From: Jim Kaufman <jim**At_Symbol_Here**>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Waiver Form Example
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 18:37:17 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>

Very good points and I heartily subscribe to the goal of building bridges and relationships, and not undermining them.


At the same time, there is a real need to be sure that the facts of the matter do check out. Misunderstanding, misreading, misinformation, and simple human error abound. In my experience, too often what is purported to be a regulation is simply wishful thinking.. Respected scientists, educators, OSHA inspectors, and soccer referees to name just three!


Returning to the issue of pregnancy: A more positive approach, and one not yet mentioned in the numerous posts, is the idea of volunteering to speak with the person's physician (if so wished). In this way, the more chemically knowledgeable person (as previously suggested) can provide some helpful (bridge building) assistance in the decision making process.


A second constructive approach, and one which LSI is pursuing, is to review the chemicals used in the most popular high school and college chemistry lab manuals to determine which chemicals are known or probable human carcinogens, reproductive or fetal toxins, etc. If you are interested in volunteering to assist with this project, please let me know.


James A. Kaufman, Ph.D.

The Laboratory Safety Institute (LSI)

A Nonprofit Educational Organization for

Safety in Science, Industry, and Education

192 Worcester Street, Natick, MA 01760-2252
508-647-1900  Fax: 508-647-0062 
Cell: 508-574-6264  Res: 781-237-1335
Skype: labsafe; 508-319-1225



Chair, ICASE Committee on Safety in Science Education

International Council for Associations of Science Education


P We thank you for printing this e-mail only if it is necessary




From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**] On Behalf Of David C. Finster
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2015 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Waiver Form Example


I find the phrase "trust with verification" to be internally illogical based on the common definition of the terms.  "Trust" inherently involves the absence of the need for verification.  (President Reagan - famous for this phrase - was right, in my judgment, not to trust the Soviet Union about nuclear arms deals.  Using the word "trust" in these matters is disingenuous, although public international diplomacy invites such language.)


That aside, if one is sending sample for analysis, and paying on per sample basis, I think that it is fine to send along "test samples" that assess the accuracy of the testing procedure.  The "cost per sample" factor eliminates the abuse of time and trust that would otherwise be involved in sending a "fake" chemical in a list of possible chemicals to be assessed by a physician for lab use by one of their patients.    This is a subterfuge that seems entirely rude and disrepectful if not even unethical.  Other CHAS list contributors have already commented, correctly, on this aspect of such a strategy.


Let's build bridges and relationships, not undermine them.




David C. Finster
Professor, Department of Chemistry
University Chemical Hygiene Officer
Wittenberg University

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.