From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Comments sought on The ACS Strategic Plan for 2018 and Beyond
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:27:21 -0500
Reply-To: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Message-ID: 16200a51147-179d-1f2d0**At_Symbol_Here**
In-Reply-To <3535469F-1E9C-4C7F-B66F-13C184B687E3**At_Symbol_Here**>

I think we are talking about DuPont past and DuPont present.  There was a time, that even people running big industries were more compassionate.  The right to profit at all costs became an openly acceptable strategy at all levels of business in the early 1980s. After a decade of worker's rights and the founding of OSHA in 1970, open season on employees was declared. The attitudes of the old Robber Barons of industry were again glorified.  OSHA became a dirty word.  Something vaguely called "the government" became demonized. 

The audiences I was speaking to in 1978, were different from those in 1985.  You could feel the difference.

What I saw in my audiences is what you are now seeing in the voting public. Almost half of this country feels that they have a right not to consider the health, welfare and rights of others on the way to their objectives..  While this strategy started at the top, it is now OK with the guy next door and even those who are in economic hardship.  In fact, this population blames the workers who have a bit more than they do for their problems -- and like a sinking ship, they fire at their rescuers.

Our country is split into two warring camps. In a safety forum like DCHAS-L, the numbers of the people who consider the health of the industry as more important than the health of the individual workers are very few.  But they are here, too.  The only difference now is those people feel empowered tell you so.

Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President:  Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
181 Thompson St., #23
New York, NY 10012     212-777-0062


-----Original Message-----
From: ILPI Support <info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM>
Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 9:47 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Comments sought on The ACS Strategic Plan for 2018 and Beyond

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.  From 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=E2=80™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=E2=80™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


--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here** Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here** Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

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.