You are on for lunch next September. I'm a junk food vegetarian so you'll get off easy.
Yes, bring in the administrators in those discussions despite the fact that they are all far to important and vitally busy to come and besides, they think all they have to do is delegate the safety to someone unqualified and their job is over and well-done.
Since that will be the attitude (trust me) in most cases, bring in one other person--the school's General Council. Now this person really is busy, so it might take another lunch offer or some bent-knee pleading, but it us usually worth it.
Every time the legal eagle has come with me and the faculty on my inspection rounds, I things get done.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: McGrath Edward J <Edward.McGrath**At_Symbol_Here**REDCLAY.K12.DE.US>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Sun, Nov 8, 2015 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
To take Monona's point a step further: professional development in education seems to operate on a fallacy: if you want to change what teachers do, change what they know. Sadly, it doesn't work that way..
Safety education does happen, but as you said, it's often piecemeal, and usually in the form of "watch this video." In my humble opinion, the attitude adjustment required is, in fact, adoption of a safety culture in education. This means, the training
must include a frank discussion--what are we doing? What should be in place that isn't? How can we get things changed? What should we do while we wait for things to be changed?
Our state and district have worked hard with this culture, and we still have a L-O-N-G way to go. Yes, we need to analyze the methanol disasters, the "gummy bear in hell" fiascos (that's where you drop a gummy bear into a test
tube of roasting KClO3--what could possibly go wrong??) But beyond that, we need to also look at the "near misses." We need to examine the weak spots. Most of all, school administrators need to be part of this discussion. When you refer to "safety in our
schools," most of them think about fire drills, intruders, and whether the sidewalk has been shoveled and sanded. Too often, they (administrators) don't consider the curriculum as a weak point for school safety. Then there's an incident.
So, contact your local school boards. Is there a culture of safety out there? If not, what can we do about it?
ps: Monona, next time you come to Wintertheur, let me know--I'll buy you lunch!
Eddie McGrath
Edward
J. McGrath
Science
Supervisor
Red Clay
Consolidated School District
1502 Spruce
Avenue
Wilmington
DE 19805
(302) 552-3768
=E2=80=8BWe
did not inherit the Earth from our ancestors. We borrowed it from our children.
The Schools need an attitude adjustment. Just as Organic Chemistry is a profession, so are Industrial Hygiene and Safety. These subjects should be regarded the same respect.
Perhaps you've isolated the nub of this problem. It can be summed up as the assumption that students will manage to obtain their knowledge of safety piecemeal in their various courses in Chemistry from their Professors who are, by definition, amateurs
in the subject of safety.
Students need at least a short course in those parts of Chemical Hygiene and Safety applicable to their chosen field from a person actually qualified to teach it.
And personally, that explains to me why, when I teach hazcom/lab standard to each of the departments in a school, the science people often miss more questions on my test than the theater people. (Art comes in dead last, of course).
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuella B. Sigmann <
sigmannsb**At_Symbol_Here**APPSTATE.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Sat, Nov 7, 2015 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
What amount of safety do ACS accredited programs actually require?
There is still no course requirement. It is assumed that the appropriate level of knowledge, skill, and attitude about chemical hygiene that is needed to pursue a career in chemical industry or academia will be acquired piecemeal in their laboratory work throughout
the course of their undergraduate studies.
What about requiring more safety education and training in order for a chemistry program/degree to be ACS accredited?
Good luck. Chemical hygiene is not regarded as a curriculum item on the level of organic, inorganic, pchem, etc. by the CPT. Additionally, there is currently very little flexibility in the course work for the undergraduate degree - I think ours has 1 or
2 elective hours. That would be a start, but often for the various concentrations the electives have to be outside the major. I have been teaching a chemical safety course for for about 8 years, but is very hard to populate because of the tight curriculum.
That being said - I have 10 students registered for this course next spring - an all time record!
The better option for now is to incorporate higher level information and risk assessment it into some of our other existing courses (much as the CPT envisions I guess). We use Intro to research (junior course) and Senior research (capstone course). Of course
all the lab courses do the normal safety activities.
Sammye
On 11/6/2015 9:55 PM, Baker, Sheila wrote:
What amount of safety do ACS accredited programs actually require? I don't recall much if any when I went through school. Even as a TA in grad school our safety training consisted of only watching a video. I know ABET is trying to increase safety training
in chemical engineering. What about requiring more safety education and training in order for a chemistry program/degree to be ACS accredited?
Sent from my iPhone
That's consistent with my feeling. All these little fixes, such as explaining to chemists they shouldn't pour solvent on a flame, are going nowhere. This fixes one demo at a
time. What is missing is the basic safety training which should be taught over a number of years of school and development of a deep general knowledge of how chemicals behave. That knowledge can't be cerebral. It needs to be visceral due to a lot of hands
on experience.
All that is just plain missing in most graduates today. Maybe it's that they use computers instead of hands on. But whatever the cause, the demos have to go.
We have the same issues in Art and Theater. College age kids are coming into programs who have never used a screw driver or a hammer and they want to work on table saws and try to weld. You can't do that with your thumbs--which are the only coordinated
appendages they have.
We are assuming these young chemistry grads have skills they just don't have. Their minds and verbal skills are quick so we assume they also have knowledge, safety savvy and common sense. They don't.
Take their toys away. Leave the "entertainment through chemistry" to people specially experienced in doing this in rooms equipped for it. How many more times do we have to see this same thing to "get it?"
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: roberth_hill <
roberth_hill**At_Symbol_Here**MINDSPRING.COM>
To: DCHAS-L <
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2015 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
I guess I think this happened because the teacher did not recognize or understand the hazard. I think this is because their safety education was missing or inadequate and/or a safety ethic was missing or inadequate. Most of you have heard my thoughts on
this before. Until we start educating our undergraduates in lab safety, we will continue to have teachers, graduate students, and chemists with poor knowledge of safety and poor safety ethics.
Robert H. Hill, Jr.
Co-author of Laboratory Safety for Chemistry Students
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Rita Kay Calhoun <
r.calhoun**At_Symbol_Here**MOREHEADSTATE.EDU>
Date: 11/06/2015 3:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
I disagree that the question is why did the teacher do the demo. The question was why was the teacher so stupid as to pour a flammable liquid onto a flame. Anyone over the age of 6 should know that this is dangerous. I sometimes wonder if the recent increase
in the apparent lack of "common sense" (yes, I said common sense because it is common sense to be wary of flames) is an unexpected result of the fear of even minor dangers that has resulted in many schools only doing experiments that a kindergartener could
do. In order to be able to cross a street safely, you actually have to practice crossing a street safely. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps we should learn/teach how to bathe the baby without drowning it.
Kay
-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [
mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu]
On Behalf Of Frankie Wood-Black
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 3:07 PM
To:
DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NSTA Urges Science Educators to Halt the Use of Methanol-Based Flame Tests on Open Laboratory Desks
A question for the group and maybe to a wider audience. After the last set of announcements and the CSB alert, my question is related to why this teacher chose to do it. One reason may have been that they felt they could do it because they had numerous times.
The other is that they were unaware of the recommendations NOT to do this particular demonstration anymore. SO - my question is - is there an avenue that we should be using to inform teachers about the hazards of this experiment that have not been utilized
previously - and if so - what would it be????
--
--
******************************************************************************
We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do everything with nothing.
Teresa Arnold
Samuella B. Sigmann, NRCC-CHO
Senior Lecturer/Safety Committee Chair/Director of Stockroom
A. R. Smith Department of Chemistry
Appalachian State University
525 Rivers Street
Boone, NC 28608
Phone: 828 262 2755
Fax: 828 262 6558
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post
