Thanks for the correction, Alec and others. I mispoke.

How about this? TiO2 is like sand. :)

What people are finding, IMO, is that materials with crystalline structure when
in fine dust and inhaled in large doses or small doses repeatedly over time, the
health of the lungs will be affected, leading to lung related diseases.

What is important is to put things into context. And that's what happens when we
ask and answer questions in this list.

..PC

--- In hazmat101@yahoogroups.com, "Alec MacLean" <alecm@...> wrote:
>
> Respectfully, titanium dioxide is not sand.  Sand is composed primarily of
silicon dioxide, though there are many other trace compounds in it.  Note that
silica is getting a lot of regulatory attention these days, as we learn more of
its carcinogenicity.  The level of attention is probably more proportional to
its ubiquity than its toxicity.  BTW, I'm betting that we are going to continue
to discover that just about any compound, when finely divided enough, can become
a carcinogen after sufficient inhalation.
>
>
> C. Alec MacLean
> Du-All Safety
> 510.651.8289 (o)
> 510.209.0867 (c)
>
>
> From: pcjr101
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:39 PM
> To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [hazmat101] Re: TITANIUM DIOXIDE
>
>
>
> Titanium Dioxide is sand. It is the primary ignredient in all paints.
> TiO2 is not a DOT Hazardous Material nor EPA hazardous substance.
>
> For the issue of TiO2 being listed as possible carcinogen, read this
> http://www.ccohs.ca/headlines/text186.html
>
> TiO2 is bound in pigments in paint. Exposure to ultra-fine TiO2 dust from
paint is simlar to the rat experiments cited above is not possible.
>
> Disclaimer: I know a lot about paint from work.
>
> ..PC
>
> --- In hazmat101@yahoogroups.com, Nasr Gergis <drgergis1@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello:
> > There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior walls.
> > 1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material (Titanium
Dioxide) and
> > 2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
> > 3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no
> >
> > Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
> > I appreciate everyone for helping
> > Regards, Gergis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I'm skeptical of all reports dealing with global warming, basing my opinion upon
looking at the science and more importantly the basis of the science.  Let me
clarify and let my peers who have also completed air emission reports join in
the discussion.  Focus on the quality, e.g., precision and accuracy of the
reports.  Typically, the least precise are computer models that have multiple
biases built into or assumed by those who develop the formulas, followed by
emission factors that typically assume worse-case emissions with the most
precise and accurate being actually measured following verifiable measurement
methods/accuracy/precision, etc.  As far as I know, the significant majority of
"global warming" reports have been based upon computer modeling with ONLY ONE
report based upon actual precise measurements.  Guess what, the measured values
were significantly lower than the computer models, which is not unusual if you
are actually looking at emissions measurement.  When putting into perspective
the goal of the currently proposed "green house gas emission reductions" to
reduce the ambient CO2 concentration from 385 ppm to 350 ppm at an extreme cost
to society, I am not convinced.  Yes, the immediate costs are to the utilities,
but as anyone who drove last year when gas exceeded $4/gallon can attest to,
these costs are passed onto every citizen directly and indirectly.  The direct
costs are obvious, if you don't believe in the indirect costs, look at your
grocery bill prior to and post the cost increases, now look at all of the other
basic service providers that you use and see how they had to pass on the costs
to just stay in business.  This topic hit on a pet peeve because I honestly
believe that the majority of the population does not understand or comprehend
the importance of the science's impact to the argument and feel that the media
has been negligent in portraying both sides of the issue, turning this into a
purely political endeaver at this point.  All viewpoints need to be heard, but
more importantly they need to be understood in context!!!
Bruce V.


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: FrMarshal@...
   To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:13 PM
   Subject: Re: [hazmat101] The White House muzzles a global warming skeptic




   I found PC's post interesting and informative. The fact that it deals with
   a government center that has a role in "scientific analysis" I believe it
   meets your personal litmus test concerning "serious scientific issues".

