Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Nichola Jayne Dixon
I have read somewhere that following personal monioring if the results exceed half the WEL this is classed as a significant exposure.
Anyone know the reference, it is driving me insane
Thanks
PS or even if I'm making it up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Smurfer
control of lead at work regs might be what you're thinking of - significant exposure is half of the exposure limit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nichola Jayne Dixon
Yeah got it thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I believe that in theory WELs are set by HSE / ACTS such that exposure up to the WEL has nil effect on an individual. I also believe that this comes from toxicity testing (the No observable effect level).
It is "good practice" the use the 50% level as a control point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike
The HSC/ACTS approach to deriving WELS is summarised in EH40/2005 pp35-39. The word "Adverse" would normally be inserted in "No Observed Effect Level".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike
Sorry- correction EH40/2005 pp. 37-39.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Derek Carpenter
WELs is a recent guide and has some oddities.
For instance, Trichloroethylene was a Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL) 0f 100 parts per million. This meant there was no known safety level for this Carcinogen.
It was abitrarily transferred across as a WEL which raises concerns of how thw WEL can be more protective?
Using the earlier comment that a WEL is intended to to represent the level is that of no effect, in this case is misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.