I thought it was a pretty impressive (and humorous) analogy. As scientist we tend to have tunnel vision about certain issues and wh en we get an idea about what WE want, we don’t always see the big picture. I thought it was a great parallel to shed some light on the subject.
Chemist / Safety Coordinator
Cincinnati, OH 45237
FWIW, no condescension was intended. Merely trying to point out my disagreement with the proposal in a humorous way. The whole visorgog/safety glasses VS goggles argument i s something faculty (in labs where liquid caustics are used… and Birkenstocks are argued to be appropriate foo twear….) bring up every few years, so humor is my way of stayin g sane. Or somewhat so, at least J
This type of condescension is unimpressive and does nothing to further the cause of p rotecting lab personnel. Even though students aren’t covered by state or federal occupational safety standards, OSHA provides g ood direction in the area of PPE including protective eyewear (29 CFR 1910. 133). Not all protective eyewear protects universally and one can indeed go overboard in the selection process. In addition, protective eyewear can become a hinderance to safety (not to mention productivity) in certain instances. Eg: Goggles and face shield are overklll when pouring IPA from a gallon bottle into a 500 ml squirt bottle but you would definitely want to wear them when pouring HCl or any other aggressive reagents. Protective ey ewear w/side shields meeting the Z87 standard are fine for weighing out fla kes of KOH on a Mettler balance but not for pouring or otherwise manipulati ng containers of 1M KOH. It’s all in the training personnel receive BEFORE they’re allowed to do lab w ork. I’m speaking from an industry perspective and maybe that’s the difference, but I find that most individuals will take their manager 8217;s or supervisor’s lead and wear their PPE if it’s made a priority with effective consequences for noncompliance. I bet the same w ould hold true in academia. If Profs and TAs underscore the importance of w earing PPE by actually WEARING THEM THEMSELVES, and holding non-compliers a ccountable, I think the students would follow suit.
I.J. Saldi var
Sr. Safety Administrator
Microelectronics of the Americas
5700 NW Pa cific Rim Blvd
Camas, WA& nbsp; 98607
(o) 360/83 4-8734
(c) 360/77 2-4502
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Visor-gogs
We are considering a return to not requiring the use of seat belts whe n driving university vehicles. Our reasoning is that the increase comfort & amp; convenience will translate into increased compliance, as well as the idea that the lack of broken clavicles from sea tbelts stopping people from flying forward in head-on collisions will resul t in lower workers’ compensation costs.
We are considering retur ning to use of Visor-Gogs® for chemistry lab students, as well as art s tudio activities. Our reasoning is that increased comfort will transl ate into increased compliance, as well as the idea that the less irritated the wearer’s eyes/face are from the gog gles, the less likely one is to reach in to rub with a potentially chemical ly-contaminated finger.
Please offer feedback, o r other information, positive and negative, on the use of Visor-Gogs® a s PPE.
St. Ambrose University
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post