Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:08:01 -0400
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kim Auletta <kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**NOTES.CC.SUNYSB.EDU>
Subject: Re: Hazmat incident summary: Feb 2010 - April 2011
In-Reply-To: <45BDFB29-19A0-411E-B43F-2042AF524448**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org>


Ralph - I want to thank you for keeping up with this & providing the 
analysis. I use these headlines as "lessons learned" a few times a week. 
Anything lab related goes to our research labs, and anything K-12 goes to 
my HS science teacher list of contacts. Both groups then resend them out 
to a wider audience. I also used the Texas Tech incident & lessons learned 
discussion that followed as a case study for our Center for Science 
Journalism grad class - they used it as a lesson in accuracy in reporting 
science issues. 

A few ideas/suggestions for your talk:
1. Find out from the rest of this list how they use the headlines. Its an 
awful lot of work if on your part if it doesn't get used to make things 
safer! I'm sure I'm not the only one who is resending stories.

2. Not sure if you can easily tell, but how many of these stories are 
repeats? I know the Texas Tech incident was listed many times over a few 
months. Do your totals mean individual, new incidents, or everything? eg. 
are the 166 lab incidents really only 100 lab incidents with multiple 
reportings of a few cases? If so, then I'd hesitate to call the 
"incidents". It makes for an inflated amount of incidents in the labs. 
Perhaps call them "reporting occurrences"? 

3. Under "chemical involved", could you include the "chemical suicide" 
category? I noted that these may be reported w/o listing the chemicals. 
Its an important trend to follow, especially for those of us who may be 
emergency responders, or the 2 incidents I remember where the chemicals 
were taken from a lab & used for suicide. 

Again - THANKS!

Kim Auletta
Lab Safety Specialist
EH&S    Z=6200
Stony Brook University
kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**notes.cc.sunysb.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site: http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/

Remember to wash your hands!


From:   "Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety" 

To:     DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Date:   04/11/2011 11:50 AM
Subject:        [DCHAS-L] Hazmat incident summary: Feb 2010 - April 2011
Sent by:        DCHAS-L Discussion List 


As DCHAS-L readers know, I have been tracking headlines related to hazmat 
events as reported by Google over the last year. I've had the chance to 
organize the raw data into summary information below. The purpose of this 
is to put into perspective trends in hazmat events, so that policy and 
planning can be informed by more complete data than the latest headline 
event. I don't consider this a particularly objective set of data, as the 
filters imposed by my available time, language (I only review headlines in 
English), and my interpretation of the information offered by the media 
outlet (which sometimes is clearly unreliable) are significant, but I do 
believe that this gives a sense of patterns associated with the public 
hazmat responses which make it to the press.

Since I'll be making a presentation based on this work at the ACS meeting 
in Denver this fall (there's still time for abstracts to be submitted - 
contact me for details), I'd be interested in people's questions and 
comments about the information below.

- Ralph 

Date:
From February 1, 2010 to April 11, 2011:
Average 4.5 hazmat responses/day reported by Google
Ranges from 6.3/day in October 2010 or 2.3/day April 2010
No pattern evident over the course of the year

Country:
76% of the reports from the US
6% from UK
4% from India
4% from Canada
3% from Australia

Within the US, 
9% from California
7% from Texas
5% from Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio
5% from New York, Massachusetts
rest scatted among all other states

The sectors represented were:
industrial               726 events              38%
transportation           362 events              19%
home             240 events              12%
other (public settings, primarily)               210 events 11%
laboratory (all types)           166 events              9%
illegal          143 events              7%
education (non-lab)              82 events               4%

The type of event:
release          55%
fire             23%
explosion                15%
discovery of a chemical in unexpected place              7%

Extent of the event:
response                 73%
injury           21%
death            6%

Chemical Involved
some indication of identity, but not listed below                767  40%
chemical reported as unknown             255             13%
petroleum                134             7%
meth_lab                 118             6%
acid             115             6%
ammonia          73              4%
solvent          61              3%
ag_chemicals             57              3%
wastes           55              3%
chlorine                 53              3%
explosives               50              3%
pool_chemicals           38              2%
mercury          36              2%
cleaning_chemicals               34              2%

Ralph Stuart
secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Secretary
Division of Chemical Health and Safety
American Chemical Society

Ralph - I want to thank you for keeping up with this & providing the analysis. I use these headlines as "lessons learned" a few times a week. Anything lab related goes to our research labs, and anything K-12 goes to my HS science teacher list of contacts. Both groups then resend them out to a wider audience. I also used the Texas Tech incident & lessons learned discussion that followed as a case study for our Center for Science Journalism grad class - they used it as a lesson in accuracy in reporting science issues.

