Clay Coordinator on fri 3 may 02
Edouard,
I am not in favor of alarmism either. And that is becaue many times it
creates the opposite effect.
But sometimes people are lulled into complascence by data, which they really
don't understand anyway, showing a substance is not as toxic as formerly
thought, then they adopt an attitude that it is not harmful at all. And
this is incorrect.
So here on Clayart, we know that manganese fumes are a hazard and then
people start to infer that there is no other hazard. But there is a hazard
from dust and people should know that so that they can act accordingly. I
don't mean wearing a space suit to protect themselves. I mean they can try
to minimuize their exposure. If they think that there is no hazard then they
may begin to act recklessly with the substance. This is especially bad in a
group studio situation.
I really try not to pooh pooh the dangers of the chemicals we work with
because most people are lazy when it comes to safety. Just getting them to
wear a respirator is a challenge, if it is not right at hand. So
minimumizing dangers is effectively like giving them license to neglect
safety. (And I am not claiming you are doing this!)
Also we work and live with a whole host of chemicals so it is always
advantageous to minimumize exposure whereever you can. Also, if you add in
the factor of cumulative expousure over your lifetime it is even more
important to minimumize risk.
Thanks for the dialogue.
I appreciate the time and energy you put into helping us to know the facts.
Thanks,
John Britt
Penland Clay
Subject: Re: Manganese
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello John,
I have never said that.
I supplied comprehensive information from the best sources
showing that it was less toxic than what alarmists
tried to make us believe.
I am against alarmist potters who post nearly
anything here on Clayart
It is a complicated matter for people without proper
knowledge in the field.
Many factors must be taken into account, and just
to name a few:
1-Particular toxicity of a chemical
2-Particle size distribution
3-Levels of exposure
4-Duration of exposure
5-Toxi-kinetics.
6-Etc.
Put it this way: "A shot of gin a day has never
kill anyone, but forty may in the long run".
We can not decide for potters what to do not
knowing what their exposure is like.
That is why I prefer to supply up to date and
comprehensive information to the list
and let individuals make their own decision.
Off list I can send you a zipped file of health hazards
in the pottery industry and in some studio-potter's
shops supplied by the Canadian Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety, Tom Buck knows the quality of the
information supplied by this Centre financed by our
federal govt., he lives close to it.
Just let me know.
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
| |
|
