tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post8365372449780680279..comments2024-03-26T05:20:01.588-04:00Comments on Human Health Risk Assessment to Chemicals: Learning from our Mistakes in ModelingMike Jayjockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02521885327730438390noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post-66619486839860626902013-11-29T21:04:55.083-05:002013-11-29T21:04:55.083-05:00I agree with you Mike. Risk assessment should be m...I agree with you Mike. Risk assessment should be made compulsory in every field, I guess. It is because of no or very little risk assessment that there are health hazards, workplace accidents, and road accidents taking place.Health And Safety Consultant Norfolkhttp://www.conservosafety.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post-16093825149785037252013-11-20T11:00:28.750-05:002013-11-20T11:00:28.750-05:00This is a note from Chris Packham from the UK and ...This is a note from Chris Packham from the UK and someone with a lot of experience in dermal exposure assessment. I thought I would add it as a comment to the above. MikeJ<br /><br />Mike<br /><br />This is something that in my field I am very aware of. Indeed when conducting a risk assessment for skin exposure frequently the most difficult aspect is identifying the real hazard. This is seldom the original chemical. We purchase chemicals to use them. When using the chemical it is usual that we change its characteristics and thus the hazards. I can show you many examples of this. For example an epoxy impregnated carbon fibre mat being used in an aerospace plant which contained a potent skin sensitiser. For one task this remained non-bioavailable, in another the combination with another chemical rendered it strongly bioavailable. Same product, different hazards. The key is observation of what is really happening in the workplace when the product is used. This is one reason why I seldom do modelling. I concentrate firstly on identifying exactly what is happening in that workplace for that particular task. <br />Take a very simple example, in the form of a degreasing tank, containing, say, toluene. It is only toluene when the tank is first filled. Once we start to degrease components the toluene becomes mixed with the substances that we are removing from components. So the hazard is no longer pure toluene. Suppose that we are cleaning items that have been returned from other workplaces for refurbishment or repair. We might not know what is in the soil that we are removing. This may contain potent skin sensitisers or other nasty chemicals. If we were to model the exposure risks based on toluene, how valid would these be?<br />Best regards<br />Chris<br /><br />P.S. Please feel free to add this to your blog if you so wish.<br /><br />Chris Packham<br />FRSPH, FIIRSM, FInstSMM, MCMI, RSP, MBICSc<br />EnviroDerm Services<br />Unit 10, Building 11, The Mews, Mitcheldean, GL17 0SN<br />Tel: 01386 832 311<br />Mobile: 07818 035 898<br />www.enviroderm.co.uk<br />Mike Jayjockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02521885327730438390noreply@blogger.com