Lampwork Etc.
 
Mountain Glass Arts

LE Live Chat

Enter Live Chat

No users in chat


Frantz Art Glass & Supply

Beads of Courage


 

Go Back   Lampwork Etc. > Library > Safety

Safety -- Make sure you are safe!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 2009-02-23, 2:08pm
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default Best Eye Health Info? How Do We Figure Out If We're Safe Enough?

To All

I'm sure the debate on the best eye protection for boro, soda-lime or other glass work has been raging for far longer than I've been involved with glass (probably the understatement of the century!). The recent discussions here in LE, however, got me wondering if there are any other expert reports with measurements like the one report by NIOSH to which Pam D, Dale M and others have published links in other parts of LE as well as in other forums. If so, what's out there and is there a way we can use that information to decide if we're safe enough or need to be safer? Or, have, say, groups like the scientific glassblowing community or industrial eye health professionals already done this and it doesn't need to be repeated? If so, does anyone have any favorite links or evaluations they'd like to share?

As a personal disclaimer, I've by no means read everything there is to read on this subject, nor am I an expert in eye health or the effects of radiation on eye health. I'm like anyone else in that I'm looking for open-source information available from experts in this field that will help me understand if I'm safe with what I'm doing.

My sense, though, is that the answer to all this is like ventilation, it depends on what a lampworker is doing. In some circumstances for example, safety items such as eyewear alone (no matter how good) may not be enough and may need to be supplemented. Boro shields used in conjunction with glasses for boro work come to mind as an example.

So....how to decide and how to know what to do?

What are your thoughts?

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2009-02-23, 2:28pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

If there hasn't already been testing to reference, I think we should work on pooling resources to get it done.

I'd love to look at the study you mentioned from 97 and I'm sure others might as well. Can you please post a link to that information. I understand there's a fee involved in viewing the report, but I'm willing to see how much it is. I'll probably bite the bullet and take a gander.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 2009-02-23, 2:48pm
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

As a start to what I hope will be a valuable discussion to all, and to fulfill a promise I made in another thread, here are some sources

For the convenience of all, here is the link to the NIOSH report on the SGB Gathering that Pam, Dale and others have posted:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports...-0139-2769.pdf

In my opinion, this is a good report in many ways, but I find it disappointing in others. On page 7, where it talks about UV, it doesn't state what the lampworkers were doing when they made the measurements (soda-lime? boro? big? little?) Reading further on pages 7 and 8 about IR, the report focuses on 'furnaces' (annealing kilns, fusing kilns, glory holes or glass blowers pot furnaces??) but doesn't actually mention how much IR is radiated when someone is working either boro or soda-lime in a torch. At the end of the report, NIOSH states that beadmakers need to wear protective glasses to protect against broken glass, burns and IR hazards (they mention visible light hazards on page 5, too). Good, but the only eye-wear they mention is didymiums and AUR92's. Along with the Phillips equivalent, these glasses are what are, or have been recommended for soda-lime work. But are folks working boro safe with what they're doing and what they're wearing?

Feeling a little dissatisfied, I found a paper not referenced by NIOSH's report. Interestingly, it was published in 1997, the year before NIOSH did their survey at the SGB Gathering. This paper is:

Glassblowers' ocular health and safety: optical radiation hazards and eye protection assessment" by Olanrewaju M Oriowo, B Ralph Chou, Anthony P Cullen, published in Opthalmic and Physiological Optics, Volume 17, Issue 3, 1997. Pages 216-224.

The same authors wrote a companion paper

"Occupational exposure to optical radiation and the ocular health status of of glassblowers" published in Opthalmic and Physiological Optics, Volume 17, Issue 6, 1997. Pages 483-491.

I found these papers on the following website:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com

I'm not comfortable posting the actual articles themselves because where I found them is a 'pay-per-view' site and I don't want to violate any copywrite restrictions. For anyone interested in reading these from this site, it was ~US$30 per article.

As a summary for the benefit of those who haven't read either or both of these articles, both papers talk about what they feel is the significance of UV and IR to eye health. In the first paper the authors measured the radiation produced by soda-lime, pyrex, quartz and cobalt at UV, visible, and IR bands and then compared the results to recommended TLV's for each of those bands. They also measured the capabilities of didymium (four samples, in fact), grey polycarbonate, green polycarbonate, Filterweld(TM) and cobalt c2 glasses (they didn't seem to like didy's for any type of glass, by the way). They made these measurements at several glass-blowing facilities. Measurements were made with the hot glass object ~50cm from the worker's face. I think they tried to be sure the furnace was excluded when they made their measurements.

