Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), One Size Does Not Fit All.

In our previous blogpost, we discussed Ebola and the use of personal protective equipment.  Since then the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has come out with revised guidance on purchasing PPE and protocols for wearing PPE while handling patients with the Ebola virus disease.  Find this information here.  

A disposable nitrile rubber glove. Nitrile gloves are available in different colours, the most common being blue and purpleCitation needed. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fast Company Co.Design's article "Why Protective Gear Isn't Stopping Ebola" has an interesting discussion on the problems with PPE.  This discussion includes the usual complaints that its uncomfortable, it doesn't fit, restricts movement, visibility, etc.  It is interesting that before wearing a tight fitting respirator a worker must be either qualitatively or quantitatively fit tested with the respirator they will be wearing.  However, when it comes to PPE (like gloves or protective suits) there is no fit testing.  If you bought these items as clothing, you would try them on and purchase the best fitting one.
  

Asbestos Hands-on Demonstration

There is an unspoken assumption that the employer will purchase different sizes allowing workers to select the size that fits them the most comfortably.  This assumption is typically wrong and what actually happens is most employers buy larger sizes in the sense that one size fits all or they buy the size that fits the most people.  This results in complaints that wearing the PPE is more hazardous than not wearing it, which of course is the case if you are wearing ill-fitting or incorrect fitting PPE.

Wearing the proper PPE is not only about the right size, it is also about wearing the right type.  How many of you know that protective equipment are tested for how cut resistant they are?  The cut protection performance test (CPPT) is an American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) F 1790 standard cut test for protective equipment.  A glove's performance rating is classified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) 105-2005 from a 0-5 level, with 5 being the best cut performance, based on the outcome of the CPPT test.  Gloves are also tested for how long it takes for chemicals to breakthrough, degrade, or permeate the material the glove is made of.  ASTM F739 standard details the process for testing protective equipment for liquid and gas permeation (the video clip below shows how this is done).  Ansell Healthcare produces the "Chemical Resistance Guide" that includes permeation and degradation data for various glove material and a rating system.

When selecting PPE for your workers, unfortunately its not as simple as looking in a catalog and buying the cheapest PPE and/or buying one size that will fit most or all.  As the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard (1910.133) requires for PPE, you must assess the hazard you want the PPE to protect the worker from and then find the best fitting PPE so the worker will wear it comfortably without creating a greater hazard.

Related articles

• CDC promises Ebola safety supplies being readied for hospitals
• CDC Invests $2.7M In Ebola-Specific PPE Kits
• WHO Updates Guidelines on Ebola Protective Gear
• Why Protective Gear Isn't Stopping Ebola

Protecting Yourself During Restoration or Renovation Projects

Many of you know one of our main issues is protecting yourself and your family from the contaminants that you can be exposed to in construction work (including remodeling, restoration, or renovation work).  In our classes, we discuss the USA Today Special Report in 2000 "Workers unwittingly take home toxins".  This report discusses how workers through the years have been exposed to toxins and brought them home to contaminate their families.  Contaminates included asbestos, lead, mercury, radiation, animal growth hormones, dry cleaning chemicals, explosive toxins and carcinogens.  It has been our opinion for years, that the standard safety equipment for construction workers should also include disposable clothing or uniforms, that are left at the jobsite, and respirators.  This would be in addition to the typical hard hat, reflective vests, and safety shoes.  The new silica standard, if it goes through, will be interesting since it will probably require respirators for workers performing dusty tasks.

We have also discussed, in our classes, the emergency workers who worked at the Ground Zero site and all the different toxins they were exposed to like: asbestos, lead, dioxin, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mercury, silica, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  Some of these workers are so sick that we had to provide special medical coverage through the Zadroga Bill, costing the US billions of dollars.

Old House (Photo credit: WaywardShinobi)

To further prove our point, a recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) News Synopsis for January 2, 2014 discussed a Histoplasmosis Outbreak Associated with the Renovation of an Old House in Quebec Canada.  Histoplasmosis is a respiratory disease caused by the inhalation of fungus spores excreted by bats and birds, that can persist in the environment for several years.  Outbreaks can occur during demolition/renovation activities that create dust containing bird or bat droppings.  The MMWR outbreak happened during the renovation of an old house, 30 workers and residents were exposed to dust containing bird or bat droppings previously hidden in the brick walls.  14 of the workers/residents developed symptoms of histoplasmosis.  Of the four who were laboratory-confirmed, two were hospitalized.  Unfortunately, stories like this keep happening over and over, again.

Related articles

• Safety tips for doing home renovations
• 5 Best Home Renovations for Under $5,000
• Enhanced regulations for work involving asbestos to be introduced
• New report released on skin exposure hazards to firefighters
• Planning a Renovation? Don't Forget to Get the Lead Out!
• Lung infection outbreak tied to bat droppings stirred up in house renovation

NY Times Article Criticizing OSHA, Doesn't Criticize It Enough!