   Bob

   Robert J Davidson
   Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
   45 Colonial Drive
   Tinton Falls, NJ 07753
   732-643-1799 Phone
   888-58-9598 Fax
   _RJD@..._ (mailto:RJD@...)
   Business Email
   _www.davidsoncodeconcepts.com_ (http://www.davidsoncodeconcepts.com)

   In a message dated 11/18/2009 1:27:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
   mrigney@... writes:

   It's not clear to me why this editorial is being circulated to this
   list. If I wanted to know what Reverend Moon thought, I'd read his
   paper. There are serious scientiifc issues surrounding global warming,
   but this article is an inadequate review of those issues and this
   newsgroup is an inappropriate place for it.

   pcjr101 wrote:
   >
   > Full article at:
   > http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/
   > <http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/>
   > ----------------
   > Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug 25
   >
   > If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize him. That
   > seems to be the strategy of the Obama administration, which is showing
   > that its commitment to liberal ideology trumps its pledge to foster
   > open government.
   >
   > In June, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing
   > internal e-mails from the Environmental Protection Agency. In those
   > messages, a top administrator told a key researcher that the
   > researcher's new report would not be released. Why? Because it does
   > "not help the legal or policy case" for a controversial decision to
   > treat global warming as a health hazard. In short, because researcher
   > Alan Carlin's conclusions differed from the administration's political
   > agenda, his research was ignored.
   >
   > [snipe]
   >
   > The administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's
   > National Center for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside
   > Washington Publishers reported that "Obama EPA officials are said to
   > be considering scrapping" the center's role in scientific analysis.
   > Never mind the reality that doing so would undermine the entire reason
   > for its existence, namely (citing the article) "researching
   > environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
   > economic analyses for [new regulatory] rules."
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Google "US EPA Bush Administration" and one can find many missed discussion
opportunities on the forum.

I hope we can have politically unbiased, scientific discussions here rather than
devolve into political sniping, one way or another.  Let's keep our eyes on the
ball.

Thomas Hodges, CHMM
Hazardous Materials Manager
Environmental Safety & Health
971 Camp Auburn Road
Auburn University, Alabama  36849
Cell    334.703.7511
Office 334.844.4805
FAX   334.844.4197
hodgetf@...



>>> On 11/18/2009 at 2:28 PM, in message
<560731.92501.qm@...>, C Herb Hickman
<cherbhickman@...> wrote:


I agree. EPA scientific misbehavior is an appropriate topic for this list.
Attacking the newspaper for its alleged ownership is a form of ad hominem that
is not appropriate in any scientific discussion.

C Herb Hickman
Opinions mine and not necessarily those of any employer or associate

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, FrMarshal@... <FrMarshal@...> wrote:

From: FrMarshal@... <FrMarshal@...>
Subject: Re: [hazmat101] The White House muzzles a global warming skeptic
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 2:13 PM



I found PC's post interesting and informative. The fact that it deals with
a government center that has a role in "scientific analysis" I believe it
meets your personal litmus test concerning "serious scientific issues".

Bob

Robert J Davidson
Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
45 Colonial Drive
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753
732-643-1799 Phone
888-58-9598 Fax
_RJD@davidsoncodeco ncepts.com_ (mailto:RJD@davidsoncodecon cepts.com)
Business Email
_www.davidsoncodeco ncepts.com_ (http://www.davidson codeconcepts. com)

In a message dated 11/18/2009 1:27:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mrigney@brandeis. edu writes:

It's not clear to me why this editorial is being circulated to this
list. If I wanted to know what Reverend Moon thought, I'd read his
paper. There are serious scientiifc issues surrounding global warming,
but this article is an inadequate review of those issues and this
newsgroup is an inappropriate place for it.

