From: ILPI Support <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Comments sought on The ACS Strategic Plan for 2018 and Beyond
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:31:58 -0500
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Message-ID: 3535469F-1E9C-4C7F-B66F-13C184B687E3**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <007b01d3b593$4b5cf6c0$e216e440$**At_Symbol_Here**>

My understanding is that while safety pays, DuPont apparently rarely pays.  I have a retired friend who worked for years loading tank cars full of ethylene oxide and whatnot at a DuPont plant.  Giant hissing of unbelievable volume with no or inadequate hearing protection.  With even the best quality hearing aids money can buy (none of which is covered by insurance) he can barely hear; he really needs cochlear implants that he can't really afford.  =46rom what I recall him telling me, he approached a number of workman's comp attorneys about getting DuPont to cover the hearing aids and the last one he talked to basically said that nobody had ever sued DuPont for workman's comp successfully and nobody bothers taking such cases anymore (I presume that's only for hearing loss cases; again this is all second or third hand info).

However, DuPont still asks him to come in every year so they can measure his PFOA level (which is rather substantial).  Not sure what that's about. One can only hope they are being responsible and compiling epidemiological data so we can pin down links between exposure and health, but I'll let you make your own conclusions about possible motives.

Rob Toreki

Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust.  Visit us at
esales**At_Symbol_Here**  or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012

On Mar 6, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Peter Zavon <pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**> wrote:

To Jim Kaufman's observations below I would add the following in connection with Roger McClellan's statement "I also located a pay stub for my father from that time period. Boldly written across it in red ink was the statement -- "Safety Pays!". I doubt that DuPont did a cost-benefit analysis to justify that statement."
DuPont did indeed perform the equivalent of a cost-benefit analysis to justify that statement.  But they did it so long ago, when black powder was their major product, that the assessment has faded into legend and lost memory.
Others in more recent times have done the same in a more formal process, but it is always difficult to quantify the value of incidents and injuries avoided.
Human nature is such that someone on the hunt for the wild Nobel can easily assert that "it won't happen to me" or "it hasn't happened yet so it won't happen, so trying to prevent it is a waste of time and effort.
Peter Zavon, CIH
Penfield, NY


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
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.