I hope you are right.  My point is that with no oversight, things either don't improve or improve so as you would barely notice.   My suggestion is that we look at methods of oversight.   Suppose the Chemwatch raw data were reworked by company to identify, not the countries, but the corporations that do good jobs and those that don't.  Might help.  But with now one looking or caring, it will just go on.

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist

President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.

Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE

181 Thompson St., #23

New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062

actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com   www.artscraftstheatersafety.org

 

-----Original Message-----
From: BIALKE, THOMAS <tbialke**At_Symbol_Here**KENT.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

I would bet that if you conducted that survey prior to GHS implantation, especially in the US you would get zero agreement. So 8% is an improvement. Far from perfect, but what did Chemwatch offer as a solution?

 

It is so easy to find fault and condemn an program without offering a solution.

 

Witness the Affordable Care Act.

 

Right now, GHS is the best we have.

 

 

Thomas Bialke

 

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU] On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 1:25 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

 

Thank you Ralph.   That supports what I'm seeing very well. I already wrote an article about that Canadian study of incorrect flash points.  

 

What it really boils down to is people are not reading the definitions and just making the same assumptions about their chemicals that they have always made.  

 

As long as there is no MSDS and no SDS oversight, why would manufacturers spend any more time or expertise writing their SDSs than they did their MSDSs.  Just get something out that looks right has been and still apparently is:  THE RULE.

 

And that is an established global system.

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist

President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.

Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE

181 Thompson St., #23

New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062

actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**cs.com   www.artscraftstheatersafety.org

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph B. Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**CORNELL.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Nov 21, 2013 1:13 pm
Subject: [DCHAS-L] GHS Busters

I noticed an interesting article at

https://www.swiftpage6.com/speasapage..aspx?X=2Y0RSDXNI9G1KQ0R00YEWW

about the challenge of GHS:

What does GHS stand for?

The Excercise

Chemwatch have undertaken a systematic comparison of GHS classification 

published by official sources in:

Europe (ECHA)

Japan (NITE)

New Zealand (CCID)

Korea (NIER)

A total of 12,452 Substances were reviewed. 

Interestingly there was very little overlap between Substances reviewed by any 

two Jurisdictions - Korea and New Zealand reviewed 1494 Substances in common.

However, where Substances in common where assigned GHS Classifications, fewer 

than 8% were in agreement - New Zealand and the European Union agreed on only 75 

Substances of 939 Substances. 

In summary:

< 8%  Harmonisation between any 2 Jurisdictions

< 0.6% Harmonisation between any 3 Jurisdictions

===

I'm not quite sure of what to make of this data. I wonder if anyone on the list 

has done international comparisons that include the US?

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart CIH

Chemical Hygiene Officer

Department of Environmental Health and Safety

Cornell University

rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**cornell.edu