Their measurements show that soda-lime exceeds recommended TLVs by a factor of about 4 in both the visible and IR ranges (with no eye protection). Pyrex was a factor of 5 above the TLV in the visible range. They don't say how big the hot glass object's were in their measurements, however, so I don't know how this would scale to someone working smaller volumes of glass. There's also no measurements for the furnace, although that wouldn't necessarily help someone working at a torch.

The reports, above, have been out for 11-12 years, so I suspect someone here on LE has seen them before.

If so, what did you think of this information?

I haven't found any follow-up or newer measurements, or anything more specific to working a torch. Has anyone else?

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2009-02-23, 2:51pm
GlassyEyedGirl's Avatar
GlassyEyedGirl GlassyEyedGirl is offline
Did someone say SALE?
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 995
Default

As I had posted in the other thread regarding this topic, I think that actual testing in ACTUAL conditions needs to be performed to see what our eyes are actually exposed to. There are a lot of speculations by the safety glasses manufacturers, but no hard numbers.

Who should do these tests? Good question. I would think that if you were employed as glass worker, that a government agency would require measurements and industry standards for protection against possible exposure. Since it does not seem as though that is something that has been tested, with the exception of NIOSH testing at the ISGB Gathering a few years back, (which showed no concern with soft glass for IR exposure) then who else should we turn to?

1. The people who profit from recommending the product to the lampworking community would be the first logical choice, but would they show their results if it showed that the glasses were not necessary to a large portion of the population they were selling to? Also, would people mistrust testing done by the group that profits from the item in in question... an example: Testing funded by a dietary supplement company that shows how necessary and beneficial their product is. To clarify, I am NOT saying that the glasses for sale are not effective at blocking radiation here at all... just wondering how NECESSARY they are when you consider the (unknown) exposure.

2. Maybe the ISGB? As far as I know, there has been no plan from them to try to get this done.

3. Self-funded research among the community? I would certainly donate to the cause if this is something others would consider.

4. Linda, aren't you retired from a company that makes this kind of testing equipment, according to your posts in the other thread? Surely you have some industry connections that you could call upon, since it is obviously a subject you feel passionately about? I am curious about what eye protection you use and what kind of glass do you work with? Speaking of which... have not seen your work yet, would love to have you join us in the Gallery section!

Bottom line... I definitely want to be safe, but I would not want to waste money on expensive eye protection that is not necessary.
__________________
Beth
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2009-02-23, 3:05pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

Thank you for the summary Linda. I doubt I'll be coughing up $60 if they do not mention what size gather they were testing. That is vital and I'm very disappointed that they exclude that. I'd much rather put $60 towards some testing that shows us all the required information for what we do. I am very glad you looked at it and if we find a source that isn't $60, I'll gladly look it over and give my take.

I sure hope somebody has more information... every thing I've looked at so far is incomplete and it's frustrating, but I think we do have an alternative course of action... the ISGB or GAS may be able to coordinate and pool funds to get this done.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2009-02-23, 3:07pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

If there was only a 20% difference between boro and soda lime levels, that is certainly interesting. It leaves me really wanting to know the scale of what they were testing. It is in line with what I've been thinking the difference between soft glass and boro should be. I don't think the divide is as great as previously reported when it comes to IR levels.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2009-02-23, 3:18pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Thanks, Linda, for the information. I really appreciate your input.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2009-02-23, 3:31pm
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassyEyedGirl View Post
4. Linda, aren't you retired from a company that makes this kind of testing equipment, according to your posts in the other thread? Surely you have some industry connections that you could call upon, since it is obviously a subject you feel passionately about? I am curious about what eye protection you use and what kind of glass do you work with? Speaking of which... have not seen your work yet, would love to have you join us in the Gallery section!

