Best Eye Health Info? How Do We Figure Out If We're Safe Enough? - Page 2

AVC-Ed · #31 2009-02-24, 1:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pam

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......

I think it has a lot to do with it.

The ISGB has a long history of ignoring the safety issues of working with hot glass. It has been approached several times over the years to publish a safety oriented brochure, the last time was (Mike tells me) prior to the Louisville Gathering and was voted down. That brochure was a combination of efforts of Vince Henley, Mike Aurelius and Stan Wolfersberger.

SOME safety issues are present in the teachers program, but the ISGB has not been, shall we say, leading the way. Personally speaking, I'm not sure the ISGB is the proper organization to handle any kind of safety related testing program based on their previous history.

When 3 people put months of hard work into a safety brochure dedicated to a safe studio, then go before the Board of Directors and have it shot down because they were concerned about so-called "legal issues" that shows me that the Board and the organization it supposedly represents are only interested in the pretty side of beadmaking, not its dark side.

And just so that everyone is aware, I have the exact same feelings about GAS. I don't think there is a current glass-oriented organization that SHOULD be given any money to perform these tests, unless they put some serious efforts into changing their perceptions of the need for glassworkers to get good safety information. Currently, I think both organizations are more interested in seeing how many times their members can be published in the various magazines than they are in being a responsible organization, standing behind an organized push for safety in the industry.

I believe Mike said it best: Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Mr. Smiley · #32 2009-02-24, 1:26pm

In the spirit of this thread, can we all try to keep the past in it's place? I know it has an effect on these relationships, but it doesn't need to have a place in this thread. When Linda and I talked, we wanted to change the tone of this discussion, so that more people would feel like they can become a part of it safely. This industry is full of very intelligent people and I'd love for them to feel comfortable coming forward. If we keep our negative feelings to ourselves and move forward with a positive attitude, I'm sure we can get something good done.

pam · #33 2009-02-24, 1:28pm

Mike, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that at the time Vince presented his proposal to the board it was no longer a brochure, which ISGB had committed to, but a 60 page and growing book. Actually, I don't recall them turning him down, so much as asking him if it could be made into a brochure. However, I was on my way off the board at that time and so don't have a clue what happened after that. I believe Susan Silvy was president at that time, perhaps you would like to contact her.

And actually, I couldn't care less whether this goes to GAS or ISGB or is done privately. I made a suggestion to submit a proposal to ISGB because I felt it was one appropriate way to go. If there is another way to accomplish it that everyone prefers, go for it.

pam · #34 2009-02-24, 1:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

In the spirit of this thread, can we all try to keep the past in it's place? I know it has an effect on these relationships, but it doesn't need to have a place in this thread. When Linda and I talked, we wanted to change the tone of this discussion, so that more people would feel like they can become a part of it safely. This industry is full of very intelligent people and I'd love for them to feel comfortable coming forward. If we keep our negative feelings to ourselves and move forward with a positive attitude, I'm sure we can get something good done.

Hey, for once I agree with you!

SuzyQ · #35 2009-02-24, 1:33pm

Me three! I was happily reading along thinking... "yes! an important matter being discussed seriously" and then out of left field a past issue with Mike and Pam gets brought into the conversation.... Please Ed, can we let that one live somewhere else?

NMLinda · #36 2009-02-24, 2:04pm

Oh boy, I'm a slow reader today...I'm still working on going through Mike's recommended material and haven't gotten to his updated calculations post yet!

I happen to agree with Mike about the data published in the journal papers I referenced, which is why I was hoping someone would offer their opinions and better sources (thank you again, Mike!). I'm waiting to see if I can get a copy of the Fusion paper Mike recommends. In the meantime, I just finished reading the report NIOSH did for Glass Shell Art Glass Studios. I can see why Mike recommended reading this one. It's more applicable than the papers I found and at least specifically mentions an oxygen/propane torche and MAP gas torch as part of what was measured. The glass in question appears to be soda-lime, and at least for what appears to be the visible light range, they say that oxygen/propane torch emitted the brightest light out of everything they tested. On the one hand, NIOSH seems to suggest in this report that special filtering glasses perhaps aren't needed at all - for soda-lime at a working distance of 18". At the end of their report, however, they still recommend eyewear that filters UV, visible and IR.

At the risk of another bad pun just for Mike's benefit, I'm still 'absorbing' all of this....

And, as a vertically challenged person who'd be lucky to achieve a 12" working distance (....18" being out of reach....), and who might want to do boro, I'd like to know more about how this and other studies can or can't be applied to other situations.

Ed/Mike, are you sure the report number for the second study you posted is correct? I'm having trouble finding it.

