search  current discussion  categories  safety - misc 

serious question: safety issues

updated tue 25 may 04

 

Lili Krakowski on tue 18 may 04


=20
=20

=20



=20

=20

We do The Safety Issue with great frequency. Now we were on Spray =
booths and spraying. And the Great Divide gave me paws as I was clawing =
my way to understanding.=20

Checking things out I learned that the only spray booths I would dare =
use maskless, cost between $1500 and $2000 delivered to my door. No =
idea whatcutting vent in a wall, extra outlets etc would cost.

=20

This made me think on the demographics of Clayart. We have university =
professors and similar. Highly trained and skilled, their institutions =
provide "special" clay facilities, sometimes special buildings, the =
best equipment , and lab techs who make sure everything is maintained =
and cleaned at top level. Moreover Profs can yell and scream if things =
are not done right. Then there are the Experts who know every atom by =
name...And have excellent facilities to work in. And the Everlasting =
Potters, in clay forever, who may have excellent facilities or not, but =
know their stuff and can be trusted to pot safely.

=20

I also think the biggest % of Clayart are people who love clay, are =
serious and dedicated, but not necessarily moneyed. They pot in sheds, =
garages, basements, former "utility rooms" and so on. They neither can =
afford the newest and most technically developed studios, they cannot =
make the time to service equipment to perfection.. =20

( I know we have some millionaires among us, lucky them, but they are =
an exception.)=20

My point is: The limited teaching I have done has been in =
recreational facilities. The students have been retirees taking up a =
second profession, working people: MDs nurses , schoolteachers, office =
workers, full time at-home parents, and some who were "doing clay" as =
therapy. I think this group makes up most of Clayart. =20

I suspect our demographics explain our divergence of opinion on safety =
issues. I say take your clay clothes off immediately, drop them into a =
dampened plastic bag, do not carry clayey clothes in your car except =
damp in a closed container, drop clothes asap into the washer on your =
way to shower and shampoo, wear a mask even with a spray booth, etc. I =
am talking to the parent who works at home, after a day on the job, =
makes time on weekends, but does NOT have professional facilities. I am =
talking to the nurses (we have many on the list, and bless every one) =
who want to wind down after a grueling shift. I am talking to the parent =
who takes an evening class and is over-eager to kiss the babies good =
night. I am talking to the Newbie who is not yet familiar with It All =
and not even aware of risks.

SO THIS IS MY ????? WHAT IS WROING WITH EXTREME SAFETY? What is wrong =
with wearing a mask when spraying? Isn't the opposite the greater risk? =
Isn't it wiser to preach extreme caution so that people KNOW how risky =
things are, rather than taking a more relaxed view and letting people =
learn the hard way? Shouldn't the burden of risk- taking be on that =
taker? Or why do the pill companies say: DO NOT take more than X a =
day, as you may fry your liver? =20

Lili Krakowski, A.A.S., A.F.C*

(*Alarmist Fraidy Cat)

=20

. And by the way I got a new ACTUAL cat.)







=20





I suspect our demographics explain our divergence of opinion on safety =
issues. I say take your clay clothes off immediately, drop them into a =
dampened plastic bag, do not carry clayey clothes in your car except =
damp in a closed container, drop clothes asap into the washer on you =
way to shower and shampoo, wear a mask even with a spray booth, etc. I =
am talking to the parent who works at home, after a day on the job, =
makes time on weekends, but does NOT have professional facilities. I am =
talking to the nurses (we have many on the list, and bless every one) =
who want to wind down after a grueling shift, ..I am talking to the =
Newbie who is not yet familiar with It All and not even aware of risks.

