Slashdot Mirror

I work in the fluorescent tube recycling industry. The hazard from the tiny 2mm-4mm back light is negligible. I've done tests with a Jerome type meter, and they read way below (almost non-existent readings) OSHA limits for airborne exposure. OSHA states that you need a respirator for a time weighted average exposure above .1mg Hg/cubic meter. You need to break a lot of tubes to get close to this, probably hundreds of the tiny back light kind. Mercury does vaporize at room temperatures! It doesn't need to be heated!

The type of mercury used in fluorescents is the inorganic kind, which is a hell of a lot less dangerous than organic mercury. Inorganic mercury will be filtered out of your blood and come out in your urine, just like most toxins, but organic mercury is small enough to find it's way into your body fats and stay there for good. Organic mercury is usually what you find in fish.

Mercury Vapor
NIOSH/OSHA Mercury Vapor Health Guideline

I work in the fluorescent tube recycling industry. The hazard from the tiny 2mm-4mm back light is negligible. I've done tests with a Jerome type meter, and they read way below (almost non-existent readings) OSHA limits for airborne exposure. OSHA states that you need a respirator for a time weighted average exposure above .1mg Hg/cubic meter. You need to break a lot of tubes to get close to this, probably hundreds of the tiny back light kind. Mercury does vaporize at room temperatures! It doesn't need to be heated!

The type of mercury used in fluorescents is the inorganic kind, which is a hell of a lot less dangerous than organic mercury. Inorganic mercury will be filtered out of your blood and come out in your urine, just like most toxins, but organic mercury is small enough to find it's way into your body fats and stay there for good. Organic mercury is usually what you find in fish.

Mercury Vapor
NIOSH/OSHA Mercury Vapor Health Guideline

NASA seems to want to have us believe the dust is more deadly than the radiation on the surface of the moon. I found this article quite humorous, enjoy!

http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,67110,00.ht ml

The "simulated" dust "sticks" the same way here as they claim in did on the moon. Cinderblock dust, Quickcrete(TM), etc which are high in silica. Read the warning label on Quickcrete(TM), or check out http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/constructionsilica/

I don't think the right to shield a source should have anything to do with who you are (journalist or not), but some other standard weighing public interest concerns against the need for confidential sources to feel safe.

This is exactly what Whistleblower Protection is all about. Unfortunately, it seems that only three or four people on earth even know about it. It isn't perfect, but it certainly exists.

This effectively is a fourth option: 4) Allow anyone that reveals confidential information in the public interest protection from legal retaliation.

When the corporate takeover of the government ends. The USPTO is acting in the interest of the technology industry, not the public. Same with the FDA. The FDA sees pharmaceutical companies as clients -- it doesn't even know it's supposed to be a regulatory agency. OSHA is basically asleep. Until public campaigns are financed by public dollars, the situation will only get worse.

You are right about the efficiency problems. However, you are mistaken on your definition of a full-wave rectifier. You are probably thinking of a voltage doubler (which are commonly used in SMPSs). A full-wave rectifier is just 4 diodes, and it will produce 120V * sqrt(2) which is approximately 170Vpeak. The waveform from it looks like abs(sin(120*pi*t)). It can then be filtered, and the voltage will be ~170VDC. A voltage doubler charges one capacitor with the positive voltage swing and another with the negative swing, so you double the voltage. Here's a link to a voltage doubler circuit. This is a full-wave rectifier.

Quoth the FA: Sources who give journalists details of corruption or wrongdoing are traditionally protected by law, if the story is in the public's interest.

The sources rights are protected, not the sources secrecy.

"Recent corporate scandals involving WorldCom, Enron and the tobacco industry all undoubtedly involved the reporting of information that the companies involved would have preferred to remain unknown to the public," said the brief.

OSHA has this nice little PDF entitled Whistleblowers and Corporate Fraud that basically explains in one page what virtually all of the reporting on this case (not to mention comments on Slashdot) ignores : that the legal protections afforded in those other cases do not apply to this case.

A dead monkey with no brains at all could see that Appe v. Rumor Sites has nothing to do whistleblowing, the first amendment, or bloggers-v.-journalists.

I do not believe that a journalist should ever be compelled to compromise his source, even if the "whistle blower" or a person disclosing privileged information may be commiting an illegal act or a contract violation.

While it's true one can't be compelled to reveal sources most of the time (ie, just because someone doesn't like what you wrote), in a trade secret case (under the UTSA), the journalist is liable himself if he doesn't.

