The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are going mobile. Well not the whole organization, but one of its bestselling and most used document is going mobile. Since its first printing in 1978, the NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (NPG) has been printed annually since 1978. NIOSH will be offering - drumroll please - a FREE mobile version. For all of you who are unfamiliar with the NPG – shame on you. The NPG provides general descriptive, exposure, and protective and emergency recommendations for 677 chemicals commonly found in the work environment. Workers, employers, and occupational health professionals all use the NPG in the course of their work and often in emergency situations.  Fire fighters, for example, use the NPG to prepare themselves for exposures they might encounter on fire scenes. Of course the NPG will still be available in print.

Why go mobile? The current printed pocket guide is a 424 page, 3 inch by 7 inch, pocket-sized book.  This can be rather unwieldy at times. Also there is a growing demand for the NPG in a mobile version that could offer users more convenience and flexibility.  The younger generations of Health & Safety Professionals demand this type of technology and flexibility. 

Right now NIOSH is asking all of us who use the NPG for our help. NIOSH would like to know how you would like to have the mobile NPG’s content presented, organized and what functions you would like to see in a mobile version.  To read more and more importantly make comments, go to

http://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2013/04/npg

What do we want?  We want a new OSHA Silica standard.

When do we want it?  Now

How long is too long?  In the case of OSHA’s proposed revisions to its silica standard, an interested stakeholder thinks two years is too long. The proposed revisions have languished within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for over two years – way past the standard 90 day review period.  The stakeholder is The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA). They recently called for progress on the standard and created a petition asking for immediate action. It is important for the proposed revisions to make it out of the OMB because that is only the first step in the lengthy review process to have the revisions go into effect.

However, there are 2 sides to every story. Although LIUNA and other safety stakeholders have repeatedly urged OMB to finish its review, there have been some industry and business groups that have opposed the standard, citing concerns about the higher costs and adequate monitoring techniques.

Over exposure to silica has been linked to silicosis, an irreversible and progressive lung disease. It is also associated with cancer of the lung. An estimated 1.7 million US workers are exposed to silica. Some Public Health experts that estimate up to 280 workers die each year from silicosis while thousands more develop silicosis as a result of workplace exposures.

LIUNA created an online petition on the White House Web Site to call for action. Unfortunately, the petition failed to gather the required 25,000 votes (just coming up short) needed to require a formal response.  Although they failed with this effort, groups like LIUNA, AIHA, and many other safety stakeholders will continue the movement.  As an example, in a January 25, 2012 letter, a group of more than 300 occupational safety experts, doctors and public health scientists urged President Barack Obama to help move along the delayed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review of OSHA's proposed crystalline silica rule. You can see the letter here:

 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/obama-letter-on-silica-1-25-12.pdf

If you are a safety and health professional like me, you may feel the same way I do.

What do we want? We want a new OSHA silica standard

When do we want it?  Now

Some Fun (and not so fun) facts about lead:

1) The Latin word for lead is plumbum.  That’s why the atomic symbol is Pb.  Plumber comes from this root as it referred to someone who worked with the lead pipes that were used to supply water.

2) Romans were very fond of Sapa and Defructum, both of which were produced by boiling down wine, often in lead pots, to recover fruit sugar. It was thought that lead was a better choice than copper since the resulting product was sweeter. These sugars were then used to sweeten and preserve wine and other foods.  There are studies that indicate Romans had lead levels 30 times above current recommendations.  Some people theorize that lead poisoning contributed to the erratic behavior of some Romans (Caligua and Nero for example) and helped cause the collapse of the empire.

3) There are an estimated 500,000 children with elevated blood lead levels in the US today. Lead can permanently harm a child's brain, kidneys and other organs. High levels in the blood can cause coma, convulsions and death. Lower levels can reduce intelligence, impair hearing and behavior and cause other problems.

Major sources of lead are paint chips, soil that has been contaminated by gasoline exhaust, and polluted water.  Paint chips in older housing in particular are a problem since they taste “sweet” to children, encouraging ingestion.

With the elimination of lead from paint in 1978 and gasoline during the 1980’s, it was thought that this problem would slowly diminish and that has been the case. However, the threshold level at which lead poisoning begins to have a detrimental effect on children is now known to be lower (0.5 mg/deciliter), resulting in approximately twice the number of kids being at risk than was previously thought.

Treatment for lead poisoning usually involves identification of the source, elimination of the contamination, and monitoring of the child. Since the damage in young children is often permanent, developmental problems cannot be completely overcome.  In extreme cases treatments such as chelation may be used in which a salt leeches the toxic metals from the blood and then is eliminated by the body.

Current budget cuts threaten lead screening in children as well as programs set up to mitigate exposures.  Given the long term damage this poisoning causes, these cuts represent short-sighted thinking and should be reversed.

Galson maintains ELLAP accreditation for the analysis of lead and can help you determine if you have a potential problem.  Give us a call or chat on-line to discuss.

Under the right conditions, just about anything can be dangerous, including dust. Materials that are not themselves combustible in solid form can become explosible given the right conditions. OSHA’s webpage on combustible dust states that:

“A wide variety of materials that can be explosible in dust form exist in many industries. Some industry examples include: food (e.g., candy, sugar, spice, starch, flour, feed), grain, tobacco, plastics, wood, paper, pulp, rubber, furniture, textiles, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, dyes, coal, metals (e.g., aluminum, chromium, iron, magnesium, and zinc), and fossil fuel power generation.”

The US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) completed a study that identified 281 combustible dust incidents from 1980 to 2005, which includes 119 deaths as well as injury to another 718 workers. As a result of this study, OSHA has commenced rulemaking. In March 2008, OSHA implemented a Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP) to assist in developing a combustible dust standard for general industry

This month, OSHA released the booklet “Firefighting Precautions at Facilities with Combustible Dust.” The booklet aims at raising awareness of first responders in an effort to reduce the numbers of injuries and fatalities in flash fires produced from combustible dust. It outlines what to look for in a pre-incident survey (including housekeeping issues to prevent build-up of combustible dust on surfaces, even elevated structural surfaces) and touches on precautions to be taken during a response. The booklet is a jumping off point for local first responders and industry to partner in order to work toward safer incident response until a standardized approach can be legislated.