=20

SO THIS IS MY ????? What is wrong with arguing on the side of Extreme =
Safety? What is wrong with wearing a mask when spraying? Isn't the =
opposite the greater risk? Isn't it wiser to preach extreme caution so =
that people KNOW how risky things are, rather than taking a more relaxed =
view and letting people learn the hard way? Shouldn't the burden of =
risk- taking be on that taker? Or why do the pill companies say: DO =
NOT take more than X a day, as you may fry your liver? =20

=20

Lili Krakowski, A.A.S., A.F.C*

(*Alarmist Fraidy Cat)

=20

. And by the way I got a new ACTUAL cat.)

pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on thu 20 may 04


Hi Lili, all...



Too...

One may 'spray' ( of course, not as Cats sometimes do, but
as Potters wishing to apply Glaze may do) out of doors, and,
with one's 3/4rs back to the prevailing breeze to alleviate
vortex swirls...one may use an inexpensive low-pressure
spray-gun or gravity feed cup-gun as allows the least mists
or fogs or overspray, and do so on a small budget...one may
wear an Apron-bib...and worry about laundering that...if
there is no breeze, one may set a Fan up on a chair or crate
or something to imitate the effects of one. If not satisfied
with the quality of the ambient immediate air while so
occupied, one may wear a respirator or mask of some kind,
or, lean or stand back a little more from the tasks.


While rather low tech, it can simplify matters...

All a 'spray booth' essentially is, is a captive breeze as
exhausts the air from a captive space.

A little table set out doors, may prove just as effecient,
if less convenient in some weathers, but, having little
expense, may be allowed it's vagueries.

I think...

Yes?


Love,

Phil
el ve


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lili Krakowski"


We do The Safety Issue with great frequency. Now we were
on Spray booths and spraying. And the Great Divide gave me
paws as I was clawing my way to understanding.

Checking things out I learned that the only spray booths I
would dare use maskless, cost between $1500 and $2000
delivered to my door. No idea whatcutting vent in a wall,
extra outlets etc would cost.



(big snippings done here, sorry...the 'archives' you
know...)

Lili Krakowski, A.A.S., A.F.C*

(*Alarmist Fraidy Cat)



. And by the way I got a new ACTUAL cat.)

Edouard Bastarache Inc. on fri 21 may 04


Earl,

I rarely use MSDS's as my sources of information, I usually only use them
when a chemical is not very toxic or when available data in the usual
documentary sources is inexistent, because the maker has to supply
information
according to local laws and by-laws on a MSDS.

The souces I use are last editon of textbooks, databases and sometimes the
Net.
I know of younger ones who study for a masters in toxicology and find most
of
their needed information on the Net for writing their works.

In the case of antimony trioxide I used a file published on the Net by our
own
Quebec's "OSHA", called La Commission de la SantÚ et SÚcuritÚ du Travail
du Quebec.

My text is only a small part of a more important text titled "Antimony and
Inorganic Compounds" that I am in the process of writing for Smart's site.


Later,



"Ils sont fous ces quebecois"
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.digitalfire.com/education/toxicity/

Earl Krueger on fri 21 may 04


On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 13:43 US/Pacific, Lili Krakowski wrote:
> SO THIS IS MY ????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH EXTREME SAFETY?
> Lili Krakowski, A.A.S., A.F.C*
> (*Alarmist Fraidy Cat)

It is wrong when all the talk of toxicity and imagery
of post apocalyptic paraphernalia scare people away
from claywork because they think it's too dangerous.

I read Edouard's posts on effects of different substances
on the human body and all I see are negative statements;
"localised cutaneous lesions at wet places" or
"diarrhoea able to evolve to a mortal collapse".

Never does it ever say "Hey, this stuff is Goooood for you!".

So people's reactions tend to be;
"Oh, my God. I don't want anything to do with that."

What is missing is any meaningful quantification of the
amounts that will cause health problems. Sometimes
you see suggested limits in milligrams per cubic meter
of air or milligrams per cubic centimeter of liquid. But
I have no intuitive feel for either of these quantities.

If in the standard test a glaze leaches 8 mg/ml how
much do I get by eating pasta off of a plate with this
glaze? Probably depends on the kind of sauce and
if I sop it up with bread or not. The effects on my
body also depend on if I eat pasta off this plate
once a month or three times a week.

