Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47
  1. #11
    Sustainable is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Roll View Post
    If you read http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf carefully (as I have) sections 1, 2, and 3 refer to chemicals that Fogra prohibits, but not because they might pose a hazard to you. The pdf clearly states the agreement is for the protection of the equipment first with one indirect reference to the environment. Certification only implies that the wash approved did not swell or otherwise damage the elastomer samples Forgra uses to represent rollers and seals. I have not had much contact with Fogra over the last six or seven years, but have had many conversations with Dr. Rauh since Fogra took the approval programs over from the Munich Technical Institute (where Dr. Schmidt was in charge) and he has always been careful not to position Fogra as an environmental or safety approval company. Fogra's staff are chemists and chemical engineers, not Doctors or medical researchers.
    First go to: http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf
    now read the very first 1. "to enable the health risks to be assessed."
    Clearly fogra is claiming the right to assess health risks as a criteria of its testing.
    The questions remain; why would any equipment manufacturer usurp health by the user (press operator/employees), usurp health of the finished product (the label/box/instructions), usurp health of the finished product content, and usurp the health of the end user(s).



    usurp u·surp/yo͞oˈsərp/
    Verb:
    Take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
    Take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally; supplant.
    Synonyms:
    seize - appropriate
    Last edited by Sustainable; 02-18-2012 at 08:22 AM.

  2. #12
    Green Printer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    558

    Default

    First go to: http://www.fogra.org/approvals/washe...o/i-washes.pdf
    section 3 Terpene

    Classification of Terpenes:
    • Hemiterpenes C5H8
    • Monoterpenes C10H16
    • Sesquiterpenes C15H24
    • Diterpenes C20H32
    • Sesterterpenes C25H40
    • Triterpenes C30H48
    • Tetraterpenes C40H64
    • Polyterpenes (C5H8)n

    D-limolene is a terpene

    This is good link for terpenes http://www.inive.org/medias/ECA/ECA_Report26.pdf

  3. #13
    Sustainable is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    82

    Default

    This links covers a much broader range of toxic chemicals.

    ATSDR Home

  4. #14
    Lukew is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    pressroom
    Posts
    406

    Default

    All good info presented. I still stand by the fact that there needs to be a worldwide standard for health issues of chemicals

    A lot of of the nasty main chemicals used in pressroom products that are recognised in the USA as hasardous are likely recognised here as hasardous. But through my research there has been numerous chemicals that when searched through AICS here, don't even have to be listed on the MSDS under hazardous or dangerous chemicals but in the USA they are listed as hazardous.
    There has been instances where there has been chemicals listed on AICS to be hazardous but are not listed in USA as hazardous, or prop 65, sara 313 etc.

  5. #15
    Green Printer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukew View Post
    All good info presented. I still stand by the fact that there needs to be a worldwide standard for health issues of chemicals

    A lot of of the nasty main chemicals used in pressroom products that are recognised in the USA as hasardous are likely recognised here as hasardous. But through my research there has been numerous chemicals that when searched through AICS here, don't even have to be listed on the MSDS under hazardous or dangerous chemicals but in the USA they are listed as hazardous.
    There has been instances where there has been chemicals listed on AICS to be hazardous but are not listed in USA as hazardous, or prop 65, sara 313 etc.

    Lukew

    What are the chemicals listed under the AICS that are not on Sara 313 and prop 65?

    Is this the correct link http://www.nicnas.gov.au/industry/aics.asp
    Last edited by Green Printer; 02-18-2012 at 03:38 PM.

  6. #16
    Sustainable is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukew View Post
    All good info presented. I still stand by the fact that there needs to be a worldwide standard for health issues of chemicals

    A lot of of the nasty main chemicals used in pressroom products that are recognised in the USA as hasardous are likely recognised here as hasardous. But through my research there has been numerous chemicals that when searched through AICS here, don't even have to be listed on the MSDS under hazardous or dangerous chemicals but in the USA they are listed as hazardous.
    There has been instances where there has been chemicals listed on AICS to be hazardous but are not listed in USA as hazardous, or prop 65, sara 313 etc.

    I couldn't agree more on the worldwide standard. The first step is making the information available. These post on chemicals,fogra testing and pyrrolidone could be the precursor of waking the sleeping giant.