A few ideas/suggestions for your talk:
1. Find out from the rest of this list how they use the headlines. Its an awful lot of work if on your part if it doesn't get used to make things safer! I'm sure I'm not the only one who is resending stories.

2. Not sure if you can easily tell, but how many of these stories are repeats? I know the Texas Tech incident was listed many times over a few months. Do your totals mean individual, new incidents, or everything? eg. are the 166 lab incidents really only 100 lab incidents with multiple reportings of a few cases? If so, then I'd hesitate to call the "incidents". It makes for an inflated amount of incidents in the labs. Perhaps call them "reporting occurrences"?

3. Under "chemical involved", could you include the "chemical suicide" category? I noted that these may be reported w/o listing the chemicals. Its an important trend to follow, especially for those of us who may be emergency responders, or the 2 incidents I remember where the chemicals were taken from a lab & used for suicide.

Again - THANKS!

Kim Auletta
Lab Safety Specialist
EH&S    Z=6200
Stony Brook University
kauletta**At_Symbol_Here**notes.cc.sunysb.edu
631-632-3032
FAX: 631-632-9683
EH&S Web site:
http://www.stonybrook.edu/ehs/lab/

Remember to wash your hands!

From:        "Secretary, ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety" <secretary**At_Symbol_Here**DCHAS.ORG>
To:        DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Date:        04/11/2011 11:50 AM
Subject:        [DCHAS-L] Hazmat incident summary: Feb 2010 - April 2011
Sent by:        DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>



As DCHAS-L readers know, I have been tracking headlines related to hazmat events as reported by Google over the last year. I've had the chance to organize the raw data into summary information below. The purpose of this is to put into perspective trends in hazmat events, so that policy and planning can be informed by more complete data than the latest headline event. I don't consider this a particularly objective set of data, as the filters imposed by my available time, language (I only review headlines in English), and my interpretation of the information offered by the media outlet (which sometimes is clearly unreliable) are significant, but I do believe that this gives a sense of patterns associated with the public hazmat responses which make it to the press.

Since I'll be making a presentation based on this work at the ACS meeting in Denver this fall (there's still time for abstracts to be submitted - contact me for details), I'd be interested in people's questions and comments about the information below.

- Ralph

Date:
From February 1, 2010 to April 11, 2011:
Average 4.5 hazmat responses/day reported by Google
Ranges from 6.3/day in October 2010 or 2.3/day April 2010
No pattern evident over the course of the year

Country:
76% of the reports from the US
6% from UK
4% from India
4% from Canada
3% from Australia

Within the US,
9% from California
7% from Texas
5% from Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio
5% from New York, Massachusetts
rest scatted among all other states

The sectors represented were:
industrial                 726 events                 38%
transportation                 362 events                 19%
home                 240 events                 12%
other (public settings, primarily)                 210 events                 11%
laboratory (all types)                  166 events                 9%
illegal                 143 events                 7%
education (non-lab)                 82 events                 4%

The type of event:
release                 55%
fire                 23%
explosion                 15%
discovery of a chemical in unexpected place                 7%

Extent of the event:
response                 73%
injury                 21%
death                 6%

Chemical Involved
some indication of identity, but not listed below                 767                 40%
chemical reported as unknown                 255                 13%
petroleum                 134                 7%
meth_lab                 118                 6%
acid                 115                 6%
ammonia                 73                 4%
solvent                 61                 3%
ag_chemicals                 57                 3%
wastes                 55                 3%
chlorine                 53                 3%
explosives                 50                 3%
pool_chemicals                 38                 2%
mercury                 36                 2%
cleaning_chemicals                 34                 2%

Ralph Stuart
secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Secretary
Division of Chemical Health and Safety
American Chemical Society

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.