Lampwork Etc.
 
TrueDesign

LE Live Chat

Enter Live Chat

No users in chat


The Flow

Beads of Courage


 

Go Back   Lampwork Etc. > Library > Safety

Safety -- Make sure you are safe!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 2005-06-28, 5:56pm
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default Convince me, please (aka "sez who?")

What I'm looking for in this thread is an honest fight about safety. Not a fair fight necessarily, just honest. Given that invitation I hope Corri and any mods will relax the rules on personal attacks. Go ahead and attack me if that's how you choose to get your point across. My dog loves me and that's good enough. Just be prepared to defend your assertions with relevant data and sources.

If all you have is an informed opinion that's ok too, but please explain the foundation and logic that got you there. What I want to do here is sort out evidence-based practice from opinion or government safety guidelines. Feel free to state your credentials if you like, but that's not going to be enough. (Ask any doctor heard some version of, "Big whoop, so you went to med school. I'm sure your mother is very proud. Now explain to me exactly why you think I should take this.")

I do ask that this not become a free-for-all, with responders going after one another. If you want to come after me knock yourself out, but please be respectful to anyone with the courage and generosity to contribute here.

So for starters, convince me:

1) Why there is a need for eye protection from infrared light. How much exposure causes what problems? If it doesn't cause problems so much as increase risk, how great is the increase?

2) Why good ventilation is necessary. I've read threads on air exchange rates and the like, but I haven't found threads talking about how much exposure to what emissions leads to what consequences or how great an increase in risk.

If you post here, please check back in for follow-up questions as well. I may pm you, but the point is to elicit the information for anyone who has an interest to read and interpret as they see fit.

Time to feed the dog...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2005-06-29, 5:58am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

This is cut and paste from what I wrote recently on The GLDG:

Quote:
All the information relating to hazards to the eye can be found anywhere lasers are discussed. Granted, lasers are coherent (focused) light energy and lampworking is non-coherent (NOT INCOHERENT - that's when you drink or smoke too much), however, the injuries are identical in nature. Its just that the laser will damage you NOW because of the single wavelength and intense nature of the beam, whereas the flameworking exposure generates across all wavelenghts and is less intense, the results are the same, it just takes longer for lampworking injuries to make themselves apparent.

Start with these links:

http://www.derm.ubc.ca/laser/eyesafety.html?#What

http://www.iiac.org.uk/report1/intro.shtml

A couple of exerpts from the above:

"The Council considers that there are good scientific grounds for maintaining the prescription of cataract in relation to infrared radiation, but recommends that it be restricted to frequent or prolonged exposure to rays from red-hot or white-hot material over a period of at least five years in aggregate."

"44. The evidence linking non-ionising radiation with cataract is strongest for infrared radiation. As early as 1907, a survey of 513 glass workers (who were exposed to infrared radiation from incandescent molten glass) and 278 controls from other occupations found that cataract was two to five times more common in the glass workers. An excess of cataract has also been demonstrated among furnacemen in the metal industry, the infrared radiation in this case coming from the molten metal."

"46. Unfortunately, there are few recent studies of the problem, but a Swedish survey in the 1980s found clear increases in the prevalence of cataract among iron and steel workers and glass workers exposed to infrared radiation as compared with controls. In iron and steel workers exposed for five years or longer, the prevalence of cataract was almost double that in controls; and among glass workers who had been exposed for at least 20 years and who were aged 70 years or older, 16% had undergone operations for cataract as compared with only 1% of controls. Thus, there are good scientific grounds for maintaining the prescription of cataract in relation to infrared radiation. "

"48. Little information is available on how the risk of cataract varies according to the intensity and duration of occupational exposure to infrared radiation. It appears that prolonged, high exposure can increase risk fivefold or more, but the extent of exposure necessary to double risk has not been clearly established. The exposure of an individual worker will depend on several factors including the temperature of the source of radiation, the distance of the eyes from the source, whether any form of eye protection is worn, and how long the worker spends in proximity to the source of radiation. However, it would be impractical to attempt a detailed assessment of all these variables when adjudicating claims."