Bottom line... I definitely want to be safe, but I would not want to waste money on expensive eye protection that is not necessary.
Great question, Beth! We do indeed make IR instruments that work in the UV and IR bands of interest to lampworkers. Tempting as it is, these are made for special customers in clean-room environments and would be hands-off for this kind of thing. There's cheaper, standard test equipment available that's just as good for what we want here, however. The company I worked for sells test services, too, and may have the right test equipment available. If not, I'm sure it could be rented. They are very expensive, however. I don't know how people would feel about pitching in for a test that could cost in the many thousands of dollars.

I happen to own AUR-92's. I've had them so long, I don't remember if Phillips's equivalent products were available at the time or if I didn't happen to know about Phillips. I work soda-lime almost exclusively at the moment, but am interested in trying my hand at boro at some point, and at that time, will be faced with the eyewear/ protection question again.

Thanks for the encouragement to post in the Gallery! I've been in limbo until I get my ventilation system finished. Can't wait to get back to my torch!

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2009-02-23, 4:27pm
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

Your most welcome each, Pam and Brent.

The two papers I listed also touch on the debate on whether UV or IR are the key risks or both. In one of them, they say that certain kinds of IR damage can weaken some of the eyes' tissues in a way that makes them more sensitive to UV, increasing risk to UV that may or may not have been present before. If true, more complicated than I would have thought.

Beth, I personally think an organization like ISGB would be the natural choice to sponsor better/more testing. If NIOSH was willing to go to the Gathering at their request in 1998, why wouldn't they be willing to come out again? They might be agreeable to making measurements, like UV/visible/IR for someone, say doing soda-lime on a minor and again for someone doing boro on a big torch like a Delta Elite. There are probably some other areas they could expand on from their original report.

If there's anyone on the ISGB board reading this thread, what are your thoughts?

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2009-02-23, 4:54pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

Linda, a couple thousand would certainly be doable.

Would you mind seeing what you can find out about rental equipment? I can talk to some folks and start polling interest in providing the money. I think a wide range of torches, artists and materials should be tested. It would probably take all day and definitely require planning. Perhaps the Gathering, Bead and Button,Tucson or Vegas would be suitable venues. I can also talk to a few torch companies. Some of the boro color companies may also have an interest in contributing... after all, it's in their best interest to know what the artists melting their glass are being exposed to.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 2009-02-23, 8:14pm
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

Brent - I take it you're interested in doing a more comprehensive test, building on NIOSH's and along the lines of Beth's suggestion #3? Be fun to do, by the way. I'd be happy to see what I could find out. I never used portable test equipment on my programs, though, so it would take me a little time to see if something like what NIOSH used can be rented and how much it would cost. The test equipment I'm most familiar with from my work was pretty expensive: the last time I had to rent something, it cost as much as $13K/month with a six month minimum. For that reason, I sometimes farmed my test work out to companies specializing in that because they can amortize test equipment rentals and other costs across multiple customers. I often got a better deal that way. I don't mean to scare you off on your request, but you might want to hold off asking folks to contribute funding until I can find out if the equipment like what NIOSH used could be rented at a price that seems affordable to us.

While I go off and see what I can learn about rentals, does anyone know if NIOSH charged ISGB for the study performed in 1998 and, if so, how much it cost? It might end being cheaper to ask NIOSH to come back to one of the venues you suggest.

Also, I'd like to encourage others to join in, here. If there's a better report or other information you know about, it would be wonderful to see your posts

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 2009-02-23, 9:08pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Linda, as far as I recall there was no charge for NIOSH coming to the Gathering. I believe Stan Wolfersberger arranged it, but this is all from memory, so it may not be correct.

If someone drew up a proposal stating costs, etc., it's possible that ISGB would be interested in funding this type of research. However they would need the specifics, I'm sure, before considering such a project.
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2009-02-24, 3:04am
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

I wasn't going to start collecting the funds, just beating the drum to see what people were willing to contribute... this is important stuff, but times are leaner than usual. I highly doubt anybody would hand me a sack of cash... I don't want that responsibility even if they would. Once we get some rough ideas about the cost, we can compare it to the rough ideas about funding to see if it's viable.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2009-02-24, 7:26am
RSimmons's Avatar
RSimmons RSimmons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 01, 2005
Posts: 2,159
Default

I know that the interaction of near IR (or IR-A, 700-1400nm) with the tissues of the eye is very complex. There are potential problems with the cornea as well as the retina due at least in part to small temperature changes induced in the tissues by IR-A absorption. It's also both wavelength and intensity dependent. Add in dilation of the pupil from reduced intensity in the visible range by dark safety lenses that may or may not absorb fully in the near IR and it can get complicated. I will try to dig up some biological information to add to the mix.

