In my opinion astupid and potentially move.I reiterate.what ever.Thanks to everyone one more time.On Thu, at 6:12 PM, George Walton wrote:> This is submitted to provide a possible way to resolve the issue of working> with unknown or poorly characterized material. None the less, we are a small and cash strappedcompany and they wanted the profits for themselves. Most included outsourcing analysis anddisposal or at least sending a small sample to a nearby universitywith NMR so at least we had a better idea of what it was and how toprotect ourselves. Our flash apparatus can't bemoved under a proper hood for this chemical.I made numerous suggestions. Whatannoyed me most was the assignment was identification.flash pointwas going to get us no where with that. The personwho ran flash has the experience and education to know the risks so,what ever.We are a laboratory, plenty of fume hoods and ppe, however we are setup for industrial effluent, not raw chemicals of unknown nature. I don't know what they were thinkingto check a flash point for just a few $$$$, but so long as it was notme, or someone who my responsibility falls upon is fine. The mere mention of OSHA with rule citations inhand created enough waves that my point was made.someone high up inthe company made the analysis. Subject: 6 Chemical Safety news stories from GoogleĬomments: To: g.c.walton**At_Symbol_Here**Īs always thank you.
![mynotes uvm mynotes uvm](https://i.redd.it/sqno6pg0w4h11.jpg)
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.