========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:15:26 +0300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "sulaiman m. alfadul" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" HI...PLEASE HELP.... I want to provide me E-mails of graduate addmission depts. 1. Univ. Of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. 2. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 3. Arizona State Univ., Tempe, Arizona. 4. Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah. 5. New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 6. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio. 7. Univ. Of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Arkansas. 8. Univ. Of Nebraska., Lincoln. Nebraska. 9. Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa. 10. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina. THANK FOR EVRY ONE. Sulaiman M. Al-Fadul KACST, GDRGP P.O.Box 6086 Riyadh - 11442 Saudi Arabia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 08:25:45 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: LABSAFETY-L Digest - 27 Nov 1998 to 29 Nov 1998 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >We use a PETE juice bottle (approx 2 L) with 2 nails perforating opposite >sides acting as a spark gap. >About 2 mL of methanol, swirled provides the fuel. A large cork is the >projectile, a Tesla coil provides the spark across the gap. I've seen this demonstration done with a much smaller (500 mL) HDPE bottle with a narrow neck. The demonstrator pointed out that you need to pour out any excess methanol after coating the walls of the bottle. He also used two nails that almost touched. He had an interesting set-up to create the spark. I'll try to explain, but my memory is rather fuzzy on this detail. In other words, don't try this at home!! He had some alligator clips that had a push button switch and a 9V (???) battery. He could simply push the switch, which caused the spark. By using an HDPE bottle, there was little to no distortion of the bottle. The projectile travels very far-about 20 feet in the demo I saw-and should NEVER be pointed toward someone. >Not possible to repeat demo immediately due to accumulated CO2 in bottle >Rookie teacher attempeted to copy the "vets" without asking advice. Used about >25 mL. Ignition failed on initial attempt, then resulted in invisible fire >which melted (this time an appropriate term) Which destroyed the bottle The person I saw do this demonstration was careful to point out all of the safety features and potential problems associated with this demonstration. Like many other science experiments, when done with safety in mind, this can be a very effective learning tool. However, any person who performs demonstrations that is an "amateur" without adequate experience or knowledge should NEVER modify any written demonstration instructions without asking a safety expert or someone who is very knowledgeable in demonstrations about potential problems or safety concerns. I will only try a demonstration after receiving written instructions that clearly point out safety issues and only if the instructions are written by someone that I know is experienced and extremely knowledgeable about demonstrations. Students (and many high school teachers) are not technically qualified to perform demonstrations! My concern is that schools will try to ban demonstrations and experiments in the classroom due to liability issues. If we train our teachers properly in matters of safety, accidents like these are much less likely to occur. Unfortunately, teachers are often just not aware of the potential consequences in demonstrations. Just look at the poor safety record of the thermite reaction. My heart goes out to the families affected by this tragedy. Julie O'Brien The opinions I have expressed are strictly my own. Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 09:14:00 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Tayman, Tammy" Subject: Re: LABSAFETY-L Digest - 27 Nov 1998 to 29 Nov 1998 Comments: To: Martin Besant MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain We use a 500mL bottle that was used to ship us H2O2. It is a very sturdy bottle and seems be holding up VERY well. Of course, we inspect it before every use. We also make sure to dump out any excess methanol before ignition. Something else that was suggested was to use screws rather than nails, as they are less likely to be blown out if the cork is put in place too firmly. Tammy Tayman ---------- From: Martin Besant To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: LABSAFETY-L Digest - 27 Nov 1998 to 29 Nov 1998 Date: Monday, November 30, 1998 7:09PM Dear Group Not sure how useful this info will be We use a PETE juice bottle (approx 2 L) with 2 nails perforating opposite sides acting as a spark gap. About 2 mL of methanol, swirled provides the fuel. A large cork is the projectile, a Tesla coil provides the spark across the gap. Cork travels about fifty feeet with accomp. noise, light and heat. Bottle is frequently wrenched from clamp or ringstand is displaced (knocked over). Heat distorts (melts is an in appropriate term for PETE since plastic does not soften but simply shrinks) plastic. Not possible to repeat demo immediately due to accumulated CO2 in bottle Rookie teacher attempeted to copy the "vets" without asking advice. Used about 25 mL. Ignition failed on initial attempt, then resulted in invisible fire which melted (this time an appropriate term) Which destroyed the bottle Marty Besant West Seneca East Sr HS A suburb of Buffalo NY where the lake is warm and the cold air must arrive soon = SNOW ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 14:38:33 -0500 Reply-To: fullert@bc.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Thomas Fuller Subject: Re: Two way Radio Safety In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII In response to the recent request for information regarding the potential health effects of RF radiation I would like to offer the following comments which I hope are helpful. If anyone has any questions or comments please feel free to contact me directly. The health effects from exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) have been studied extensively over the past several years. In August 1998 the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences Working Group published a report entitled "Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields". The group concluded that Extremely Low Frequency EMF are POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS. This was a carefully selected and expert working grooup which made the evaluation in accordance with the "IARC Monographs Program on the Evaluation fo Carcinogenic Risks to Humans". Numerous other studies have indicated a variety of immunological, hematological, nervous system, reproductive and developmental, and tissue repair health effects associeated with exposure to other frequencies of electromagnetic fileds. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) report munber 86 "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" and the "Institute of Electrical and ELectronics Engineers (IEEE) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) "IEEE Standards for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to RadioFrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" each set exposure limit recommendations based upon the estimation of health risks of exposure to EMF. Review of the biological effects literature indicates there is a good deal of information supporting the existence of thermal effects of radio-frequency and microwave radiation, including cataract formation, changes in animal behavior and effects on reproduction and development. Although the database has grown substantially over the past decades, much of the information concerning thermal and non-thermal effects is generally inconclusive, and sometimes contradictory. Studies of human populations have not demonstrated and reliably affected end points. In 1996 the Federal Communication Commission finalized guidelines to be used for evaluating human exposure to RF emissions. The guidelines incorporate limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) in terms of electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating between 300 kHz and 100 GHz. The decision to incorporate these guidelines was based upon comments received from the EPA, FDA, and numerous other federal agencies. Although alot of information has already been collected on the topic of RF exposure and the health effects there is still a significant amount of additional information needed. The number of reliable studies regarding the occupational health effects of any electromagnetic radiation has been relatively small. The study of radiofrequency radiation is an even smaller subset of that group. There is a considerable need for more studies that can be used to confirm or refute earlier studies on health effects. Thomas P. Fuller Radiation Safety Officer Boston College On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:30:41 -0600 Jeff Rubin wrote: > I have yet to see a study that definitively links RF emissions from > hand-held communications equipment with cancer. A recent review article in > Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements (M. H. Repacholi, v. > 105,Supplement 6, p. 1565-1568, 12/97) points this out, discussing the > difficulties encountered so far in demonstrating/ruling out a link between > exposure and cancer. He mentions a UK government study that found no link, > and refers to an international EMF project exploring non-ionizing radiation. > > There's a NIH project, EMFrapid, that looks at residential fields, but it's > mostly related to power generation and transmission. NIH/NIEHS publishes > Environmental Health Perspectives as well. The project home page is: > http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/home.htm > > National Research Council published (via National Academy Press, publishers > of Prudent Practices) a study on potential health effects of residential > electric and magnetic fields. I'll bet LSW has it as well. Good > analytical (as opposed to most of what's out there - i.e, anecdotal) review > but doesn'ty specifically deal with RF from handheld communications. > > Hope this helps. > > JNR > > >Does anybody have any information on potential health risks associated with > >the wearing and use of two way radio transceivers in the workplace? > > > >Are there any short or long term risks from radio frequency emissions? > > > >Martin > > > Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS > College of Natural Sciences G2500 > W.C. Hogg Building > University of Texas at Austin > Austin, TX 78712-1199 > (512) 471-6176 (O) > (512) 471-4998 (F) > jrubin@mail.utexas.edu > > "The opinions of Dr. Rubin are not meant to offend anyone unless otherwise > specified." ---------------------- Thomas Fuller fullert@bc.edu Boston College ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:19:27 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Madelyn Miller Subject: ACS and contact lenses MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Can someone provide me with a [hard] copy of the article that appeared in Chemical Health & Safety that dealt with the ACS' acceptance of contact for people who work in labs. If there are many of you that have the article would you email me directly and I'll give you my fax number so I get only one copy. Thanks in advance. ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:32:56 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Madelyn Miller Subject: ACS and contact lenses [got it] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII What a group!!! I've got my article. Thanks. Madelyn --- Begin Forwarded Message --- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:19:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Madelyn Miller Subject: ACS and contact lenses Sender: Madelyn Miller To: Labsafety listserver Reply-To: Madelyn Miller Message-ID: Can someone provide me with a [hard] copy of the article that appeared in Chemical Health & Safety that dealt with the ACS' acceptance of contact for people who work in labs. If there are many of you that have the article would you email me directly and I'll give you my fax number so I get only one copy. Thanks in advance. ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu --- End Forwarded Message --- ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:37:53 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: ADA Eyewashes and Showers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, We are shopping for new eyewash and safety shower equipment. We want to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any words of advice; experiences to share? Teresa R. Robertson CSUB CCHO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:12:50 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Chang, Jim C" Subject: Re: ADA Eyewashes and Showers MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Teresa Have you looked at the Watersaver line of safety showers and eyewashes? They make some very good ADA compliant units. One concept that I was never able to sell here but really think has potential is an ADA compliant shower unit with a separate handheld drench hose eyewash. The hose/eyewash will meet the ANSI standard for hands free operation, can be mounted so that it is accessible, but also can be used to reach over to a wheelchair bound or supine victim - something you can't do with a fixed unit. Good luck Jim Chang Safety Engineer Glaxo Wellcome Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Robertson [SMTP:Teresa_Robertson@FIRSTCLASS1.CSUBAK.