The problem with this (and the reason it isn't the way it works in reality) is that you can't claim to be a whistleblower (legaly) without being "revealed" -- but if you're protected, it's ok because ccording to federal whistleblower laws (which apparently nobody writing about this issue knows about), the person in question can't be discriminated against for being a whistleblower:

"Discrimination" can include the following actions:
Firing or laying off
Assigning to undesirable shifts
Blacklisting
Demoting
Denying overtime or promotion
Disciplining
Denial of benefits
Failure to hire or rehire
Intimidation
Transferring
Reassigning work
Reducing pay or hours -- The Whistleblower Program, OIA, OSHA

The unwritten part is that said company can't effectively sue you over it. I suppose they could use anything illegal you did against you, but that wouldn't be a winning case.

Basically:
normal journalism : don't have to reveal sources
trade secret case : have to reveal sources, who will get hosed (rightfully)
whistleblower case: have to reveal sources, but source will not get hosed.

Nice knee-jerk response.

"# Why aren't cancer rates much higher in nations with significantly more cell phones/coverage- say, Japan for example?
# Why hasn't brain cancer increased in the last 20 years as cell phone usage has gone from near zero to a major percentage of the population? I also don't hear much about "cancer of the hip"..."

Cancer rates don't have to shoot up for something to be a problem. An increase of one premature death in 10,000 is considered the maximum allowable by most standards. You would'nt notice such an increase without a broad epidemialogical study. Just because everyone with a cell phone isn't walking around with cantalope-sized tumors growing out of their heads, doesn't mean everything is fine. And like others have pointed out, cancer takes time to develop.

"Why is it that hundreds of millions microwaves are in use today? Why is it that dozens of words tossed around in tin foil articles articles are made-up, like "d-Nitrosodienthanolamines"? Google that, and notice that the only place google can find it is in the same sentence: "d-Nitrosodienthanolamines, a well known carcinogen". If it's so well known, how come you can only find references to it in Tin Foil Hat articles?"

Which one was the "Tin Foil Hat article", the UW article, or the peer-reviewed Bioelectromagnetics journal article? Here's some info about N-nitrosodiethanolamine. I hope OSHA isn't too tinfoil hattish for you. Sorry you lack any knowledge of organic chemistry and the ability to effectively use google.

Simple, its defensible because requiring somebody to give up their sources in such cases would cause a detrimental effect upon society. Whistleblowers such as this have been responsible for the exposure of many harmful practices in the past. Some anonymous whistleblower removed Nixon from the white house for god's sake.

Which is why we have The Whistleblower Program, to protect those that come forward with information that concerns the public good.

I'm sure the person who leaked information about Nike's 'sweatshops' broke NDA'a as well.

As I and many others have pointed out, there exist special legal protections for "whistleblowers", as opposed to people who just leak product and marketing information. Apple isn't doing anything illegal by building computers.

"OSHA also administers the whistleblowing provisions of thirteen other statutes, protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, and securities laws." -- The Whistleblower Program, Office of Investigative Assistance

What if Apple 'leaks' information to the press to generate market? can they go after the press in those cases to? how would someone know?

Why on earth would any company do this? It makes absolutely no sense.

Whole classes of corporate abuses against the general public would be subject to an NDA gag rule.

Which is why there exist many legal protections and exceptions for those that come forward with information that concerns the public interest.

"To help ensure that employees are, in fact, free to participation in safety and health activities, Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits any person from discharging or in any manner discriminating against any employee because the employee has exercised rights under the Act."

"OSHA also administers the whistleblowing provisions of thirteen other statutes, protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, and securities laws." -- OSHA Whistleblower Program

If I am running an offshore oil company, and the way I keep my prices so low is that I maintain totally inadequate saftey percautions for my ocean liners, isn't that a trade secret? So, the media should not be allowed to report that?

You're confusing a layperson's definition with a legal definition.

And also ignoring the existing legal protections for "Whistleblowers".

There's lots of facts collected on global warming, be it either naturally occuring by the earth, or due to human activity. Frankenfood - I'm concerned about that - why should we be genetically modified food and putting it into our food supply? It is very difficult to predict the fallout from putting GE food directly in the rest of our food supply. DDT has been shown to be a carcinogen. The "death of the Web" I never heard of or believed, and in regards to gun control - I'm still of mixed opinion on that one. Mostly against at this moment.

But the question I have is: Who would benefit from this propaganda campaign?