pcjr101 wrote:
>
> Full article at:
> http://washingtonti mes.com/news/ 2009/aug/ 25/bury-the- messenger/
> <http://washingtonti mes.com/news/ 2009/aug/ 25/bury-the- messenger/>
> ------------ ----
> Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug 25
>
> If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize him. That
> seems to be the strategy of the Obama administration, which is showing
> that its commitment to liberal ideology trumps its pledge to foster
> open government.
>
> In June, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing
> internal e-mails from the Environmental Protection Agency. In those
> messages, a top administrator told a key researcher that the
> researcher's new report would not be released. Why? Because it does
> "not help the legal or policy case" for a controversial decision to
> treat global warming as a health hazard. In short, because researcher
> Alan Carlin's conclusions differed from the administration' s political
> agenda, his research was ignored.
>
> [snipe]
>
> The administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's
> National Center for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside
> Washington Publishers reported that "Obama EPA officials are said to
> be considering scrapping" the center's role in scientific analysis.
> Never mind the reality that doing so would undermine the entire reason
> for its existence, namely (citing the article) "researching
> environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
> economic analyses for [new regulatory] rules."
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Does anyone have any information or a resource where I can find incidents
involving this form of transportation?  I'm doing a research project on them and
want to see what type of incidents they have been involved in.

I agree.  EPA scientific misbehavior is an appropriate topic for this list.
Attacking the newspaper for its alleged ownership is a form of ad hominem that
is not appropriate in any scientific discussion.
 
C Herb Hickman
Opinions mine and not necessarily those of any employer or associate

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, FrMarshal@... <FrMarshal@...> wrote:


From: FrMarshal@... <FrMarshal@...>
Subject: Re: [hazmat101] The White House muzzles a global warming skeptic
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 2:13 PM


 




I found PC's post interesting and informative. The fact that it deals with
a government center that has a role in "scientific analysis" I believe it
meets your personal litmus test concerning "serious scientific issues".

Bob

Robert J Davidson
Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
45 Colonial Drive
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753
732-643-1799 Phone
888-58-9598 Fax
_RJD@davidsoncodeco ncepts.com_ (mailto:RJD@davidsoncodecon cepts.com)
Business Email
_www.davidsoncodeco ncepts.com_ (http://www.davidson codeconcepts. com)

In a message dated 11/18/2009 1:27:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mrigney@brandeis. edu writes:

It's not clear to me why this editorial is being circulated to this
list. If I wanted to know what Reverend Moon thought, I'd read his
paper. There are serious scientiifc issues surrounding global warming,
but this article is an inadequate review of those issues and this
newsgroup is an inappropriate place for it.

pcjr101 wrote:
>
> Full article at:
> http://washingtonti mes.com/news/ 2009/aug/ 25/bury-the- messenger/
> <http://washingtonti mes.com/news/ 2009/aug/ 25/bury-the- messenger/>
> ------------ ----
> Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug 25
>
> If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize him. That
> seems to be the strategy of the Obama administration, which is showing
> that its commitment to liberal ideology trumps its pledge to foster
> open government.
>
> In June, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing
> internal e-mails from the Environmental Protection Agency. In those
> messages, a top administrator told a key researcher that the
> researcher's new report would not be released. Why? Because it does
> "not help the legal or policy case" for a controversial decision to
> treat global warming as a health hazard. In short, because researcher
> Alan Carlin's conclusions differed from the administration' s political
> agenda, his research was ignored.
>
> [snipe]
>
> The administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's
> National Center for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside
> Washington Publishers reported that "Obama EPA officials are said to
> be considering scrapping" the center's role in scientific analysis.
> Never mind the reality that doing so would undermine the entire reason
> for its existence, namely (citing the article) "researching
> environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
> economic analyses for [new regulatory] rules."
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Mr. Carlin from Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Carlin.  For what it's worth.

"The EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy, responded: "Claims that this
individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.
. . . The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of
the working group dealing with this issue."

Thomas Hodges, CHMM
Hazardous Materials Manager
Environmental Safety & Health
971 Camp Auburn Road
Auburn University, Alabama  36849
Cell    334.703.7511
Office 334.844.4805
FAX   334.844.4197
hodgetf@...



