compare the EPA, OSHA, 
and other standards and also tell the dumb UL history of how a perfectly 
good CO monitor alarming at a reasonable level was screwed up by 
deciding that eliminating annoying calls to fire fighters was more 
important than people's health.  They should have kept the original UL 
standard for CO monitors and had the firefighters engage in a little 
public education.  

The simple fact is the CO detectors today will alarm in time to save you 
life, but not your health. 


In a message dated 1/26/2011 3:16:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
demer**At_Symbol_Here**EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU writes: 

	We produced a low budget video on Why Residential Carbon Monoxide 
Monitors Don't Belong in the Workplace? (Windows Media 
formats) to try and dispel some of the misconceptions researchers have 
about the devices.  Maybe you all might find it useful.
	Frank R. Demer, MS, CIH, CSP
	Health Safety Officer
	University of Arizona
	Department of Risk Management &Safety
	Phone:  520.621.3585
	Fax:  520.621.3706
	Email:  demer**At_Symbol_Here**
	Mailing Address:  P.O. Box 210300, Tucson, AZ  85721-0300
	Street Address:  220 W. 6th St., Tucson, AZ 85701
	Web Address: 

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.