Group,

I have been following this discussion all week and I fully agree with  Erne
st 's  recommendation and it has been the same one I have been giving for m
y 25+ years.

Mary Beth


-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Er
nest Lippert
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 3:08 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Eye protection in chemistry labs

Cheers for David Finster. He has brought up a number if things that
are well worth considering. Too often a =93one size fits all=94 mentality
rules rather than common sense. I made the following recommendation
regarding eye protection to an industrial analytical laboratory.

=93This recommendation is based on safety, comfort, and compliance: In
my opinion the minimum eye protection that is required for bench and
hood operations in common analytical chemical procedures is safety
glasses with side shields. Goggles and full-face shields must be
available in the laboratory. Training on the proper use of each of
these PPE and a discussion of the conditions where their use is
appropriate is required as part of the formal training of each
analyst. Included in the training will be a discussion of =93what if=94
scenarios so that appropriate protection is used, when necessary.=94

To paraphrase Gilbert & Sullivan, =93Let the PPE fit the situation=94.
Design the CHP using a lot of common sense. If one is injured as a
result of ignoring the training upon which has been signed off and
didn=92t use the appropriate PPE, then the injury is most likely their
responsibility.

Finally, perhaps in another vein, as a Safety Professional, take a
look at your kitchen. There is an abundant use of sharps and pointed
objects. Lachrymators are handled without proper ventilation. There is
always the chance of bacterial contamination. Rotating electrical
(when did you last check that the outlet was properly grounded?)
machinery will splatter the reaction material beyond the confines of
the vessel. There is the possibility of steam and hot surface burns.
There is often a presence of smoking (and splattering) grease in
proximity to open flames. Consider the bad ergonomic lifting of heavy,
hot containers from a hot oven. Sometimes PPE is worn in the form of a
light, flammable cotton apron. Glasses, if worn, are unlikely to meet
ANSI Standards. Use your imagination about some of the other hazards
and try to write a CHP (fondue requires its own section) that will
both protect you and your wife and result in marital bliss. Of course,
the CHP will allow for other combinatorial possibilities.
Regards,
Ernie Lippert

On 1/8/10, Christopher Suznovich  wrote:
>
> I would completely disagree that C&EN should not be held accountable for
> publishing ads with poor safety practices or any type of misleading
> information.  Just because C&EN is a =8Ctrade=B9 publication, the editors
 still
> hold the responsibilities that every other editors of other publications
> whether they are in print or electronic and are newspapers, journals, tra
de
> or public.
>
> The editors are the ones who are responsible for content choices.  While 
I
> agree no one is perfect, if the editors are publishing information that i
s
> wrong/misleading, it should be brought to their attention so it can be
> corrected.  I also think in this case since C&EN is a publication
> representing all of us plus the thousands of other chemists, and as payin
g
> subscribers to such publication, we have a right to comment on the conten
t
> and can object to content and advertising in the publication in a proper
> manner.
>
> If we remember within the past few years similar issues have come up wher
e
> there content of publications/media has been an issue.  For example, one
> nationally known newspaper published comics that were questionable and th
ere
> was public outcry.  The loudest outcry was directed at the newspapers and
> the editors for deciding to publish the comics since the editors has the
> choice of not running the comic and choosing another one in its place- no
t
> at the author who wrote the comic. When Dan Rather  admitted that some of
> the news on the =8CEvening News=B9 may have been misleading, he said it w
as his
> fault that the information was released because he was the final
> reviewer/editor of the information he delivered on his show and he show h
ave
> checked the background on it more carefully. Several years ago the FCC
> required all TV shows to be rated similarly to movies for their content.
> This was due to the public asking for the TV stations to inform us what t
he
> content of the show was- the writers, directors, and producers do not ass
ign
> these ratings.
>
> Even in our own peer review process, there is an editor over-seeing the
> process through to publication. And in the rare event that a published
> journal article is found to have been comprised from falsified or
> questionable research, the journal in most cases will retract that articl
e,
> or if it not been published, it will be returned to the author(s)- the
> article is not left to stand  published or be pushed forward with a simpl
e
> shame on you letters sent to the article author(s).  Such practices also
> uphold integrity to publications.
>
>
> Chris Suznovich
>
>
> From: List Moderator 
> Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List 
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:18:42 -0500
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Eye protection in chemistry labs
>
> From: "NEAL LANGERMAN" 
> Date: January 7, 2010 12:07:32 PM EST
> Subject: RE: [DCHAS-L] Eye protection in chemistry labs
>
> While I concur with Larry=B9s intent and share the concern for not advert
ising
> unsafe practices, I strongly oppose directing the energy of this group at
> C&EN.  That publication is extremely careful to review its editorial cont
ent
> for safe practices.  It has taken effort on the part of many of us to
> achieve this and C&EN is not perfect, but they are doing very well.
> Further, when they have a question, they come to CHAS/CCS for guidance.
>
> The content of advertising lies in the hands of the advertiser.  If ABC
> Chemical Company publishes an advertisement depicting unsafe practices, o
ur
> efforts should be aimed at improving ABC Chemical Company.  In the case
> cited by Larry, CHAS wrote directly to the CEO of the company.
>
> It is easy to find out the name, address and email of a CEO =AD the outcr
y of
> this group should be targeted there; not at the messenger.
>
> nl
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> --------
> The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential 
and
> protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the inten
ded
> recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this messag
e
> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination
,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If 
you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately b
y
> replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>
> NEAL LANGERMAN
> ADVANCED CHEMICAL SAFETY, Inc.
> 7563 CONVOY Ct
> SAN DIEGO CA 92111
> (858) 874 5577 (phone, 24/7)
> (858) 874 8239 (FAX)
> www.chemical-safety.com 
>
>
>

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post