…A distinction the employer, according to the OP, doesn’t get. :dubious:
It seems some people get hung up on the “concept” that chemicals are dangerous, and, again, according to the OP, this applies to the employer. The sense I took away from the initial post, and follow-up posts by Napier, was that this paperwork and associated forms created an imposition on Napier and co-workers. I was offering a (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) strategy to mitigate the inconvenience.
I and others get many breathless “forward to everybody in your contacts list” emails warning of the latest chemical hazard unleashed by greedy corporations on an unsuspecting populace. Virtually without fail, these “warnings” are on the same level as my Sodium Chloride joke, but many, many people take them seriously, and major harm is done to innocent people and businesses.
It would be well for Napier to get some precise clarification from the employer on what, exactly, are considered “chemicals” in their workplace.
You could always use the California Directors List of Hazardous Substances. Of course, gasoline and graphite are both on the list. But it is a list and you could submit it to your boss to see if he approves it or lets you omit things like graphite.
Thanks, Yllaria, for the reference. I can’t complain about what it says. Though, the poor attitude imp that sits on my left shoulder is wondering whether that’s because MSDSs are generally written reasonably, or because whoever wrote this one deviated from prevailing standards to avoid being mocked in internet discussion forums.
Now, my employer knows quite a lot about chemistry, and there are several PhD chemists within earshot of my office. I don’t think that kind of understanding is the issue. I think it’s more that due diligence requires various bureaucratic systems for things like employee safety and environmental responsibility, and these things are evolved systems that often responds to the political winds and to public opinion. I think this is more of a societal issue than a local one. The judgement calls would be more about where to deviate from the letter of the law/policy/safety posters when they imply doing silly things.
DHMO’s quote is all true. If you showed it to the general public and asked if they would object to some new factory being built across the road, given that the factory would have storage tanks and distribution lines throughout and planned to discharge some into the local sewers and even onto the ground, you could have an angry mob on your hands. I think they plan these policy systems to prevent the formation of angry mobs.