"49. As a way forward, and based on the limited information that is available, we believe that it would be reasonable to prescribe cataract in relation to "frequent or prolonged exposure to rays from red-hot or white-hot material over a period of at least five years in aggregate". We have added the term "white-hot" since there is no reason to believe that the risks from white-hot materials would be less than those from sources which are only red-hot. "

"57. Optical radiation
Infrared exposure is difficult to control at source; processes and plant that give rise to significant levels of infrared emission tend to be large and "open", for example furnaces in metal founding. Historically, blown glass manufacture has been a significant risk because of the intricate close work with semi-molten glass that is required. Therefore control is primarily achieved by the use of suitably filtered work station shielding or protective eyewear."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:06am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

The problem with trying to identify a 'given level of exposure' to IR that will cause injury is very difficult. Everyone has a different threshold level. It is partially based on genetics - for example, people of African or Mediterranian (sp) (actually, more along the lines of equatorial) heritage have a higher resistance to IR damage - it will occur, but it takes longer. These people can be roughly identified by certain obvious characteristics: brown eyes, dark(er) skin tones, and higher melanin levels.

People of northern heritage, for example northern european such as the classic Scandanavian: blonde blue eyes, will have a lower resistance because of lower levels of melanin.

The more melanin you have in your body, the higher your basic resistance is. This does not mean however that you should start taking melanin supplements. It won't work.

So, we try to eliminate as much of the IR as is practical. When working with soft glass in the torch, the IR levels are fairly low. However, soft glass in the furnace or kiln, borosilicate lampworking, etc all have very high levels of IR radiation, hence the requirement to remove as much of the IR as possible.

This is one reason why the fairly recent revelation that Phillips' Boroscopes are unsafe has raised such a ruckus.

The biggest problem is that the eye has no pain receptors for IR injury like the skin does. Your skin knows when something is too hot, your eye does not. You only know after the fact, usually the next day, after the damage has been done.

Additionally, the damage is cumulative and non-reversible. It builds up over time (cumulative). The eye is not self-repairing (non-reversible).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:11am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

If you think of a cataract as a callus, like you would get on a finger or toe, you will be fairly close to what happens in the eye.

Overexposure to IR leads to dry, itchy eyes.
After repeated overexposure, mainly to IR, the eye starts a process to protect itself. This process is usually a thickening and hardening of the cornea, eventually, it becomes opaque and a cataract is born.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:17am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

As for ventilation, there are plenty of documents on the internet that discuss the medical problems associated with lack of proper ventilation and the inhalation of not only combustion by-products, but also the inhalation of the various metal vapors and fumes. The information below is quoted from my 'white paper' on ventilation, found on the AGF.

Quote:
There are also many international standards that call for certain levels of ventilation, the best well known is American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene. They have published their "recommended practices" for ventilation.

In the 22nd edition, 1995, it states a variety of processes that require ventilation. Among those, the nearest to our specific application is Restaurant Hoods (over cook tops). The practice states that for Wall mounted hoods, the recommended air flow is 80 CFM per square foot of hood area (length times width). For Island type (or ceiling hung) hoods, the recommended air flow is 125 CFM per squre foot of hood area.

These flow differences are important because they take into account the total air flow in a given room. A wall mounted hood will take the air only from the local area, while a ceiling mounted hood will affect the entire room.

ACGIH (as noted above) has another "Recommended Practice" that we need to look at: "Minimum Duct Velocities for Conveying Materials"

Very fine light dust : 2500 - 3000 FPM
Dry Dusts & Powders: 3000 - 4000 FPM
Average Industrial Dust: 3500 - 4000 FPM

For our purposes, as lampworkers, we should be using velocities in the range of 2500 to 3000 FPM. If you do a substantial amount of work with frit, you should consider a system that moves between 3000 and 3500 FPM.

The last item to look at is Air Change Rates. The volume of fresh air in CFM required to supply a given area can be estimated by the "Air Change Method". This method is recommended for standard commercial applications when you don't have to worry about enviromental hazards, heat and/or odors.

The air volume in CFM is estimated by dividing the room volume in cubic feet by the Recommended number of minutes per change (per the ACGIH). Again, for our purposes, I'll use the Restaurant classification of 5 to 10 (which means that it takes 5 to 10 minutes to "completely" change the air in the room.