Robert
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2009-02-24, 8:49am
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pam View Post
Linda, as far as I recall there was no charge for NIOSH coming to the Gathering. I believe Stan Wolfersberger arranged it, but this is all from memory, so it may not be correct.

If someone drew up a proposal stating costs, etc., it's possible that ISGB would be interested in funding this type of research. However they would need the specifics, I'm sure, before considering such a project.
I just talked to Bob Aurelius, and it was at his urging that NIOSH came to the SGB meeting in Corning. The study was done under the direction of Mr. Eugene Moss, who is currently the Safety Director at the Corning main facility in Corning NY.

Linda - Mike has some comments to share on both of those other articles, and he'd also like to draw everyone's attention to these articles as well:

http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...ilter-eyewear/

http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...e-glassworker/

Both articles are written vendor-neutral.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2009-02-24, 9:04am
Tillie's Avatar
Tillie Tillie is offline
Miata and Sunshine! Yay!
 
Join Date: Aug 19, 2007
Location: Lower left coast of FL
Posts: 1,610
Default

I talked to an eye surgery specialist at the Steen-Hall Eye Institute regarding keeping my
eyes safe while torching and/or doing kilnwork. He recommended polarized lenses with 99 percent UV protection combined with a welders #3 or #5 green IR lenses for boro or kiln work. He said that while the soda flare from soft glass might be distracting for some people, it does not harm the eyes. He said the most important thing was to protect the eyes from IR radiation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2009-02-24, 9:35am
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

Robert - It would be very interesting to see any information you can find on biological interactions. Thank you for taking an interest in this

Pam - Thanks for the info about NIOSH doing their 1998 study for free. Free is always good! But better than that, they are a recognized agency in occupational safety and maintain their files for long-term public access.

Brent - I still plan on seeing what I can find out about equipment rentals. If NIOSH asks to be funded to do a more specialized study, that information would be once piece of information needed for any proposal to ISGB, as Pam suggests.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 2009-02-24, 9:38am
GlassyEyedGirl's Avatar
GlassyEyedGirl GlassyEyedGirl is offline
Did someone say SALE?
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 995
Default

Just spoke to a really nice person at a company that rents IR measuring equipment. He is going to contact an expert in this field, make sure that I am looking at the correct kind of equipment for this type of testing, and send me a quote on a rental. I would think that the Gathering would be a great opportunity to do some measuring, so maybe a 1 week rental would be adequate? I will keep you all posted!

Thanks to all for contributing your knowledge and suggestions and hope I can be of help.
__________________
Beth
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 2009-02-24, 9:39am
GlassyEyedGirl's Avatar
GlassyEyedGirl GlassyEyedGirl is offline
Did someone say SALE?
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 995
Default

Also, if we can get NIOSH to do it for free, that would be even better, but if not, then we have plan B with the rental.
__________________
Beth
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 2009-02-24, 10:34am
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

Tillie - Very interesting source! It seems that this specialist is just as concerned about UV as IR.

Ed - The first link you posted very reasonably references the 1998 NIOSH study at SGB. I don't know if Mike was aware of the other two papers I referenced or not at the time he wrote the articles in both of the links you provided, but most of what he says is consistent with the latter, also.

My only observation is that I think folks who have read his first article but not his second article might have gotten confused about the section in the former where he mentions UV hazards as being a myth. I get the sense that some folks might have stopped reading right there and concluded that they didn't need any eye-wear (maybe missing the sections about visible and IR hazards).

In his second article, which seems very much in line with other sources about visible light hazards, he implies that UV is an issue, so there might be something he'd like to clarify or reconcile between his articles. The two papers I quoted also indicate that UV (UV-B specifically) is of a concern, which I've also seen elswhere, but that it appears to be a controversial subject. In addition to what Mike lists as eye-health risks from visible light, I've seen such eye diseases as blepharospasm, conjunctival hyperemia, epithelial granules and pterygium mentioned as associated with long-term acute UV. Seems like UV influences the tissues around the eye as well as the eye itself.

