Subject: Re: *Nobody* should ever die in the pursuit of science (was: Re: Needless Loss of Eight Lives Working with High Pressure)
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:24:25 GMT
Due to the author's posting problems, I've been asked to post this.
Sorry for the delayed response. Followups have been trimmed.
[ begin post ]
From: rjensen@du.edu (Roy Jensen)
Date sent: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 07:10:03 GMT
Organization: University of Denver
>>...It may have been true 100 years ago, or even 50, but
>>today almost everyone that dies in a lab accident is
>>nothing more than careless...
We take for granted that the world in which we exist is fraught
with unknown dangers and more interestingly, known dangers that
we choose to ignore because of convience, cost, or stupidity.
Listed below are a few that I can currently think of. Notice
that NONE of them relate to a laboratory/research environment!
wearing a seatbelt
not using headlights while driving (a law for new cars in
Canada)
wearing a helmet on a motorcycle/bicycle
riding a motorcycle/bicycle (or car)
eating at several unnamed fast food chains which serve
high fat foods (deep fried)
smoking
having unprotected sex (AIDS, etc)
using drugs (all of them, not just the illegal ones)
working in a convience store
living in a brick house
getting a suntan
...
..
.
Science attempts to determine us what is appropriate/healthy.
Beurocracy regularily intervenes and overrides scientific
research (EPA, FDA, tobacco lobbyists, etc). Research results
are (often) wrong or misleading because of unforseen interactions
or limited knowledge. Later experiments regularly contradict
previous ones. (example: eggs good or bad?, sugar for
breakfast, weather prediction models, global warming, effects of
NOx, CFC's, etc).
The 'It can't happen to me' syndrome is prevelant within our
society.
Roy Jensen
*** Condensed text ***
-------------------------------------------
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>"Eric Lucas" wrote:
>
>>However, your last sentence is an anachronistic and dangerous
>>misconception. That kind of bravado has no place in modern chemistry. It
>>may have been true 100 years ago, or even 50, but today almost everyone
>>that dies in a lab accident is nothing more than careless (or victim to
>>someone else's carelessness.)
>
>I would dispute this. There are many situations where science
>( structured curiousity ) moves into areas where available resources
>dictate the level of protection. There are always situations where
>somebody does not have access to knowledge or facilities that
>would reduce the risk, but they use their knowledge and experience
>to determine the risk - the absence of appropriate knowledge, or
>not knowing of its existance, is not always carelessness.
>
>>Our current understanding of potential hazards and ability to
>>safely deal with them vastly exceeds that of 100 years ago.
>
>But it's still nowhere near perfect, nor is it always readily available to
>all practitioners. Not everybody can afford the $1000s necessary
>to have the latest editions of Sax/Bretherick/Sigma-Aldrich/ and
>safety journals in their library. Even when they do, the unknown
>can still appear - there may be a trace impurity, catalytic component.
>temperature or pressure effect, that diverts an expected reaction,
>or there may be a long-term toxicity that takes decades to discover.
>
>Given the way that science funding is moving, it's increasingly likely
>that the continual pruning of "overhead' costs will result in elimination
>of access to important expertise and resources.
>
>> Anyone that pursues chemistry today with the attitude that
>>brave people die doing science, is just asking to leave behind a widow(er)
>>and the rest of a grieving family. One can *always* devise a safe way to
>>do an experiment. It may take a lot longer, but think how many more truths
>>you'll live to discover....
>
>No. You can only devise a method of performing an experiment
>safety *if* you know all the potential hazards. We seldom do, risk
>assessments are a fundamental part of scientific research - but
>there is no way that all unknown risks can be included. There are
>always new hazards being discovered when procedures are
>applied to novel chemicals. We look to the most likely outcomes,
>and we endeavour to provide sufficient protection against them.
>Mostly we succeed, but not always.
>
>In a chemical laboratory this is often by performing the smallest
>scale possible, with appropriate, robust, equipment, and safety
>facilities - but still accidents will happen. Usually the multi-layered
>safety approach that results from risk analysis will protect people
>- but not always, and death is not always the result of an accident,
>it can result from exposure to unknown toxins, or an unusual
>sensitivity to chemicals.
>
>>It is true, and always has been, that there is no scientific discovery
>>that's worth dying for.
>
>Your opinion. The people that died in the accident that this thread
>started with were not pursuing science, and were probably not
>aware of the risk, but that doesn't make their deaths any less tragic.
>However, the choice of what a person may be prepared to die for
>is personal, and not always arbitrary.