>>> On 11/18/2009 at 9:57 AM, in message <4B04196E.90705@...>,
Mike Rigney <mrigney@...> wrote:
It's not clear to me why this editorial is being circulated to this
list. If I wanted to know what Reverend Moon thought, I'd read his
paper. There are serious scientiifc issues surrounding global warming,

but this article is an inadequate review of those issues and this
newsgroup is an inappropriate place for it.




pcjr101 wrote:
>
> Full article at:
> http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/
> <http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/>
> ----------------
> Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug 25
>
> If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize him. That
> seems to be the strategy of the Obama administration, which is
showing
> that its commitment to liberal ideology trumps its pledge to foster
> open government.
>
> In June, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing

> internal e-mails from the Environmental Protection Agency. In those
> messages, a top administrator told a key researcher that the
> researcher's new report would not be released. Why? Because it does
> "not help the legal or policy case" for a controversial decision to
> treat global warming as a health hazard. In short, because researcher

> Alan Carlin's conclusions differed from the administration's
political
> agenda, his research was ignored.
>
> [snipe]
>
> The administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's
> National Center for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside
> Washington Publishers reported that "Obama EPA officials are said to

> be considering scrapping" the center's role in scientific analysis.
> Never mind the reality that doing so would undermine the entire
reason
> for its existence, namely (citing the article) "researching
> environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
> economic analyses for [new regulatory] rules."
>
>


------------------------------------

-- Share the knowledge. Invite a friend to join. --
Join at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hazmat101/

Yahoo! Groups Links





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I found PC's post interesting and informative. The fact that it deals with
a government center that has a role in "scientific analysis" I believe it
meets  your personal litmus test concerning "serious scientific issues".

Bob

Robert J Davidson
Davidson Code Concepts, LLC
45  Colonial Drive
Tinton Falls, NJ 07753
732-643-1799 Phone
888-58-9598  Fax
_RJD@..._ (mailto:RJD@...)
Business  Email
_www.davidsoncodeconcepts.com_ (http://www.davidsoncodeconcepts.com)




In a message dated 11/18/2009 1:27:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mrigney@... writes:

It's not  clear to me why this editorial is being circulated to this
list. If I  wanted to know what Reverend Moon thought, I'd read his
paper. There are  serious scientiifc issues surrounding global warming,
but this article is  an inadequate review of those issues and this
newsgroup is an  inappropriate place for it.




pcjr101 wrote:
>
>  Full article at:
>  http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/
>  <http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/>
>  ----------------
> Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug  25
>
> If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize  him. That
> seems to be the strategy of the Obama administration, which  is showing
> that its commitment to liberal ideology trumps its pledge  to foster
> open government.
>
> In June, the Competitive  Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing
> internal e-mails from  the Environmental Protection Agency. In those
> messages, a top  administrator told a key researcher that the
> researcher's new report  would not be released. Why? Because it does
> "not help the legal or  policy case" for a controversial decision to
> treat global warming as  a health hazard. In short, because researcher
> Alan Carlin's  conclusions differed from the administration's political
> agenda, his  research was ignored.
>
> [snipe]
>
> The  administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's
> National  Center for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside
> Washington  Publishers reported that "Obama EPA officials are said to
> be  considering scrapping" the center's role in scientific analysis.
>  Never mind the reality that doing so would undermine the entire reason
> for its existence, namely (citing the article) "researching
>  environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
>  economic analyses for [new regulatory]  rules."
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I Thank everyone assisted me with information in this matter
Regards, Gergis




________________________________
From: Nasr Gergis <drgergis1@...>
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 10:46:47 AM
Subject: Re: [hazmat101] TITANIUM DIOXIDE

 


Hello:
There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior walls.
1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material (Titanium
Dioxide) and
2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no
 
Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
I appreciate everyone for helping
Regards, Gergis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Respectfully, titanium dioxide is not sand.  Sand is composed primarily of
silicon dioxide, though there are many other trace compounds in it.  Note that
silica is getting a lot of regulatory attention these days, as we learn more of
its carcinogenicity.  The level of attention is probably more proportional to
its ubiquity than its toxicity.  BTW, I'm betting that we are going to continue
to discover that just about any compound, when finely divided enough, can become
a carcinogen after sufficient inhalation.


