Safety Emporium eyewashes
Safety Emporium eyewashes

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

About This Archive  |   DCHAS-L 2018 Index   |   DCHAS-L Yearly Index   |   DCHAS-L Home Page

About This Archive

DCHAS-L 2018 Index

DCHAS-L Yearly Index

DCHAS-L Home Page


Previous by Date

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Webinar tomorrow afternoon: Reshaping Chemical Lab Safety: Creating a Dynamic and Adaptive Safety Environment

Date: Mar 9, 2018 09:08 UTC

Author: Adelio Machado <amachado**At_Symbol_Here**FC.UP.PT>

Next by Date

Subject: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (9 articles)

Date: Mar 9, 2018 12:36 UTC

Author: DCHAS Membership Chair <membership**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG>

Subject context

From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>

Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] EPA Releases Draft Strategy to Reduce Animal Testing

Date: Mar 9, 2018 12:23 UTC

Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety

In-Reply-To:  

Demystify: 

Wow, Bruce, you hit all of the points I make in lectures except for your central issue of liability.  I just assume no one's going to be liable for making these wrong-headed decisions.  We recover big punitive damage settlements from the tobacco and asbestos manufacturers only because we have the documents to show they distributed after they knew.  But if the EPA supports this in silico crap, and if industry relies on this faulty data to OK their toxic products, and if those products wipe out a whopping bunch of consumers and workers, both EPA and industry will be off the hook.   

"Ooops, who knew?" appears to be the perfect defense in the US legal system.

They will be immune to liability and we little guys will still be ponying up that $3000 + per/year for our professional liability policies and sweating out every possible grammatical misinterpretation in our reports. 

And, as consumers and workers, we and our families will still be the lab rats for the in silico-vetted chemicals in our products while we take comfort in having protected our wee rodent brethren.  Just how humane is that?


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: Bruce Van Scoy <bvanscoy**At_Symbol_Here**TWC.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Mar 8, 2018 10:26 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] EPA Releases Draft Strategy to Reduce Animal Testing

Monona,
We agree, in silico testing is not ready to replace in-vivo testing, but it must be politically correct if you read today's announcement.  
We're replacing lab mice/rats with either unverified computing processes without statistical analysis v. consumers, including children.  My questions are:  why should we trust a computer program that has not been vetted?  Who and how is it determined that the computer models "adequately" replace in-vivo?  Once those scientific studies are published, will those making the claims be held accountable scientifically, professionally and liability? 
Who will be performing the toxicological testing on those exposed consumers?  How relevant will it be?  Who will be looking for metabolites of a compound, potential additive or synergistic effects in the consuming population from a compound exposed to when/how?  I don't know about you, but I can't remember what I had for lunch/supper two days ago.  Now the most important, will we recognize AND correct the mistake in the years to come as a society?  When will we return to focus on science, as compared to political correctness? 
My observation is that the late =E2=80=9870's started an awareness, the =E2=80=9880's to =E2=80=9890's built on the science, impact and repercussions.  Look at significantly the regulations have changed.  How successful has OSHA been at updating PEL's or adding new chemicals regulated by OSHA?  It's a farce, the original OSHA Act adopted the 1969 list of the ACGIH TLVs and we know significantly more now.  How many chemicals have TLVs now compared to the initial '69 list compared to the ACGIH TLVs (the new update was just released)?
We're talking orders of magnitude here, but my question holds, will those who are proven wrong be held accountable?  I don't think the process FDA follows would ever enable an FDA official to be held accountable for negligence.  I think legally, government officials, e.g., EPA, OSHA, FDA, USDA, etc. "cannot be held liable".  Do we have the same luxury?  What ethical standards do we need to impose - upon ourselves?  I'm thinking of which to apply, PEL, TLV, MAK, etc.?  At what level do you enforce - can you justify your choice to management, courts, etc.?  We are professional practitioner=E2=80™s and unlike gov't officials, we can be held accountable.    
I know I=E2=80™m asking a lot of questions.  I'm only asking for due consideration, research and reflection of the questions for consideration.
Sincerely,
BruceV
 
 
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU] On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 8:09 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] EPA Releases Draft Strategy to Reduce Animal Testing
 
How kind.  I'm especially feisty because our kitchen ceiling fell last Friday and the workmen are here every day tearing up our lives and creating dust.  Hopefully tomorrow they will paint and leave forever!  A couple more days of this and I'd go to some straight bar (hard to find in the Village), walk up to a trucker, and pick a fight.
 
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

 

Previous post  |  Top of Page  |  Next post