Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,386

    Post

    Hello Pedro and all -

    Has the issue of inhaling the MO fog ever been addressed or studied? Would you recommend people wear a simple mask when fogging the hives?

    Regards,
    Barry

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Sequim / Wa / USA
    Posts
    175

    Post

    Hi Barry
    I see there was no anwer to your question .
    You probably have seen the short debate as the theme was presented on the other board.
    I am not sure what the specs are on simple masks . They might not be effective for those 15 micron size particles .
    Personally I am not bothered by this thought because all my life I encountered worst environmental hazards.
    I just keep my nose out of the fog cloud or hold my breath momentarily until the cloud disappears , which happens almost instantly. To me a mask would just constitutes another item of a nuisance and most likely forgotten to don. However , this is a matter of individual choice and whoever feels like it is of benefit , one cannot have any objection to it.
    JDF

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA and Alcala, Spain
    Posts
    553

    Post

    Hi Folks.
    One can not afford to disregard concerns for safety. Personally, this is the 6th year that I have been using the FGMO fogger and I have never even given thought to using a mask. I need to maintain a clear vision for observation, so a mask is out of the question for me. I just stay away from the flow of the wind and that way I do not get to inhale any lf the FGMO vapor. I must admit that at the beginning I did, until I learned to stay away from it. If any one is concerned about inhaling FGMO vapor, go ahead and wear protective cover. It will give you at least a sence of security. I think that the one thing that we want to be concerned is that we need to continue to use the fogger in conjunction with the cords in order to get FGMO to give us the best results. We know that it works, so let's give it a fighting chance, respirator or not.
    Best regards.
    Pedro

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,797

    Post

    My wife is a respiratory therapist and according to her inhaling any kind of aresolized oil can not only harm you, but can kill you. There have been studies done recently on people who work in the vegatable oil industry (vegatable oil is much more easily absorbed and broken down by the body than FGMO) and it is a very serious threat to your heath. I am also intersted in why you would want to fog it? Wouldn't it keep the bees from being able to get anything to stick to anything? Isn't that what is necessary to connect comb to frames etc.? I have used it on the top bars for mite control with good luck and have purposly put it places that I didn't want glued together but I don't think it should be everywhere in the hive. Also what happens if it gets on the queen? Wouldn't it cover her scent?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oceano, California, USA
    Posts
    467

    Post

    Michael, it is fogged because the size droplettes are designed to be large enough to suffocate the mites but not the bees. The mechanism is to cover those little breathing spots.

    Regards

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA and Alcala, Spain
    Posts
    553

    Post

    Hello all.
    There have been concerns about inhaling the mist from the FGMO fogger. I have been using it for 6-7 years and have not even noticed if I inhaled any of it. I have to admit that I do not stand in the midst of the fog and that I watch the air current and stand away from it and let the wind blow the excess away from me. There are people who report that they use
    inhalation masks for protection. I am told that commercial masks available to protect from paint sprays will filter well enough to protect from FGMO fog. I am prone to think that this should be a well invested resource for those who own a considerable number of hives, and even for all of us. Safety is a worth while consideration in any operation.
    I have a scientist beekeeper friend who is doing some testing with filters (on his own).
    I will be more than glad to pass on the information that he relays to me in the future (with due regards for his privacy, of course!)
    Best regards.
    Dr. Rodriguez

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Waynesville, NC
    Posts
    42

    Smile

    Hello everyone,

    Being that I am considering trying out fgmo treatment, I decided to do some browsing on the internet to look at respirators for this purpose. Based on what I have seen, OSHA has determined that a person would have to breathe heavy concentrations of mineral oil mist in a confined area in a short period of time for it to be a possible health hazard. It seems to me that as long as one is outdoors, where there is obviously plenty of ventilation, and they keep from directly breathing the fog in heavy doses, there should be no problem. Just passing on my thoughts based on what I found on the web.

    Rick

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,386

    Post

    Hi Rick -

    Could you please post a URL where you found this info by OSHA on FGMO?

    Thanks.

