Safety Emporium eyewashes
Safety Emporium eyewashes

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

About This Archive  |   DCHAS-L 2017 Index   |   DCHAS-L Yearly Index   |   DCHAS-L Home Page

About This Archive

DCHAS-L 2017 Index

DCHAS-L Yearly Index

DCHAS-L Home Page


Previous by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Flaming Snowballs @ ACS

Date: Apr 11, 2017 19:42 UTC

Author: Wilhelm, Monique <mwilhelm**At_Symbol_Here**UMFLINT.EDU>

Next by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] ? Re Eyewash Water

Date: Apr 12, 2017 03:41 UTC

Author: Stephen Stepenuck <sstepenuck**At_Symbol_Here**ne.rr.com>

Subject context

From: pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**ROCHESTER.RR.COM

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NY Times Op-Ed: America's Toxic Workplace Rules

Date: Apr 12, 2017 02:53 UTC

Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety

In-Reply-To:  

Demystify: 

And occupational limits presume that the employed population is healthier, on average, than the population as a whole. The validity of that presumption has been diluted somewhat over the years with ADA and similar changes in how society in general approaches employment, and working from home, but I think it still has some validity.

Beyond that, in an occupational setting we have at least the theoretical ability to measure and control the exposure of employed individuals to specified agents of concern during the work day. When looking at the environmental exposure of an entire population that ability is completely absent, so more stringent safety factors (fudge factors at the end of the risk assessment) are in order.


Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY

PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com


-----Original Message-----
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Slavin
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 9:23 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NY Times Op-Ed: America's Toxic Workplace Rules

One important factor not mentioned is that occupational exposure limits assume that exposures (typically 8 hours) are interrupted by recovery times, whereas environmental limits assume 24 hour exposures.

Tom Slavin

-----Original Message-----
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:02 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: [DCHAS-L] NY Times Op-Ed: America's Toxic Workplace Rules

Here's an op-ed that addresses a specific point about government policy and practice that may be useful when training students on chemical safety issues, particularly interpretation of various Occupational Exposure Limits.
There's partisan commentary, as might be expected on the NY Times editorial page, but the key point about OSHA PELs vs. EPA's approach chemical exposure is an important teaching point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/opinion/americas-toxic-workplace-rules.ht
ml

Why do federal regulators allow employers to expose workers to levels of toxic chemicals far higher than those considered safe for everyone?

---
This e-mail is from DCHAS-L, the e-mail list of the ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety.
For more information about the list, contact the Divisional secretary at secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

Previous post  |  Top of Page  |  Next post

Previous post  |  Top of Page  |  Next post