Pam - to answer your question about the relevancy of ISGB, I think many folks, myself included, would look to ISGB as a natural entity to lead the advancement of safety as well as of art in our community, much like other organizations do for fields such as scientific glass blowing or welding. As a group intending to represent everyone, it's natural to view it as partial to no one. It's also a natural organization to look to as a place to build a sustainable library of important and commonly used information. It can be a logical forum to identify areas of need, have priorities agreed upon, and then executed. It can also leverage resources on a scale typically not available to an individual.

If folks such as Brent are interested in a grass-roots test to fill in the information blanks other studies aren't addressng, clearly there is an un-met need. Mike and others wouldn't post their articles, analyses and assements if they also didn't see an un-met need in our community. I see ISGB as an organization that could serve as a neutral party to ensure that these needs are addressed in an organized fashion.

Linda

pam · #37 2009-02-24, 2:24pm

I see ISGB in the same way, Linda.

What I found irrelevant to this issue is Mike asking what I did during my tenure as president and why Vince's "brochure" was never published.

NMLinda · #38 2009-02-24, 2:27pm

I'm also a slow typer today.

Yes, Brent and I agreed to move this over to a fresh thread to encourage a postive and objective discussion.

Ed, you did appologize, first, about bringing up your topic, so thank you for doing that. I have no knowledge of ISGB or GAS's past inclinations, so I have no negative opinions of either. What I wrote in my last post is just what comes to my mind with respect to any more formal organization like ISGB or GAS. That said, I'm open minded about ways to achieve what we're interested in knowing, and Pam may be right, one good way may be to generate a proposal to one or both of organizations if, as a result of our discussions here, we think that makes sense.

And if Vince, Mike and Stan decided to co-author a safety book, I'd buy it!

Linda

NMLinda · #39 2009-02-24, 2:36pm

Pam, just saw your post. I see your point, and with all respect to you both, I'm sure you and Ed won't mind dropping that topic for now.

I'm not sure we've gotten as far as an action plan yet, anyway. Robert has promised to bring some eye health info to the table, and I'm hoping other folks will contribue better information than I found, like Mike did.

Linda

pam · #40 2009-02-24, 2:45pm

That was my suggestion when I agreed with Brent.

With regard to the safety book, I did suggest to Vince that he should consider self-publishing the book, because I believe the information contained within would have been revolutionary to the lampworking world. There is nothing like it anywhere. I actually thought he was going to do that, but then he got married..............

NMLinda · #41 2009-02-24, 5:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Smiley

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.

Thanks for acknowledging Mike. I also greatly appreciate Mike having the university work with him and then reposting his example page for our collective benefit. That was a fast turn-around.

Just for grins, I changed the working distance Mike used in his Nortel Minor example from 16" to 18" to match what NIOSH did for their assessment of Glass Schell Fused Glass Masks. While their report doesn't say what kind of oxy/propane torch was tested, folks might agree that the minor was a common one to have in 1996 for soft glass. Also, the report doesn't state the size of the item being made on the torch. Since the owner was making fused glass masks as his specialty, I made the assumption he was forming small decorations on the order of 1 square cm for those masks. I therefore changed the 'bead' size in Mike's example from 4 square cm to 1 square cm. These two changes in Mike's nortel minor/soft glass example yields a total exposure of 6.5mW/square cm, which is pretty close to the 6mW/square cm NIOSH says they measured.

Anybody have any further concerns about Mike's new page or does this now look reasonable to the group at large?

Linda

Mr. Smiley · #42 2009-02-24, 7:02pm

I would love to see smaller boro numbers included. I know I've had many students that are really afraid of damaging their eyes. Now that the numbers are more accurate, I think it would go a long way in reigning in some of the fear surrounding boro bead making.

GlassyEyedGirl · #43 2009-02-24, 7:30pm

With all due respect to the number-crunching going on here.... It still seems fairly speculative without actual measurements for the conditions in question??

Imaglassgal · #44 2009-02-24, 7:51pm

Ummm, I hate to even interject this, but I was just alarmed by reading on another forum (http://www.talkglass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25187) about the ocular hazards of working with Quartz. With more and more of us doing fuming from a Quartz platform I'd like to humbly request that Quartz be added to Boro on the "to be tested" list.

I'd contribute to a fund for testing if it comes to fruition. My eyes are not replacable!

Thanks for all the above information - I have more reading to do to follow all the links...

