First of all, this is a forum for professional adults, and is read by many, over a long period. When I post a reply, I will sometimes be vague, or paint with a braod brush, in order to:
- Keep from going off on a tangent;
- Avoid getting personal;
- Try to cover multiple situations; or,
- Try to steer things in a positive direction.
This thread has seemed to be drifting in a personal direction, and I guarantee that will not be allowed to happen.
A famous engineer - I think he was head engineer at Ford at the time - once stressed the importance of having data. Anyone can have an opinion, he said, but data is what can set your opinion apart from the pack.
Since the advent of NFPA 70E, there have been a multitude of makers claiming their clothing meets various levels of protection from electrical flash. This was neither the first, nor will it be the last, effort in this direction.
Prior to 70E, for example, the US Navy had two types of work clothing. While the two looked absolutely identical, the "fireproof" pieces were of a slightly heavier material, and was 100% cotton; the others had varying amounts of poly content.
Likewise, there were all sorts of clothes designed for wear by welders; again, these were often heavy cotton, with leather in the high-wear areas.
The military & police market led to a wider availability of clothing made on Nomex, Kevlar, and other fire resistant materials. With the ongoing campaign againd terror, there has been a whole new industry making fire resistant / no after-flame / no drip clothing has sprung up.
Usually ASTM D6413 is the means used to define the protection these garments offer.
Phrases that keep appearing in the clothing's literature are "exclusive" and "proprietary blend." The term 'polyester', in it's broadest sense, has been applied to a number of materials that pose little hazard- as well as some with a long history of causing harm.
Let's look at just one manufacturer (
www.skillers.com ), whose clothing is intended for electricians. They use three materials:
-100% cotton;
-40% Poly / 60% cotton; and,
-65% Poly / 25% cotton.
It is worth noting that only the last item has a warning specific to its' use where burns might be an issue.
So, while one might be pedantic, and want to debate in generalities... it appears that there has already been quite a bit of real world experience to establish what poses a risk, and what does not. Your generic 65% poly work clothing has certainly been documented to make injuries far worse than necessary.
As to where the individuals' responsibility lies, again, we can debate until the cows come home. The fact remains, as a matter of law, that (going by the letter of the regulations) not only is the employer required to provide ALL protective equipment, but that ONLY such equipment, provided by the employer, is allowed to be used.
In the broader sense, a lot of things have been used to measure both safety and management. Insurance premiums, employee turnover, accident rates, housekeeping practices... and so on.
Perhaps a personal story of mine can shed some light here. I once worked at a place where two people lost limbs in two months. I left there for a place that had not suffered a lost time accident for four years. No one should be surprised to hear that morale, productivity, and profitability were higher at that second, better managed firm.
[This message has been edited by renosteinke (edited 12-12-2006).]
![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/biggrin.gif)
