- Email: [email protected]
Invisible warnings
Invisible warnings Anecdotal Accidents
1074-9098/02/$22.00 PII S1074-9098(02)00303-9
M
ore often than should be the case, small ``make it in the garage'' industries tend to dismiss as not really all that important the warnings on the labels of the hazardous chemicals they use in their processing. This attitude is reinforced when the warnings on packaged hazardous chemicals are printed using ink that is almost the same color as the color of the paper sack containing the hazardous chemical. Consider this example involving the hazards of the respirable dust from silica sand. There is a rather large and pro®table market in the refurbishing of used of®ce equipment. Most small refurbishing businesses in this market employ sand blasting to remove the old coating residues from used metal ®le cabinets and other metal of®ce furniture prior to recoating the furniture surfaces and providing other refurbishing details in preparation for resale. Typically, these small businesses operate under limited economic restraints. The cost of a properly designed blasting booth is outside the range of their budget. Likewise, the bill for constructing and installing appropriate hoods is too large to bear. Even the cost of suitable respirators, plus the associated employee physical exams, to say nothing of the costs of maintenance of the respirators, is out of the question. Thus, one can only imagine their response when a salesperson from the local supply warehouse suggested that they use a ``SILICA-FREE'' blasting sand, which was not only non-hazardous but also was far cheaper than the standard blasting sand they had been using. The magic sand turned out to be ``Kiddie Play Sand.'' It was a washed low-grade sand. Upon cursory examination, the paper bags containing the sand exhibited no hazard warnings, so both the purchaser and the salesperson had assumed it to be silica-free, and therefore, non-hazardous. However, closer examination of the paper bags disclosed a warning notice that the sand was not to be used for blasting, industrial, or construction purposes. This notice was almost invisible, printed in a pale orange-tinted ink in a font so small as to be almost illegible. Apparently, the salesperson had convinced these small business proprietors, and many of their competitors in nearby communities as well, that this magic sand was the answer to their sand blasting problems. Sales ®gures were for pallet-sized orders, not for a few bags at a time. Fortunately, it now appears that all involved are aware of the hazards in sand blasting the paint off of used of®ce furniture and, biting their bullets, have been able to assume the costs of doing it right.
(We thank Mary Ann Solstad, CIH, for this anecdote.) EVERYONE DOES IT, SO IT MUST BE SAFE
``It's a routine experiment,'' the county school superintendent said. ``Everyone in the county does it and no one ever got hurt before!'' This time the toll included seven burned students, four of the victims were taken to the hospital, three remained overnight, and the fourth one was in critical condition with second and third degree burns over a substantial fraction of his body surfaces. The chemistry instructor had majored in education as an undergraduate and had at one time been enrolled in a beginning chemistry course, but had dropped out after a few weeks of exposure. She was a new teacher, following the written notes left by her predecessor. Those notes were skimpy, and did not include any safety instruction or warnings. The procedure itself involved the preparation of a few milliliter sized solutions of various metallic salts (NaCl, KCl, Ca-(NO3)2, etc.) in methyl alcohol. There were no warnings on the methyl alcohol container. It was a 1-L glass-stoppered bottle labeled ``MeOH.'' The accident occurred when the instructor was conducting a ¯ame-color demonstration as a means of identifying metallic ions in solution. The class was mixed, consisting of 23 students, mostly juniors, with a few sophomores and seniors; all seated a few feet away from the demonstration desk. The demonstration consisted of dipping a loop of chromel wire into a test solution and then holding the captured drop of solution in the ¯ame of an alcohol burner (presumably the burner was fueled with methyl alcohol). There was no guard or shield between the students and the demonstration materials. No one, not even the instructor, was wearing any protective equipment, not even safety goggles. Police from the town, and ®re department equipment from the town and from three nearby towns responded. The un-injured students and about 30 students in an adjacent classroom were decontaminated. Each student was required to shower, using soap and water, and to don new clothing. The clothing that the students had been wearing was put in plastic bags, sealed, and sent off for decontamination. Classes for the entire school were canceled for the remainder of the day, and a football game to be held the following Friday evening was also canceled. (Thank you, Eileen Segal, for this anecdote. Readers are invited to contribute anecdotes; con®dentiality will be preserved when requested.)
ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
5
1074-9098/02/$22.00 PII S1074-9098(02)00303-9
M
ore often than should be the case, small ``make it in the garage'' industries tend to dismiss as not really all that important the warnings on the labels of the hazardous chemicals they use in their processing. This attitude is reinforced when the warnings on packaged hazardous chemicals are printed using ink that is almost the same color as the color of the paper sack containing the hazardous chemical. Consider this example involving the hazards of the respirable dust from silica sand. There is a rather large and pro®table market in the refurbishing of used of®ce equipment. Most small refurbishing businesses in this market employ sand blasting to remove the old coating residues from used metal ®le cabinets and other metal of®ce furniture prior to recoating the furniture surfaces and providing other refurbishing details in preparation for resale. Typically, these small businesses operate under limited economic restraints. The cost of a properly designed blasting booth is outside the range of their budget. Likewise, the bill for constructing and installing appropriate hoods is too large to bear. Even the cost of suitable respirators, plus the associated employee physical exams, to say nothing of the costs of maintenance of the respirators, is out of the question. Thus, one can only imagine their response when a salesperson from the local supply warehouse suggested that they use a ``SILICA-FREE'' blasting sand, which was not only non-hazardous but also was far cheaper than the standard blasting sand they had been using. The magic sand turned out to be ``Kiddie Play Sand.'' It was a washed low-grade sand. Upon cursory examination, the paper bags containing the sand exhibited no hazard warnings, so both the purchaser and the salesperson had assumed it to be silica-free, and therefore, non-hazardous. However, closer examination of the paper bags disclosed a warning notice that the sand was not to be used for blasting, industrial, or construction purposes. This notice was almost invisible, printed in a pale orange-tinted ink in a font so small as to be almost illegible. Apparently, the salesperson had convinced these small business proprietors, and many of their competitors in nearby communities as well, that this magic sand was the answer to their sand blasting problems. Sales ®gures were for pallet-sized orders, not for a few bags at a time. Fortunately, it now appears that all involved are aware of the hazards in sand blasting the paint off of used of®ce furniture and, biting their bullets, have been able to assume the costs of doing it right.
(We thank Mary Ann Solstad, CIH, for this anecdote.) EVERYONE DOES IT, SO IT MUST BE SAFE
``It's a routine experiment,'' the county school superintendent said. ``Everyone in the county does it and no one ever got hurt before!'' This time the toll included seven burned students, four of the victims were taken to the hospital, three remained overnight, and the fourth one was in critical condition with second and third degree burns over a substantial fraction of his body surfaces. The chemistry instructor had majored in education as an undergraduate and had at one time been enrolled in a beginning chemistry course, but had dropped out after a few weeks of exposure. She was a new teacher, following the written notes left by her predecessor. Those notes were skimpy, and did not include any safety instruction or warnings. The procedure itself involved the preparation of a few milliliter sized solutions of various metallic salts (NaCl, KCl, Ca-(NO3)2, etc.) in methyl alcohol. There were no warnings on the methyl alcohol container. It was a 1-L glass-stoppered bottle labeled ``MeOH.'' The accident occurred when the instructor was conducting a ¯ame-color demonstration as a means of identifying metallic ions in solution. The class was mixed, consisting of 23 students, mostly juniors, with a few sophomores and seniors; all seated a few feet away from the demonstration desk. The demonstration consisted of dipping a loop of chromel wire into a test solution and then holding the captured drop of solution in the ¯ame of an alcohol burner (presumably the burner was fueled with methyl alcohol). There was no guard or shield between the students and the demonstration materials. No one, not even the instructor, was wearing any protective equipment, not even safety goggles. Police from the town, and ®re department equipment from the town and from three nearby towns responded. The un-injured students and about 30 students in an adjacent classroom were decontaminated. Each student was required to shower, using soap and water, and to don new clothing. The clothing that the students had been wearing was put in plastic bags, sealed, and sent off for decontamination. Classes for the entire school were canceled for the remainder of the day, and a football game to be held the following Friday evening was also canceled. (Thank you, Eileen Segal, for this anecdote. Readers are invited to contribute anecdotes; con®dentiality will be preserved when requested.)
ß Division of Chemical Health and Safety of the American Chemical Society Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
5