provocc&iveopinion Education for a Safe Professional Life Jay A. Young 12916 Allerton Lane, Silver Spring, MD 20904
Howard H. Fawcett 12920 Matey Road, Wheaton. MD 20906
Let us begin with two definitions. A hazard is a source of danger, of injury or harm; a peril which may or may not do harm. Risk is a condition in which harm may he produced by a harzard; risk is typically expressed as a prohahility or likelihood: The roof may fall in upon us here, hut we are not a t high risk from that hazard. Next, let us set forth an axiom. All chemicals, without exceotion. are hazardous: this aoolies as much to the natural chkmichs in so-called okganicaiiy grown vegetables as it does to svnthetic carbon tetrachloride. or anv other chemical made by nature or by persons. The fundamental principle is that only if proper precautions can he and are taken will the risk from such hazards he minimal. When a hazard is overemphasized, or when a hazard is not fully understood, and when the means to minimize or eliminate the risk are not well known. anv person is understandably concerned that the hazard miihibe portentious and the risk may he formidable. Further, u,hrn chemists and other scientists disagree about the degree of hazard and the magnitude of risk, the general public exasperation increases, especially when these matters are treated in the news media by persons who, though they have tried to learn, remain ill informed, a t least in some cases.' The totdity is not all had, however. I t is true that although the reasons are not all one mieht wish. there is at least a heightened sensitivity toward ;sues d e l i n g with chemical health and safetv. Since we are satisfied that this concern is long overdue, we cannot wholly condemn the causes of the enhanced concerns. In oart. we are surrounded hv these concerns for chemical heakh and safety because many members of chemistrv-academe have been -professionallv lax in the past-and some still remain so. I t is past time for academe to emphasize a professional renponsihility for chemical health and safetv ;nd to engender a similar concern in students. We suggest this he accomplished both hy informing students and by helping them make reasoned derisions cunct.rning their expusure to these hazards. That is, students should he made aware of the following: 1) All chemicals are hazardous if not properly handled and dis-
posed.
2) If proper precautions can be and are taken, the risk can be reduced to an acceptable level. 3) Such risk reduction is usually costly. It costs money, it coats time
Presented as part of the symposium on Education for a Professional Life sponsored by the division of Professional Relations, 183rd ASC National Meeting, Las Vegas. Nevada. April 2, 1982. ' A current example of confusion: the recent statement by the EPA that formaldehyde is not a health hazard and, less than a week later, the CPSC announced a ban on urea-formaldehyde foam insulation because of the health hazards from formaldehyde. 954
Journal of Chemical Education
and effort. It involves a lot of trouble. It sometimes reduces the benefit that would be achieved if no precautions were taken. 4) So, we usually opt for a reduction of risk, not elimination. 5) We balance the cwt of risk reduction with the desirability of the benefit to be eained. GI In a word, ro'baance risk and henefir for wdrnrs, protrssori make c h ~ t w s lull . risk, rrduced risk, or n,, ri,k rersuqa.1 or some or no benefits. Our charge to academe in these remarks is, simply, you do not let the students oarticinate in makine orofessional health and safety choices. q o u donot even (veryoften, anyway) hint to the students that behind some closed door vou have made some choices for them. When it comes to chooshg this amount of risk for that amount of benefit. as far as students in lahoratory courses can tell, there is no question. No one balances anvthinr---it is black or white-this exoeriment should be peiformid by students, period. No wonder our chemistrv students and the general lav public feel ill a t ease. No one tells them that risk-benefit decisions are made for them; no one discusses the reasons. Who would not feel unset? Those who choose to he chemists in academe, we opide, have a professional obligation to open that door.. to oroclaim o.~ e n.l vthe reasons for their risk-benefit . determination, and, in some cases at least, to let the students (instead of their nrofessors) make the choice to carrv .out..or not carry out, an assigned experiment according to prechosen protocols. In the space remaining we propose to clarify the above with a few examples, to do a little admonish'mg, and to suggest ways t o fulfill professional chemical safety and health ohligations. First let us consider an example outside the field of chemistry, an exciting canoe trip down the rapids of the Hypothetical River. Such activity is hazardous; one can even he killed. Before embarking we assess the benefit, the excitement, the sense of conquering nature, and so on, as not being worth that much risk. So, we reduce the risk; we wear life jackets. Or, reducing i t further we improve our skill in rapid-shooting in advance by practicing on milder rivers, by reading, by asking auestions. hv oaid instruction. At some mint we . iudee .. the risk riducrd sdkciently to warrant the forseen heneiit, and then we rhallenre old Hvoo River's raoids. We even foreen some of the benefit, someif the thrill, by wearing that lifejacket, and hv restraininn our enthusiasm. consider an example from the chemistry lab, the thermal decomposition of potassium chlorate. Chemistry professors know this is hazardous: nome have heard (correctl;);hat it hm caused student fatalities, loss of sight, andtor severe hudilv injury. Evaluating the benefit, some professors assign the experiment to their students, reducing the risk only to the exlent of requiring (but not alwaysenfurring) eye using safety glasses that donot meet ANSI-or anyhody's-