Example: Room size is 25 feet wide by 18 feet deep by 8 feet high. This is a volume of 3600 cubic feet. To find the acceptable range of ventilation for this application, divide 3600 by 5 and then by 10, which will give you a range of 360 to 720 CFM.

Remember that this is only an estimation, and is a requirement of total room air changes, not ventilation required for a given application. This measurement will provide a base number for ventilating a given space to change the air only.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:23am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

There are other entities than the ACGIH and they all recommend basically the same things.

Why is this important? Because the building codes and building inspectors rely on the 'recommended practices' when approving or disapproving certain installations.

It is far better to design and build your ventilation system around one of these 'recommended practices' and KNOW that you have sufficient ventilation than to have an improperly designed system that will place not only you, but your family members and pets at risk for breathable hazards.
These 'recommended practices' are based on practical experience by the air moving industry, government regulation, and health professions.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:27am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Of course, in the end, the final decision is entirely up to you (meaning the lampworker).

No one can force you to wear protective eyewear, and if you work in a home studio, no one can force you to have proper ventilation. No one can force you to keep your propane outside. No one can make you do anything you do not want to do.

All we can do is show you the reasons why we recommend the things we do. The final decision is up to you.

As long as you are aware of the risks you are taking by not properly protecting yourself and/or the ones you love, then, by all means, do as you wish.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:39am
Toozygoot's Avatar
Toozygoot Toozygoot is offline
Fire Borne
 
Join Date: Jun 12, 2005
Location: Saint George Island FL and Stafford Springs CT
Posts: 1,047
Default

Thank you Mike! And those of us who are "doing the best we can under the circumstances" also know what we should be striving for. I know this fall I will be taking a critical look at how I can improve my main set up as far as ventilation goes.
I hadn't been terribly concerned because we have 15 foot ceilings in that area. But intelligently I know that's not really a safe way to operate.

pat
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2005-06-29, 7:14am
Dale M.'s Avatar
Dale M. Dale M. is offline
Gentleman of Leisure
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: A Little Bit West of Yosemite Valley
Posts: 5,200
Default Very Simple

If to much reading hurts your eyes and your brain is foggy....

Quote:
1) Why there is a need for eye protection from infrared light. How much exposure causes what problems? If it doesn't cause problems so much as increase risk, how great is the increase?
We all know that going out side and staring at the sun will burn your eyes and it will damage your vision.... Does it make sense to stare at the minature sun (flame+molten glass) in front of you and ruin your eyes also...

Quote:
2) Why good ventilation is necessary. I've read threads on air exchange rates and the like, but I haven't found threads talking about how much exposure to what emissions leads to what consequences or how great an increase in risk.
Would you sit in garage with car running and garage door closed and breathe in all the fumes cause by the combution processes as engines runs...Does it make sense to sit in closed up room and breath the same fumes produced by a torch right there in front of you?

Bottom line is why take any chances.

Dale
__________________
You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vendor-Artist-Studio-Teacher Registry

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
San Francisco - A Few Toys Short of a Happy Meal

Last edited by Dale M.; 2005-06-29 at 8:53am. Reason: Correct spelling error
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 2005-06-29, 9:15am
Cosmo's Avatar
Cosmo Cosmo is offline
ManBearPig
 
Join Date: Jun 28, 2005
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 8,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beadbroad
1) Why there is a need for eye protection from infrared light. How much exposure causes what problems? If it doesn't cause problems so much as increase risk, how great is the increase?

2) Why good ventilation is necessary. I've read threads on air exchange rates and the like, but I haven't found threads talking about how much exposure to what emissions leads to what consequences or how great an increase in risk.
Well, I look at these questions and they remind me of a question I get asked a lot. As some of you know I'm an avid scuba diver, and am working towards my instructor's certification. One rule in diving is that someone who is pregnant cannot dive. Why? Pressure effects on the unborn child mainly, along with the physiological changes that a pregnant woman goes through.

Does it hurt the unborn child? We don't know. Mainly because we can't find anyone who is willing to possibly sacrifice their unborn child for the sake of a scientific experiment. Is it possible that it's safe? Yes. But we err on the side of caution anyways, because safer is better.

