Threshold limit values: historical perspectives and current practice

Article Abstract:

The 1989 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard requires that levels of 376 polluting substances in the air in the workplace be below the new permissible-exposure limits. The determination of acceptable limits for 350 of these substances was obtained from the 1987 list of Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). The medical reliability of these TLVs is of major importance to the health of millions of workers. OSHA ignored recommendations from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for stricter limits for 68 substances. The authors question the use of TLVs because of major flaws in determining those values. They question the rigor of the scientific process that went into setting these limits, as well as the lack of adequate medical input. The issue of possible financial conflict of interest is also raised, as corporate representatives are said to have been given the primary responsibility for developing the TLVs on more than 100 substances, including 36 classified as carcinogens. The medical community is asked to presume the TLV permissible-exposure levels are unsafe until more medical and scientific data on these substances can be evaluated. The authors make the following recommendations. Further information should be obtained from international literature and workers who have been exposed to hazardous substances. Industry should provide adequate resources to allow physicians to visit and monitor the workplace regularly. Doctors need to be given sufficient time to fully evaluate patients. Better use could be made of industrial nurses and physician assistants. Industry has the responsibility to provide good occupational health programs for their employees.

Standards, Occupational health and safety, Occupational safety and health, Environmental aspects, United States. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Health risk assessment, Air pollution, United States. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

---

Measurement of vibration of hand-held tools: weighted or unweighted?

Article Abstract:

During the 1960s a safe level of exposure to vibration was determined. The need for a safety standard was necessitated by the increase in the use of hand-held vibrating tools in the work place, resulting in a rise in Raynaud's phenomenon. Raynaud's phenomenon, intermittent attacks of lack of blood to a body extremity, has long been associated with both cold and the use of vibrating tools. The safe standard of vibration was determined on the basis of subjective factors such as user discomfort. The present standards are weighted on the hypothesis that lower frequencies are more hazardous. New evidence suggests that damage to arteries occurs at lower frequencies, while neurologic damage occurs at higher frequencies. Because of this new evidence, the authors question whether any frequency should be weighted or excluded in the standard determination. Both weighted and unweighted vibration frequencies are reported for some frequently used hand-held tools. It is suggested that in the future both weighted and unweighted measurements be reported so that vibration dose and effect on the body can be more accurately determined.

Health aspects, Measurement, Causes of, Tools, Raynaud's disease, Vibration, Vibration (Physics)

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Management education for nurses: hospital executives' opinions and hiring practices. The hospital as provider and employer: the case of AIDS
• Abstracts: The National Examination Blueprint: Information and Practice Questions. LITERATURE SEARCH
• Abstracts: Left ventricular filling and stress response pattern in essential hypertension. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and cardiovascular regulation in hypertension
• Abstracts: Dramatic response of follicular thyroid carcinoma with superior vena cava syndrome and tracheal obstruction to external-beam radiotherapy

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.