Bruce:

You need to get the NIOSH Pocket Guide app for your smart phone. It updates the last printed version of the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards in 2007, and NIOSH has committed to keeping it up to date.

Ralph A. Froehlich, CIH, CSP, QEP
Helix Environmental, Inc.
(937) 776-8435 cell

> On Feb 15, 2023, at 6:35 PM, Bruce Van Scoy <bvanscoy**At_Symbol_Here**TWC.COM> wrote:
>
> Ralph,
>
> I think the 3 sources came from comparing multiple sources to find the most up to date peer reviewed/published information. By verifying 3 sources you could verify multiple sources compared to the publishing date, current published information, etc. The NIOSH Pocket Guide has not been updated for years. Some information has become proprietary, out of date, etc. My bigger concern is the trend towards making websites "more user friendly" while limiting available information which would impact my potential searches for 2023. To me it seems the web site developers are focusing more on simplifying the information so everyone can understand it and forgetting who the websites were initially developed by and for whom. With virtually nothing being generated by print, no tracking of websites modifications or "updates" I am concerned how the changes are being made.
>
> I know things change, which is O.K., but I am sometimes I have a hard time finding relevant information at my fingertips. I don't care if I am being considered old fashioned, if I need a copy of Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, I can't afford to waste time searching for comparable and relevant information.
>
> Only my opinion,
>
> BruceV
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU> On Behalf Of Ralph Stuart
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:16 AM
> To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
> Subject: [DCHAS-L] Hazmat Safety information Assessment
>
> Those of us who took HAZWOPER courses in the days of paper information resources (e.g. chemical dictionaries, Merck index, the Sigma/Aldrich safety information catalog, the NIOSH “pocket" guide etc.) were often taught not to make a operational decision until you had confirmed a relevant piece of data with at least 3 sources.
>
> The idea was that it was possible that you did not want to put responders at risk based on a typo in the single source of truth you were using to collect flashpoint, LEL or TLV. (This idea is even trickier in our current networked electronic information environment, where it is often unclear where the data cited in an SDS or other resource originated from.)
>
> My questions for the group are:
>
> 1) Does anyone know where the idea of checking 3 resources came from? Is this based on technical considerations such as how often typos show up in paper documents, or is it more the idea that if something goes wrong, 3 sources are appropriate to demonstrate due diligence in a legal setting?
>
> 2) What level of quality assurance for hazmat and other lab safety information do you use in 2023?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts on either of these questions.
>
> - Ralph
>
> Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
> ralph**At_Symbol_Here**rstuartcih.org
>
> ---
> For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
>
> ---
> For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org

---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org