standards. Others assign the experiment only after further reducing the risk by removing powdered charcoal and other dark colored reducing agents from the laboratory spaces (to avoid accidental use of these in place of manganese dioxide), hy enforcing students' wearing of face shields that meet AYSI standards, by peramally inspecting each student's apparatus hefore the test tube is heated to insure that no crumbs from the stopper contaminate the reagents, and so on. Others determine that the benefits are not worth the risks and find another way to teach whatever i t is that this "experiment" is suooosed to teach. But as far as we know, no professoT informs thiktudents of any oithesemntters. At hest,theproft~sior(or worse, t he uninformed ~ r a d u a t eteaching assistant^ announces in a prelab session in aitentorian tune that everybody should do this, e\,erybody should not do that-with reasons sometimes given, sometimes not. But opportunity for the student's reasoned and informed choice to modify to further reduce, or enhance, the risk or benefit, or to choose not to do the assigned experiment: Never! We submit that this is not good professional education practice. Let us think about benzene. Until 1974 or 1975 or so benzene was eenerallv known to be somewhat harmful to breathe. X d a y , the consensus of informed opinion is [hat it is a human leukemugenic agmt. Does this mean it should not be used in laboratury instruction? As we know, some say that it should not he allowed in the educational institution at all, for any reason: some say it can be used if the risk is much rrdured; some still use it and require their students w nse it as though it were still 1970. From the standpoint of professionalism, we suggest that students be advised of the hazards in i t i use, informed how the risks can he reduced and to what (approximate) degree. Explain the benefits to hegained if the e q ~ e r i ment is performed. Help them make their own informed decisi~n.~ Obviously, given the current interest in benzene-and some other compounds-one may also wish to involve students' parents and guardians (and attorneys, perhaps) in such prelab decisions. All this hassle may make the whole thing not wurth the ~-~~effort. T o Iw oractical. when it i i forseeahle that the students will he unable to make a reasonable choice, the professor's decisions... vav. or nav. .. will necessarilv he made orivatelv, hut such instances are rare. Most of the iime students ran Ge informed and allowed to decide, guided by a r~rofrssorwho is professionally competent in chemical health and safety matters. Also, obviously, this professional approach will not eliminate all incidrnts. We know of a fatality involving a high school accident with methanol that probably could not have been prevented by students' deciding-there will always be some who do not listen. We know of another involving the deliberate oourine of concentrated nitric acid upon a nonstudent which could not have been prevented by a-h re lab discussion since the acid was deliberately taken without permission from an open shelf. Yet another involved the inadvertent synthesis of ~
~
~
See, for example, the current best-seller. "Fever," Putnam. New York. 1982.
by R.
Cook.
thallium acetvlide. " . an exolosivelv unstable endothermic compound. There are other wavs. which need not be discussed in this context, to enhance atademlc laboratory safety. What we seek here are wavs to tultill r~rufessionalrrsoonsihilitles toward inculcating i n students deep sense of applied respect for safetv and health oractices. T o do this, it is obvious that student; must he made aware that choices must inevitably be made and that they can and should he made on an informed ha& Some academics advocate imparting infornlation hy required courses: in chemical health and safety, forgetting that the curricul~nnis already overcrowded and that, unct! they receive a passing grade, students tend to dismiss the content of a course and do not tend to apply further whatever was learned. Failure to aoolv what is learned about chemical health and safety prdiices is a hazard in itself. The professional solution sueeested here is to show the students bv explicit example thatthey too can begin to make professibnal, i.e., responsible, reasoned decisions. And, once students have been taught how to do it, a hazard analysis might be required (and graded) as part of each experiment. How do we begin to present this to the students? We suggest that professors undertake as a professional obligation:
a
1) Formal or informal, but thorough, instruction in the literature
of chemical health and safety including topics such as toxicology, industrial hygiene, safe chemical storage practices, fire prevention, chemical incompatibilities, and mechanical hazards. 2) The continuous exercise of chemical safetv and healthprecautions by such means as service on active safety and health committees. safetv insnections. and safetv audits of the in-
Suggested References
Reese, Kenneth M.. '"Health and Safety Guidelines for Chemistry Teacher.: American ChernicalSociefy. Washington, 1979. Bretherick, L.. (Editorl, "Hazards in thechemical Lshratory,"3rd Ed..The Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 1981. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 'Thr~sholdLimit Values for Chemical Substanees."Cincinnati, revised annuslly Bretherick, L.,"Handbmk ofReaetiveChemical Hazards," 2nd Ed.. Butteworths,hndon,
1979.
Lewis, R.J.,andT&an.R L., iEdifnrs),"RegistryofToricEffedsofChemicalSubtances," 10th Ed., Government Printing Office, Washington. 1982. American Chemical Satiety. "Safety in Academic Chemical Lahratnries," 3rd Ein., Wsshin@on, 1979. Clayton, G. D., and Clayton. F. E., "Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Tmicoio~,"3rd Rev. Ed.,Vals.I,ZA,ZB,ZC, 3, Wiley-Interscience, 1980and 1981. Senkan,S. M..andStsuffer.N. W.,"Whattodowith Hazardous Waste," TechnoloaReuieu, ~~~~~~
,"=,.
(*,,",rn""
."".,. ,on,'
Universitv of Nebraska. Lincoln. Brook8.D lfditorl. ~ ."Safetv."Mdule ~. ~ , IX... ProiedTeseh. , 1980 (TV Tapel. steere, N. v..and ~ e n f r e w , MM . . IEditors1,"Safety intheChemicslLahrafory:J. CHEM. EDUC.,Easton, PA 18042, 1967 Wol. 1). 1970 IVol. 21,1974 IVol. 31, and I981 IVol. 4): a180 see safety column which appears monthly in T H E JOURNAL. National Fire ProtletionAssociation,"Fire Protectionfor LshoratoriesUsingChemieals," NFPA 46 ,p""., L""", "I< " >,,... National Fire Pn,tenion Association,"Fire Pmtenian Guide on Hszardou Msterisls," 7th Ei.,Quincy M A , 1978. Young, Jay A., "I3n Safety Audits: Chornloch, 674 INov., 1980). ~~
...
.".".
~
