About This Archive | DCHAS-L 2018 Index | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | DCHAS-L Home Page
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: Mar 7, 2018 13:27 UTC
Reply-To:
ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety
In-Reply-To:
On Mar 6, 2018, at 4:36 PM, Peter Zavon <pzavon**At_Symbol_Here**rochester.rr.com> 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
PZAVON**At_Symbol_Here**Rochester.rr.com