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 3:38 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: ADA Eyewashes and Showers Hello, We are shopping for new eyewash and safety shower equipment. We want to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any words of advice; experiences to share? Teresa R. Robertson CSUB CCHO ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:55:48 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Debbie Decker Subject: Re: ADA Eyewashes and Showers In-Reply-To: <9DEE49E3944DD211974B00805FE663DA77036B@US4N62> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > We are shopping for new eyewash and safety shower equipment. We >want > to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any words >of > advice; experiences to share? > > Teresa R. Robertson > CSUB CCHO Haws markets an ADA compliant eyewash/shower combo as does Lab Safety. But I like Jim's idea about the hose thingy attached to the shower - meets several needs. Deb. Debbie Decker EH&S UCDavis (530)754-7964 dmdecker@ucdavis.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:39:03 -0600 Reply-To: ShellyB@mail.uca.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Shelly Bradley Organization: University of Central Arkansas Subject: Methanol cannon A sparker for a gas grill works as well as a Tesla coil, is a lot cheaper, and can be found at your local discount or hardware store. Shelly Bradley Laboratory Coordinator Chemistry Department University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 (501) 450-5945 ShellyB@mail.UCA.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:57:33 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: MeOH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe it's me, but I find the thread on MeOH cannons very disturbing. Methanol is a very toxic, very flammable material, and it's being used for a demonstration as an explosive. In some cases, students are being allowed to use it themselves. Just what educational benefit is being gained? What are the students learning? I'm afraid they are learning some really poor practices. I'm glad my kids are all out of school. I doubt if the prudent person would be doing these demos. Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:13:05 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Andrew Ippolito Subject: Re: MeOH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii As a safety advisor for school districts for the past 10 years I support the opinion of Mr. Burns. The risks are greater than the benefit. A. J. Ippolito E2CC BOCES ---Bob Burns wrote: > > Maybe it's me, but I find the thread on MeOH cannons very disturbing. > Methanol is a very toxic, very flammable material, and it's being used for a > demonstration as an explosive. In some cases, students are being allowed to > use it themselves. Just what educational benefit is being gained? What are > the students learning? I'm afraid they are learning some really poor > practices. > > I'm glad my kids are all out of school. > > I doubt if the prudent person would be doing these demos. > > Bob > > "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" > > Robert L. Burns > Group Leader, R&D > RUETGERS Organics Corporation > 201 Struble Road > State College, PA 16801 > phone 814-231-9214 > fax 814-238-1567 > email rburns@bigfoot.com > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:05:43 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Naomi Kelly Subject: Safety caps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We have had several incidences of "explosions" of glass bottles of nitric acid (used for cleaning vaccum lines, glassware, etc.) obviously contaminated by "WHO KNOWS WHAT". The most recent incident was in our fluorine lab. The bottle was under a SINK (along with a number of other chemicals). The PI said it had been used for cleaning vaccum lines--recycled and used again and again. The students say they don't recall anyone opening the bottle for quite some time. Anyway, it blew out the sink, moved the entire cabinet structure, and hurled shards of glass up to 35 ft. Luckily, no one was in the lab at the time! My question to the group is: Does anyone know of a type of safety cap that would blow off or rupture to prevent the bottle from "exploding" in these incidences. I have recommended not recycling nitric when used in this manner, but I'm confident that not everyone will listen. I have checked with Sigma and Fisher. They do not know of anything. Naomi Kelly Environmental Health and Safety nkelly@clemson.edu (864) 656 - 7554 Fax: (864) 656 - 7630 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:28:04 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Madelyn Miller Subject: Re: Safety caps In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19981207150543.011a182c@mail.clemson.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII How about standard taper bottles? Madelyn On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:05:43 -0500 Naomi Kelly wrote: > We have had several incidences of "explosions" of glass bottles of nitric > acid (used for cleaning vaccum lines, glassware, etc.) obviously > contaminated by "WHO KNOWS WHAT". The most recent incident was in our > fluorine lab. The bottle was under a SINK (along with a number of other > chemicals). The PI said it had been used for cleaning vaccum > lines--recycled and used again and again. The students say they don't > recall anyone opening the bottle for quite some time. Anyway, it blew out > the sink, moved the entire cabinet structure, and hurled shards of glass up > to 35 ft. Luckily, no one was in the lab at the time! > > My question to the group is: Does anyone know of a type of safety cap that > would blow off or rupture to prevent the bottle from "exploding" in these > incidences. I have recommended not recycling nitric when used in this > manner, but I'm confident that not everyone will listen. I have checked > with Sigma and Fisher. They do not know of anything. > > > > Naomi Kelly > Environmental Health and Safety > nkelly@clemson.edu > (864) 656 - 7554 > Fax: (864) 656 - 7630 ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:32:29 +1300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: John Downey Subject: Re: Safety caps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain My experience is that they would freeze unless you put teflon inserts in the stoppers. But might be okay. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Madelyn Miller [SMTP:mmiller@ANDREW.CMU.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:28 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Safety caps > > How about standard taper bottles? > Madelyn > > > On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 15:05:43 -0500 Naomi Kelly > wrote: > > > We have had several incidences of "explosions" of glass bottles of > nitric > > acid (used for cleaning vaccum lines, glassware, etc.) obviously > > contaminated by "WHO KNOWS WHAT". The most recent incident was in our > > fluorine lab. The bottle was under a SINK (along with a number of other > > chemicals). The PI said it had been used for cleaning vaccum > > lines--recycled and used again and again. The students say they don't > > recall anyone opening the bottle for quite some time. Anyway, it blew > out > > the sink, moved the entire cabinet structure, and hurled shards of glass > up > > to 35 ft. Luckily, no one was in the lab at the time! > > > > My question to the group is: Does anyone know of a type of safety cap > that > > would blow off or rupture to prevent the bottle from "exploding" in > these > > incidences. I have recommended not recycling nitric when used in this > > manner, but I'm confident that not everyone will listen. I have checked > > with Sigma and Fisher. They do not know of anything. > > > > > > > > Naomi Kelly > > Environmental Health and Safety > > nkelly@clemson.edu > > (864) 656 - 7554 > > Fax: (864) 656 - 7630 > > ---------------------- > Madelyn Miller > Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO > Environmental Health & Safety > Carnegie Mellon University > mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:38:53 -0600 Reply-To: ShellyB@mail.uca.edu Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Shelly Bradley Organization: University of Central Arkansas Subject: MeOH cannon We actually use ethanol instead of methanol because of the toxicity problem. Shelly Bradley Laboratory Coordinator Chemistry Department University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 (501) 450-5945 ShellyB@mail.UCA.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:48:17 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: Re: Safety caps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Venting the bottle may not have helped. When you nitrate an organic substrate you may well be producing an explosive and a very strong one at that. Pick a different cleaning agent. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 03:05 PM 12/7/98 -0500, you wrote: >We have had several incidences of "explosions" of glass bottles of nitric >acid (used for cleaning vaccum lines, glassware, etc.) obviously >contaminated by "WHO KNOWS WHAT". The most recent incident was in our >fluorine lab. The bottle was under a SINK (along with a number of other >chemicals). The PI said it had been used for cleaning vaccum >lines--recycled and used again and again. The students say they don't >recall anyone opening the bottle for quite some time. Anyway, it blew out >the sink, moved the entire cabinet structure, and hurled shards of glass up >to 35 ft. Luckily, no one was in the lab at the time! > >My question to the group is: Does anyone know of a type of safety cap that >would blow off or rupture to prevent the bottle from "exploding" in these >incidences. I have recommended not recycling nitric when used in this >manner, but I'm confident that not everyone will listen. I have checked >with Sigma and Fisher. They do not know of anything. > > > >Naomi Kelly >Environmental Health and Safety >nkelly@clemson.edu >(864) 656 - 7554 >Fax: (864) 656 - 7630 > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:58:00 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: David Zoromski Subject: Re: Safety Caps MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I would not recommend storing and reusing Nitric acid that has been used for cleaning for any reason. Pressure in the bottle can be developed by formation several gases (NOx, CO2, etc) released as the acid continues to work on contaminants picked up from the vacuum lines, etc. I would not even recommend using a loose-fitting cap because the fumes released will be corrosive and toxic. Organic nitrates are not the most stable compounds either. I find it interesting that one would routinely need to clean vacuum lines anyway, although I imagine anything can happen, e.g., in a school setting. Traps should always be used between the vacuum tap and the apparatus. What are the lines composed of? Are they acid proof? If one must use Nitric acid I suggest purchasing the lowest grade acid reasonably possible for cleaning and then cleaning your drains with it immediately after use and flushing with plenty of water (unless your drains aren't acid-proof, or your local environmental codes prohibit it). Additionally, acids should be stored in a lined acid storage cabinet, preferably vented. From the description it sounds like it was under the sink. If you decide to use an alternate storage container, be sure to label it clearly with the identifying text and safety warnings found on the original bottle. In my mind, it just isn't worth the risk. David Zoromski, chemist supervisor Wisconsin Animal Health Laboratory - Madison zoromdw@cahl.datcp.state.wi.us ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:02:45 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Nick Pinizzotto Subject: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm having a hard time with the toxicity part of this discussion. I'd like to think that most of us are "risk assessors" and unless this experiment is being done everyday in chemistry class, I just don't see the concern over toxicity. Methanol's PEL is 200 ppm/over 8 hours. The greatest concern about the experiment for me is the flammabilty and physical forces at work which can be made very safe by proper safety education and diligent inspection of the equipment. Nick Pinizzotto Environmental Health Officer Dept. Environmental Health & Safety Thomas Jefferson University nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu 215-503-5853 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:00:00 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Tayman, Tammy" Subject: Re: Methanol Comments: To: Nick Pinizzotto MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Or, perhaps, instituting the use of "safe" (or at least less suceptible to drastic failures) equipment. Tammy Tayman ---------- From: Nick Pinizzotto To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Methanol Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:02PM I'm having a hard time with the toxicity part of this discussion. I'd like to think that most of us are "risk assessors" and unless this experiment is being done everyday in chemistry class, I just don't see the concern over toxicity. Methanol's PEL is 200 ppm/over 8 hours. The greatest concern about the experiment for me is the flammabilty and physical forces at work which can be made very safe by proper safety education and diligent inspection of the equipment. Nick Pinizzotto Environmental Health Officer Dept. Environmental Health & Safety Thomas Jefferson University nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu 215-503-5853 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:02:32 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: Re: Methanol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'd like to stand with Nick on this issue. If we are to make good use of the lessons from this most unfortunate incident then we should speak to proper supervision and proper respect for flammables. Our credibility is poorly served by running around with hands in the air screaming, "TOXIC! TOXIC!" in reference to a substance that is toxic if ingested but in normal usage not particularly a problem via inhalation. If toxicity by ingestion is a major focus in the laboratory setting then I suppose we ought to just shut all the labs down. Work to resolve the problems associated with real dangers. Don't go out of your way to make them up or you will find that life is lonely on the outside. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University At 12:02 PM 12/8/98 -0500, you wrote: >I'm having a hard time with the toxicity part of this discussion. I'd like to >think that most of us are "risk assessors" and unless this experiment is being >done everyday in chemistry class, I just don't see the concern over toxicity. >Methanol's PEL is 200 ppm/over 8 hours. The greatest concern about the >experiment for me is >the flammabilty and physical forces at work which can be made very safe by >proper safety education and diligent inspection of the equipment. > > Nick Pinizzotto >Environmental Health Officer >Dept. Environmental Health & Safety >Thomas Jefferson University >nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu >215-503-5853 > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:17:32 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've lost track of all that went on here. What experiment are we doing here? What is the value of popping a tennis ball into the air, other than making a bang? Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Tayman, Tammy To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 14:08 Subject: Re: Methanol >Or, perhaps, instituting the use of "safe" (or at least less suceptible to >drastic failures) equipment. > >Tammy Tayman > ---------- >From: Nick Pinizzotto >To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU >Subject: Methanol >Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:02PM > >I'm having a hard time with the toxicity part of this discussion. I'd like >to >think that most of us are "risk assessors" and unless this experiment is >being >done everyday in chemistry class, I just don't see the concern over >toxicity. >Methanol's PEL is 200 ppm/over 8 hours. The greatest concern about the >experiment for me is >the flammabilty and physical forces at work which can be made very safe by >proper safety education and diligent inspection of the equipment. > > Nick Pinizzotto >Environmental Health Officer >Dept. Environmental Health & Safety >Thomas Jefferson University >nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu >215-503-5853 > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:32:15 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Janeen LaPierre Subject: Re: Methanol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have to agree with Bob on this. What is the value of this experiment in education? I would not be particularly happy to have my child participate in this type of activity at the high school level. Too many kids and not enough supervision for this to be managed in a safe manner. Remember the age of your student population and the lab experiences they have had or not had at this point in their education. For what its worth, Janeen. ***************** Janeen Lapierre, CHO College of Osteopathic Medicine University of New England 11 Hills Beach Road Biddeford, ME 04005 E-Mail: JLaPierre@MAILBOX.UNE.EDU Phone: (207) 283-0170 ext 2446 Opinions are mine and not those of UNE. >>> Bob Burns - 12/8/98 2:17 PM >>> I've lost track of all that went on here. What experiment are we doing here? What is the value of popping a tennis ball into the air, other than making a bang? Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Tayman, Tammy To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 14:08 Subject: Re: Methanol >Or, perhaps, instituting the use of "safe" (or at least less suceptible to >drastic failures) equipment. > >Tammy Tayman > ---------- >From: Nick Pinizzotto >To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU >Subject: Methanol >Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:02PM > >I'm having a hard time with the toxicity part of this discussion. I'd like >to >think that most of us are "risk assessors" and unless this experiment is >being >done everyday in chemistry class, I just don't see the concern over >toxicity. >Methanol's PEL is 200 ppm/over 8 hours. The greatest concern about the >experiment for me is >the flammabilty and physical forces at work which can be made very safe by >proper safety education and diligent inspection of the equipment. > > Nick Pinizzotto >Environmental Health Officer >Dept. Environmental Health & Safety >Thomas Jefferson University >nick.pinizzotto@mail.tju.edu >215-503-5853 > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:49:34 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: Re: Methanol Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > a substance that is toxic if ingested but in normal >usage not particularly a problem via inhalation. While toxicity by ingestion and flammability are its most famous hazards, there is increasing evidence and awareness of its hazards by inhalation as well . . . April 14, 1998 MSDS - "Inhalation: May cause respiratory tract irritation. May cause visual impairment and possible permanent blindness. May cause effects similar to those described for ingestion. May cause skin irritation. May cause central nervous system depression. May be absorbed through the skin. May cause kidney damage. May cause respiratory and digestive tract irritation. May be fatal or cause blindness if swallowed. May cause fetal effects. Causes severe eye irritation and possible injury. Target Organs: Kidneys, central nervous system, eyes. Eye: Produces irritation, characterized by a burning sensation, redness, tearing, inflammation, and possible corneal injury. Vapors may cause eye irritation. May cause painful sensitization to light." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 14:58:22 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: John Juhala Subject: Re: Methanol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Whenever one conducts a public experiment, which carries some risk, the primary question has to be, "do the benefits justify the level of risk involved?" Clearly, based on what has already happened, the list of proper safety precautions cited to conduct the experiment safely, and the arguments on the toxcity or lack of using MEOH, there is a significant risk associated with this experiment. And, as has been already pointed out, and I have yet to see any proponents take exception to, there is little in the way of benefits from this experiment beyond entertainment for students and teacher(s) alike. I would agree with that assessment. I see little benefit in showing that igniting an explosive mixture of a flammable liquid in a confined space will hurl a projectile a considerable distance. This is demonstrated every time the trigger on a gun is pulled on TV or in the movies. Therefore, arguing that the experiment can be done safely if all the proper procedures are followed is pointless when there are no significant benefits. I think it was Jim Kaufman who pointed out early on that it is the worst case scenario that must be considered, and experience has shown in this case the worst is pretty bad. I think it somewhat indefensible for safety officers to support such a position. Such demonstrations are better left to those professionals conducting public fireworks displays. John Juhala Forensic Science Division Michigan State Police ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 12:36:12 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: Methanol In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think that this is the most relevant comment to the original posting on this issue and weel thought out. Does anyone else remember the original posting? We tend to digress here a little too often. Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 02:58 PM 12/8/98 -0500, you wrote: >Whenever one conducts a public experiment, which carries some risk, the primary question has to be, "do the benefits justify the level of risk involved?" Clearly, based on what has already happened, the list of proper safety precautions cited to conduct the experiment safely, and the arguments on the toxcity or lack of using MEOH, there is a significant risk associated with this experiment. And, as has been already pointed out, and I have yet to see any proponents take exception to, there is little in the way of benefits from this experiment beyond entertainment for students and teacher(s) alike. > I would agree with that assessment. I see little benefit in showing that igniting an explosive mixture of a flammable liquid in a confined space will hurl a projectile a considerable distance. This is demonstrated every time the trigger on a gun is pulled on TV or in the movies. > Therefore, arguing that the experiment can be done safely if all the proper procedures are followed is pointless when there are no significant benefits. I think it was Jim Kaufman who pointed out early on that it is the worst case scenario that must be considered, and experience has shown in this case the worst is pretty bad. >I think it somewhat indefensible for safety officers to support such a position. Such demonstrations are better left to those professionals conducting public fireworks displays. >John Juhala >Forensic Science Division >Michigan State Police > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:30:34 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I do believe that MSDS have excellent information and that they are a cornerstone in laboratory safety. However, just as the article in CHAS (I believe it was "Calling Werewolf") stated a few months ago, MSDS information may make one think there are dangers lurking that with prudent practices just aren't there. MSDS have become for many companies a "cover your ass" document. The fact that the methanol MSDS in question states "May cause..." in front of every statement makes me question "where did this new information come from?" Are the statements from a toxicological study or did the company's lawyers suggest the statements be made to reduce liability IF anything happens. I have read too many MSDS that make statements like "use appropriate PPE" or "Dispose in accordance with all state, local, and federal standards" which tells me NOTHING about what these might be. We've become so concerned with litigation that where the MSDS should be providing us with information that helps assess the true risks (e.g. the poison is in the dose"), instead we are lead to believe we must wear moonsuits for everything. Perhaps I'm being a little exaggerative, but not as much as I wish. Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Robertson [SMTP:Teresa_Robertson@FIRSTCLASS1.CSUBAK.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 10:50 AM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: Methanol LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > a substance that is toxic if ingested but in normal >usage not particularly a problem via inhalation. While toxicity by ingestion and flammability are its most famous hazards, there is increasing evidence and awareness of its hazards by inhalation as well . . . April 14, 1998 MSDS - "Inhalation: May cause respiratory tract irritation. May cause visual impairment and possible permanent blindness. May cause effects similar to those described for ingestion. May cause skin irritation. May cause central nervous system depression. May be absorbed through the skin. May cause kidney damage. May cause respiratory and digestive tract irritation. May be fatal or cause blindness if swallowed. May cause fetal effects. Causes severe eye irritation and possible injury. Target Organs: Kidneys, central nervous system, eyes. Eye: Produces irritation, characterized by a burning sensation, redness, tearing, inflammation, and possible corneal injury. Vapors may cause eye irritation. May cause painful sensitization to light." ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 15:30:59 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Walters.Douglas" Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I may have missed part of this tread-- I seem to remember irreversible blindness and retinal damage and other eye damage occurs with a very small dose. That is part of toxicity too. Doug Walters > ---------- > From: Ray Campbell > Reply To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List > Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 1998 3:36 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Methanol > > I think that this is the most relevant comment to the original posting on > this issue and weel thought out. Does anyone else remember the original > posting? We tend to digress here a little too often. > > > Ray Campbell REA CCHO > 310-257-1080 > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:52:49 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yes, the original posting stated that this was a physics experiment I believe was to look at the distance the tennis ball was thrown. There is other safer equipment that could have been used to "propel" the tennis balls (e.g. those toy guns that shoot them) to illustrate the principle, which is a valid teaching objective. Since the administrative control of substitution is valid here, perhaps the real issue was the toy guns cost money, whereas this apparatus could be made cheaply and was disposable and only required the addition of a little "cheap" methanol. Overall, I'd say this situation is illustrative that keeping costs low in the short run may lead to larger costs in the long run. Provide the proper resources at the beginning and avoid problems later. Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Ray Campbell [SMTP:ray.campbell@SPP.VARIAN.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 1:36 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: Methanol I think that this is the most relevant comment to the original posting on this issue and weel thought out. Does anyone else remember the original posting? We tend to digress here a little too often. Ray Campbell REA CCHO 310-257-1080 At 02:58 PM 12/8/98 -0500, you wrote: >Whenever one conducts a public experiment, which carries some risk, the primary question has to be, "do the benefits justify the level of risk involved?" Clearly, based on what has already happened, the list of proper safety precautions cited to conduct the experiment safely, and the arguments on the toxcity or lack of using MEOH, there is a significant risk associated with this experiment. And, as has been already pointed out, and I have yet to see any proponents take exception to, there is little in the way of benefits from this experiment beyond entertainment for students and teacher(s) alike. > I would agree with that assessment. I see little benefit in showing that igniting an explosive mixture of a flammable liquid in a confined space will hurl a projectile a considerable distance. This is demonstrated every time the trigger on a gun is pulled on TV or in the movies. > Therefore, arguing that the experiment can be done safely if all the proper procedures are followed is pointless when there are no significant benefits. I think it was Jim Kaufman who pointed out early on that it is the worst case scenario that must be considered, and experience has shown in this case the worst is pretty bad. >I think it somewhat indefensible for safety officers to support such a position. Such demonstrations are better left to those professionals conducting public fireworks displays. >John Juhala >Forensic Science Division >Michigan State Police > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:06:24 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit When I was in freshman physics, over 40 years ago, we had a demonstration of vectors and gravity. the Prof. shot a tennis ball out of a spring gun across the lecture hall. He shot it horizontally, and the gun also released another ball which fell vertically. Both balls hit the floor at the same time, an excellent demonstration of the points he wished to make, without any toxic and/or flammable materials. The spring gun looked home made. Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Helen B. Gerhard To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 15:56 Subject: Re: Methanol >Yes, the original posting stated that this was a physics experiment I >believe was to look at the distance the tennis ball was thrown. There is >other safer equipment that could have been used to "propel" the tennis balls >(e.g. those toy guns that shoot them) to illustrate the principle, which is >a valid teaching objective. Since the administrative control of >substitution is valid here, perhaps the real issue was the toy guns cost >money, whereas this apparatus could be made cheaply and was disposable and >only required the addition of a little "cheap" methanol. > >Overall, I'd say this situation is illustrative that keeping costs low in >the short run may lead to larger costs in the long run. Provide the proper >resources at the beginning and avoid problems later. > >Thanks! > >Helen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Campbell [SMTP:ray.campbell@SPP.VARIAN.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 1:36 PM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Methanol > > I think that this is the most relevant comment to the original >posting on > this issue and weel thought out. Does anyone else remember the >original > posting? We tend to digress here a little too often. > > > Ray Campbell REA CCHO > 310-257-1080 > > > At 02:58 PM 12/8/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Whenever one conducts a public experiment, which carries some risk, >the > primary question has to be, "do the benefits justify the level of >risk > involved?" Clearly, based on what has already happened, the list of >proper > safety precautions cited to conduct the experiment safely, and the > arguments on the toxcity or lack of using MEOH, there is a >significant risk > associated with this experiment. And, as has been already pointed >out, and > I have yet to see any proponents take exception to, there is little >in the > way of benefits from this experiment beyond entertainment for >students and > teacher(s) alike. > > I would agree with that assessment. I see little benefit in >showing > that igniting an explosive mixture of a flammable liquid in a >confined > space will hurl a projectile a considerable distance. This is >demonstrated > every time the trigger on a gun is pulled on TV or in the movies. > > Therefore, arguing that the experiment can be done safely if all >the > proper procedures are followed is pointless when there are no >significant > benefits. I think it was Jim Kaufman who pointed out early on that >it is > the worst case scenario that must be considered, and experience has >shown > in this case the worst is pretty bad. > >I think it somewhat indefensible for safety officers to support >such a > position. Such demonstrations are better left to those professionals > conducting public fireworks displays. > >John Juhala > >Forensic Science Division > >Michigan State Police > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:27:30 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: Methanol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >I have to agree with Bob on this. What is the value of this experiment in education? I would not be particularly happy to have my child participate in this type of activity at the high school level. Too many kids and not enough supervision for this to be managed in a safe manner. Remember the age of your student population and the lab experiences they have had or not had at this point in their education. I would like to reiterate that this experiment or any other that was originally designed as a demonstration should NEVER be performed by students, especially at the high school level. The high school teacher was severely neglectful in this situation and obviously had no idea what the potential consequences were to the experiment as it was performed. Julie O'Brien The opinions expressed here are solely my own. Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:37:46 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: Methanol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One of the more valuable pieces of information when assessing toxicity hazards are LD50 and TLV values. For methanol, this information is as follows. LD50 (oral) 5628 mg/kg LD50 (skin) 15840 mg/kg LD50 (inhal) >145,000 ppm (1hr) PEL 200 ppm TLV-TWA 200ppm (skin) With proper personal protective equipment, methanol is of very low acute toxicity. I think we as safety professionals can become "chemiphobic" if we are not careful. Many factors must be considered when assessing the risk of chemicals. MSDS information is a useful tool. However, it shouldn't be used as the final word, especially when assessing toxicological risks. Julie O'Brien The opinions expressed here are solely my own. >I do believe that MSDS have excellent information and that they are a >cornerstone in laboratory safety. However, just as the article in CHAS (I >believe it was "Calling Werewolf") stated a few months ago, MSDS information >may make one think there are dangers lurking that with prudent practices >just aren't there. MSDS have become for many companies a "cover your ass" >document. The fact that the methanol MSDS in question states "May cause..." >in front of every statement makes me question "where did this new >information come from?" Are the statements from a toxicological study or >did the company's lawyers suggest the statements be made to reduce liability >IF anything happens. I have read too many MSDS that make statements like >"use appropriate PPE" or "Dispose in accordance with all state, local, and >federal standards" which tells me NOTHING about what these might be. We've >become so concerned with litigation that where the MSDS should be providing >us with information that helps assess the true risks (e.g. the poison is in >the dose"), instead we are lead to believe we must wear moonsuits for >everything. Perhaps I'm being a little exaggerative, but not as much as I >wish. > Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:38:07 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: Re: Methanol Comments: cc: trobertson@csubak.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > MSDS information >may make one think there are dangers lurking that with prudent practices >just aren't there. Granted. Extracting and evaluating useful information from MSDS requires practice, and is best used in conjunction with information from other sources as well (see additional information below). My point was meant to be that methanol is indeed an inhalation hazard (and absorption) as well as a poison by ingestion. Also note, methanol is considered a cumulative poison. >One of the more valuable pieces of information when assessing toxicity >hazards are LD50 and TLV values. For methanol, this information is as >follows. >LD50 (oral) 5628 mg/kg In reporting toxicity data, it is a must to specify the species used. Richard Lewis reports human death has occurred with a dosage lower than 30 ml, total, not per kg. Prudent Practices says the lethal human dose is 60 to 250 mls, total, not per kg, whereas 5628 mg/kg is equivalent to 383,700 mg for a 150 pound person. That's a difference of almost 4000% (at 100 ml LD, for example). >With proper personal protective equipment, methanol is of very low acute >toxicity. This is the key! It is a vaporous (inhalation) hazard; particularly for the eyes, both systemically and on contact. Use it in a fume hood. >I think we as safety professionals can become "chemiphobic" if we >are not careful. ...but it is far more common to become lax and indifferent with items we handle every day. From "Prudent Practices": "...vapors...such as methanol...dissolve predominantly in the lining of the nose and trachea and therefore tend to be absorbed from those regions. These sites of absorption are also potential sites of toxicity." and "...inhalation of methanol can produce headache, drowsiness, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, blindness, and death. From "Lewis" DOT "poison". "Human systemic effects by inhalation: optic nerve neuropathy, visual field changes... It's main toxic effect is exerted upon the nervous system, particularly the optic nerves and possibly the retinae which can progress to permanent blindness... Methanol should be regarded as a cumulative poison." From "Sax" Even "where the exposure is less severe, the first symptoms may be blurring of the vision, photophobia and conjunctivitis, followed by the development of definite eye lesions...The visual symptoms may clear temporarily, only too recur later and progress to actual blindness. Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:06:04 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I wasn't referring specifically to methanol when speaking about the dangers lurking...what I was saying is that MSDS may list information that is based more on the reduction of liability rather than actual fact. Since the toxicological evidence you cite shows that inhalation is an issue for methanol, then the MSDS should have stated "Has caused" or "Has lead to" rather than 'May cause" which is often used as a phrase to show that customers were informed of possible problems (whether they are likely or not). I do use other sources for information including ChemFinder (http://chemfinder.camsoft.com/ ), the reactivity database (http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/chemaids/react.html ), and several books and databases. If in doubt, I've asked this listserve for information. Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Robertson [SMTP:Teresa_Robertson@FIRSTCLASS1.CSUBAK.