Safety Assessment - Science topic

Jonathon T. Busch. Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Carbomers-934, -910, -934P, -940, -941, and -962. Journal of the American College of Toxicology 1990; 1(2): 109-141.

I call this "a loud silence" since yesterday. Okay?

Thank you William. Good point.

Best regards

Benoit

Thank you for your maximally fair question.

c-global is an anachronism -- a return to the pre-1911 gravitational view of Einstein.

This long outdated view happens to have been correct.

Two reasons for that:

FIRST, Einstein did not have quantum mechanics as of yet (it lay 20 years in the future). The latter theory implies that all masses downstairs are reduced by the gravitational redshift factor. (Ask any specialist: no one seems to know this fact, right?) Reason: All locally generated photons have less energy. Hence the atoms created out of them by quantum creation-annihilation are proportionally reduced in their mass.

Hence all atoms downstairs are linearly blown up by the gravitational redshift factor relative to above, via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics.

SECOND, the equivalence principle of Einstein of 1907 says that (and explains why) the just seen size increased is optically masked relative to above. To see this requires looking very carefully down once more. Then the bottom, even though horizontal everywhere locally speaking, is everywhere locally slanted relative to the tip. For a horizontally progressing light front downstairs is doing so on a locally slanted course, relative to the tip. This is a corollary to Einstein's derivation of the gravitational redshift factor itself (by a constantly applying recession of the bottom relative to the tip).

This fact now implies the local slanting as a corollary to Einstein's local receding. It is new. It explains Einstein's own correctly seen fact that light is necessarily "creping" downstairs when watched from the tip.

Thus, the Einstein-creeping is caused by a slant of the horizontally propagating light front (ray) downstairs at every point, relative to the tip. Hence c is actually NOT reduced downstairs, as Einstein had reluctantly seen himself being forced to conclude -- in violation of the axiom assumed at the outset that the rocketship is entirely described by the laws of special relativity with its

by definition global c.

The just-mentioned non-sequitur, by the way, explains the so far unexplained historical fact that Einstein could not (at any rate did not) touch on the topic of gravitation for 3 1/2 years until mid 1911.

But in the absence of the mentioned fact from quantum mechanics, the ice on which Einstein was walking was too thin to allow him to add the above "relative slantedness argument" to his already large enough list of absolutely revolutionary ("absurd" according to the knowledge of the time as well as common sense) arguments.

Did I answer your question to some extent? Do I have to say more about the ramifications?

Thank you once more for your unprecedentedly fair question.

Dear I hope this be helpful for you

Relevant Links

December 11th2014, CIRS free webinar: REACH OR / CLP compliance considerations for exporters

Revised Note for Guidance on Treated Articles Agreed by EU Biocides Authorities

CIRS Experts Attended the Annual Meeting of Safety Management of Chemicals 2014

MEPSCC Starts Accepting the Application of Solid Waste Importation

2015 EU BPR Seminar is going to be held by CIRS and Eurofins in Hangzhou

The First Batch of Special Controlled Goods Entered in Shanghai Free Trade Zone

8 New Inspection and Quarantine Policies Implemented in Shanghai Free Trade Zone are Qualified for Promotion

China MEP: Public Consultation on the 30th Batch of Toxic Chemical Clearance Notifications in 2014

NHFPC to Approve 121 New Food Safety National Standards

345 Batches of Imported Food Rejected by China CIQ in September 2014

The K-REACH is Now Available in English

CIRS is proud to announce new Partnership with KTR and SMU at CIRS Headquarters

The Latest Updates on GHS Regulations in Southeast Asia

The Meeting Materials for SMCR 2014 Are Available Now!

Comments from the Ministry of Transportation about Strengthening the Safety Supervision on Dangerous Goods Transportation

More News

Sign up for Newsletter

For Email Marketing you can trust

China Announced 21 Test Guidelines on Environmental Safety Assessment for Chemical Pesticides

Original Article from CIRS

On 10 October 2014, the Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection & Quarantine（AQSIQ）and the Standardization Administration of China（SAC）jointly held a press conference in Beijing, announcing the approval and release of the Test Guidelines on Environmental Safety Assessment for Chemical Pesticides (the Guidelines for short in the following contents) and other 32 key national standards. Institutes that are responsible for setting the Guidelines and other 3 standards attended the conference and introduced the background, contents, application, targets and significance of these documents to the media.

