-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Slavin <slavinosh**At_Symbol_Here**GMAIL.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Tue, Apr 11, 2017 9:26 am
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

---
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