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 1:38 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: Methanol LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > MSDS information >may make one think there are dangers lurking that with prudent practices >just aren't there. Granted. Extracting and evaluating useful information from MSDS requires practice, and is best used in conjunction with information from other sources as well (see additional information below). My point was meant to be that methanol is indeed an inhalation hazard (and absorption) as well as a poison by ingestion. Also note, methanol is considered a cumulative poison. >One of the more valuable pieces of information when assessing toxicity >hazards are LD50 and TLV values. For methanol, this information is as >follows. >LD50 (oral) 5628 mg/kg In reporting toxicity data, it is a must to specify the species used. Richard Lewis reports human death has occurred with a dosage lower than 30 ml, total, not per kg. Prudent Practices says the lethal human dose is 60 to 250 mls, total, not per kg, whereas 5628 mg/kg is equivalent to 383,700 mg for a 150 pound person. That's a difference of almost 4000% (at 100 ml LD, for example). >With proper personal protective equipment, methanol is of very low acute >toxicity. This is the key! It is a vaporous (inhalation) hazard; particularly for the eyes, both systemically and on contact. Use it in a fume hood. >I think we as safety professionals can become "chemiphobic" if we >are not careful. ...but it is far more common to become lax and indifferent with items we handle every day. From "Prudent Practices": "...vapors...such as methanol...dissolve predominantly in the lining of the nose and trachea and therefore tend to be absorbed from those regions. These sites of absorption are also potential sites of toxicity." and "...inhalation of methanol can produce headache, drowsiness, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, blindness, and death. From "Lewis" DOT "poison". "Human systemic effects by inhalation: optic nerve neuropathy, visual field changes... It's main toxic effect is exerted upon the nervous system, particularly the optic nerves and possibly the retinae which can progress to permanent blindness... Methanol should be regarded as a cumulative poison." From "Sax" Even "where the exposure is less severe, the first symptoms may be blurring of the vision, photophobia and conjunctivitis, followed by the development of definite eye lesions...The visual symptoms may clear temporarily, only too recur later and progress to actual blindness. Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 20:50:06 EST Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Labsafe@AOL.COM Subject: NACHO and the Methanol Cannon Accident Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi NACHO Members.... This methanol cannon accident seems to have really stiffed up some conversation on the list. We're hearing from many folks about this one. Is there anything that NACHO might do, as a responsible professional association, to help reduce the likelihood of similar incidents occurring? Any suggestions. Anyone else planning to join us at the NACHO meeting in Hartford on Wednesday, January 6th at Trinity College from 6-9 pm? Would anyone like to have information faxed to them about the Lab Safety and/or CHO Seminar being offered on the 5th and 6th? .... jim ***************************************************** James A. Kaufman, President The Laboratory Safety Workshop 192 Worcester Road, Natick, MA 01760 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 LabSafe@aol.com Safety in Science Education The Laboratory Safety Workshop is a national non-profit educational organization dedicated to making health and safety an integral and important part of science education. Free copies of our Laboratory Safety Guidelines, Publications List, AV-Lending Library List, seminar schedule, and membership information are available on request. The LABSAFETY-L discussion list is a public service of LSW. Visit our growing web site at www:LABSAFETY.ORG ********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 01:24:14 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mary Ann Solstad Subject: Re: Methanol In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I couldn't agree more with Helen's premise and have so written many times. Actually in many cases we can say that the warnings are appropriate for a 55 gal drum spilled in an enclosed space, or a tank car upset in a residential area. In the beginning of the Right to Know laws the shoe was sometimes on the other foot, as marketing opted for under warning for fear the "facts" would scare potential customers/ I prefer supplementing the MSDS with some reason and thoughtful resource such as Patty's Industrial Hygiene (now is 6 or more vol.) Mary Ann At 01:30 PM 12/8/98 -0700, you wrote: >I do believe that MSDS have excellent information and that they are a >cornerstone in laboratory safety. However, just as the article in CHAS (I >believe it was "Calling Werewolf") stated a few months ago, MSDS information >may make one think there are dangers lurking that with prudent practices >just aren't there. MSDS have become for many companies a "cover your ass" >document. The fact that the methanol MSDS in question states "May cause..." >in front of every statement makes me question "where did this new >information come from?" Are the statements from a toxicological study or >did the company's lawyers suggest the statements be made to reduce liability >IF anything happens. I have read too many MSDS that make statements like >"use appropriate PPE" or "Dispose in accordance with all state, local, and >federal standards" which tells me NOTHING about what these might be. We've >become so concerned with litigation that where the MSDS should be providing >us with information that helps assess the true risks (e.g. the poison is in >the dose"), instead we are lead to believe we must wear moonsuits for >everything. Perhaps I'm being a little exaggerative, but not as much as I >wish. > >Thanks! > >Helen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teresa Robertson >[SMTP:Teresa_Robertson@FIRSTCLASS1.CSUBAK.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 10:50 AM > To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU > Subject: Re: Methanol > > LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > > a substance that is toxic if ingested but in normal > >usage not particularly a problem via inhalation. > > While toxicity by ingestion and flammability are its most famous > hazards, there is increasing evidence and awareness of its hazards >by > inhalation as well . . . > > April 14, 1998 MSDS - > "Inhalation: > May cause respiratory tract irritation. May cause visual > impairment > and possible permanent blindness. May cause effects >similar > to those > described for ingestion. > > May cause skin irritation. May cause > central nervous system depression. May be absorbed through the skin. > May cause kidney damage. May cause respiratory and digestive tract > irritation. May be fatal or cause blindness if swallowed. May cause > fetal effects. Causes severe eye irritation and possible injury. > Target Organs: Kidneys, central nervous system, eyes. > > Eye: > Produces irritation, characterized by a burning sensation, > redness, > tearing, inflammation, and possible corneal injury. >Vapors > may cause > eye irritation. May cause painful sensitization to >light." > Mary Ann Solstad, CIH 4 A's of Safety SOLSTAD Health & Safety Evaluations Attitude 16 Pequot Rd, Marblehead, MA 01945 Awareness 781-631-4748 tel, 781-631-1832 FAX Automatic Application Authority DivCHAS Chair, ACS msolstad@mediaone.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:06:26 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: NACHO and the Methanol Cannon Accident MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, I think the thread has raised everyone's awareness. I don't think we want to be in the position to dictate what someone should do- we have enough government agencies to do that! Bob "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Labsafe@AOL.COM To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 21:12 Subject: NACHO and the Methanol Cannon Accident >Hi NACHO Members.... > >This methanol cannon accident seems to have really stiffed up some >conversation on the list. We're hearing from many folks about this one. > >Is there anything that NACHO might do, as a responsible professional >association, to help reduce the likelihood of similar incidents occurring? >Any suggestions. > >Anyone else planning to join us at the NACHO meeting in Hartford on Wednesday, >January 6th at Trinity College from 6-9 pm? > >Would anyone like to have information faxed to them about the Lab Safety >and/or CHO Seminar being offered on the 5th and 6th? .... jim > > ***************************************************** > James A. Kaufman, President > The Laboratory Safety Workshop > 192 Worcester Road, Natick, MA 01760 > 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 LabSafe@aol.com > Safety in Science Education > >The Laboratory Safety Workshop is a national non-profit educational >organization dedicated to making health and safety an integral and >important part of science education. Free copies of our Laboratory >Safety Guidelines, Publications List, AV-Lending Library List, seminar >schedule, and membership information are available on request. > > The LABSAFETY-L discussion list is a public service of LSW. > Visit our growing web site at www:LABSAFETY.ORG > ********************************************************************** > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:13:58 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: American Chemical Society's Minimum Safety Guidelines for Chemical Demonstrations Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" FYI- ACS had published guidelines to follow when performing chemical demonstrations. They are as follows. Chemical demonstrators must. . . 1. know the properties of the chemicals and the chemical reactions involved in all demonstrations presented. 2. comply with all local rules and regulations. 3. wear appropriate eye protection for all chemical demonstrations. 4. warn members of the audience to cover their ears whenever a loud noise is anticipated. 5. plan the demonstration so that harmful quantities of noxious gases (e.g. NO2, SO2, H2S) do not enter the local air supply. 6. provide safety shield protection wherever there is the slightest possibility that a container, its fragment, or its contents could be propelled with sufficient force to cause personal injury. 7. arrange to have a fire extinguisher at hand whenever the slightest possibility for fire exists. 8. not taste or encourage spectators to taste any nonfood substance. 9. not use demonstrations in which parts of the human body are place in danger (such as placing dry ice in the mouth or dipping hands into liquid nitrogen). 10. not use open containers of volatile, toxic substances (e.g. benzene, CCl4, CS2, formaldehyde) without adequate ventilation as provided by fume hoods. 11. provide written procedures, hazard, and disposal information for each demonstration whenever the audience is encouraged to repeat the demonstration. 12. arrange for appropriate waste containers for and subsequent disposal of materials harmful to the environment. Revised 6/4/88, Copyright 1988, ACS Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Permission is hereby granted to reprint or copy these guidelines proivided that they are reproduced in their entirety with no changes. Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:48:44 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: MeOH Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Any demonstrator MUST be a knowledgeable, highly skilled instructor. Demos >are often performed by high school teachers who have very little, if any, >training in safety. If teachers received better training in safety and the potential consequences in experiments and demonstrations, accidents would be less likely to occur in high school laboratories. I think safety training should be a part of the curriculum for all future teachers, regardless of what subject they teach. > >I would like to comment briefly on the educational value of this experiment. Combustion is one of the most common chemical reactions. Everyone has observed it at one time or another, whether it be a candle, wood, or something else burning. It is also one of the most misunderstood chemical reactions. Many people do not recognize that three things are required for a fire to start: fuel, a source of oxygen or other oxidizer, and an ignition source. While I've seen this concept illustrated by other, more safe demonstrations (such as burning a candle then smothering the flame with carbon dioxide), none have had as much impact in explaining combustion as this demonstration. Also, the concept could be just be described in the traditional lecture format--but it just is not effective at breaking down the preconceived notions that people have about combustion. The methanol cannon, when performed with the safety precautions I mentioned earlier, has been shown to effective in altering these preconceived notions. I do not know of any other demonstration that has been as effective. This demonstration is particularly effective in large lecture formats, where candles simply cannot be seen very well. The methanol cannon experiment has been performed by MANY chemistry instructors without incident for many years. As long as safety precautions are followed, this experiment has been performed without injury. > >The high school case which brought about this discussion was not using this experiment in an effective educational manner. It should not be used to teach projectile motion. There are many safer ways of illustrating projectile motion. > >The alcohol is the fuel, the oxygen is already in the bottle in the form of >air, and the ignition source is the small charge applied across the two >screws. Without all three "ingredients" in place, fire does not occur. The cork covering the opening of the bottle controls the amount of oxygen which can be consumed. No more oxygen, no more fuel, no more fire. > >This demonstration is typically performed in chemistry lectures with a second part. Immediately after the first