Boxerworks.com

Jeff in W.C. wrote:

melville wrote:I've wondered about the toxic exposure to the attendants in OR and NJ. In the 48 self serve states, we have distributed gasoline/petrol exposure to the driving public at large, but in those two we are concentrating it on the filling professionals. Can this be measured as a public health situation? Worker safety?

My wife's taking a nap, but I'll ask her later. She works for Chevron in their Research and Technology Company, and she might have the answer to this.

Indeed, I'm curious. Here in CA, our restaurants and bars are smoke free to protect the workers.

melville wrote:I've wondered about the toxic exposure to the attendants in OR and NJ. In the 48 self serve states, we have distributed gasoline/petrol exposure to the driving public at large, but in those two we are concentrating it on the filling professionals. Can this be measured as a public health situation? Worker safety?

When I think of some of the people who I've seen trying to pump their own petrol, public safety obviously does not enter the equation.
It all comes down to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Are there gas dispenser unions in NJ and OR??? That could be the answer. Or maybe it is the environmentalists who think professional gas dispensers somehow release less gasoline fumes than non professionals.

[quote="Steve in GoldenI wonder why the ballot issues always fail? Sounds like people in OR don't really want to pump their own gas.[/quote]

I guess we just don't have any burning desire to get out of our cars in the wind-blown rain and fill our tanks.

I ride in Oregon fairly often. I always pump my own gas. The way people never pay attention to their work anymore, there is no way I'm letting some inattentive attendant dent my tank.

melville wrote:

Jeff in W.C. wrote:

melville wrote:I've wondered about the toxic exposure to the attendants in OR and NJ. In the 48 self serve states, we have distributed gasoline/petrol exposure to the driving public at large, but in those two we are concentrating it on the filling professionals. Can this be measured as a public health situation? Worker safety?

My wife's taking a nap, but I'll ask her later. She works for Chevron in their Research and Technology Company, and she might have the answer to this.

Indeed, I'm curious. Here in CA, our restaurants and bars are smoke free to protect the workers.

Ooops, I asked the question and forgot to post it. The short answer is no significant exposure to pumping gas, but... Yeah there's a but. She said they did the testing for the folks who fill up their test vehicles, which may not be the same as someone working at at service station, IMO. She said the OHSA (I think it was OHSA or was it CalOSHA) exposure limits for-I think it was for benezene-were raised for those pumping gas. That would imply a higher risk in my books.

BTW, Melville, I'm a little bit south of you in the SF Bay Area.

Jeff in W.C. wrote:

Jeff in W.C. wrote:

melville wrote:I've wondered about the toxic exposure to the attendants in OR and NJ. In the 48 self serve states, we have distributed gasoline/petrol exposure to the driving public at large, but in those two we are concentrating it on the filling professionals. Can this be measured as a public health situation? Worker safety?

My wife's taking a nap, but I'll ask her later. She works for Chevron in their Research and Technology Company, and she might have the answer to this.

Ooops, I asked the question and forgot to post it. The short answer is no significant exposure to pumping gas, but... Yeah there's a but. She said they did the testing for the folks who fill up their test vehicles, which may not be the same as someone working at at service station, IMO. She said the OHSA (I think it was OHSA or was it CalOSHA) exposure limits for-I think it was for benezene-were raised for those pumping gas. That would imply a higher risk in my books.

BTW, Melville, I'm a little bit south of you in the SF Bay Area.

Yeah I figured either there or 30 miles east of me in Willow Creek.

Now for the bonus question--was the test with the uncircumcised nozzles we have here in Cali or was it with the circumcised nozzles they have elsewhere? If the Cali nozzle reduces smog, it must also reduce workplace exposure. And if Cali pumpers have elevated levels, then non-Cali pumpers must have even higher levels.

melville wrote:Now for the bonus question--was the test with the uncircumcised nozzles we have here in Cali or was it with the circumcised nozzles they have elsewhere? If the Cali nozzle reduces smog, it must also reduce workplace exposure. And if Cali pumpers have elevated levels, then non-Cali pumpers must have even higher levels.

That logic implies that we males have foreskin added to us after birth, only to have it removed again, or not.

melville wrote: Now for the bonus question--was the test with the uncircumcised nozzles we have here in Cali or was it with the circumcised nozzles they have elsewhere? If the Cali nozzle reduces smog, it must also reduce workplace exposure. And if Cali pumpers have elevated levels, then non-Cali pumpers must have even higher levels.

Well, the wife works next to the Chevron refinery in Richmond, so if it was done locally-which it probably was-then it would most likely be the CA nozzle. But, given the small amount they use (compared to a service station), and the lack of public access, it's possible that they have an older pump. Unfortunately, I need to go back an ask the wife for more details, but it's five in the morning, and she'd kill me if I woke her up to ask that question. So, just going to have to continue to wait a bit longer.