From: Neil Edwards <Neil.Edwards**At_Symbol_Here**LIU.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] radium dial painters
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 02:23:59 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Message-ID: D0C8C83D.35D89%neil.edwards**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <20141230180756.a6a54ebcf2450d8e259234454149e23c.81141afd80.mailapi**At_Symbol_Here**>

That URL does not work. Try this one:

Neil Edwards
Laboratory Manager
Adjunct Professor
Department of Chemistry
LIU Post
Brookville, NY 11548-1300
Email: neil.edwards**At_Symbol_Here**

On 12/30/14 8:07 PM, "terry.coggins**At_Symbol_Here**TLC-HP.COM"

>There is a documentary on youtube about the dial painters that might be
>of interest.
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] C&EN SafetyZone blog: 'Oops1 is never good
>occupational health policy
>From: Monona Rossol
>Date: Dec 30, 2014 6:27 PM
>In the 60s in the University of Wisconsin Art Department we were still
>taught to lip point brushes for calligraphy and lettering assignments.
>Clearly the inks were not radioactive, but some metal pigments and many
>organic pigments were used. In calligraphy, Nigrosin was a common
>colorant. And the Aldrich SDS reveals that there is absolutely no acute
>or chronic data on the chemical whatever. So guess who the lab rats are.
>Just as "oops" is not a good safety health policy, neither is "no news is
>good news."
>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 Stuart
>Sent: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 8:26 am
>Subject: [DCHAS-L] C&EN SafetyZone blog: 'Oops1 is never good
>occupational health policy
>3?Oops1 is never good occupational health policy2
>by Jyllian Kemsley
>The headline is from Deborah Blum, author of "The Poisoner's Handbook,"
>quoted in an NPR story about Mae Keane. Keane was briefly one of the
>Girls" who painted glow-in-the-dark wristwatches in the 1920s. Here's a
>bit more
>context, plus the full quote:
>In order to get the numbers small enough, new hires were taught to do
>called "lip pointing." After painting each number [with radium paint],
>they were
>to put the tip of the paintbrush between their lips to sharpen it.
>Twelve numbers per watch, upwards of 200 watches per day ? and with every
>the girls swallowed a little bit of radium.
>"Of course, no one thought it was dangerous in these first couple of
>explains Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook.
>Deborah Blum says the radium girls had a profound impact on workplace
>regulations. By the time World War II came around, the federal government
>set basic safety limits for handling radiation.
>And, she says, there are still lessons to be learned about how we protect
>who work with new, untested substances.
>"We really don't want our factory workers to be the guinea pigs for
>'Oops' is never good occupational health policy."
>Searching C&EN archives, it seems that it took a while for people to
>those basic radiation safety limits. From a 1951 story from the American
>Industrial Hygiene Association's 12th annual meeting:
>Unsafe working conditions were found in the handling of radium, x-ray,
>fluoroscopic equipment in every one of 12 hospitals surveyed recently,
>LaRocque, of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., told a mixed group of
>and medical specialists at this meeting. In some cases, he said,
>radiation in
>excess of maximum permissable doses was detected in hospital offices as
>well as
>in laboratories and operating rooms.
>LaRocque found physicians handling radium sources with virtually no
>whatever. Between uses radium was stored in everything from water glasses
>to tin
>cans. Because of the value of the radium it was often stored in office
>which afforded little resistance to the radiation. Some dental x-ray
>surveyed irradiated the operator to a maximum permissable dose after as
>few as
>five exposures had been made. Fluoroscopes and diagnostic x-ray apparatus
>often inadequately shielded or were used in a dangerous manner. In one
>reported, the lead glass on a fluoroscope screen had not been replaced
>it had been cracked "for years."
>Contrary to experience reported by earlier investigators, LaRocque said
>that the
>medical men and roetgenologists involved seemed anxious to learn about
>hazards and to take steps to correct the dangerous conditions. LaRocque
>attributed the situation to ignorance rather than lethargy. He said that
>in none
>of these cases had there ever been any planned system of health
>protection in
>connection with radiation hazards and he made a strong plea to the
>industrial hygienists to take positive steps to overcome the present
>about these hazards.
>Jyllian Kemsley | December 30, 2014 at 8:30 am |

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.