ignition, the presenter tries again to cause the ignition, but the oxygen that was present in the bottle has been replaced with carbon dioxide formed during the first part of the demo. Nothing will occur. (Some demonstrators may not be aware of this fact at this point and will try to add more alcohol. This would be done by someone who clearly does not understand the point of the demo and is doing it for the "OOH! AAH!"effect only. Those kind of people are extremely dangerous.) > >The demonstration can also be used to illustrate the concept of vapor fires. One misconception I have encountered people having is that vapors in air cannot ignite. Some people also do not understand fires that "flash back". > >This reaction is much more controlled that it would seem on paper. (If performed with the safety guidelines I have described) The conditions have been carefully worked out by professional demonstrators over the years to minimize risk. > >Regarding the toxicity of methanol, the point I was trying to make earlier is that at the quantity of methanol which is used for the methanol cannon (2mL), the potential route of exposure (inhalation), and exposure time for pouring such a small amount into a container will not produce any serious toxic threat (as long as the person is wearing goggles and gloves). Certainly under other exposure conditions, methanol should be handled with great care in a fume hood. > >By the way, if you like decaffinated coffee, you are drinking small amounts of methanol with each sip. Methanol is used to decaffinate coffee. Some residual methanol remains in the grinds and does end up in brewed coffee. > >Julie O'Brien >The opinions expressed here are my own. > Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:47:00 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Tayman, Tammy" Subject: Re: Methanol Comments: To: "Helen B. Gerhard" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" And if you don't believe that MSDS are often ridiculously overboard in their cautionaries, check out one for sand, water, air, etc. I know that there are humorous versions running around, but I have actual commercial ones for these products and you would not believe some of the stuff on them. The one for sand includes the line: Avoid Inhalation. !!! Tammy Tayman ---------- From: Helen B. Gerhard To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: Methanol Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 6:06PM I wasn't referring specifically to methanol when speaking about the dangers lurking...what I was saying is that MSDS may list information that is based more on the reduction of liability rather than actual fact. Since the toxicological evidence you cite shows that inhalation is an issue for methanol, then the MSDS should have stated "Has caused" or "Has lead to" rather than 'May cause" which is often used as a phrase to show that customers were informed of possible problems (whether they are likely or not). I do use other sources for information including ChemFinder (http://chemfinder.camsoft.com/ ), the reactivity database (http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/chemaids/react.html ), and several books and databases. If in doubt, I've asked this listserve for information. Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Robertson [SMTP:Teresa_Robertson@FIRSTCLASS1.CSUBAK.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 1:38 PM To: LABSAFETY-L@SIU.EDU Subject: Re: Methanol LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > MSDS information >may make one think there are dangers lurking that with prudent practices >just aren't there. Granted. Extracting and evaluating useful information from MSDS requires practice, and is best used in conjunction with information from other sources as well (see additional information below). My point was meant to be that methanol is indeed an inhalation hazard (and absorption) as well as a poison by ingestion. Also note, methanol is considered a cumulative poison. >One of the more valuable pieces of information when assessing toxicity >hazards are LD50 and TLV values. For methanol, this information is as >follows. >LD50 (oral) 5628 mg/kg In reporting toxicity data, it is a must to specify the species used. Richard Lewis reports human death has occurred with a dosage lower than 30 ml, total, not per kg. Prudent Practices says the lethal human dose is 60 to 250 mls, total, not per kg, whereas 5628 mg/kg is equivalent to 383,700 mg for a 150 pound person. That's a difference of almost 4000% (at 100 ml LD, for example). >With proper personal protective equipment, methanol is of very low acute >toxicity. This is the key! It is a vaporous (inhalation) hazard; particularly for the eyes, both systemically and on contact. Use it in a fume hood. >I think we as safety professionals can become "chemiphobic" if we >are not careful. ...but it is far more common to become lax and indifferent with items we handle every day. From "Prudent Practices": "...vapors...such as methanol...dissolve predominantly in the lining of the nose and trachea and therefore tend to be absorbed from those regions. These sites of absorption are also potential sites of toxicity." and "...inhalation of methanol can produce headache, drowsiness, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, blindness, and death. From "Lewis" DOT "poison". "Human systemic effects by inhalation: optic nerve neuropathy, visual field changes... It's main toxic effect is exerted upon the nervous system, particularly the optic nerves and possibly the retinae which can progress to permanent blindness... Methanol should be regarded as a cumulative poison." From "Sax" Even "where the exposure is less severe, the first symptoms may be blurring of the vision, photophobia and conjunctivitis, followed by the development of definite eye lesions...The visual symptoms may clear temporarily, only too recur later and progress to actual blindness. Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:32:07 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Frank H. Lankewicz" Subject: Re: NACHO and the Methanol Cannon Accident In-Reply-To: <2c7ad67d.366dd74e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jim, Please fax me info on the CHO Seminar in Hartford. Thank You >Hi NACHO Members.... > >This methanol cannon accident seems to have really stiffed up some >conversation on the list. We're hearing from many folks about this one. > >Is there anything that NACHO might do, as a responsible professional >association, to help reduce the likelihood of similar incidents occurring? >Any suggestions. > >Anyone else planning to join us at the NACHO meeting in Hartford on Wednesday, >January 6th at Trinity College from 6-9 pm? > >Would anyone like to have information faxed to them about the Lab Safety >and/or CHO Seminar being offered on the 5th and 6th? .... jim > > ***************************************************** > James A. Kaufman, President > The Laboratory Safety Workshop > 192 Worcester Road, Natick, MA 01760 > 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 LabSafe@aol.com > Safety in Science Education > >The Laboratory Safety Workshop is a national non-profit educational >organization dedicated to making health and safety an integral and >important part of science education. Free copies of our Laboratory >Safety Guidelines, Publications List, AV-Lending Library List, seminar >schedule, and membership information are available on request. > > The LABSAFETY-L discussion list is a public service of LSW. > Visit our growing web site at www:LABSAFETY.ORG > ********************************************************************** ______________________________ Frank H. Lankewicz Director/Chemical Hygiene Officer Environmental Health and Safety The University of the South 735 University Avenue Sewanee, TN 37383-1000 Ph: 931/598-1916 Fax: 931/598-1745 email: flankewi@sewanee.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:54:11 +1300 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Tony Subject: Re: Methanol Tammy You can drown in 2 inches of water and there is a whole generation of miners with Silicosis from inhaling sand. You can induce an air embolism by directing high pressure air at the skin. Remember that MSDSs are written for people who know nothing. You may not believe how little people know but I deal with them daily. Many people do not know what "Toxic" means but they do recognise Poisonous. I was once asked "What is an acid and is it dangerous". We scientists make a lot of assumptions but if you "assume" you can make an: ASS out of U and ME. On the Methanol question, the concern has been for the student. how about the demonstrator who does the experiment time after time. What is his exposure and finally WHY Methanol??? Cheers Tony NZ Fire Service (We thrive on other peoples lack of knowledge) :-) Attachment Converted: "c:\winnet\eudora\linda\attach\WINMAIL4.DAT" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:23:11 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jeff Rubin Subject: Re: MeOH In-Reply-To: <199812091348.IAA25516@freenet5.afn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This has been quite a discussion - I couldn't resist tossing in a couple of items: 1) We've discussed it before, but an MSDS should NOT be viewed as a definitive reference. It provides some basic (and useful) data, but that tends to be as far as it goes. 2) In fire science classes for new firefighters in my volunteer dept. we use a low-tech combustion demo: light a candle, snuff it, then light the top of the smoke "trail" and watch it flash back to re-light the candle. Not only can the students see the flashback effect, but they see several additional principles as well. They can witness LEL/UEL (if you wait too long, the vapors will be too lean; if you don't wait long enough, they'll be too rich), the concept of vapor generation being necessary for ignition of solids or liquids, and a demonstration that smoke is indeed charged with fuel (all very important concepts for firefighters) - it's the smoke burning in flashovers and backdrafts. This would be a great school demo, as long as you could trust the students not to run home, try it, and set their house on fire. Onward, JNR Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS College of Natural Sciences G2500 W.C. Hogg Building University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-1199 (512) 471-6176 (O) (512) 471-4998 (F) jrubin@mail.utexas.edu "The opinions of Dr. Rubin are not meant to offend anyone unless otherwise specified." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:22:33 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Helen B. Gerhard" Subject: Re: Methanol MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The entire point is that YES...There is a risk associated with everything you do. Getting out of bed in the morning means you will face risk....Staying in bed in the morning means you will face risk. However, there are probabilities involved. Drowning in 2 inches of water is a possibility but its probability is low under most conditions. Getting Silicosis has a high probability for miners who do not use proper PPE but is low for the person mixing sand into their garden soil. I have NO idea of the probabilities involved in the embolism example (although the Darwin award a few years back had someone blowing themselves up with supplied air at a gas station). MSDS should provide usable information to the people reading them. Perhaps there should be a sections for "Industrial Uses," Laboratory Uses," and "Consumer Uses" with defined amount information and wording to fit the accepted knowledge base for each area. While some materials are used by all three groups, I certainly hope that the common consumer doesn't have potassium cyanide on a shelf in their garage! I don't know how we deal with lawyers writing parts of the MSDS to reduce liability to the company. Thanks! Helen -----Original Message----- From: techton@ihug.co.nz [SMTP:techton@ihug.