    -Barry

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Waynesville, NC
    Posts
    42

    Post

    Hello Barry,

    You can read this report at http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/healthg...ognition.html. This report is not on food grade mineral oil, just industrial mineral oil. Food grade oil is much cleaner and more refined. No matter what, I wouldn't want to get a big sniff of any of it. But what the report says to me is that it is only a hazard if it is inhaled in heavy doses in an inadequately ventilated environment. I am used to dealing with hazardous conditions on my job, therefore it doesn't terrify me. I just practice safe habits. One would definitely want to avoid directly breathing the mist in a direct manner, but I don't think a respirator would be necessary if one was careful. I guess that it goes back to what has been said already, it would be a personal decision and maybe depend on the number of hives you would be treating at one time.

    Rick

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Waynesville, NC
    Posts
    42

    Post

    http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/healthg...cognition.html

    try this, the former will not work

    Rick

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA and Alcala, Spain
    Posts
    553

    Post

    Hello to all.
    Wonderfull research work, Rick. Thank you so much for your efforts. This information is very valuable. Goes to show how much information is available to us on the web. I apologize to all of you for not having accessed it earlier for you. Thank you again Rick, and to all of you who are interested in finding alternative means to protect our bees. FGMO works well. Rick´s information shows that we just need to get our heads together to find how it will work best for our bees and for us.
    Pedro

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Lithia, Fl US
    Posts
    3

    Post

    Follow up to health concerns-
    I work in the entertainment industry and we use a device to create fog effects which uses the same 86% vis FGMO which Dr. Rodriguez uses to treat his bees for mites. Much research has been done regarding the health and safety of employees using these devices. Following is one of the Cal/OSHA reports asserting the safety of the FGMO. I am experimenting with the mite treatment on my beehives and I do not have any concern about using the FGMO and do not deem it necessary to use a mask, based on my experience with this product- I spend about 40 hours a month in an enclosed space exposed to the fog and have no health concerns.

    Cal/OSHA Report

    Below you will find a text version of the letter from CAL/OSHA Consultation Service. A scanned image is also available.

    March 7, 1990

    Reel EFX, Inc.
    Attn: Mr. Martin Becker, President
    5300 Melrose Avenue, 201-D
    Hollywood, CA 90038

    Dear Mr. Becker:

    This letter confirms the Cal/OSHA Consultation of January 4 and March 6, 1990. I met with Martin J. Becker, James Gill, and Michael Colvin of Reel EFX, Inc. The evaluation was performed in a closed sound stage, Stage 7, at Releigh Studios. The dimensions of the sound stage are 90 feet by 75 feet by 30 feet high. The volume enclosed by the sound stage was approximately 19,000 cubic meters.

    The concern of Reel EFX was the utilization of a Reel EFX, Inc., Diffusion Foffer (TM) with a food-grade mineral oil and the possibility of causing the level of an airborne contaminant in the workplace to exceed regulatory standards promulgated to conserve employee health. See table I for the sampling results.

    The Diffusion Fogger was operated for 3 minutes and the attached fan dispersed an aerosol mist that was sampled for almost an hour. During this time the visible concentration in the air remianed almost constant.

    The diffusion fogger was then turned again for 7 more minutes, for a total operating time of 10 minutes. The resulting mist was sampled over the next two hours. An oscillating fan atop the fogger ws operated during the entire test period to ensure even dispersion of the generated aerosol. All samples were taken at floor level and twenty feet from all walls. The report from the laboratory is attached. In no instance were the OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL) exceeded. Should instances occur that a denser mist is required, you will have to ensure that the airborne mist levels do not exceed exposure excursion limits or the 8-hour time weighted average limits. Examples of these limits are shown in Table II.

    Employees working under the conditions evaluated for 40 hour per week for 50 years would not suffer adverse helath effects related to the mineral oil mist generated by the diffusion fogger. For employee exposures greater than the regulatory standards, precautions detailed in your material safety data sheet should be followed.

    On March 6, 1990, a further evaluation was performed under similar conditions to determine whether a direct reading instrument using a piezobalance could provide the required information instantaneously. Again the results confirmed the findings of the January 4 test.

    A compliance officer is not legally bound by the advice I have given you. Any failure on my part to point out specific hazards does not relieve you of the responsibilty to provide a safe and heallthful workplace. You may, but are not required to, furnish a copy of this report to a compliance officer. Although a decision not to furnish the report will not be interpreted as a lack of good faith, a decision to do so may demonstrate you good faith safety and health efforts and could result in a reduction of any monetary penalties that may be proposed.