Eye protection when lampworking is the same way. I don't know of anyone who is willing to possibly lose or damage their eyesight to see "how much is too much". Same goes for ventilation. Nobody wants to submit themselves to the effects of glass fumes just to see what happens.

I'm sure somewhere there are medical records of someone working with glass and not using eye/respiratory protection, and what happened to them. I personally don't know what happens if you don't have ventilation, because I don't want to find out. I don't know what it feels like to be shot with a gun, but I'm in no hurry to find that out either.

I think everyone is in agreement that eye protection and ventilation is necessary, right? I always treated those topics as one of the "assumed" things when it comes to lampworking. They are necessities just like your torch and glass.

So, while I enjoy a good internet arguement as much as anyone (probably more than most, actually.... ) I think this may be one of those things where it's "better safe than sorry".
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 2005-06-29, 11:21am
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Mike --

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and informative reply. I need to think it through and do some homework before I respond.

Dale --

You crack me up! I've read enough of your posts to know you can do a lot better than apples and oranges, and if I were going to gripe about "too much reading" it would be pretty stupid to start a thread insisting on sources. If you're going to call me pretty stupid, I've also read enough of your posts to know you can do a better job of that too! Maybe you're tired of the subject or of teaching, and that's certainly fair. You don't owe us anything. But what I'm asking here is please, put my overpriced education to work and give me something to read and reason through.

Chad --

Thanks for illustrating exactly the problem that incited this thread. If we stop at "everyone agrees it is necessary," "why take chances," or "better safe than sorry," we never define the hazards and therefore never can achieve optimal safety. People who assume the risks are as stated without any inquiry to the foundation of the assertions are very likely to assume that the safety practices as stated are not only necessary but also sufficient.

I will respond to the theme, "well, we can't very well expose people to risks just to find out how risky they are or to prove they need protection." Science has lots of ways around this problem, all imperfect, but all informative. Mike's posts contain several examples of this. When you can't meet the gold standard of randomized control blinded experimental design, you approximate it as best you can, and consider the quality of the design you can achieve in interpreting the meaningfulness of your results.

Keep it coming --
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 2005-06-29, 11:37am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

I'm not sure you are going to get more responses than what you see here...

Part of the issue here is that what we as lampworkers are doing is very much a niche industry. Very small, very self contained. I'd estimate close to 85% of us work out of our homes, very far under the radar for the government to take notice of.

The eyewear and ventilation industry are fairly tightly controlled and regulated by a variety of both governmental and industry standards. There are organizations dedicated to nothing but safety both for eyewear and ventilation, not to mention many other parts of the glassworking world (such as fuel gas safety).

I'm not sure why you are questioning these standards, other than to start a thread on it, but if you spend some time going through the many glassworking forums, you will find both of these topics thoroughly discussed, many many times.

I personally and as a safety product manufacturer have no problem with "why take chances" and "better safe than sorry". This is a way of life for everyone in any of the industries that has any impact of personal safety.

Many of the things that are discussed and behind most, if not all, the safety concepts for eyewear and ventilation are basic physics and physiology/biology issues. There are known 'damage/injury thresholds' for many of the things we use. Get a copy of the MSDS for oxygen and propane for example.

The concepts of ventilation are entirely based on the physics of air movement.

I don't think you need to worry about the 'everyone agrees its necessary' argument. There is plenty of basis in fact, either scientifically proven or proven by example in real life. IR is very bad for your eyes. Combustion by-products are very bad for your lungs.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 2005-06-29, 11:43am
Dale M.'s Avatar
Dale M. Dale M. is offline
Gentleman of Leisure
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: A Little Bit West of Yosemite Valley
Posts: 5,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beadbroad
Dale --

You crack me up! I've read enough of your posts to know you can do a lot better than apples and oranges, and if I were going to gripe about "too much reading" it would be pretty stupid to start a thread insisting on sources. If you're going to call me pretty stupid, I've also read enough of your posts to know you can do a better job of that too! Maybe you're tired of the subject or of teaching, and that's certainly fair. You don't owe us anything. But what I'm asking here is please, put my overpriced education to work and give me something to read and reason through.

Actually for the information on vision, Mike has the best, most up to date... And he has also just completed a new teaching studio and has spent the time doing the research on ventilation......