C. Alec MacLean
Du-All Safety
510.651.8289 (o)
510.209.0867 (c)


From: pcjr101
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:39 PM
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hazmat101] Re: TITANIUM DIOXIDE



Titanium Dioxide is sand. It is the primary ignredient in all paints.
TiO2 is not a DOT Hazardous Material nor EPA hazardous substance.

For the issue of TiO2 being listed as possible carcinogen, read this
http://www.ccohs.ca/headlines/text186.html

TiO2 is bound in pigments in paint. Exposure to ultra-fine TiO2 dust from paint
is simlar to the rat experiments cited above is not possible.

Disclaimer: I know a lot about paint from work.

..PC

--- In hazmat101@yahoogroups.com, Nasr Gergis <drgergis1@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello:
> There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior walls.
> 1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material (Titanium
Dioxide) and
> 2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
> 3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no
>
> Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
> I appreciate everyone for helping
> Regards, Gergis
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's not clear to me why this editorial is being circulated to this
list. If I wanted to know what Reverend Moon thought, I'd read his
paper. There are serious scientiifc issues surrounding global warming,
but this article is an inadequate review of those issues and this
newsgroup is an inappropriate place for it.




pcjr101 wrote:
>
> Full article at:
> http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/
> <http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/>
> ----------------
> Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug 25
>
> If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize him. That
> seems to be the strategy of the Obama administration, which is showing
> that its commitment to liberal ideology trumps its pledge to foster
> open government.
>
> In June, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing
> internal e-mails from the Environmental Protection Agency. In those
> messages, a top administrator told a key researcher that the
> researcher's new report would not be released. Why? Because it does
> "not help the legal or policy case" for a controversial decision to
> treat global warming as a health hazard. In short, because researcher
> Alan Carlin's conclusions differed from the administration's political
> agenda, his research was ignored.
>
> [snipe]
>
> The administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's
> National Center for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside
> Washington Publishers reported that "Obama EPA officials are said to
> be considering scrapping" the center's role in scientific analysis.
> Never mind the reality that doing so would undermine the entire reason
> for its existence, namely (citing the article) "researching
> environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
> economic analyses for [new regulatory] rules."
>
>

Hi all!

I am trying to help out a local contractor doing some small lead paint
removal off of bridge abutments with a needle gun.  He's looking for
RCRA annual refresher and OSHA lead annual refresher.  I'm very familiar
with the OSHA requirements in 1926.62.

He mentioned getting previous RCRA refresher for a SQG+ from a trainer
and it was just a couple of hours long. I recall RCRA refreshers being
8-hour classes - but that just for an LQG, correct?

I've looked for a guidance doc on EPA's website to no avail.  Any links
you can provide that indicates the requirements (including topics)
specifically for a non-fixed SQG+ would be helpful.  Thanks! Be well,

[For those of you from "away", the plus in SQG+ is a Maine DEP
classification that allows a SQG to accumulate up to three 55-gallon drums.]
- Jonathan

--
Jonathan Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET
Klane's Education Information Training Hub, LLC (KEITH)
491 Norridgewock Rd.
Fairfield, ME 04937-3116
P: 207-453-KEITH (5348)
jonathan@...
www.trainerman.com
"Take a step in the right direction"

Titanium Dioxide also provides the "white" on sugar donuts.



From: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hazmat101@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of HAZMATBL@...
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:34 PM
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hazmat101] TITANIUM DIOXIDE





Titanium dioxide is what makes Oreo cream white!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.707 / Virus Database: 270.14.72/2511 - Release Date: 11/18/09
01:50:00



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Compliance date for 172.202 in the HMR 01/01/2013.

Earl C.
Roadside Hazmat.com




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Aptly cited:
"Beginning January 1, 2007, the alternative shipping description
sequence will be mandatory on shipping documents prepared in accordance
with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code."

