From:
Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject:
Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (10 articles)
Date:
May 5, 2020 16:40 UTC
Reply-To:
Monona Rossol
In-Reply-To:
Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (10 articles)
Nope - beg to differ. The allusion is to "red" lights. But the word will remain "reg."
In dealing with regulatory errors in print, I shall refer to the scenario as triggering sirens and "reg" lights. If it was a typo, it was a good 'un. It won't work in speech, but will work in print with the right set up.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Margie Brazelton <0000120e0e0d248e-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Sent: Tue, May 5, 2020 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (10 articles)
Sorry, that would be RED lights=E2=80=A6
Best regards,
Margie Brazelton
Senior Process Chemist
Dyno Nobel Inc.
Cheyenne, WY, P.O. Box 1287 / Cheyenne, WY 82003, 8305 Otto Road / Cheyenne, WY 82001, USA
Lab: 307-637-2766 | Fax: 307-771-5637 | Mobile: 307-214-8176
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
On Behalf Of Margie Brazelton
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 8:19 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (10 articles)
Well said, Monona! As a HazMat Technician and Incident Commander, there were so many reg lights and bells and sirens going off in my head when I read that, I almost couldn't finish reading I was so distracted! Wrong in so many ways-
Best regards,
Margie Brazelton
Senior Process Chemist
Dyno Nobel Inc.
Cheyenne, WY, P.O. Box 1287 / Cheyenne, WY 82003, 8305 Otto Road / Cheyenne, WY 82001, USA
Lab: 307-637-2766 | Fax: 307-771-5637 | Mobile: 307-214-8176
But my evil mind sees a lot more wrong with that. It's technically against the law. The Fire Department should be upholding the laws even when they disagree with
them. At home it is OK to play around like this, but to use an unregistered DIY disinfectant to protect others is against the law.
And since it is not legal, suppose one of the fire fighters or a person working in the fire houses get the virus and claims the reason was that the disinfectant was
ineffective. Or they claim the spray caused some other harm to them such as allergy or asthma. Ordinarily, they couldn't sue the employer.. But in this case they can sue under Product Liability because the employer is both the user and the manufacturer of
this illegal product. Even in Tort Reform Texas that would probably go.
And I would extend the possible actions to people who imitate the Fire Department's product due to that article.
Being competent to "behave" around chemicals still does not give one the right to break the law and invent your own product on site and expose others to it.