I just thought since I didnt have a lot more to offer that I would take a sort of different approach...

And at times I may be stupid, but I never tell anybody else their stupid....

Also here is another good reference on ventilation...

http://www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/harts/...entilation.txt

Dale
__________________
You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vendor-Artist-Studio-Teacher Registry

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
San Francisco - A Few Toys Short of a Happy Meal
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2005-06-29, 12:11pm
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Dale -- Thanks, I'll read that.

Mike -- I've read lots of the threads on the various forums. A couple of years ago you were also kind enough to forward me some references, and I read the ones I could get my hands on at libraries here, and one or two I sent away for. I've also made inquiries outside the glass community. These are just the questions I'm left with. I've had partial answers elsewhere. Each time I read one of the threads or otherwise explore the subject I learn something new, and as long as that's true I'll continue seeking information.

When I have to settle for "better safe than sorry" I do. When I can do better than that, I will.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2005-06-29, 12:13pm
Cosmo's Avatar
Cosmo Cosmo is offline
ManBearPig
 
Join Date: Jun 28, 2005
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 8,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beadbroad
Chad --

Thanks for illustrating exactly the problem that incited this thread. If we stop at "everyone agrees it is necessary," "why take chances," or "better safe than sorry," we never define the hazards and therefore never can achieve optimal safety. People who assume the risks are as stated without any inquiry to the foundation of the assertions are very likely to assume that the safety practices as stated are not only necessary but also sufficient.
I guess I kind of disagree with that. Sort of. If everyone agrees it's necessary, then they should be doing it, right? I think the risk of potential blindness or death is enough to convince any somewhat intelligent person that eye protection/ventilation is necessary.

Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to argue, but I'm curious... Was the intention of this thread to convince people that eye protection and ventilation may not be necessary after all? I have read and re-read your inital post many times trying to figure it out for myself...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2005-06-29, 3:01pm
CD Lampwork's Avatar
CD Lampwork CD Lampwork is offline
Hugh Hefner (instigator)
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 236
Default

OK, I know damn well that I should just keep my mouth shut.....but....

Ok, who I am/where I'm coming from. My wife and I are full time lampworkers. Have been working pretty close to 6 days per week and 8-10 hours per day since Jan.. I've been lampworking about 5 years 2-3 days per week before Jan.. We live in a RV and travel around the country meeting other lampworkers. We've been on the road about 2 1/2 years now, before that I had a studio set up in a back bedroom. I also have a degree in Ceramics (so I know something of mixing glazes-very similar to glass-and kiln firing primary and secondary air)

What I know I know from experience, not science. Please take it as such, this is from observation.

Back in the good old days when I worked in the back bedroom and made big ol' marbles (1 3/4-2 inches) I started noticing a number of problems. I really like to encase. Well if it was cold and I had the studio shut up, about the time I was doing the final encasing the clear would start to get scummy. No matter what I did. Now it wasn't scummy before, just towards the end. Then the glass wouldn't melt right. I use a national 8 (and use soft glass) and know it pretty well and know when the glass is supposed to melt and it wasn't. I'd up the flame and everything would get scummy. Then I got FRUSTRATED. Much more so than I really should have....though loosing a marble after 2-3 hours work is frustrating. What was the problem? VENTILATION!!

Now we have a lot more control over the air flow and I've learned a number of leasons. We do have a CO detector over our workplace which helps...get one, they're cheap.

The first indicator that we're burning up the ox in the air is from clear glass. Clear is very tempermental as many lampworkers know. If it's cleaned with glass cleaner, heated in the back of the flame, at a 45 degree angle to the flame it will melt fine, no scumming. Once it starts to melt it can be brought up to the flame and will melt like other glass. If it starts to scum at this point, or once it's on the bead, it's probably air flow. As soon as I open the window farther, up the fan, etc, instant clean clear glass. I can actually see the scum burn off. At this point the CO detector is not going off. Clear has always been my first indicator of trouble.

We don't let it get the the point where the glass won't melt correctly any more, but that is the next step. I've been at this point where I'm uping the flame to get the glass to melt, scumming the glass, turning down the flame to clean off the scum and seeing the whole bead loose all red/heat, uping the flame....well you get the idea. Basically this point is where you're asking yourself is it's taking longer to heat up the bead than it used to. At this point the CO detector is going off.