That answers for international shipment (both IMDG and ICAO/IATA) and
answers the question asked.  But be careful extending to U.S.
requirements, the quote below is from a preamble discussion ABOUT the
U.S. rules, not an actual U.S. regulation and it addresses the proposed
U.S. rule, not the final one. For domestic U.S. shipment, 49 CFR 171.14
(e) states:

     "(e) The shipping description sequences in effect on December 31,
     2006, may be used until January 1, 2013."

So, in the U.S. there is more than the 2-year transition cited in the
following quote.

Robert Ernst wrote:
>
>
> The following is from HM-215I -
>
> Section 172.202 establishes requirements for shipping descriptions on
> shipping papers. Currently, the basic description of a hazardous
> material consists of the proper shipping name, hazard class, ID number
> and packing group, in that order. The HMR also authorize an
> alternative description sequence, which lists the identification
> number first, followed by the proper shipping name, hazard class, and
> packing group. Beginning January 1, 2007, the alternative shipping
> description sequence will be mandatory on shipping documents prepared
> in accordance with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code.
> In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt the current, alternative shipping
> description sequence as the mandatory basic description of a hazardous
> material on a shipping paper. We also proposed a two-year transition
> period to allow offerors adequate time to convert to the new shipping
> description sequence.
>
> >>> "pcjr101" <pcjr101@... <mailto:pcjr101%40yahoo.com>>
> 11/17/2009 9:26 AM >>>
>
> According to the IMDG code, what is the mandatory deadline for
> switching the order of the basic shipping description with the UN
> number first?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> ..PC
>
>
>


--
Paul Hausman
phausm@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Titanium dioxide is what makes Oreo cream white!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Full article at:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/
----------------
Editorial by THE WASHINGTON TIMES Aug 25

If you can't muzzle the whistleblower, try to marginalize him. That seems to be
the strategy of the Obama administration, which is showing that its commitment
to liberal ideology trumps its pledge to foster open government.

In June, the Competitive Enterprise Institute made waves by releasing internal
e-mails from the Environmental Protection Agency. In those messages, a top
administrator told a key researcher that the researcher's new report would not
be released. Why? Because it does "not help the legal or policy case" for a
controversial decision to treat global warming as a health hazard. In short,
because researcher Alan Carlin's conclusions differed from the administration's
political agenda, his research was ignored.

[snipe]

The administration struck back. Mr. Carlin works for the EPA's National Center
for Environmental Economics. On Friday, Inside Washington Publishers reported
that "Obama EPA officials are said to be considering scrapping" the center's
role in scientific analysis. Never mind the reality that doing so would
undermine the entire reason for its existence, namely (citing the article)
"researching environmental health issues to improve risk assessment data used in
economic analyses for [new regulatory] rules."

From: GEORGE HOLLIDAY

The EED HS&E Newsletter for 16 November 2009 is available at:

<http://files.asme.org/Divisions/EED/16811.pdf>
(PDF)

Regards

George

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) United States Fire
Administration (USFA) has issued a special report examining the causes and
characteristics of fires in college and university residential buildings that
include dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses.

The report, University Housing Fires, was developed by the National Fire Data
Center and is a part of the USFA's Topical Report Series.  An estimated average
of 3,800 fires occurs each year in university dwellings. Annually, these fires
are also responsible for 5 deaths, 50 civilian injuries, and $26 million in
property loss. This report is based on 2005 to 2007 data from the National Fire
Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).

Copy of the report can be downloaded at:
<http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/reports/index.shtm>

Today's Coffee Break Training is the second of a seven-part series that explains
the fundamentals of building construction for fire resistance.

Today's training vignette, "Where Fire Resistance May Be Required" explains the
various building components that must be protected from thermal attack when the
building code calls for fire resistance.

Your Coffee Break can be downloaded from

<http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2009_46.pdf>
(PDF)

Previous Coffee Breaks may be found at

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/nfa/coffee-break/

While I don't know a lot about paint, I do know that TiO2 is in a lot of
toothpastes as an abrasive.