What also seems to cloud the UV issue is that it can apparently take decades for some of these eye diseases to appear, making it hard to know if the culprit was was all those years playing volleyball on the beach or all those years doing glass.

Beth - thank you for also working on getting an equipment rental quote! Can your contact rent the kind of equipment NIOSH used, or something similar? It's listed on page three of NIOSH's SGB Gathering report.

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 2009-02-24, 10:45am
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMLinda View Post
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?
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 2009-02-24, 10:47am
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

From Mike:

Quote:
Ed --

NMLinda mentioned the two articles by Oriowo et al., I'd like to comment on what is available for non-casual reading.

The article by Oriowo et al entitled "Occupational exposure to optical radiation and the ocular health status of glassblowers" is not worth reading IMO. While it certainly is interesting for what it does not say, there is no real "science" that was done apart from testing the ocular health of 15 "glassblowers" and 42 non-"glassblowers". There are indications that there are some minor changes in ocular health, but overall nothing significant.

The other article by Oriowo et al entitled "Glassblowers Ocular Health and safety, a technical report" is seriously flawed, to the point of being essentially worthless to the craft glassworker. The flaw is in comparing the scientific glassblower who works with large pieces of tubing and solids to the artistic glassblower working with a pot of molten glass and a glory hole. There was no comparison made to the craft glassworker using a bench burner and soft glass making small(er) pieces.

None of the charts are worthwhile looking at, as they are skewed because of the furnace glass work.

A far better article to read is this one: "Optical Radiation hazards in Glassblowing" by Gary E. Myers from Argonne National Laboratories in Illinois. This article was published in Fusion, August 1976. This is one document that anyone who is concerned about eye exposure should read.

The NIOSH SGB report has been mentioned, but there are two other reports that contain interesting (partially) data. I say partially because, for the most part, these are once again furnace working operations, however in at least one instance, a part of their work is flameworking.

The first is HETA 95-0119-2554 done for Glass Schell Fused Glass Masks published in January of 1996.

The other is HETA 88-229-2028 done for Louie Glass Factory published in March of 1990.

When making decisions on what specific types of instrumentation might be considered for any future testing, I'd strongly recommend the reading of both of those documents.

I did get an answer back from the University and I'm in the process of re-working the equations on the irradiance issues.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 2009-02-24, 11:10am
NMLinda NMLinda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 21, 2008
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 867
Default

Ed - pleased tell Mike thank you for passing along his observations on the two articles I happened to find and for providing references that might have better information for any measurements, test equipment/methodologies or eye health info. I'm looking forward to reading these and any other sources folks, such as Robert, would like to recommend. It will also be great to see the results of Mike's interchange with the university.

Linda
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 2009-02-24, 11:40am
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

He just reposted it: http://www.auralens.net/e_gwtechnical2.cfm
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 2009-02-24, 11:52am
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley View Post
If there was only a 20% difference between boro and soda lime levels, that is certainly interesting. It leaves me really wanting to know the scale of what they were testing. It is in line with what I've been thinking the difference between soft glass and boro should be. I don't think the divide is as great as previously reported when it comes to IR levels.
According to Mike, the reason for the difference is in the meat of the document, where they compared scientific glassblowing to furnace glassblowing. The soda-lime numbers compared to the pyrex numbers tell the tale:

IR radiation soda-lime: 38.5 mW/cm2
IR radiation pyrex: 0.61 mW/cm2
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 2009-02-24, 12:07pm
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMLinda View Post
Tillie - Very interesting source! It seems that this specialist is just as concerned about UV as IR.

Ed - The first link you posted very reasonably references the 1998 NIOSH study at SGB. I don't know if Mike was aware of the other two papers I referenced or not at the time he wrote the articles in both of the links you provided, but most of what he says is consistent with the latter, also.

My only observation is that I think folks who have read his first article but not his second article might have gotten confused about the section in the former where he mentions UV hazards as being a myth. I get the sense that some folks might have stopped reading right there and concluded that they didn't need any eye-wear (maybe missing the sections about visible and IR hazards).

In his second article, which seems very much in line with other sources about visible light hazards, he implies that UV is an issue, so there might be something he'd like to clarify or reconcile between his articles. The two papers I quoted also indicate that UV (UV-B specifically) is of a concern, which I've also seen elswhere, but that it appears to be a controversial subject. In addition to what Mike lists as eye-health risks from visible light, I've seen such eye diseases as blepharospasm, conjunctival hyperemia, epithelial granules and pterygium mentioned as associated with long-term acute UV. Seems like UV influences the tissues around the eye as well as the eye itself.

