Rank: Super forum user 
|
My wife uses a 1 litre spray bottle for cleaning a changing bed after use.
She was instructed this morning to store the container in a cupboard and to ensure the nozzle is in the off position, by the Health and Safety Officer. The cupboard is not locked and there are no warning signs on the outside.
There is no hazard warning on the container and there is no COSHH assessment.
There was no record of this instruction taken.
Is this a Friday thread for this being OTT or is it the correct measures for an everyday used bottle of cleaning fluid that is readily available in the shops?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I was once told by an EHO from a local authority that a product that is used for cleaning saddles (with no warnings on etc) could be used like a gun to squirt (typical 250ml or so size trigger bottle) into peoples eyes and as such it should be stored out of the reach of children.
When I asked him how high that was he could not answer me it was 'down to my risk assessment'; a bit peeved to say the least I said that I knew some 13yr old's that were as tall as me; and that it was impossible for me to store it out of their reach if we ever wanted to sell any!! Ah well that's down to your risk assessment he said; but if ever there is an incident involving this product........
I walked away to compose myself; no wonder H&S gets a bad name on so many occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Depending upon what is being used this might not be quite as silly as it may seem. I have a case study of a waitress in a restaurant who was using a spray bottle to clean tables. She developed a facial dermatitis due to skin exposure to the aerosol created by the spray. The product was basically a normal domestic type cleanser but containing an anti-bacterial. The problem was resolved by having her hold the spray bottle close to the cloth and spraying the product on to the cloth, thereby reducing the aerosol to a level where it could not elicit the reaction.
Many household products will contain substances capable of causing allergic skin reactions but will not carry health warnings as the concentration is below a threshold where this is required. However, the level can be sufficient to elicit an allergic skin reaction in someone already sensitised. For example, you might find MCI/MI (methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone) used as a preservative. This is a well known sensitiser and is also often found in water based paints.
Things aren't always not what they seem!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris I agree with what you say but IMO they only went part of the way to good practice?
There were two of them - one giving the instruction, the other a witness, but no written record of the instruction being given.
IMO they protected themselves in case there is an incident but without written instructions things get forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I entirely agree with you about your case. The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing that does not have the capability of causing damage to health. In fact, if you look at the real statistics, the most common cause of occupational contact dermatitis is wet work, i.e. skin exposure to water. The fact that something does not have a warning sign on the bottle or is not included on a safety data sheet (as no risk phrase or hazard statement) does not mean that it is 'safe'. This is why relying on the safety data sheet for a COSHH risk assessment is not the correct approach.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.