Just FYI

Dave


>>> Nasr Gergis <drgergis1@...> 11/17/09 5:23 PM >>>


Hello:
There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior walls.
1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material (Titanium
Dioxide) and
2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no

Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
I appreciate everyone for helping
Regards, Gergis




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Titanium Dioxide is the pigment in the paint and I don't believe it can
be separated from the paint.  Titanium Dioxide is used in wide array of
consumer products and cosmetics including paint, tooth paste, and
vitamin supplements.



Titanium dioxide has recently been classified by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen
''possibly carcinogen to humans''... This evidence showed that high
concentrations of pigment-grade (powdered) and ultrafine titanium
dioxide dust caused respiratory tract cancer in rats exposed by
inhalation and intratracheal instillation.



The only place someone is likely to come into contact with powered or
ultrafine Titanium Dioxide is in manufacturing facility that either
produces Titanium Dioxide or uses it in their final product.  Proper
respiratory protection should be sufficient in these instances.



In short, we're surrounded by the stuff and it doesn't appear to pose
any hazard in any product presently in use.



Thanks!



Mike O'Brien | Technical Services Manager

Direct (985) 801-5040

________________________________

From: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hazmat101@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nasr Gergis
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:47 PM
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hazmat101] TITANIUM DIOXIDE







Hello:
There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior
walls.
1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material
(Titanium Dioxide) and
2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no

Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
I appreciate everyone for helping
Regards, Gergis

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Titanium Dioxide is sand. It is the primary ignredient in all paints.
TiO2 is not a DOT Hazardous Material nor EPA hazardous substance.

For the issue of TiO2 being listed as possible carcinogen, read this
http://www.ccohs.ca/headlines/text186.html

TiO2 is bound in pigments in paint. Exposure to ultra-fine TiO2 dust from paint
is simlar to the rat experiments cited above is not possible.

Disclaimer: I know a lot about paint from work.

..PC

--- In hazmat101@yahoogroups.com, Nasr Gergis <drgergis1@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello:
> There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior walls.
> 1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material (Titanium
Dioxide) and
> 2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
> 3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no
>  
> Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
> I appreciate everyone for helping
> Regards, Gergis
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

The following is from HM-215I -

Section 172.202 establishes requirements for shipping descriptions on shipping
papers. Currently, the basic description of a hazardous material consists of the
proper shipping name, hazard class, ID number and packing group, in that order.
The HMR also authorize an alternative description sequence, which lists the
identification number first, followed by the proper shipping name, hazard class,
and packing group. Beginning January 1, 2007, the alternative shipping
description sequence will be mandatory on shipping documents prepared in
accordance with the ICAO Technical Instructions and the IMDG Code. In the NPRM,
we proposed to adopt the current, alternative shipping description sequence as
the mandatory basic description of a hazardous material on a shipping paper. We
also proposed a two-year transition period to allow offerors adequate time to
convert to the new shipping description sequence.

>>> "pcjr101" <pcjr101@...> 11/17/2009 9:26 AM >>>

According to the IMDG code, what is the mandatory deadline for switching the
order of the basic shipping description with the UN number first?

Thanks in advance.

..PC




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello:
There is a paint used to paint the exterior building. The paint contains
titanium Dioxide. The chemical is used for self cleaning the exterior walls.
1) what is the environmental impact from the hazardous material (Titanium
Dioxide) and
2) is there any health concern to human within the area?
3) I read MSDSs some listed the chemical as carcinogen others no
 
Please provide me with the information cited by regulation.
I appreciate everyone for helping
Regards, Gergis




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

According to the IMDG code, what is the mandatory deadline for switching the
order of the basic shipping description with the UN number first?

Thanks in advance.

..PC

Here's a recent press releas for US
<http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/29/oh-buck-study-says-deer-automobile-accident-\
rate-up-by-18-ove/>

TinyURL:
http://tinyurl.com/ycwv875

West Virginia tops the list.