    The record of this and all other exposure measurements must be kept in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20 and T8 CCR, Section 3204. These regulations also require you to make the exposure and medical records available so that each employee may see his/her own record.

    The recommendations of this consultation are not enough to keep your workplace free from safety and health hazards. An effective accident and illness prevention program depends on your continued efforts to meet the requirements to T8 CCR, Section 3203. Cal/OSHA regulations require you to provide training and conduct periodic inspections to locate and correct safety and health hazards. You and your employees must continue to work together to maintain a safe workplace.

    Thank you for your courtesy. If I can be of further assistance, of if you need additional information, please call our office at (213) 861-9993.

    Sincerely,

    /s/Robert A. Rennicks
    Industrial Hygiene Consultant

    enc (follows)

    TABLE I
    SAMPLING RESULTS
    AREA SAMPLE LOCATION FOGGER TIME (minutes) SAMPLE DURATION (minutes) CONCENTRATION (mg/m3)
    #7 Sound Stage 1. Left S/W corner rear 3 59 1.2
    2. Right S/E corner rear 3 57 0.2
    3. Center North front 3 55 0.3
    4. Left S/W corner rear 10 110 4.6
    5. Right S/E corner rear 10 108 2.7
    6. Center North front 10 108 4.6

    TABLE II
    EXPOSURE GUIDELINES
    USDOL/OSHA Oil mist 5mg/m3 8-hour time weighted average (TWA)

    CAL/OSHA Oil mist PEL 5mg.m3 8-hour time weighted average (TWA)
    Oil mist STL 10mg/m3 8-hour time weighted average (TWA)

    American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH) Oil mist PEL 5mg/m3 8-hour time weighted average (TWA)
    Oil mist STEL 10mg/m3 8-hour time weighted average (TWA)


    NOTES:

    (a) The 8-hour time weighted average exposure is extrapolated from the period measured to the duration of the exposure during one shift.

    (b) The permissible exposure limits (PEL) are publised in T8 CCR, Section 5155, Table AC-1.



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Evansville, IN, USA
    Posts
    2,837

    Post

    Greatings . . .

    FYI, Industrial Hygienist (ACGIH) have established 5 mg/m3 as the recommended exposure limits to mineral oil. However, in 2001, on the weight of current human studies, ACGIH has proposed lowering the limit to 2 mg/m3 AND assigning an A2 SUSPECTED HUMAN CARCINOGEN designation.

    Please review proposed change at: http://www.socplas.org/public/worksafe/mineraloil.htm

    Material Safety Data Sheet can be found at: http://www.txsinc.com/sgnfuspmsds.html

    Flammability: Class IIIB - combustible liquid

    Flash Point: >428 degrees F

    Avoid contact w/ strong ACIDS.

    Keep away from flames, sparks or HOT SURFACES.

    Never use a TORCH near container.

    Avoid sources of ignition, such as open flame, welding arcs, heat, sparks.

    Combustion may produce carbon monoxide and other asphyxiants.

    Empty containers may contain product residue, which include flammable or explosive vapors.

    Date issued: 11/16/98

    Dave W

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA and Alcala, Spain
    Posts
    553

    Post

    Hello.
    I appreciate everyone's concerns for our individual safety and admire everyone's contributions on this subject. It is well and fine that all these circunstances are being considered. However, we should remember that FGMO mist is employed in the open field. As I have stated previously, it is very simple to determine in which direction the wind is blowing when one is out in the field (provided there is wind). Recommend: Stand with the wind on your back and allow the mist to blow away from you. If you are still concerned for your health, wear protective gear. Nothing wrong with that, except a bit of added lack of comfort, especially during hot days. Be it it as it may, remember that most of the textbook tests presented so far have been conducted in enclosures where FGMO mist is bound to concentrate. It is quite different in the field, factor that you will readily ascertain when in actual field conditions.
    What is most amazing to me is the fact that there are so many instances (constantly being surfaced) in which FGMO is being used. Hurray for good old constant FGMO.
    Good luck with your operations about to start for most of us and well under way for some, or just finished as is the case in the Southern hemisphere.
    Regards.
    Dr. Rodriguez

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia, South Carolina USA
    Posts
    2,598

    Post

    Hi All, there is certainly more info to be found since the last time this topic was discussed - my thanks to the sleuths here on this board!

    Keith

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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