The Guidelines (Standard Number: GB/T 31270.1-2014 -- GB/T 31270.21-2014) was formulated by The Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals under the Ministry of Agriculture (ICAMA) in cooperation with Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and other 11 research and education institutions. The Guidelines will provide very important technical specifications for environmental test of pesticide registration.

Consisting of 21 parts including transformation in soil and honeybee acute toxicity test, the Guidelines adopts relevant OECD test guidelines in terms of the equivalence of basic principles and technical methods, and also incorporates a number of self-developed guidelines, such as "silkworm acute toxicity test" and "macro-crustacean toxicity test".

The Guidelines is mainly used to measure the parameters of environmental fate and eco-toxicity effects of chemical pesticides, in order to provide endpoint data on environmental safety assessment for pesticide regulation and new product research & development.

These test guidelines will take effect on 11 March 2015.It is believed that the release and implementation of the Guidelines will improve the technologies for pesticide environmental risk assessment, reduce the environmental effects of pesticides from the sources, protect ecosystems and advance the development of eco-friendly society in China.

The standard codes and the names of The Guidelines were summarized below:

NO

Standard code

Name

1

GB/T 31270.1- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 1:Transformation in soils

2

GB/T 31270.2- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 2:Hydrolysis

3

GB/T 31270.3- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 3: Phototransformation

4

GB/T 31270.4- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 4: Adsorption/Desorption in soils

5

GB/T 31270.5- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 5:Leaching in soil

6

GB/T 31270.6- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 6: Volatility

7

GB/T 31270.7- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 7: Bioconcentration test

8

GB/T 31270.8- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 8: Degradation in water-sediment systems

9

GB/T 31270.9- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 9: Avian actute toxicity test

10

GB/T 31270.10- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 10: Honeybee acute toxicity test

11

GB/T 31270.11- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 11: Silkworm acute toxicity test

12

GB/T 31270.12- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 12: Fish acute toxicity test

13

GB/T 31270.13- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 13: Daphnia sp. acute immobilisation test

14

GB/T 31270.14- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 14: Alga growth inhibition test

15

GB/T 31270.15- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 15: Earthworm acute toxicity test

16

GB/T 31270.16- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 16: Soil microorganism toxicity test

17

GB/T 31270.17- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 17:Trichogramma acute toxicity test

18

GB/T 31270.18- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 18: Amphibian acute toxicity test

19

GB/T 31270.19- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 19: Effects on non-target plants

20

GB/T 31270.20- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 20: Livestock short-term dietary toxicity test

21

GB/T 31270.21- 2014

Test guidelines on environmental safety assessment for chemical pesticides—Part 21: Macro-crustacean toxicity test

 

Original link:

Contact Us

Thank you sir. 

As long as the different models are similar in functions, it is more efficient to maintain a single FMEA to cover them. Within the single FMEA, it is possible to denote some failure modes as specific only to Model X.  Or you could add an extra column to input which are the applicable equipment for each line item.

The Delphi technique is a widely used and accepted method for gathering expert data, to combine opinions on expected development time about a particular technology, as well as to discover what is actually known or not known about a specific topic.

In the field of radiation therapy services, an approach similar to the Delphi methodology is proposed in [1, 2]. In these papers the failure modes and human errors are initially conceived by members of the working group on an individual and independent basis (i.e. in “blind” mode), then are collectively revised during a dedicated plenary session to reach general consensus.

However, in my opinion, the following problems are not solved:

- It is usually difficult for the experts to provide advice for example in the risk data such as the occurrence probability (i.e. to give a precise answer );

- In a comparative study performed by different groups working on the same topic but in different company contexts, the investigators found only few overlap of failure modes and human errors that were identified.

1. Ciocca M, Cantone M C, Veronese I, Cattani F, Pedroli G, Molinelli S, Vitolo V, Orecchia R 2012 Application of failure mode and effects analysis to intraoperative radiation therapy using mobile electron linear accelerators Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82 (2) 305-11.

2. Cantone M C, Ciocca M, Dionisi F, Fossati P, Lorentini S, Krengli M, Molinelli S, Orecchia R, Schwarz M, Veronese I, Vitolo V 2013 Application of failure mode and effects analysis to treatment planning in scanned proton beam radiotherapy Radiation Oncology 8:127.

dear Ivan i send you one of my paper about risk management. i think that you can find something of interesting