--- In hazmat101@yahoogroups.com, "Yoder, Fred" <yoderf@...> wrote:
>
> Good Morning!
>
> I understand that Canadian wildlife and US wildlife generate the same risk,
but since I know I'll get the question, anyone out there have the wildlife
collision figures for the US?
>
> Thanks!
> Fred
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

From: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hazmat101@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Yoder, Fred
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:25 AM
To: hazmat101@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hazmat101] FYI: An update for WISER for Windows 4.3 is now
available!





Just an FYI... I don't know if many of you are familiar with the WISER
Program<http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/> (http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/ ). It is
an electronic resource (computer and online) database for HAZMAT
response, with resources for identifying unknown chemicals by
characteristics or other info and links to the emergency response info.
Combines the best of NAERG, NIOSH Pocket, and some other resources in
one spot.

I don't use it often, but we do use it. There is an online version that
I've been able to use by phone with web access...

WISER was put together by the National Institutes of Health National
Library of Medicine, so it's a free government resource.

Fred

Subject: An update for WISER for Windows 4.3 is now available!
An update for WISER for Windows 4.3 is now available! Most importantly,
this fixes the recent Protective Distance mapping issue that has
surfaced.

Users of WISER for Windows are encouraged to update to the very latest
version of the application (4.3.208 - Nov. 10, 2009).

WISER for
Windows<http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/downloads_windows.html?email=> can be
downloaded from the WISER web site<http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/>.

Highlights of this new version include:

* A fix to a recent issue with internet connectivity for mapping the
protective distance of a substance.

* Improved display of WISER for Windows on low resolution displays.

* Some small usability improvements to the ERG 2008 tool included in
WISER for Windows.

Also: The Web-based version of WISER (WebWISER) is scheduled for some
downtime: On Saturday, November 14,
WebWISER<http://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/> is expected to be down until late
evening, Eastern Standard Time, due to electrical maintenance at the
National Library of Medicine.

Thank you!

The WISER Team

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just an FYI...  I don't know if many of you are familiar with the WISER
Program<http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/> (http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/ ).  It is an
electronic resource (computer and online) database for HAZMAT response, with
resources for identifying unknown chemicals by characteristics or other info and
links to the emergency response info.  Combines the best of NAERG, NIOSH Pocket,
and some other resources in one spot.

I don't use it often, but we do use it.  There is an online version that I've
been able to use by phone with web access...

WISER was put together by the National Institutes of Health National Library of
Medicine, so it's a free government resource.

Fred

Subject: An update for WISER for Windows 4.3 is now available!
An update for WISER for Windows 4.3 is now available!   Most importantly, this
fixes the recent Protective Distance mapping issue that has surfaced.

Users of WISER for Windows are encouraged to update to the very latest version
of the application (4.3.208 - Nov. 10, 2009).

WISER for Windows<http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/downloads_windows.html?email=> can be
downloaded from the WISER web site<http://wiser.nlm.nih.gov/>.



Highlights of this new version include:



*         A fix to a recent issue with internet connectivity for mapping the
protective distance of a substance.



*         Improved display of WISER for Windows on low resolution displays.



*         Some small usability improvements to the ERG 2008 tool included in
WISER for Windows.



Also: The Web-based version of WISER (WebWISER) is scheduled for some downtime: 
On Saturday, November 14, WebWISER<http://webwiser.nlm.nih.gov/> is expected to
be down until late evening, Eastern Standard Time, due to electrical maintenance
at the National Library of Medicine.



Thank you!



The WISER Team




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good Morning!

I understand that Canadian wildlife and US wildlife generate the same risk, but
since I know I'll get the question, anyone out there have the wildlife collision
figures for the US?

Thanks!
Fred



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the hazmat101
group.

   File        : /transport/PPT_increasing safety belt use.ppt
   Uploaded by : pcjr101 <pcjr101@...>
   Description : PPT: increasing safety belt use

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hazmat101/files/transport/PPT_increasing%20safety%\
20belt%20use.ppt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

pcjr101 <pcjr101@...>