Researchers have yet to show that non-ionizing radiation with longer wavelengths than UV can cause cancer. The only people who would really benefit from this campaign are people who don't like cell phones. Unless someone decided to make a "low radiation" device which used less energy ... *shrug*

Here's the Occupational Safety & Health Administration list of research papers on the biological effects of non-ionizing on cells and humans.

At the time of the Bopal incident there was no significant regulations that would have prevented the same accident from happening in the US. In fact because of Bopal, the US Congress mandated that OSHA create a program to ensure such an incident never happens here. The result was OSHA's Process Safety Management standard. The standard was published in the federal register as 29 CFR 1910.119 on 24 February 1992.

Acceptable methods to reduce heat stress hazards in the workplace.

The above letter explains that there are no specific heat-related regulations, just the general duty clause requiring each employer to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm."

So I would have had to prove that a hot kitchen was likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Considering nobody was every actually harmed in the heat (this was a Maine summer, and they did give us spot fans), it would have been a very fruitless attempt at legal action. And like I said before, nobody *requires* air conditioning.

• New furniture made of
  • plywood,
  • particleboard,
  • or waferboard
• New carpets, which may trap formaldehyde emitted from other sources and release it when temperature and humidity change
• Gas stoves and kerosene heaters
• Urea Formaldehyde Foam Isulation, UFFI, was used as an effective insulation product in many homes until the 1980's, when the presence of high levels of formaldehyde gas was determined to be a health hazard.
• Embalmed biological specimens or deceased friends :-)

The reaction is reversible: too much heat hydrolyses the UF resin into urea and formaldehyde thereby degrading the bond and releasing even more formaldehyde. It is therefore of critical importance to precisely control pressing time and immediately cool the finished panels after completion of the pressing.

NOTE: Although treatment of a surface with strong ammonia can temporarily reduce formaldehyde levels, ammonia can be toxic and is very dangerous. This procedure is strongly discouraged, since ammonia presents its own serious hazards.

When checking into a hotel room with new furniture, a sniff would detect formaldehyde fumes. Then, he would find the maid and ask her for a few ashtrays and some ammonia. He would then explain his plan to the maid. He would pour ammonia into the ashtrays he placed around his room and leave the room. The maids were asked to not make the room up (or at least not empty the ashtrays). When he returned, the room was now free of formaldehyde fumes, to his own benefit and all subsequent quests.

Its most extreme form, homicide, is the third-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 639 workplace homicides in 2001 in the United States, out of a total of 8,786 fatal work injuries.

Isn't this thing going to fry your brain?

People need to look up the definition of non-ionizing radiation. For comparison also look up ionizing radiation. Exposure to non-ionizing radiaton does not have a cumulative effect over your lifetime. This (or your cell phone) is no more harmful to you than the local rock station broadcasting their signal.

The worst thing that can happen from this kind of radiation is everyday, non-mutating burning (like your microwave), but the low power from the repeater won't do that.

Isn't this thing going to fry your brain?

People need to look up the definition of non-ionizing radiation. For comparison also look up ionizing radiation. Exposure to non-ionizing radiaton does not have a cumulative effect over your lifetime. This (or your cell phone) is no more harmful to you than the local rock station broadcasting their signal.

The worst thing that can happen from this kind of radiation is everyday, non-mutating burning (like your microwave), but the low power from the repeater won't do that.

What you tell the technicians is how to protect themselves. You tell them what protective equipment is required for each job that releases ammonia. You train them in the proper procedures required to work on an ammonia system. Then you verify that they understand what you told them, you audit to make sure they follow the procedures and wear the PPE, you ask them if they want more training, you involve them in the certification/modifications of the procedures and you repeat this constantly. You provide them with ammonia level monitoring equipment and train them in how to use it. You provide them with data on the health effects of ammonia, including the fact that there are no cummulative effects of ammonia exposure below the PEL(50ppm by OSHA, 20ppm NIOSH). You provide them with full access to and participation in your program for maintaining a safe ammonia system.

All of this is not just a good idea, its the law. Non-compliance is costly.

What you tell the technicians is how to protect themselves. You tell them what protective equipment is required for each job that releases ammonia. You train them in the proper procedures required to work on an ammonia system. Then you verify that they understand what you told them, you audit to make sure they follow the procedures and wear the PPE, you ask them if they want more training, you involve them in the certification/modifications of the procedures and you repeat this constantly. You provide them with ammonia level monitoring equipment and train them in how to use it. You provide them with data on the health effects of ammonia, including the fact that there are no cummulative effects of ammonia exposure below the PEL(50ppm by OSHA, 20ppm NIOSH). You provide them with full access to and participation in your program for maintaining a safe ammonia system.

