My mind is overloaded at the moment, completing reports and documentation of past activities for 2017. I welcome 2018 with a lot more things to do, including a pending proposal on a laboratory safety test that is currently glowing the wires in my brain cells.
The goal is to reduce cost while providing an empirical basis for a risk assessment of low GWP refrigerant alternatives. I need to do more research to prove out a point. We can always use review of literature from secondary data but that defeats the point of local capacity development in support of local policy and regulation. Maybe this is way below my priority list, as exciting as it may look.
I strongly believe in the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) as a means of Hazard Communication to properly inform consumers and end users of the hazards related to the chemicals they use.
ALL chemicals are toxic and hazardous depending on the concentration, the condition it is used and the acts of the end user towards that chemical. Water whose chemical name is H2O has claimed lives through its volume or have drowned persons and damaged properties.
I went back to graduate school in 2016 to study occupational health and industrial hygiene to know more, because I find my skill on OHSAS 18001 too shallow. It is my own intent and my own effort to do so and not a corporate interest or regulatory requirement. Being involved in climate change mitigation particularly F-gas control was an added bonus and I have started to love what I do, until I have to work on my indicator on standards development for low GWP refrigerants for my own country.
IEC 60335-2-24 was easy, no complications, HFC 134a is generally expected to be replaced by HC 600a, extremely low GWP, no ODP, unpatented, natural but then… IEC 60335-2-40 came with the extremely influential global chemical companies even, supported by some development organizations.
Patents are at stake for Methylene fluoride, Hydrofluorolefins, and other synthetically developed substances and alternatives. I didn’t expect that it would come to this point that changes in a specific hazard symbol are proposed, overtaking and disregarding the GHS. All chemicals are hazardous regardless of its flammability. Remember flammability is not the only concern and that speck of light is not part of the globally accepted symbols for hazard communication. It was proposed that work on the specific product comes first before work on the globally harmonized system? Because another standard had mentioned, the product standard would be the utmost priority over vertical standards. Or is it a means to mask the actual hazard of a substance. This is totally unacceptable, Yet we are being forced by corporate interests to be in unsafe conditions and perform unsafe acts by downgrading hazard communication symbols to stupidity.