So, when it comes to safety I believe we should all
try to make an appropriate assessment of what
is required based on the way we work, the time we
are exposed and the available knowledge.
We should be prudent but not necessarily excessive.

At least that's the way I think. To each their own.

Earl K...
Bothell, WA, USA

Earl Brunner on fri 21 may 04


Edouard's posts tend to lift body of text directly out of something like a
MSDS sheet. In schools and commercial settings we have to by law keep them
on hand for every chemical we stock. That's how they read.

Often the descriptions of exposure don't relate well to how we use the
chemicals. But the information is still valid and serves to warn us of the
types of precautions that we need to follow when using something.

Your point is well taken (the pasta example) but that IS the whole point, we
DON"T know how someone is going to use our pot after we no longer have
control of it. To be responsible, we need to give some consideration to the
chemistry.

Earl Brunner
Las Vegas, NV

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Earl Krueger
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 12:17 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Serious question: SAFETY ISSUES

On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 13:43 US/Pacific, Lili Krakowski wrote:
> SO THIS IS MY ????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH EXTREME SAFETY?
> Lili Krakowski, A.A.S., A.F.C*
> (*Alarmist Fraidy Cat)

It is wrong when all the talk of toxicity and imagery
of post apocalyptic paraphernalia scare people away
from claywork because they think it's too dangerous.

I read Edouard's posts on effects of different substances
on the human body and all I see are negative statements;
"localised cutaneous lesions at wet places" or
"diarrhoea able to evolve to a mortal collapse".

Never does it ever say "Hey, this stuff is Goooood for you!".

So people's reactions tend to be;
"Oh, my God. I don't want anything to do with that."

What is missing is any meaningful quantification of the
amounts that will cause health problems. Sometimes
you see suggested limits in milligrams per cubic meter
of air or milligrams per cubic centimeter of liquid. But
I have no intuitive feel for either of these quantities.

If in the standard test a glaze leaches 8 mg/ml how
much do I get by eating pasta off of a plate with this
glaze? Probably depends on the kind of sauce and
if I sop it up with bread or not. The effects on my
body also depend on if I eat pasta off this plate
once a month or three times a week.

So, when it comes to safety I believe we should all
try to make an appropriate assessment of what
is required based on the way we work, the time we
are exposed and the available knowledge.
We should be prudent but not necessarily excessive.

At least that's the way I think. To each their own.

Earl K...
Bothell, WA, USA

____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.

Edouard Bastarache Inc. on fri 21 may 04


Hello Earl,

the best statement of the day.
That is what I have been trying teach Clayarters for many years now.


" So, when it comes to safety I believe we should all
try to make an appropriate assessment of what
is required based on the way we work, the time we
are exposed and the available knowledge.
We should be prudent but not necessarily excessive.
At least that's the way I think. To each their own.
Earl K..."



"Ils sont fous ces quebecois"
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
http://www.digitalfire.com/education/toxicity/

____________________________________________________________________________
__

Ron Roy on fri 21 may 04


Hi Earl,

I think the reason we cannot set proper limits are many.

First of all it's not known just what happens - how long it takes and and
what combinations do. There has been almost no testing on combinations of
toxins for instance. Do they work together to make things worse - or
better?

We all have different resistance.

We all have a base level in our systems - from the water we drink and the
air we breath.

It's a crap shoot no mater what you do and thats why I think the less the
better. I did not think that way when I was young but I do now.

RR


>So, when it comes to safety I believe we should all
>try to make an appropriate assessment of what
>is required based on the way we work, the time we
>are exposed and the available knowledge.
>We should be prudent but not necessarily excessive.
>
>At least that's the way I think. To each their own.
>
>Earl K...
>Bothell, WA, USA

Ron Roy
RR#4
15084 Little Lake Road
Brighton, Ontario
Canada
K0K 1H0
Phone: 613-475-9544
Fax: 613-475-3513