All of this is not just a good idea, its the law. Non-compliance is costly.

"Lead Poisoning is the most common environmentally caused disease in the United States, affecting 4-5% of children nationwide."
link

"Lead poisoning is the leading environmentally induced illness in children. At greatest risk are children under the age of six because they are undergoing rapid neurological and physical development."
link

"New research suggests that millions more children than previously thought might have lead-linked mental impairment, while another study supports a strong link between lead exposure and juvenile delinquency."
link

"Lead is a highly toxic metal that was used for many years in products found in and around our homes. Lead may cause a range of health effects, from behavioral problems and learning disabilities, to seizures and death."
link

... and these are just some quotes from google results.

Excellent point. Not an urban legend at all. Check out the rules from this Occupational Safety and Health Administration publication. For up to eight hours a day, you can have noise levels at 90 db. But that's it. At 95 db, you need hearing protection for an exposure of over four hours. At 110 db, you aren't allowed more than 30 minutes unprotected.

As this is OSHA, the employer is responsible for making sure these rules are followed. For dorms, of course, just be aware that 24/7 exposure at much lower levels, even under 85 db, can be harmful.

Free Trade is good, however Free and Fair Trade is much better.
Our Major trading partners, China and India will never be fair until they stop managing their economies an allow us complete access to their markets in the same manner they have to ours. Our companies are free to purchase goods and services freely from them in a way that they are not allowed to from ours. China and India artificially manage the value of their currencies to keep them artificially low. Not only do they have those artificial restrictions, but they also do not have the same environmental laws and labor practices which required to by US law.

Could you imagine OSHA in India or China?

IAAL, and this is certainly not my area of expertise, but requiring you to wear ear plugs for 4 hours a day under those conditions sounds like an OSHA violation.

-A

You poor, poor geek. There has to be some sort of OSHA regulation against this sort of employee abuse, doesn't there?

OSHA says so. Even without OSHA, it's far more comfortable to sit up straight in a nice chair with my head tilted slightly down. Having it tilted slightly up hurts my shoulders after a few hours (fighting against gravity and all). When you read a book for hours on end, do you hold it up above eye level or down in your lap?

Depends on what you mean by "un-breathable." It's unbreathable in the same way that nitrogen is unbreathable, but I've managed to survive for a few decades breathing approximately 80% nitrogen/20% oxygen.

this means that if someone is in the house when the system releases its gas, that that person/animal is dead. it starves the air of oxygen.

No, that's not true. As the OSHA says, "Not acutely toxic at <10% by volume" and "Generally used at <7% by volume." The National Fire Protection Association agrees, stating that a concentration of 5 percent Halon in air is sufficient for most flame extinguishment. It doesn't work by removing oxygen from the air--CO2 and nitrogen flood systems do that. It works by actively interfering with the chain reaction of a flame.

As the OSHA site mentions, there are some downsides... breathing 15% or so for a couple of minutes might cause some irregular heartbeats in some people. Also, Halon decomposes into hydrofluoric acid and hydrobromic acid when it's exposed to fire. But then again, it'll put out the fire almost instantly (halon will even stop an explosion in progress)--the minute quantities of HF and HBr are much better than the large quantities of other toxic gasses that burning things put out.

But the bottom line is that no, you won't die if the Halon system goes off in a room you're in. I've heard that when Halon was first introduced, they'd demo it by putting a guy in a closed room and have him light a cigarette and candle, then dump in the Halon. The cigarette and candle would go out, and the guy would be in there with no ill effects.

No kidding... Illegal, and not real safe. 2.4Ghz is microwave, like the thing you heat your hotpockets with. We run a specialized radio system hear based on 802.11b, standard AP radio but with 6db gain antena. Every 3 db gain in an antena and you double your output power. This means (And I don't know the gain of a pringles can, but it does have some saturated fat content) that the focused beam from a pringles can antena can cook things, and cause your manly swimmers (Your built in navy) to die off.

I read on OSHA's website a while ago about several injuries and one death related to 2.4 Ghz Microwave radiation.

While this sounds like a good idea, and a fun hobby, please don't point the antena in my direction... I like my gonads just as they are.

My $.02

Can I have change please?

Why would anyone die of suffocation from Halon? That seems to be a very common myth...