What also seems to cloud the UV issue is that it can apparently take decades for some of these eye diseases to appear, making it hard to know if the culprit was was all those years playing volleyball on the beach or all those years doing glass.

Beth - thank you for also working on getting an equipment rental quote! Can your contact rent the kind of equipment NIOSH used, or something similar? It's listed on page three of NIOSH's SGB Gathering report.

Linda
From Mike:

Quote:
Linda --

"Clouding the issue"...oh that was a really bad pun...

But you do hit the nail on the head. It is the same issue to a certain extent with IR related damage to the eye, but with IR, you can at least identify work-related specific issues (like he worked at a furnace blowing glass for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 35 years).

But UV generation, with the exception of some very specific metals and glass types, is purely temperature related. You need to generate at least 4500 F in order to get any sort of UV and that would be the lower-energy UV-A. Since the average flame temperature is around 3500-3800 F, there really is no way to get UV in flame working at the torch.

In all of the tests and studies done so far (NIOSH and those Ed posted above), no detectable levels of UV were ever measured. Now, if you read other NIOSH studies, such as those done at steel and aluminum mills, where temps are in excess of 6000F, there is a significant UV hazard.

In referencing the 2nd article on my blog, the basis for that article was/is the need to be aware of very bright (High Intensity Visible) light such as that generated by fuming for example. Many of my steel forging friends (those that make swords and knives) are exposed to much higher temps and I write for them as well. Turning a chain saw chain into a "Bowie" style knife requires very high temperates, way over what we use, so I ensure that my writing covers all of their needs as well.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 2009-02-24, 12:15pm
Mr. Smiley's Avatar
Mr. Smiley Mr. Smiley is offline
boro color bender
 
Join Date: Jun 06, 2005
Location: The Oregon coast!
Posts: 10,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVC-Ed View Post
4 watts per square centimeter sounds much closer than 75. Tell Mike I said thank you for listening to our concerns and for making the necessary changes.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you; you just gotta find the ones worth suffering for." -Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 2009-02-24, 12:27pm
AVC-Ed AVC-Ed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2009
Posts: 253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley View Post
4 watts per square centimeter sounds much closer than 75. Tell Mike I said thank you for listening to our concerns and for making the necessary changes.
I did, and he reminded me to tell you that although that is a fairly accurate number, it is still oriented towards the size of the torch flame.

If you look at the two examples, the first being a medium-sized boro torch (A Phantom Mike says), it is generating twice the TLV. The second, a Minor, only generates 76% of the TLV. He says this is why it is critically important when using these formulas that the size of the flame be accurately measured. Same for the work piece size.

He also says that when calculating the flame radiance using Natural Gas to use 3.25 watts per square centimeter to account for the lower temperature and smaller molecular size.
__________________
Ed Peterson
Sales Manager
Aura Visual Concepts, Inc.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: LE2009
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 2009-02-24, 12:48pm
pam's Avatar
pam pam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 2,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVC-Ed View Post
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:



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?

Ed, I have no comment on the stance of ISGB at this time on any subject.

I was president of ISGB for one year during which time we were working on upgrading systems and putting into place certain requirements in the COR. At the time of my leaving certain members had been approached regarding work on a safety brochure. Whether any actual work has been done on the subject, I have no idea. The ISGB's missions, many of which are reflected in its current programs, include a wide variety of subject matters, all of which were worked on last year to some degree.

I'm not exatly sure what this has to do with the current discussion, but......
__________________
Pam

"It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it." Johann Wolfgang Von Goeth

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 2009-02-24, 1:05pm
GlassyEyedGirl's Avatar
GlassyEyedGirl GlassyEyedGirl is offline
Did someone say SALE?
 
Join Date: Aug 20, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 995
Default

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports...-0139-2769.pdf

Linda, unless I have missed something, there is no mention of make or model of instrument used to make the IR exposure measurement. The instrument I was looking at for rental sells for $17,500. One would hope that it would be a good way to measure, given the price tag!!
__________________
Beth
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:27pm.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Your IP: 54.167.18.170