From: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:07:00 -0500
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: 8D0B5C4C5F8C208-21A0-5877F**At_Symbol_Here**webmail-m269.sysops.aol.com
In-Reply-To <528EA6AA.5020209**At_Symbol_Here**healthscience.com>


If anyone does this, I would be thrilled. I'll certainly publicizes their findings in my small art/theater world.
 
Reworking the CDC's raw data on the environmental pollutants we all carry in our blood by socio-economic status was a block buster..  It showed they higher levels of industrial chemicals like lead, cadmium and antimony, BPA and the phthalates used in the cheap vinyl plastic products in the poor. 
 
But the study found the rich were loaded with mercury, arsenic, cesium, and thallium presumably from a diet high in seafood, brominated fire retardants typically used in high-end plastics, and benzophenone-3 from sunscreen creams.   Ah, some small justice does exist.
 
 
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062
actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com   www.artscraftstheatersafety.org

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaime Steedman-Lyde <jsteedmanlyde**At_Symbol_Here**HEALTHSCIENCE.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

That would make a really good paper/presentation!

Jaime Steedman-Lyde, CIH
Health Science Associates
www.healthscience.com

On 11/21/2013 2:39 PM, Monona Rossol wrote:
I hope you are right.  My point is that with no oversight, things either don't improve or improve so as you would barely notice.   My suggestion is that we look at methods of oversight.   Suppose the Chemwatch raw data were reworked by company to identify, not the countries, but the corporations that do good jobs and those that don't.  Might help.  But with now one looking or caring, it will just go on.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062

 
-----Original Message-----
From: BIALKE, THOMAS <tbialke**At_Symbol_Here**KENT.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

I would bet that if you conducted that survey prior to GHS implantation, especially in the US you would get zero agreement. So 8% is an improvement. Far from perfect, but what did Chemwatch offer as a solution?
 
It is so easy to find fault and condemn an program without offering a solution.
 
Witness the Affordable Care Act.
 
Right now, GHS is the best we have.
 
 
Thomas Bialke
 
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:25 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
 
Thank you Ralph.   That supports what I'm seeing very well. I already wrote an article about that Canadian study of incorrect flash points.  
 
What it really boils down to is people are not reading the definitions and just making the same assumptions about their chemicals that they have always made.  
 
As long as there is no MSDS and no SDS oversight, why would manufacturers spend any more time or expertise writing their SDSs than they did their MSDSs.  Just get something out that looks right has been and still apparently is:  THE RULE.
 
And that is an established global system.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters
I noticed an interesting article at
https://www.swiftpage6.com/speasapage..aspx?X=2Y0RSDXNI9G1KQ0R00YEWW
about the challenge of GHS:
 
What does GHS stand for?
 
The Excercise
Chemwatch have undertaken a systematic comparison of GHS classification 
published by official sources in:
 
Europe (ECHA)
Japan (NITE)
New Zealand (CCID)
Korea (NIER)
A total of 12,452 Substances were reviewed. 
 
Interestingly there was very little overlap between Substances reviewed by any 
two Jurisdictions - Korea and New Zealand reviewed 1494 Substances in common.
 
However, where Substances in common where assigned GHS Classifications, fewer 
than 8% were in agreement - New Zealand and the European Union agreed on only 75 
Substances of 939 Substances. 
 
In summary:
 
< 8%  Harmonisation between any 2 Jurisdictions
< 0.6% Harmonisation between any 3 Jurisdictions
===
I'm not quite sure of what to make of this data. I wonder if anyone on the list 
has done international comparisons that include the US?
 
- Ralph
 
Ralph Stuart CIH
Chemical Hygiene Officer
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Cornell University
 
rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu

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 secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.