On March 30, 2013, the New York Times wrote the article "As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long Term Health Risks Fester."  You can click on the title of the article to read the article if by chance you have not read it or saw it.  As many of you know I am a sharp critic of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and their inability to protect worker health at Ground Zero, at the BP Oil Spill, Katrina, etc, etc, etc!  Here is another sad case of OSHA failing to do their job and claiming there is nothing they can do!  Are they kidding us!  Lets see the facts in this case:

• The culprit in this chemical exposure story is a chemical known as n-propyl bromide, or nPB.  “Medical researchers, government officials and even chemical companies that once manufactured nPB have warned for over a decade that it causes neurological damage and infertility when inhaled at low levels over long periods…”  So we know that exposure to this chemical is hazardous (fact!).
• 
  



3D diagram of n-propyl bromide molecule. Prepared with Discovery Studio Visualizer 1.7 and GIMP 2.2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


• Did we have an exposure?  “For about five years, Ms. Sheri Farley, 45, stood alongside about a dozen other workers, spray gun in hand, gluing together foam cushions for chairs and couches sold under brand names like Broyhill, Ralph Lauren, and Thomasville.  Fumes from the glue formed a yellowish fog inside the plant, and Ms. Farley’s doctors say that breathing them in eventually ate away at her nerve endings, resulting in what she and her co-workers call “dead foot”."  That sounds like an exposure to us (fact!).
• What did the employer do to protect the workers?  “Even as worker after worker fell ill, records from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration show that managers at Royale Comfort Seating, where Ms. Farley was employed, repeatedly exposed gluers to nPB levels that exceeded levels federal officials considered safe, failed to provide respirators and turned off fans meant to vent fumes."  So the employer knew the dangers and didn't protect the workers (fact!).
• What's a willfull violation?  According to OSHA, a willfull violation is a violation that the employer intentionally and knowingly commits or a violation that the employer commits with plain indifference to the law.  OSHA may propose penalties of a maximum of $70,000 for each willfull violation (fact!).

So if you buy into this argument that OSHA is powerless to act.  Then why did violations only total, as per the article, "less than $20,000 in OSHA fines related to glue fumes."  That is a travesty!  OSHA needs to wake up and do its job.  

What does the Director of OSHA have to say about this?  “I’m the first to admit this is broken,” said David Michaels, the OSHA director, referring to the agency’s record on dealing with workplace health threats.  “Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people end up on the gurney.”  You're the director and that's your answer.  Get your act together and fix the problem.  You know there's a problem and you're not fixing it.  You should be fired!  You've been the OSHA Director for what four years and we must admit you've done a lot of good.  However, at the same time this issue of protecting worker health has continued to fester and you know its broken and you haven't fixed it.  If you were on Donald Trump's Apprentice program, you would've been fired.


Let's look at the issue that the business claims they can't afford to protect workers.  Based on the article it says Royale "which employs about 100 workers and had around $7.5 million in sales in 2011",  in addition, Royale has also "paid nearly a half-million dollars - in court settlements, required upgrades....".  Where did these business owners get their education on running a business?  Here are some statistics from the article that makes you wonder about business owners and support a need for OSHA to do a better job of protecting worker's health:

• "Chronic ailments caused by toxic workplace air - black lung, stonecutter's disease, asbestosis, grinder's rot, pneumoconiosis, - incapacitate more than 200,000 workers in the United States annually.  More than 40,000 Americans die prematurely each year from exposure to toxic substances at work - 10 times as many as those who die from refinery explosions, mine collapses and other accidents that grab most of the news media attention."
• Occupational illnesses and injuries like Ms. Farley's cost the American economy roughly $250 billion per year because of medical expenses and lost productivity, according to government data analyzed by J. Paul Leigh, an economist at the University of California, Davis, more than the cost of diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  Roughly 40 percent of medical expenses from workplace hazards, or about $27 billion a year, is paid by public programs like Medicare and Medicaid."

In our opinion, it would be more effective to have a respiratory protection program using respirators and proper filters.  The probable cost of a respiratory protection program for 100 workers would be around $40,000.  It seems to us it would be cheaper to provide the workers with respirators than to pay for court settlements, worker's compensation insurance costs, disability insurance costs, etc.  It is way past time we started recognizing the need to push respirator use to handle situations that either the political will, financial will, or just plain indifference is not protecting workers.