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 11:54 AM To: 'LABSAFETY-L Discussion List' Subject: RE: Methanol Tammy You can drown in 2 inches of water and there is a whole generation of miners with Silicosis from inhaling sand. You can induce an air embolism by directing high pressure air at the skin. Remember that MSDSs are written for people who know nothing. You may not believe how little people know but I deal with them daily. Many people do not know what "Toxic" means but they do recognise Poisonous. I was once asked "What is an acid and is it dangerous". We scientists make a lot of assumptions but if you "assume" you can make an: ASS out of U and ME. On the Methanol question, the concern has been for the student. how about the demonstrator who does the experiment time after time. What is his exposure and finally WHY Methanol??? Cheers Tony NZ Fire Service (We thrive on other peoples lack of knowledge) :-) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:56:08 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Mike hinz Subject: MSDS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" My favorite MSDS is for HPLC grade water, the part where it says what to do if you get it in your eyes or on your skin. That's right, flush with water for 15 minutes. It occured to me that that is the equivalent of a life sentence of flushing. Mike Hinz Chemistry Dept. Washington State University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:13:01 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bob Burns Subject: Re: MSDS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I used to have one for sucrose which said use protective suit, gloves and a dust mask to handle. I gave up putting sugar in my coffee- too much trouble putting on the PPE!! "Everything is easy for the person who does not have to do it!" Robert L. Burns Group Leader, R&D RUETGERS Organics Corporation 201 Struble Road State College, PA 16801 phone 814-231-9214 fax 814-238-1567 email rburns@bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: Mike hinz To: LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 15:00 Subject: MSDS >My favorite MSDS is for HPLC grade water, the part where it says what to do >if you get it in your eyes or on your skin. That's right, flush with water >for 15 minutes. It occured to me that that is the equivalent of a life >sentence of flushing. > >Mike Hinz >Chemistry Dept. >Washington State University > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:16:58 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Naomi Kelly Subject: Re: MeOH In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It has been quite a discussion, but enough! I'm tired of deleting. At 01:23 PM 12/9/98 -0600, you wrote: >This has been quite a discussion - I couldn't resist tossing in a couple of >items: > >1) We've discussed it before, but an MSDS should NOT be viewed as a >definitive reference. It provides some basic (and useful) data, but that >tends to be as far as it goes. > >2) In fire science classes for new firefighters in my volunteer dept. we >use a low-tech combustion demo: light a candle, snuff it, then light the >top of the smoke "trail" and watch it flash back to re-light the candle. >Not only can the students see the flashback effect, but they see several >additional principles as well. They can witness LEL/UEL (if you wait too >long, the vapors will be too lean; if you don't wait long enough, they'll >be too rich), the concept of vapor generation being necessary for ignition >of solids or liquids, and a demonstration that smoke is indeed charged with >fuel (all very important concepts for firefighters) - it's the smoke >burning in flashovers and backdrafts. This would be a great school demo, >as long as you could trust the students not to run home, try it, and set >their house on fire. > >Onward, > >JNR > > >Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS >College of Natural Sciences G2500 >W.C. Hogg Building >University of Texas at Austin >Austin, TX 78712-1199 >(512) 471-6176 (O) >(512) 471-4998 (F) >jrubin@mail.utexas.edu > >"The opinions of Dr. Rubin are not meant to offend anyone unless otherwise >specified." > > Naomi Kelly Environmental Health and Safety nkelly@clemson.edu (864) 656 - 7554 Fax: (864) 656 - 7630 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:57:14 +0000 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Karen Glover Organization: Clarke College Subject: Azeotropic removal of water MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All: I remember some discussion on this list about less toxic solvents which may be used to replace benzene and/or toluene for the azeotropic removal of water. I am interested in knowing what solvents have been used and what your experiences have been with these replacements. You may respond to me directly. Thanks in advance! Karen Glover kglover@clarke.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:41:11 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Julie O'Brien Subject: Re: Methanol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >On the Methanol question, the concern has been for the student. how about >the demonstrator who does the experiment time after time. What is his >exposure and finally WHY Methanol??? I'm not sure that the experiment is always done with methanol. Based on the physical properties, I don't see any reason why ethanol couldn't be used. Isopropanol may also be a possibility. Julie O'Brien Chemist PCR, Inc. PO Box 1466 Gainesville, FL 32602 352-376-8246 ext. 232 Fax 352-373-7503 afn35210@afn.org Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville PO Box 5951 Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 14:56:34 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: Re: American Chemical Society's Minimum Safety Guidelines for Chemical Demonstrat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: >FYI- >ACS had published guidelines to follow when performing chemical >demonstrations. >Revised 6/4/88, Copyright 1988, ACS Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Is there a more recent revision? Teresa >Chemist >PCR, Inc. >PO Box 1466 >Gainesville, FL 32602 >352-376-8246 ext. 232 >Fax 352-373-7503 >afn35210@afn.org >Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer >EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville >PO Box 5951 >Gainesville, FL 32627 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 18:06:47 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Rama Singh Subject: EMERGENCY SHOWERS CONNECTED TO ELECTRONIC ALARM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There are times when disgruntled students have pulled emergency showers installed in hallways of our buildings causing massive flooding. The drainage just below the shower, if any, is not good enough to drain accumulated water at the speed of 30 gallons a minute. There is clearly a need to become aware immediately if an emergency shower has been pulled as a prank, especially during evenings or weekends. Has anyone else experienced this kind of problem and how it has been resolved? Your advice in this regard will be tremendously appreciated. I was wondering about flow switch attached to the water pipe of the shower that will trigger alarm at the site as well as signal to a central location. Is anyone aware of a system like this or a comparable system that can help to stop this massive flooding in time? Thanks for any suggestion or advice that will lead us to find a workable solution to this problem. Rama Singh ---- Rama Singh Safety Coordinator The School of Physical Sciences Phone: 949-824-2518 Fax: 949-824-3891 Pager: 949-262-6710 e-mail:rpsingh@uci.edu ZOT CODE 4675 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 20:27:59 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Jeff Rubin Subject: Re: EMERGENCY SHOWERS CONNECTED TO ELECTRONIC ALARM In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Most fire-protection sprinkler systems have flow-alarms, but it's unusual to have them area-specific. The monitor is generally near the building intake and simply indicates flow in the system. Does the vandalism you're worried about merit the expense of installing/connecting flow alarms on each shower? How common an occurrence is this (and what ever happened to plain old fire-extinguisher fights, which at least were relatively small amounts of water)? JNR Jeff Rubin, Asst. Dean for EHS College of Natural Sciences G2500 W.C. Hogg Building University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-1199 (512) 471-6176 (O) (512) 471-4998 (F) jrubin@mail.utexas.edu "The opinions of Dr. Rubin are not meant to offend anyone unless otherwise specified." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:29:30 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "Julie J. O'Brien" Subject: Re: American Chemical Society's Minimum Safety Guidelines for Chemical Demonstrat In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Teresa Robertson wrote: > LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: > >FYI- > >ACS had published guidelines to follow when performing chemical > >demonstrations. > > >Revised 6/4/88, Copyright 1988, ACS Division of Chemical Education, Inc. > Is there a more recent revision? > Teresa I don't think so, but I'll check into it. I'm certain that no major changes have occurred. Julie O'Brien > >Chemist > >PCR, Inc. > >PO Box 1466 > >Gainesville, FL 32602 > >352-376-8246 ext. 232 > >Fax 352-373-7503 > >afn35210@afn.org > > >Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer > >EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville > >PO Box 5951 > >Gainesville, FL 32627 > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:41:42 +0000 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Nigel McCarter Subject: Isopropyl inhalation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Biologists have become increasingly aware of formaldehyde hazards over the last few years. In response, many have switched to isopropyl alcohol for sample preservation. Many ecologists prefer to sort samples wet, which entails gazing down a microscope into a petri dish of beasties pickled in 50% IPA. Over the course of the day, workers may become pickled themselves. I have concerns about the long term effects of isopropyl inhalation ... but I can't find hard data. Any views, data, reference papers??? Nigel McCarter Safety Management and Information Services Ltd Box 23 019 Hamilton New Zealand Phone (64) 7 858 2429 Fax (64) 7 858 2689 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:14:31 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Barb Moore Subject: Re: EMERGENCY SHOWERS CONNECTED TO ELECTRONIC ALARM In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Our showers are fitted with a horn that sounds when the shower chain is pulled. It is very loud (last about 10 mins) and can be heard between floors. They are available from Lab Safety at about $100.00 ea. I think VWR also has them. If you need the address for Lab Safety write me directly. Lab Safety No. 8B-24770 for the Alarm Station - 97.90 Lab Safety No. 8B-24771 for vertical alarm 81.60 Lab Safety No. 8B-30273 for horizontal alarm 81.60 Lab Safety No. 8B-24772 for replacement can. When testing the showers the chain to the alarm can be held or disengaged so that the alarm does not sound. We had a problem with the first type we purchased as they emitted flurocarbons, but the newer cans are ozone safe. Good Luck. Barbara Moore Administrative Manager The College of Wooster Biology Department ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:17:06 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Dewey Williams Subject: Re: MSDS In-Reply-To: <199812091956.LAA10700@cheetah.it.wsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12/9/98 -0800, you wrote: >My favorite MSDS is for HPLC grade water, the part where it says what to do >if you get it in your eyes or on your skin. That's right, flush with water >for 15 minutes. It occured to me that that is the equivalent of a life >sentence of flushing. > >Mike Hinz >Chemistry Dept. >Washington State University Reading some of our MSDS's, I get the feeling that most were copied verbatum, changing only the identification section. No indencation is made that the person writing the MSDS had any 'clue' what they were putting on paper. One I liked was for an eye-wash bottle containing standard saline. The accompanying MSDS said that, if you get it on your skin or in the eyes, "flush for 15 minutes with water"! Who comes up with this stuff, anyway? Dewey Williams - Lab Manager mailto:williams@email.uncc.edu UNC-Charlotte Chemistry Dept. http://www.chem.uncc.edu "These are my ideas and no one else will claim them." "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:02:55 -0600 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Hiram Patterson Subject: Hazard Communication and State Universities MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I have a general question for the list. The Texas Department of Public Health is significantly changing their Hazcom Act. On container labels they require both physical and health hazards, including target organs. This is for both primary and secondary containers. The physical hazards include combustible liquid, compressed gas, explosive, flammable, organic peroxide, oxidizer, pyrophoric, unstable, and/or water reactive. The health hazards would include carcinogens, toxic agent, reproductive toxin, irritant, corrosive, sensitizer, hepatotoxin, nephrotoxin, neurotoxin, hematapoetic agent, and/or agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. The target organ could be a wide range. Do any of the other states require this type and scope of information outside of perhaps California? How would you or do you cope with this type of requirement? What types of product are out there besides NFPA or HMIS labels which according to Texas aren't sufficient nor are the original labels? The only manufacturer which appears to include items like these on their labels is Baker. Hiram Patterson Environmental Health & Safety Manager Baylor College of Dentistry - Texas A & M System Dallas ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:34:02 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Barb Moore Subject: Re: Hazard Communication and State Universities In-Reply-To: <220408D5FEF7D1119BBD00805FBB781607584B@EXCHANGE.tambcd.