HALON 1301
Interrupts chemical reactions
Bromotrifluoromethane
Effective on Class A, B, and C fires
Not acutely toxic at 10% by volume (anesthetic and cardiac effects)
Delayed effects and effects of chronic exposure not well known
Toxic decomposition products are generated by fire
Vapor density = 5 (collects in pits and low areas)
Production restricted per Montreal Protocol due to depletion of ozone layer

HALON 1301
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS
Hydrogen fluoride (HF)
Hydrogen bromide (HBr)
Bromine (Br2)
Carbonyl Fluoride (COF2)
Carbonyl Bromide (COBr2)

HALON 1211
Interrupts chemical reactions
Bromochlorodifluoromethane
Effective on Class A, B, and C fires
No residue
May be sprayed (Boiling Point = 25oF)
Used in portable fire extinguishers
Disadvantages:
Acutely toxic at >4% by volume (dizziness, impaired coordination and cardiac effects)
Must be used at >5% by volume
Toxic decomposition products are generated by fire
Vapor density = 5.7 (collects in pits and low areas)
Production restricted per Montreal Protocol due to depletion of ozone layer

HALON 1211
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS
Hydrogen bromide (HBr)
Hydrogen chloride (HCl)
Hydrogen fluoride (HF)
Bromine (Br2)
Chlorine (Cl2)
Fluorine (F2)
Carbonyl bromide (COBr2)
Carbonyl chloride (COCl2)
Carbonyl fluoride (COF2)

move it all out of the area. move yourself out of the area, do your work in the hallway or outside if necessary. I'd call OSHA too... At the very least ask for a helmet.. I'm sure the guy with the jackhammer has one.

The US Department of Labor's OSHA has quite a library that includes Material Safety Data Sheets (all those chemicals in that soap and what they do,) stastics and inspection data of companies and products, and information how to keep a workplace friendly to the worker and environment.

Most HR people should find this site a valuable resource to make a workplace safer through education; however, there are bosses who hate the hell out of this government organization. They inspect companies to follow up on complaints and they do have some big teeth. Some employers, such as ones refered to as "sweatshops" hate OSHA. I'm glad I work for a company that recognizes the value of a safe workplace when it comes to health insurance and community relations.

If you really want to get into evironmental concerns, there is Greepeace and and I would also strongly recommend checking out the National Audubon Society. These are organizations that help promote environmental awareness through activities involving recreation at national parks (read as camping at places very few venture) and activism (voting, writing letters, civil disobediance.) They are worth joining if you have kids as they sponsor many fun outings.

As an example of the interesting things they do, the Greenpeace homepage has information about ecologically friendly mousepads made out of 100% natural Amazon rubber.

"[Herman] said an advisory drafted by departmental officials was informal and was not intended to be taken as a statement of policy for the entire business community. [...]

Herman said, however, that the controversy has raised important questions about what protections Americans who work at home can expect from the government. She said she will convene a conference of business and labor leaders and set up an interagency task force to conduct a wide-ranging study of the issue."

So yes, this will be revisited -- with ample media attention no doubt. No, its not a disaster -- any more than the idea that employers may have some responsibilities for home office conditions is a disaster. It is the start of a broad discussion of a previously unexplored issue that is very relevant to those of us that telecom mute.

I couldn't find the contorversial letter in a quick scan of the Labor Department and OSHA sites. I suppose its been removed. Does anyone have a URL for it? I would have expected to find it here but its a gonner.

"[Herman] said an advisory drafted by departmental officials was informal and was not intended to be taken as a statement of policy for the entire business community. [...]

Herman said, however, that the controversy has raised important questions about what protections Americans who work at home can expect from the government. She said she will convene a conference of business and labor leaders and set up an interagency task force to conduct a wide-ranging study of the issue."

So yes, this will be revisited -- with ample media attention no doubt. No, its not a disaster -- any more than the idea that employers may have some responsibilities for home office conditions is a disaster. It is the start of a broad discussion of a previously unexplored issue that is very relevant to those of us that telecom mute.

I couldn't find the contorversial letter in a quick scan of the Labor Department and OSHA sites. I suppose its been removed. Does anyone have a URL for it? I would have expected to find it here but its a gonner.

OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html

Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/ EOP/html/principals.html

Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/

(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.

OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html

Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/html/principals.h tml

Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/

(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.

Go after Welfare, Standardized insurance, etc, etc, but give it break at some point. Yea, yea, Goverment is evil, and the World is coming to and end... yada, yada, yada.... OSHA ain't the enemy you thought it was. It's your friend, workerboy. Keep typing. You'll need a friend soon.