And for me at least moody agrevation is the next level. Fortunatly at this point I usually dump the bead in frustration and turn everything off anyway in annoyance. Finally for me headaches are next. I think I only let it get to that point once. I did make major changes to my studio's ventilation when this last problem hit. I've tryed stopping at the other two points as well to do a kind of "self diognostic" to see if I could detect any physical results from the lack of ventilation. Can't really say as how I have. But once the frustration level sets in I'm done for the day, sometimes longer. It's never progressed to anything else, and usually getting plenty of fresh air has cleared my head. In the condo days Deanna said she could smell the torch when she walked in the front door, another bad sign.

As for the studios we've seen ventilation has seldom been a real problem. Garages have a lot of air flow, and garage studios seem to be popular. At the very least they have the ability to be opened up for ventilation. Plus there is a lot of air in a garage. We ran 2 minors with concentrators AND my 8 (with the 21 tip) with 2 concentrators in a garage for 5 hours with no problems. Yes, we did have to open the garage door some, but that is to be expected. Now I guess in the winter months with everything sealed up it may be another story...but I can't speak to that as we keep ourselves in warm climates. Small building studios are more of a problem as there just isn't the same air flow. But usually there's just one minor running in such a studio. Windows and doors open and a reasonable fan seem to work ok for these studios. I'm not recommending anything here, I'm just giving you my experincial impressions.

I've heard a lot of lampworks say there ventilation was fine, then complain about how scummy and horrible moretti clear is, or how they're getting headaches more than previously. Just something to try if you find you're having these problems. It's really not that hard to open an additional window or get a larger fan. Yes a hood, vent fan, controlled air flow box, etc is best. But as a LOT of us aren't going that route... Well again these are just my observations.

Oh, and by the way, I couldn't spell before lampworking either. It's not from lack of air.

Hope this helps,
Greg
__________________
Greg (Deanna's husband)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 2005-06-29, 3:12pm
CD Lampwork's Avatar
CD Lampwork CD Lampwork is offline
Hugh Hefner (instigator)
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 236
Default

I got nuthin on eye wear. I use diddys and I think Deanna has something better (probably from Mike...though threw C&R Loo). Used to use sun glasses when I did glass blowing in college though. That was back in the '80s, I don't think eye wear had progressed much at that point.

Greg

PS one last comment from a minister I had as a kid: "Life is terminal"
__________________
Greg (Deanna's husband)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 2005-06-29, 3:30pm
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo
I guess I kind of disagree with that. Sort of. If everyone agrees it's necessary, then they should be doing it, right? I think the risk of potential blindness or death is enough to convince any somewhat intelligent person that eye protection/ventilation is necessary.

Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to argue, but I'm curious... Was the intention of this thread to convince people that eye protection and ventilation may not be necessary after all? I have read and re-read your inital post many times trying to figure it out for myself...
It is absolutely NOT my intention to convince anyone that eye protection or ventilation are unnecessary -- or to convince anyone of anything at all for that matter. The intention is to elicit the kind of information that I use to make decisions for myself, without regard for anyone's ability to communicate his or her expertise politely.

For what it's worth, nothing I have read anywhere convinces me that lampworking poses a risk of blindness or death because of inadequate eyewear or ventilation. Carelessness with propane may be another story, and there are risks in life short of blindness or death that are well worth avoiding. I just want to learn as much as I can about exactly what they are, as part of making my own decisions about how best to protect myself.

Remember Reefer Madness? When I was in college it was a cult film. When people figure out that risks are overstated, they often overgeneralize and draw the equally irrational conclusion that risks (not just for marijuana in that case, but recreational drugs in general) are nonexistent.

And Greg -- thanks very much for chiming in. Your post was very much in the spirit of the thread -- you identified the foundation of your information in a way that lets everyone draw their own conclusions about it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 2005-06-29, 3:54pm
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

Quote:
nothing I have read anywhere convinces me that lampworking poses a risk of blindness or death because of inadequate eyewear or ventilation.
One of the causes of cataracts is over exposure to IR. Untreated cataracts lead to blindness. Therefore blindness can be caused by wearing improper eyewear.

