Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Do you mean the stuff that may be as bad as Asbestos?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Betta, this is way too much of a broad statement.It's like condemning all 'chemicals' because some are toxic.
Nano simply means very small (on a 1000 000 000th of a metre scale). We are surrounded by naturally occurring nanoparticles all the time, and always have been.
The guidance has a very good method for categorising hazard based on any known toxicity and the physical form (and this is where the analogy to asbestos comes in for certain classes of nanomaterial. They may indeed prove very hazardous.).
This is an excellent document, and well worth a read to show how scientists and engineers take a responsible approach to the unknown.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for this.
I also got the publication news via another source and having dealt with a couple of "nanomaterials" in very small quanitities at a research lab level in 2008, the document is comprehensive and very good.
I also had usefulk input from Jane at that time!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Good stuff. And interestingly and example of the sort of “self regulation” which the government apparently supports ie users deciding amongst themselves what they want to do rather than relying on regulations, ACoPs and guidance from HSE, EU and other regulators.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Good stuff. And interestingly and example of the sort of “self regulation” which the government apparently supports ie users deciding amongst themselves what they want to do rather than relying on regulations, ACoPs and guidance from HSE, EU and other regulators.
The government does indeed support 'self regulation'. They allowed the banks / finance world to 'self regulate'. What happened there then?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please go through the document and then the key role of HSE will be known! On the cover page, at the bottom, it states that "This guidance has been produced by The UK NanoSafety Partnership Group (UKNSPG) with contributions from the HSE. It provides help to research establishments and academia on how to comply with their occupational health and safety legal obligations; it also provides additional information to help make improvements to health and safety systems when working with nanomaterials. It should be noted that the guidance may go further than the minimum you need to do to comply with the law." Additonally, there is a disclaimer, "This document and the information contained within are provided for informational purposes. It is not intended to substitute for the statutory requirements for workplace health and safety management. The information in this document is provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind. The UK NanoSafety Partnership Group (UKNSPG) assumes no responsibility or liability arising from the use of this document. Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the UKNSPG. All Web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication date." In addition to the foreward to the guidance by the HSE Chair, Judith Hackitt, there is an endorsement, 'This guidance has been produced by The UK NanoSafety Partnership Group with contributions from the HSE. It provides help to research establishments and academia on how to comply with their occupational health and safety legal obligations; it also provides additional information to help make improvements to health and safety systems when working with nanomaterials. It should be noted that the guidance may go further than the minimum you need to do to comply with the law. HSE welcomes the launch of this guidance and will continue to work with partners to ensure that the health and safety risks to employees in the nanotechnologies industry are properly controlled.' The UK NanoSafety Partnership Group (UKNSPG) incluudes key personnel from the Health & Safety Laboratory (HSL) that is a part of HSE. Last, but not least, the HSE did previously and still continues to drive the regulatory approach to Nanomaterial with the key aspect being the "precautionary principle" and in my view desrve a lot of credit for it. http://www.hse.gov.uk/nanotechnology/index.htmhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/na...ment-detail.htm#specific
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What I meant is that, yes the HSE was involved but the lead was taken by the users themselves. In a lot of industries you get the impression that they complain about ‘Not getting enough guidance’ etc but are unwilling to do anything about it themselves. If we go back to the Robens report, it as assumed that industry would be responsible for producing most of this guidance not the HSE. This is one of the reasons why H&S is often held in such low regard, as the impression is given that regulations, guidance, and ACoPs are produced in a vacuum, without input from the users. (I know that is not true; the HSE always involves and consults stakeholders but that is the impression). The document is very good and an example of what can be achieved by industrial groups working together and applying their pooled knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jane Blunt wrote: and this is where the analogy to asbestos comes in for certain classes of nanomaterial.
Mercy buckets. That'll be a yes then. Scary stuff when you compare this to how long to took from proving that Asbestos kills to the time it took to finally ban its use in the UK (90+ years).
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.