Marina

NMLinda · #45 2009-02-24, 11:37pm

Beth - More measured information may still be important because of some of the problems in sources like the one I quoted, and the fact that there seems to be so little other data, but Mike's work has value until that can be collected and very likely after. It can be just as easy to do a measurement wrong as an analysis. If both agree, we can feel more comfortable about being on firmer ground.

So, so far, Mike has contributed an analysis process, and it agrees pretty closely with the one data point that seems most applicable so far. This is good news, actually, and between Brent bringing up his concerns and Mike being willing to respond, some excellent progress has been made already in the past few days. But you're right in that I had to make an assumption about the 'bead' size (although for the soda-lime case, assuming a bead twice as big as I did would still yield an exposure pretty close to the measurement). Also, it would be good to have similar measured data for the higher boro exposure case that Mike analyzed, as well as some inbetween data.

Mike - along the lines of Brent's thought, would you be willing to run an example for smaller boro on the Phantom, or possibly slightly smaller torch (whatever size folks seem to use for smaller boro work)? I'm sure that would be greatly appreciated by folks who may not feel comfortable making the needed substitutions.

Marina - Glad you interjected! You posted a good discussion thread. I would agree, the needs and concerns of folks doing quartz should be included, too.

AVC-Ed · #46 2009-02-25, 7:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imaglassgal

Ummm, I hate to even interject this, but I was just alarmed by reading on another forum (http://www.talkglass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25187) about the ocular hazards of working with Quartz. With more and more of us doing fuming from a Quartz platform I'd like to humbly request that Quartz be added to Boro on the "to be tested" list.

I'd contribute to a fund for testing if it comes to fruition. My eyes are not replacable!

Thanks for all the above information - I have more reading to do to follow all the links...

Marina

Marina -- the thread on quartz on the GLDG is referring to the use of quartz rods as a holder for fuming, not working with quartz as an artistic material.

As Aura states in their recommendations page: http://www.auralens.net/e_gwrecommend.cfm

Those who do fuming should be using at least one shade darker than their normal work (ie if you normally use a shade 5, use a shade 6 for fuming).

If you work quartz as an artistic material, Aura recommends a minimum of a shade 8. Quartz requires very high temperatures to work, much higher than normal oxygen/propane flames can generate. The usual gas is hydrogen and oxygen. Because of the higher temperatures, quartz working also generates very serious UV issues.

However, simply using a quartz rod as a holder for silver or gold fuming beads does not, repeat, does not, pose any sort of a hazard to the eye.

Imaglassgal · #47 2009-02-25, 12:01pm

Thanks Ed, the GLDG thread was the first I had heard of an issue. I am relieved.

Marina

NMLinda · #48 2009-02-25, 12:17pm

Folks, please see Ed's post in his " Energy radiance information for small torches/small boro beads"

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

This is an excerpt of a larger article published by Mike Aurelius on his blog: http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...-glassworkers/

Further, please see his other post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

We were, simply put, lucky. The Physics Department had just finished working with a local foundry on modernizing their high temperature forges (moving from 1930's technology to 2000's technology). They needed to calculate BTU's and radiant energy loads from the new heating units, and the flame calculations were part of their work.

All they needed to do was plug the propane molecular weight into their computer model and we had an answer within an hour.

And real-life testing showed that the model was accurate to about 3 decimal places.

I'd have been happy if their model had been shown to be accurate to just the first digit, let alone three decimal places after that!

I know that some folks have been wondering if they needed eyewear at all. The 1997 NIOSH report for Glass Schell Fused Glass Masks mentions readings as high as 2.0 candela per square centimeter (2 cd/cm2) in the visible range, twice the ACGIH's recommended TLV of 1 cd/cm2. And that was for soda-lime worked on an oxy/propane torch 18" away from the operator's face (pg 6 of the report). Those levels would naturally be higher at 16", the number Mike used for his small boro example, evergy levels being very sensitive to relatively small changes in distance. As Mike shows, folks working boro are wise to protect their eyes from strong visible light emitted if nothing else.

So what about the IR question that started a lot of this discussion? Do I have to buy glasses with IR as well as visible protection?

Since Mike's analysis has corroboration from outside sources, it's interesting to use.

In his small boro example, someone who can hold their work 16" away is perhaps on the border of wanting to also have IR protection (0.0117 vs the TLV of 0.010). I wish I were so lucky to be able to hold my work that far away! And at my age, I probably couldn't see it at that distance, anyway, without magnifiers on top of everything else. I probably have a bad habit of hunching over closer to see better as it is.

So, I'm short and probably have bad torching habits. And I'll bet I'm not alone....

