Demystify: 

>. To paraphrase, his reply was 'unless they're a hazmat officer, the average firefighter knows there are two kinds of chemicals: those you can spray with water and those you can't.' I'm sure he was exaggerating, but I'm guessing broadly speaking it's a fair assessment.
>
I'm don't think he was exaggerating; he was reflecting his professional culture. Fire fighters are part of a service that plans its response to high risk situations as a team. They need to have confidence in the instructions they receive and respond to those decisions quickly on the scene. Responders on the scene don't have the time to wonder which of the tools they brought on the truck is the correct one to use to 1) keep their team safe, 2) rescue others and 3) reduce the hazard of the situation.

I've assisted in many hazmat responses, where as soon as the 'don't dump water on it' decision is made, everybody stops while the hazmat officer spends as much time as they need to research the chemical involved and organize recommended responses (which can be hours). And the responders on the scene are wondering what other calls they are missing.

The place to develop the response protocols is in the code development and use process, which is where the original question came from. And, again, the response options depend on many more things than the first principles of the chemistry involved. This is why, while hazmat professionals and chemists may specific substances in common, they use very different logics in working with them. Part of what makes the EHS role so interesting is working to bridge the gap between those cultural logics.

- Ralph

Ralph Stuart, CIH, CCHO
ralph**At_Symbol_Here**rstuartcih.org

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

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post