Sometimes people claim over safety features. Imagine a Computational researcher with Lab-Coat and Safety Goggles.
IF a Safety Protocol has been established, it means that either a real danger has been expected or an accident causing harm has already occurred somewhere! Anyone CAN "ignore" any safety protocol at any time. They do so at their own peril of harm as well as potential harm to others or environments. Enforcement of following any protocol or regulation is another matter. There should be constant and valid communication amongst all stakeholders to understand the risks and benefits of any action.
I think we should not ignore Laboratory Safety Protocol, not only in present covid situation but in normal lab working.
Steven Cooke and Ravindra Rambhau Navthar
You raise valid points. Although, safety parameters are of utmost importance, but I think under some circumstances we have to ignore.
For COVID, not at all but if you see, there are numerous side-effects on health are observed in medical team.
I think that you misunderstand the evolution and practice of safety parameters, Omkar Singh Kushwaha ! They are not necessarily immutable! HOWEVER, IF there is a reason to change or discontinue one, it MUST be based on good science and safety! Now, as with COVID, there may be EXCESSIVE "protocols" but in place during a time of little knowledge and too much panic. They are often "left in place" because it seems easier, or even possibly prudent. Your argument to remove/reduce them on further evidence is exactly correct! But in terms of the safety and practice that MUST also be done as part of the change process, based on new information and evidence.
Following that, we again need to deal with individual and corporate differences in risk assessment! It is easy to always take the most extreme case if related collateral issues do not affect you. But, that is NOT good leadership (a different problem?). That also follows a chain of responsibility. If I am NOT someone who wants you to be "responsible" for ME, then YOUR regulations to NOT apply to me.
In no circumstances. Safety is first. It may be ignored if more lives are at stake.
Steven Cooke
You pointed out correctly.
If mouth to mouth respiration is required, one has to remove the mask!!!
Omkar Singh Kushwaha - one thing to always keep in mind is that ultimately, SAFETY is every INDIVIDUAL's responsibility!! It is not the Supervisor, the Company, or the State that can protect you. They can only assist and enable. For example, you may laud them if you like, BUT even emergency responders (I've been one) are NOT required in any way to endanger themselves just to attempt a rescue of someone else. We do have special respiration shields for rescue breathing on anyone whose medical condition we do not know. Even then, it is OUR decision and risk-assessment that decides whether we attempt a rescue or not.
I do support two National Laboratories in performance assurance. Yes, there is always the lament by researchers that "all the safety people do is prevent me from doing my experiments". I do find a few case studies to be helpful in convincing folks that safety is indeed there to save their experiment, and their life! Here is a good example: https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/07/report-uh-lab-explosion-reveals-deep-systemic-safety-failures
" Fundamental to the lapses that led to the explosion, the recommendations section of the report finds, were “serious deficiencies in the institution’s approach to laboratory safety, [especially the] lack of a culture of safety.”
Steven Prevette Steven Cooke
Great set of examples and reference. Thank you.
Do you think that sometimes the over-use of such equipment may cause serious health issues ? Just like the masks we use against the toxic gases needed to be removed every 15-20 minutes.
It is true that in a high heat and humidity environment, outfitting a person doing welding with heavy protective suit may trade one risk for another. We've got to be smart enough to find those tradeoffs. And we should look to remove risks - like why would we send someone into an environment with toxic gases without engineering protections such as do it in a glovebox (in the nuclear world, we are very adept at glovebox work.
Related to what Steven Prevette mentioned, the safety design sequence should be 1) Inherent safety 2) Engineered safety 3) Procedural Safety 4) Personal Awareness. The level of safety decreases with each step. Depending on individuals to simply avoid unsafe conditions (without stopping work) is the least effective. ALWAYS start with a review/redesign of the system/materials to make them as inherently safe as possible.
In my extensive corporate experience I have found that the major conflict is between profit and safety - driven primarily by senior management with little understanding of the real VALUE of SAFE operations. "Cutting corners" and even ignoring safety requirements (STILL and 'individual' choice!) is usually driven by a concern of getting something done more quickly - never mind if you won't live to see it. If there is more of a sense of supervisors and managers being concerned with SAFETY FIRST than one of Time is Money the minor delays that might be caused by doing it RIGHT and SAFE the FIRST time will be easily acceptable and incorporated into a better attitude and performance by the workers.
Dear RG Members,
Please follow the updates about the Nobel Prizes on this link:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Nobel-Prize-2
Don't forget to give your feedback/recommendations.
Regards, OSK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Public Health