| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2005 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Art Building Safety Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:34:26 -0600 Author: Laura Damon |
Next by Date: Subject: Practical learning "nuggets" sought Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:46:10 -0400 Author: Sharon D'Orsie |
I thought that this was a very interesting response to a question that appeared on another list as well as here... - Ralph From: warren.pinches**At_Symbol_Here**GE.COM Subject: Re: [SAFETY] Getting to Lab Employees Date: July 19, 2005 5:00:02 PM EDT An age-old problem, and indeed, one that I think has gotten worse over time rather than better. In the early days of modern experimental science (only several generations ago) experimenters were acutely aware of the hazards they faced, and indeed there was a very real tradition of scientific martyrdom -- the early experimenters with x-rays, for example, or the early azo dye chemists, had greatly shortened life-spans. However, after the Manhattan Project, the emergence of the modern synthetic organic chemical industry that could synthesize practically anything, and the moon landing, a certain arrogance or hubris set in -- "we have mastered nature, and have nothing left to fear from it." That so much of science is conducted today using black-box instrumentation -- you put a sample in one end and a report spits out the other end -- increasingly insulates lab personnel from awareness of the forces and materials with which they are dealing. Industry tended to go in the opposite direction: it started with a very fatalistic attitude towards occupational illnesses and injuries, and a craft attitude towards manufacturing that resisted systematization. Today, perhaps more as a result of quality management systems like ISO 9000 than the efforts of the safety profession, most companies and industrial workers take it for granted that there are written procedures for everything, and they are (supposed to be) following them. Even construction workers are starting to work in a more systematic, process-oriented way that can be exploited by safety professionals. Another aspect of this issue is that research scientists, perversely enough, don't necessarily see themselves as scientists. Research is certainly a creative process, and some researchers bridle at the notion that anything they do can be systematized. While Design of Experiments and other systems have made something of an impression in younger generations, and I have often been able to piggy-back safety processes onto these, there is still a major element present of "researcher-as-an-inspired-creative-artist", complete with prima donna attitudes. (Worse than R&D researchers in this regard are medical doctors, if I may continue my binge of bigoted generalizations.) Notwithstanding this, my first approach to researchers is that safety is applied science. (I'll admit to once pointing out to a researcher that his Ph. D. didn't enable him to outrun an explosion. Nature is no respecter of diplomas.) R&D will always resist safety professionals if we are viewed as administrators or bureaucrats, enforcing arbitrary rules. Base your case on the rules being directly derived from scientific principles -- flammability, ventilation of airborne concentrations, mechanical forces, phase changes, etc. Be prepared to quantify everything. Invite them to help you quantify things. Many scientists find Failure Mode and Effects Analysis to be fun. Science is a collegial pursuit, and is deeply rooted in consensus. Doing safety with scientists is like doing business with the Japanese -- if you run roughshod over their cultural traditions, you will find yourself ignored (at best). A direct assault rarely works. Scientists are much more receptive to consensus standards such as ANSI, ASME, NFPA, CGA, etc. than to "regulations" like OSHA. Try never to justify an action by saying "the regulations say so." Rummage through your thesaurus for synonyms for "compliance." Indeed, you can find many consensus standards among the various standards organizations specifically designed for laboratories by laboratory scientists. My best results with lab personnel is to have them take ownership of safety themselves -- a lab safety/chemical hygiene committee, with a venerable chairperson, and me as their technical consultant. Key to this approach is to adopt what DuPont's safety system calls a "questioning attitude". Rather than saying "you're wrong -- you moron", try "I notice you are doing ----. What would happen if -----?" It's not inconceivable that they actually do know what they are doing, and you might learn something from them (and save face if you discover you are wrong). If you do jointly identify a problem, invite them to solve them problem with you -- your knowledge of safety combined with their knowledge of the process. To be a safety professional is to be a scientist yourself. Work from your common ground. Warren C. Pinches, CSP, CHMM, CET Purely personal, probably misguided, and possibly deranged opinions. -----Original Message----- From: SAFETY [mailto:SAFETY**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Bernie Gable Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:48 PM To: SAFETY**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: [SAFETY] Getting to Lab Employees Hello - Many of us know that sometimes getting Lab folks to follow safety rules can be a challenge. I've heard "I'm a scientist - I know what not to do" and "Those rules don't apply to me". Other than disciplinary procedures, does anyone have any suggestions for talking to lab personnel in their own language to get them to comply? All advice welcome! - Bernie
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post