Overexposure to metal vapors and combustion by-products leads to death. Therefore improper ventilation can cause death.

Each and every one of these statements is based in fact.

There are no overgeneralizations or irrational conclusions to any of this.

If YOU choose not to wear protective eyewear or install proper ventilation, that is certainly YOUR choice, however, do not make the same case for everyone.

I'm not going to discuss this further, as it is pointless and will most likely lead to an arguement which no one will win.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 2005-06-29, 6:43pm
Cosmo's Avatar
Cosmo Cosmo is offline
ManBearPig
 
Join Date: Jun 28, 2005
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 8,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeAurelius
I'm not going to discuss this further, as it is pointless and will most likely lead to an arguement which no one will win.
I think that's probably the best thing for all of us. I think we are all in agreement that eye protection and ventilation are necessary. I'll provide myself with the maximum protection that I can. "Better safe than sorry" has carried me safely through the first 32 years of my life, and I hope they will for many years to come.

However, I would be interested in knowing any medical evidence that anyone can find as to exact effects of infrared light and fumes. If for no other reason than to relay them to my lampworking students, who invariably ask "why?" at least 20 times per class...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 2005-06-29, 7:01pm
starlia's Avatar
starlia starlia is offline
Life in the slow lane
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Driftwood, TX & Enid, OK
Posts: 665
Default

My answer to "why" is always this: "I only have one pair of eyes. I want to see what my children look like and my grandchildren someday." "I only have one set of lungs and if I can't holler at the kids any more then life isn't worth living."
__________________
Starlia


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 2005-06-29, 8:20pm
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmo
However, I would be interested in knowing any medical evidence that anyone can find as to exact effects of infrared light and fumes. If for no other reason than to relay them to my lampworking students, who invariably ask "why?" at least 20 times per class...
I'll gladly share anything I learn. There was a great thread over on ISGB about NOX (nitrous oxide?) emissions associated with lampworking. When I read it I only remember seeing the evidence of the emissions without discussion of the consequences, but my memory may be faulty or I may have checked out before they got to that. I'll try to find it again at some point and post the link here.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 2005-06-29, 8:51pm
Dale M.'s Avatar
Dale M. Dale M. is offline
Gentleman of Leisure
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: A Little Bit West of Yosemite Valley
Posts: 5,200
Default

Ta-Daaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.isgb.org/info/safety/nox.shtml

Dale
__________________
You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Vendor-Artist-Studio-Teacher Registry

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
San Francisco - A Few Toys Short of a Happy Meal
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 2005-06-29, 9:28pm
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale M.

Oooh you're good. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 2005-06-29, 9:47pm
Heidi von Frozenfyre's Avatar
Heidi von Frozenfyre Heidi von Frozenfyre is offline
Dildo Kween!
 
Join Date: Jun 22, 2005
Location: oui oui! W.I WI.
Posts: 1,860
Default

NOX is *not* nitrous oxide. Geez if it was it'd be welcomed into the studio! (Especially mine)
About 5 years ago I went to teach a beginners 2 day class at Turtle Hill Beads a bit south of Minneapolis. Well - we ended up in the owner's basement because of a fire marshall rule at the last moment. You have never seen so many ladies in respiratory distress. Can't get enough air. Coughing up blood tinged phlegm. Worse than an asthma attack. HEadache lasted for days.

Eyewear. I use Mikes AUR glasses. The great things about the AUR's (vs dydimiums) is that you can actually SEE what you are doing, even the most delicate designs. It's not just a mish-mash of varying hues of orange.
They keep your eyes cooler.
You look UBER SEXY while wearing them.
Your eyes won't burn out like mentioned in prior threads to your question.

I've always said. If you are not willing to take safety seriously when lampworking then you shouldn't be playing with fire.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Tutorials have been FREE since 2001

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 2005-06-30, 5:48am
cghipp's Avatar
cghipp cghipp is offline
<--- Time traveler
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 2,476
Default

Here's some "evidence-based practice for you." I am a frequent migraine sufferer, and am kind of a "canary" for ventilation problems. Before I had the excellent ventilation system I have now, I would get a migraine after (or during) every torch session. Using metal leaf (silver or copper) was the quickest and fastest way to give myself a migraine. In addition to the headache, I would feel like I needed to cough, and the back of my throat and my nasal passages felt coated in something. (Guess what? They were.) The feeling would last for a couple of days - as would the headache, even with my usually effective migraine treatment.