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This has been a problem for us here at Wooster. We have been trying to find suppliers who include all hazard and storage information on their labels. The ones that we are currently using for the bulk of our ordering are Spectrum Flinn VWR While they do not contain all the information, they contain much more than many others. BUT many of what I call exotics that we order have to come from a larger supplier like Sigma. I tried two years ago to ask them if they might chenage their labeling to include more information, but got nowhere. Perhaps this group could each request that their labels be changed to reflect the needs of many of us. There is sometimes power in numbers. Barb Moore Administrative Manager The College of Wooster Biology Department ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 10:37:04 -0400 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Don Abramowitz Subject: Re: EMERGENCY SHOWERS CONNECTED TO ELECTRONIC ALARM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Our showers are fitted with a horn that sounds when the shower chain is >pulled. It is very loud (last about 10 mins) and can be heard between >floors. I agree that the horns are the way to go - I believe their presence provides a deterrent to vandalism, plus affords the benefit of alerting others in the building that help is needed when the shower is activated legitimately. If you want something wired in to a central monitoring station, consider a water sensing switch installed at a low point in the building. (Perhaps where the water got to in the last incident.) Depending on the building layout, a single sensor might serve to monitor multiple shower (and other plumbing) stations. If your central fire alarm system is expandable, the additional sensor might run say, $500. to $2,000. to purchase and install, depending on how difficult it is to run the wires. >We had a problem with the first type we purchased as they emitted >flurocarbons, but the newer cans are ozone safe. I would venture to guess that your new horn propellant is flammable. A pet peeve of mine is that the quest for ozone layer protection has sometimes resulted in the re-introduction of hazards that the freons, etc. were (in part) intended to eliminate. Case in point: I have a can of "PerfectDuster", a.k.a. "EcoDuster II" (spray-type can with skinny tube on nozzle, used to blow dust off delicate instruments and the like). The label says it has "1,001 and one uses for home and office." There's a big green seal assuring me that it contains no ozone depleting CFCs. Just below it is a smaller international symbol for explosives, with accompanying warnings about flammability and the can's tendency to explode if left in a vehicle. The propellant is a mixture of dimethyl ether and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. Time to put away the soap box. I realize it's not much of risk in typical use, and the nature of manufacturer's warnings was well covered in our discussion of methanol and MSDSs. Don ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don Abramowitz, CIH Occupational and Environmental Safety Officer Bryn Mawr College | Swarthmore College 101 N. Merion Avenue | 500 College Avenue Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 | Swarthmore PA 19081 Telephone: (610) 526-5166 | (610) 328-8564 Fax: (610) 526-7499 | (610) 328-7837 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 07:54:52 -0800 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Ray Campbell Subject: Re: EMERGENCY SHOWERS CONNECTED TO ELECTRONIC ALARM In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Talk to your alarm company. Most sprinkler systems are connected to a flow switch to trigger an alarm. They can point you at a system, I'm sure. Ray Campbell REA CCHO UCI Alumni 310-257-1080 At 06:06 PM 12/9/98 -0700, you wrote: >There are times when disgruntled students have pulled emergency showers >installed in hallways of our buildings causing massive flooding. The >drainage just below the shower, if any, is not good enough to drain >accumulated water at the speed of 30 gallons a minute. There is clearly a >need to become aware immediately if an emergency shower has been pulled as >a prank, especially during evenings or weekends. > >Has anyone else experienced this kind of problem and how it has been >resolved? Your advice in this regard will be tremendously appreciated. > >I was wondering about flow switch attached to the water pipe of the shower >that will trigger alarm at the site as well as signal to a central >location. Is anyone aware of a system like this or a comparable system that >can help to stop this massive flooding in time? Thanks for any suggestion >or advice that will lead us to find a workable solution to this problem. > >Rama Singh >---- >Rama Singh >Safety Coordinator >The School of Physical Sciences >Phone: 949-824-2518 >Fax: 949-824-3891 >Pager: 949-262-6710 >e-mail:rpsingh@uci.edu >ZOT CODE 4675 > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 08:54:51 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "It's Me, Linda" Subject: Re: EMERGENCY SHOWERS CONNECTED TO ELECTRONIC ALARM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >There are times when disgruntled students have pulled emergency showers >installed in hallways of our buildings causing massive flooding. The >drainage just below the shower, if any, is not good enough to drain >accumulated water at the speed of 30 gallons a minute. There is clearly a >need to become aware immediately if an emergency shower has been pulled as >a prank, especially during evenings or weekends. > >Has anyone else experienced this kind of problem and how it has been >resolved? Your advice in this regard will be tremendously appreciated. > >I was wondering about flow switch attached to the water pipe of the shower >that will trigger alarm at the site as well as signal to a central >location. Is anyone aware of a system like this or a comparable system that >can help to stop this massive flooding in time? Thanks for any suggestion >or advice that will lead us to find a workable solution to this problem. > This happened at Chemistry a couple of years ago. The flooding was so bad that the ceiling below began to fall. There was asbestos in part of it apparently because they had to seal off the room and do major reconstruction. And it was just before finals. All of the big classes had to be split and relocated for their finals. We have looked into flood alarms because we have had other smaller but still significant incidents here at Biology. The flood alarms we have found will trigger an alarm, but I have not seen any that will turn off the source. But we weren't looking for that type since our problems could come from a number of sources. But with the alarm, atleast someone could be warned to come in and turn off the source themselves. A flood alarm would have saved us $14K worth of damage and 2 weeks of work to our vertebrate museum in October when someone left a gel dryer on and the hose escaped from the sink. Our computing and networking department compiled an estimate on alarms for the building, including the flood alarms. You may want to give yours a call and see if they can get you information on it. In my opinion, it would be worth it. Linda \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Linda S. Perez NAOSMM member #991 since 1994 Coordinator Ask Me! New Mexico State University Biology Department (505)646-3915 Box 30001 MSC 3AF (505)382-6547 pager Foster Hall Room 130 (505)646-5665 fax Las Cruces, NM 88003 liperez@nmsu.edu ***** http://pc-biology.nmsu.edu/linda/coordina.htm ***** ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:07:53 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Madelyn Miller Subject: Re: Hazard Communication and State Universities In-Reply-To: <220408D5FEF7D1119BBD00805FBB781607584B@EXCHANGE.tambcd.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII We have just signed a contract with BARA environmental solutions inc. , in San Marcos, Texas. They will take our chemical inventory and match their MSDSs on our web site through their server. They will also include 300,000 MSDS library, glove compatibility, waste codes and one can print the labels you want from your original list. If your interested their web site is http:www.bara.com We are very excited about the program and look forward to it's implementation the beginning on 1999! Madelyn ---------------------- Madelyn Miller Chemical Hygiene Officer, CCHO Environmental Health & Safety Carnegie Mellon University mmiller@andrew.cmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:32:55 -0000 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: "L. James Stock III" <34EMQ6K@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Re: Safety caps Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I buy safety venting caps for my 2.5L bottles of Conc. Sulfuric Acid that we add No-Chromix cleaning compound to. I buy them from Fisher Scientific. Cat.# 02-883A ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 11:32:28 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Bill Schultz Subject: Re: Hazard Communication and State Universities MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is such requirement in Maryland. There are several points which are not clear. Will the regulation apply only to chemicals covered by Hazard Communication or will it also apply to chemicals covered by Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in the laboratory? Who will be required to make the determination of hazard class and target organs, the manufacturer or end user? Would manufacturers increase prices in Texas or just stop selling there? Not selling there could be a viable economic decision depending on the cost of meeting the requirement. Some of the information you list for labeling is not present on many MSDSs'. For small quantity containers of research chemicals the label could end up being larger (and heavier) than the container. You use the term "is changing" so I assume that the change has not been finalized. Since it is almost impossible to change a regulation once it is issued I recommend that you follow the procedures in your state for submitting written comments expressing your concerns about the proposed changes. The only way you can cope with such a regulation after it is issued is to adhere to the regulation or plan for the fines in your annual budget. Bill Schultz Chemical Hygiene Officer USAMRIID ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Hazard Communication and State Universities Author: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List at Internet-Mail Date: 12/10/98 9:02 AM I have a general question for the list. The Texas Department of Public Health is significantly changing their Hazcom Act. On container labels they require both physical and health hazards, including target organs. This is for both primary and secondary containers. The physical hazards include combustible liquid, compressed gas, explosive, flammable, organic peroxide, oxidizer, pyrophoric, unstable, and/or water reactive. The health hazards would include carcinogens, toxic agent, reproductive toxin, irritant, corrosive, sensitizer, hepatotoxin, nephrotoxin, neurotoxin, hematapoetic agent, and/or agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. The target organ could be a wide range. Do any of the other states require this type and scope of information outside of perhaps California? How would you or do you cope with this type of requirement? What types of product are out there besides NFPA or HMIS labels which according to Texas aren't sufficient nor are the original labels? The only manufacturer which appears to include items like these on their labels is Baker. Hiram Patterson Environmental Health & Safety Manager Baylor College of Dentistry - Texas A & M System Dallas ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:34:54 -0700 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Teresa Robertson Organization: CSU Bakersfield Subject: Re: American Chemical Society's Minimum Safety Guidelines for Chemical Demonst MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: >FYI- ACS had published guidelines to follow when performing chemical >> >demonstrations. Revised 6/4/88, Copyright 1988, ACS Division of >Chemical Education, Inc. >On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Teresa Robertson wrote: >> Is there a more recent revision? >> Teresa >> LABSAFETY-L@siu.edu,.internet writes: >I don't think so, but I'll check into it. I'm certain that no major >changes >have occurred. Julie, Thanks also for posting this info. If I'd heard of these guidelines before, I'd forgotten. They will play a very important part in our next procedural review. Thanks again, Teresa >Julie O'Brien >> >Chemist >> >PCR, Inc. >> >PO Box 1466 >> >Gainesville, FL 32602 >> >352-376-8246 ext. 232 >> >Fax 352-373-7503 >> >afn35210@afn.org >> >> >Education/Exhibits Committee Volunteer >> >EXPO The Children's Museum of Gainesville >> >PO Box 5951 >> >Gainesville, FL 32627 >> ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 14:33:51 -0500 Reply-To: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List Sender: LABSAFETY-L Discussion List From: Amy Gregory Subject: Re: Hazard Communication and State Universities Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hiram, I thought it was bad enough when we were told to place NFPA labels on all of our chemicals here in OHIO! You really have a big job ahead. Currently, we order 75% of our chemicals from Fisher Scientific. Fisher lists NFPA codes, physical data, target organs and first aid on most of their bottles. Unfortunately, they do not carry many of the organics so we order those from Aldrich. Aldrich lists physical data and target organs, but they are quite brief. However, they are quick to provide an MSDS for each chemical. If you need prepared labels for secondary containers, you can try Lab Safety Supply (www.LabSafety.com). They have a decent selection of labels. Good Luck!!!! Amy R. Gregory Bio/Chem Lab Manager UC/Clermont College 4200 College Dr. Batavia, OH 45103 (513) 732-5316 At 09:02 AM 12/10/98 -0600, you wrote: >I have a general question for the list. > >The Texas Department of Public Health is significantly changing their Hazcom >Act. On container labels they require both physical and health hazards, >including target organs. This is for both primary and secondary containers. > > >The physical hazards include combustible liquid,