Quote:
Originally Posted by NMLinda
Ed - thanks for the clarification that it was Bob Aurelius who got Eugene Moss to do the survey at SGB. Sounds like Eugene is no longer with NIOSH, but I'm sure he'd be a great person to contact about how to follow up with NIOSH for a reprise, if we all want to do this.
|
Not exactly the way he put it. Bob did all the leg work, and then spent considerable time trying to convince the SGB President to do it. In his words, it was like trying to herd cats. There was considerable reluctance in having this done, at least partially because of fears of disruption of the events, but also a certain amount of not wanting to be involved in any sort of safety testing. Bob didn't say what finally got it done, but that it was a long hard process and one he didn't care to ever have to repeat.
I was reading Mike's blog over the weekend, I'm pleased to see that since Pam is no longer an elected official of the ISGB, I wonder if she would care to comment on an issue that Mike brought up several times (and I apologize in advance if this is a sore topic) previously, but I would like to see it addressed here: There's an obvious dichotomy now between what you've been saying over the past week, and the "official" ISGB stance (at least by the board of directors) over safety issues for the glass beadmaker. Pam, you've been very outspoken lately about the need for good information, but as President of the ISGB, you were very quiet about it. Which I find troublesome, especially since the Code of Regulations, section 1.3.2 says this:
Quote:
|
Section 1.3.2 – To promote educational initiatives on historical and contemporary techniques and trends, including establishing best practices for education and studio safety.
|
http://www.isgb.org/info/Code_of_Regulations.shtml
I don't want to put you on the spot, but can you at least comment about this issue?