  7. #17
    Lukew is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    pressroom
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Printer View Post
    Lukew

    What are the chemicals listed under the AICS that are not on Sara 313 and prop 65?

    Is this the correct link Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances (AICS)
    Yes that is the website, although they have changed it since I last looked and the whole search function is now completely different.
    I couldn't get it to work on the work computer.
    On the old website once you searched a cas# it would take you through to a page and list the health issues the % of allowable chemical in a product before it needs certain safety & risk warnings to be listed & also the PPM levels.

  8. #18
    Lukew is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    pressroom
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Take cas# 64742-48-9 for exampe, this is one chemical that AICS does list as dangerous & it is recognised in the USA as dangerous. and I'm positive that msds in the USA must list the dangers
    But and a big But this chemical is used in a large % of roller and blanket washes here in Aus, yet not one roller & blanket wash msds that I have recieved lists any of the nasty risk/safety phrases that are on AICS.
    I have a MSDS sitting in front of me which has this product in it up to 50% concentration and this is all it says on the msds
    2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
    Harmful (Xn): R65 - Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed.
    Other: R66 - Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking.
    NOT CLASSIFIED AS A DANGEROUS GOOD BY THE CRITERIA OF THE ADG CODE
    UN No. None DG Class None Subsidiary Risk(s) None Allocated
    Pkg group None Hazchem Code None EPG None

    11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
    Health Hazard Summary: Low toxicity irritant. Use safe work practice re eye or skin contact and vapour inhalation.
    Eye: Irritant. Exposure may result in irritation, pain, redness, conjunctivitis with direct contact.
    Inhalation: Low toxicity. Inhalation may result in mucous membrane irritation of the nose and throat.
    Skin: Low class Irritant. Prolonged contact may result in drying and de-fatting of the skin, rash and dermatitis.
    Ingestion: Low toxicity. Ingestion may result in nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, laxative effect, diarrhea, and
    drowsiness with large doses.

  9. #19
    Green Printer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukew View Post
    Take cas# 64742-48-9 for exampe, this is one chemical that AICS does list as dangerous & it is recognised in the USA as dangerous. and I'm positive that msds in the USA must list the dangers
    But and a big But this chemical is used in a large % of roller and blanket washes here in Aus, yet not one roller & blanket wash msds that I have recieved lists any of the nasty risk/safety phrases that are on AICS.
    I have a MSDS sitting in front of me which has this product in it up to 50% concentration and this is all it says on the msds
    2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
    Harmful (Xn): R65 - Harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed.
    Other: R66 - Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking.
    NOT CLASSIFIED AS A DANGEROUS GOOD BY THE CRITERIA OF THE ADG CODE
    UN No. None DG Class None Subsidiary Risk(s) None Allocated
    Pkg group None Hazchem Code None EPG None

    11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
    Health Hazard Summary: Low toxicity irritant. Use safe work practice re eye or skin contact and vapour inhalation.
    Eye: Irritant. Exposure may result in irritation, pain, redness, conjunctivitis with direct contact.
    Inhalation: Low toxicity. Inhalation may result in mucous membrane irritation of the nose and throat.
    Skin: Low class Irritant. Prolonged contact may result in drying and de-fatting of the skin, rash and dermatitis.
    Ingestion: Low toxicity. Ingestion may result in nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, laxative effect, diarrhea, and
    drowsiness with large doses.
    Lukew

    Now you are seeing the problem. An MSDS is assumed to be correct. SInce the MSDS is rarely questioned or challenged there is no repercussion to the company who supplied the MSDS. I have seen many many many MSDS's for this industry that are down and right not truthful. This is usually accomplished with the terms NA or no data available.

    IF you think the MSDS is incorrect challenge the supplier and or report the MSDS to the proper regulating group or authorities in you country, state, province, county, city etc.

  10. #20
    Dan Roll is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    300

    Default

    The registry of formulations with “Berufsgenossenschaft Druck und Papierverarbeitung” is just that. The assurances of confidentiality pertaining to these submitted formulations is open to question.
    I think many people read into things what they want reality to be, rather than evaluating what is really written. None of this is meant as a knock against Fogra, they do what they say they do and are honest about why they do it.
    Daniel T Roll
    904-305-2517


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2