Related articles

• Robin Wilson: Cheap Furniture Should Not Kill or Maim U.S. Workers
• Filtering Facepiece Respirator or Dust Mask. Which is it?
• OSHA has dismal record preventing long-term workplace hazards
• When nerve-damaging glue is disabling workers, what can OSHA do? [The Pump Handle]
• A Bill Currently In The House Attempts To Give More Power To OSHA For Workplace Safety
• Worker Protection Too Costly!
• OSHA last inspected Texas fertilizer plant in 1985

Chemical Accidents Sickens 54 in Bohemia, NY

Image via Wikipedia

Just before the Hurricane, the above headline was in Newsday, on August 19, 2011, regarding a chemical accident where two cleaning chemicals were accidently mixed causing 54 workers to become ill and requiring some of them to be hospitalized.  Workers were treated for symptoms including convulsions, dizziness, nausea, shortness of breath and vomiting.  Unfortunately, the report does not discuss the specific chemicals that were mixed.  It does mention that the company was using a new chemical for cleaning and did not fully purge the old cleaning chemical out of the system.
This incident highlights the importance of providing training to staff when a new chemical is added to the facility.  This will ensure the hazards of the new chemical will be understood and any problems that may occur with mixing chemicals are fully understood.  The most important part of this training is the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).  The MSDS is created by the manufacturer to warn the users of its chemicals about the dangers of the chemical, the personal protective equipment (PPE) needed, first aid necessary if exposed, the path of exposure, and other important information.  The training on the new chemical should be on the specifics of handling the chemical including any PPE needing to be used when using the chemical, the first aid procedures should an exposure occur, proper storing of the chemical, and any other chemicals that should be avoided or prevented from coming into contact with the new chemical.  Maybe if this training was done the individuals responsible for purging the system would have been more cautious.

Related articles

• NY cellphone workers sickened in cleaner mishap (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Chlorine Leak Sickens 20 at Sacramento Water Park (shoppingblog.com)
• Fumes at McDonald's leave 2 unconscious, sicken 9 (ajc.com)

Future Environment Designs discussion "The Pollution Within"

Image via Wikipedia

In 2006 we discussed in our blog Future Environment Designs: "The Pollution Within" from Plattsburgh, NY about an article we read in National Geographic about all the different chemicals we have inside our body.  Its interesting that on November 7, 2009 that the New York Times Op-Ed Columnist by Nicolas Kristof (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08kristof.html) wrote "Chemicals in our Foods and Bodies".  Specifically discussing the issues with bisphenol A (BPA), its a synthetic estrogen used in plastics.  Some of you might even know that Suffolk County, New York has banned it.  BPA has been linked to a number of illnesses from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike (not conclusively).  So all of this still begs the question when are we going to do complete research on the chemicals we use to determine whether by themselves or multiple chemicals together cause or can cause illnesses or cancers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ban BPA In all Consumer Products (thepetitionsite.com)
• Second Study Backs BPA Link to Heart Disease (friendseat.com)
• FDA Investigating Health Hazards of BPA in Plastic Bottles, Food Packaging (shoppingblog.com)

"The Pollution Within" from Plattsburgh, NY

This week I'm in Plattsburgh, New York for asbestos awareness and refresher classes. On the way up, on the train, I read an interesting article in the October, 2006 issue of National Geographic. The article's name is "The Pollution Within" written by David Ewing Duncan (learn more about this article at http://ngm.com/0610). It certainly seems lately their is a theme on the information I've been reading or exposed to lately. "The Pollution Within" is an article about the chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis and their ability to enter our body and possibly accumulate in the body. It is very interesting reading especially after seeing the 911 movie we discussed in our previous blog.
An interesting point the article makes is that many of the chemicals we are exposed to everyday, have little or no scientific research on their effects on humans. Some of these chemicals show varying effects in animals, such as impacts on neurodevelopment, thyroid function, and reproduction. But very little is known about their effects on humans. Our exposure to these chemicals can come from the food we eat, the plastics we use for wrapping and storing food, our clothes, furniture, and cosmetics. Though there are potential health risks, using these various chemicals have saved lives (such as fire retardants) and may be worth the risks.
From this article we learned that in 2005 the European Union gave initial approval to a measured called REACH - Registration, Evaluation, & Authorization of Chemicals requiring companies to prove the substances they market or use are safe, or that benefits outweigh any risks. Needless to say the bill is opposed by the Chemical Industry and the US Government. The measure would encourage companies to find safer alternatives to suspect flame retardants, pesticides, solvents, and other chemicals. This bill would give a boost to the green chemistry movement.
The United States should not be opposing this measure, but should consider how we can support this measure and update our own laws to meet the challenge of achieving safer chemical use. The United States Government should be promoting and exporting our environmental protection and conservation expertise. As Green Building movement picks-up momentum, more data will come out on how these buildings pay for the extra costs with reductions in energy, and maintenance costs, and their ability to attract occupants that are willing to pay premium prices for the apartments, condos, or offices.
We need a better understanding on the various effects that chemicals have on our bodies and the potential effects that the interaction of multiple chemicals have on our bodies. Let's hope if the US doesn't get its act together regarding chemical exposures, we might get information from the European Union or data from the Green Movement to assist us with a better understanding of these effects.