Using myself as an example, if I plug in a 12" (30.5 cm) working distance into Mike's example instead of 16", I get an exposure of 0.013 (vs the 0.010 TLV) to just the flame alone. My exposure to the small boro bead works out to be about half that, for a grand total of 0.02, or twice the TLV. I'm marginal at IR with the AUR92/ACE lenses I happen to own but the next product level up looks like it takes care of that problem, and I need to consider better protection for the visible light, anyway.

Looking at it this way, I'm glad I have choices available to me with various IR protection built in with visible light protection.

And I'd better sit up straight as I work!

Linda

AVC-Ed · #49 2009-02-25, 1:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NMLinda

I'd have been happy if their model had been shown to be accurate to just the first digit, let alone three decimal places after that!

Linda

Well, you know those damn scientists always seeking perfection!

And thanks for throwing some real life examples in there. We appreciate it!

Dale M. · #50 2009-02-26, 6:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

I believe Mike said it best: Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Actually that line is plagiarized from Lee Iaccoca when he was head of Chrysler...

Dale

MrsGrace · #51 2009-02-26, 6:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale M.

Actually that line is plagiarized from Lee Iaccoca when he was head of Chrysler...

Dale

Off topic, but that's also a line used by the late George Carlin. He said given that choice, he would "obstruct".

AVC-Ed · #52 2009-02-26, 6:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsGrace

Off topic, but that's also a line used by the late George Carlin. He said given that choice, he would "obstruct".

Who stole it from some Vietnam era general, who stole it from a Korean Conflict general, who stole it from George Patton, etc etc etc...

I'm sure that you can trace it back to the Romans and even further back.

Regardless of who actually came up with, it still fits.

Kind of a silly comment to make, Dale. What's your point?

lunamoonshadow · #53 2009-02-26, 7:28am

I hope that if testing is done, the CRICKET will be tested with BOTH SOFT GLASS & BORO--(and 104 & 96)...because it seems like a zillion & a half people are working "both" on that particular little torch right now....

Dale M. · #54 2009-02-26, 9:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

Kind of a silly comment to make, Dale. What's your point?

My point is just that Mike is not originator of saying.... Silly or not.......

Dale

NMLinda · #55 2009-02-26, 9:11am

Luna - thanks for bringing this back on topic.

Robert - have you found the biological info you were researching? It would be great to hear from you.

So far, it looks like two NIOSH reports, the work the university did in Mike's behalf and Mike's analysis/examples are the best information/tools we've collected here at the moment. My brief reading suggests that glassworker eye health has been a concern since the 1700's. I'd hope there's more out there!

Anyone find anything else? Any non-US reports of interest?

Linda

AVC-Ed · #56 2009-02-26, 9:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale M.

My point is just that Mike is not originator of saying.... Silly or not.......

Dale

And all I was doing was referring to a post he made on his blog on this very subject: http://mikeaurelius.wordpress.com/20...ut-of-the-way/

Janice · #57 2009-02-26, 9:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVC-Ed

Well, you know those damn scientists always seeking perfection!

Actually, thank god for the scientists.

J.

Mr. Smiley · #58 2009-02-26, 10:52am

I'd love to see medical studies or case history to back up the cause and effects we're discussing. Since these filters are relatively knew and glass work isn't, there must be some readily available.

AVC-Ed · #59 2009-02-26, 11:10am

The best place to start is with the bibliography on Mike's article:

Quote:

References

Pete Hanlin, ABOM, LDO “The effects of Visible light and UVR upon the visual system”

Algvere, Marshall, Seregard “Age-related maculopathy and the impact of blue light hazard”

Carol Dykas, LO ABOC, NCLC “How to protect patients from harmful sunlight”

Meyers, Ostrovsky, Bonner “A model of spectral filtering to reduce photochemical damage in age-related macular degeneration”

Marco Zarbin, MD, PhD, FACS “Age-related macular degeneration update: a review of pathogenesis, clinical findings and treatment”

J.M. Gallas, PhD “Eye protection from sunlight damage and vision performance with melanin lenses”

It isn't just about glass. High Intensity and High Energy light have been around for a very long time, and its effects are very well studied and documented. Mike's article is just the first time it has been brought to the attention of glassworkers.

NMLinda · #60 2009-02-26, 11:22am

Ed - thanks for the references. I'm trying to get a response back from the publishers of Fusion to get a copy of Gary's paper, but haven't heard yet. Do you happen to have a link handy for it?

Beth - While we wait to also hear back from Robert, I think you mentioned once that you work in the eye care field. Does this subject come up in your work, or have you ever had an opportunity to talk with someone in your field about it?

Tillie - I found it very interesting that you talked to an eye surgery specialist. Any new studies that person might recommend to us?