| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2012 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] New Video Date: April 2, 2012 8:58:26 PM EDT Author: JAKSAFETY**At_Symbol_Here**AOL.COM |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] DCHAS-L Digest - 29 Mar 2012 to 30 Mar 2012 (#2012-68) Date: April 3, 2012 9:19:33 AM EDT Author: "Bradley, Shelly" |
The conversation on eye protection and standards makes me think about
a topic dealt with often in CSB investigations, that is "human
factors" or "human errors." I have seen human errors boiled down to
two types, intentional (I choose not to wear safety googles) or
unintentional (I do not know about splash protection). Human beings
don't usually think about the safety regulations that govern their
activities, so it becomes very important that the safety management
systems remove what motivates the intentional decisions their
employees are making or educate workers to help them understand the
unintentional decisions they are making.
What I really mean to do by this post is spark a conversation that
addressed the human factor of the problem, so, here are my thoughts on
intentional or unintentional decisions to were eye protection:
Intentional: I will say that in grad school the reason I often times
chose not to wear safety googles was because I wear prescription
glasses and the awkward, clunky plastic ones in the lab did not fit
well over my glasses, constantly fogged up, and cut into my face. If
comfortable googles had been available to me I think I would have worn
them (at least more often) while I grad school. Have others found that
comfortable eye wear has increased its usage?
Unintentional: After grad school I spent a year teaching high school
chemistry and I found a safety demonstration for what acid could do to
your eye. I don't remember what acid I used, but it was adding acid to
egg whites which essentially cooked the egg whites. I showed that to
my class and kids continued to reference the demonstration for the
rest of the year. It was the best motivator I had ever used to get
students to wear googles.
Mary Beth Mulcahy
If in the circumstances he (representing his employer) believed that they is
In the video, the announcer specifies that the eye injury is present. ...
James A. Kaufman, Ph.D.
President/CEO
192 Worcester Road, Natick, MA 01760-2252
In a message dated 3/31/2012 12:00:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:13:15 +0000
Please forgive me for disagreeing with the lab safety guru, but in our neck
Unlike Jim who feels the producers are "totally wrong", IMHO this video can
W.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM,
Wayne and I are not really in disagreement. It's the employers
responsibility to decide whether the chemicals being used can harm the
eyes.
not a risk of eye injury, then splash goggle are not needed.
Jim
Chair, ICASE Committee on Safety in Science Education
International Council for Associations of Science Education
www.icaseonline.net
The Laboratory Safety Institute (LSI)
A Nonprofit International Organization for
Safety in Science and Science Education
508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 Skype: labsafe
Cell: 508-574-6264 Res: 781-237-1335
jim**At_Symbol_Here**labsafetyinstitute.org www.labsafetyinstitute.org
P We thank you for printing this e-mail only if it is necessary
LISTSERV**At_Symbol_Here**listserv.med.cornell.edu writes:
From: Wayne Wood
Subject: Re: New Video from UCSD
of the woods it is hard enough to get lab personnel to wear safety glasses,
let alone wear goggles. Here we require goggles when there is a significant
splash hazard but for light-to-moderate work in your typical research lab we
require safety glasses with side shields.
help us increase the use of eye protection. Bravo and thank you UCSD!