I installed an 800 CFM squirrel fan with a solid state speed control and a box-type baffle. I keep it on about 400 for "regular" beads, about 600 for frit and full speed when I'm applying metal leaf or powders. Now I have no after-torch headaches (other than the occasional tension in the back of my neck from looking down), no coated throat feeling, no coughing and I smell no fumes when I'm at the torch.

A couple of months ago I went to a friend's house to torch. I got a raging migraine while I was there that took three days to go away. Her ventilation consists of a low-CFM vent hood perched high above the torch, set on "low," with no baffles of any kind. The one upside to her poor ventilation? I was able to detect a tiny propane leak, which she later discovered was due to a torch defect.

My conclusion: Good ventilation matters in direct proportion to the degree that my health matters.

Courtney
__________________
Smiling's my favorite!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 2005-06-30, 6:40am
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi von Frozenfyre
NOX is *not* nitrous oxide. Geez if it was it'd be welcomed into the studio! (Especially mine)
About 5 years ago I went to teach a beginners 2 day class at Turtle Hill Beads a bit south of Minneapolis. Well - we ended up in the owner's basement because of a fire marshall rule at the last moment. You have never seen so many ladies in respiratory distress. Can't get enough air. Coughing up blood tinged phlegm. Worse than an asthma attack. HEadache lasted for days.

Eyewear. I use Mikes AUR glasses. The great things about the AUR's (vs dydimiums) is that you can actually SEE what you are doing, even the most delicate designs. It's not just a mish-mash of varying hues of orange.
They keep your eyes cooler.
You look UBER SEXY while wearing them.
Your eyes won't burn out like mentioned in prior threads to your question.

I've always said. If you are not willing to take safety seriously when lampworking then you shouldn't be playing with fire.
Right, I misspoke. After rereading the thread it's nitrogen oxides.

Please, though, enough with the lectures. This thread is all about taking safety seriously. Thanks for the observations about the class you taught.

Courtney -- Thanks for your input too.

Last edited by beadbroad; 2005-06-30 at 6:42am. Reason: missed an acknowledgement
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 2005-06-30, 6:47am
MikeAurelius's Avatar
MikeAurelius MikeAurelius is offline
Safety ALWAYS
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2005
Location: Sauk Rapids, Minnesota
Posts: 2,401
Default

One last thought...those who ignore safety directives, rules, imperatives, and general "we all know this", usually end up removing themselves from the genetic line of the human race. It's been said that this happens, the intelligence of the human race goes up a notch.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 2005-06-30, 6:57am
Cosmo's Avatar
Cosmo Cosmo is offline
ManBearPig
 
Join Date: Jun 28, 2005
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 8,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi von Frozenfyre
You look UBER SEXY while wearing them.
What more reason do you need?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 2005-06-30, 7:22am
beadbroad beadbroad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2005
Posts: 1,880
Default

Here is a link to a nice article I found -- with references -- that contributes to the explanation of why inadequate ventilation or eyewear protection from ultraviolet (though still not infrared) radiation can contribute to the development of cataracts. No odds ratios (i.e., degree of risk), but those may be available in the original articles.

Mike is quite right that untreated cataracts can lead to blindness. Some of what I have read supports the conclusion that glassblowing increases the risk of cataracts, but I've found other studies that failed to demonstrate that. It's also much easier to publish a study with a positive finding than a negative one, so the available information usually does not represent a complete sample of all the research that has been done.

Remember that my original question related to the risks of infrared radiation, and exposure to this seems to be associated with working at the kind of heat you need for borosilicate glass, not soft glass. I have found compelling information that UV exposure increases cataract risk, but I haven't found as much for IR exposure. The links Mike provided above do help with that, but I haven't gone through it all yet.


http://www.veg-soc.org/html/articles...-glaucoma.html

Last edited by beadbroad; 2005-06-30 at 7:28am.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:45pm.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Your IP: 54.198.146.224