|
Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble
Photo by J. J. Jacobsen and E. K. Jacobsen
Initiating Proactive Safety Leadership
In the December 2000 issue, a section of this column titled "Safety: First and Always" mentioned the hazards associated with a classroom demonstration described in the issue. Between then and this month's column, two chemical accidents that occurred when demonstrations went awry in schools were reported in the regional or national media. According to a newspaper report, one occurred in an advanced placement chemistry class during a demonstration of flame color of ionic salts in burning methanol. The other occurred during a "whoosh" bottle demonstration by igniting methanol vapor in a glass carboy. Students were injured in both accidents, and fortunately there were no fatalities.
The two accidents have been discussed at length on Internet discussion forums and it is not my intent to further analyze or criticize. Instead, it is to encourage you to take a proactive stance and initiate local action by working to be certain that colleagues in your school and in area schools understand the risks and take necessary precautions when performing demonstrations or conducting laboratory instruction. Regular readers of this Journal or other periodicals for high school teachers probably are well aware of the hazards of the whoosh bottle demonstration
and of burning methanol or ethanol. A detailed analysis of reaction conditions and container failure was published in the August 1999 issue of JCE (1) and an account of a fatality resulting from spilled ethanol was provided in the November 2000 issue
(2). However, some teachers do not regularly read chemistry-oriented periodicals. The whoosh bottle demonstration was being performed in a middle school classroom. The teacher may have been unaware of the hazard, but without detailed knowledge of the accident, we don't know for sure.
As a knowledgeable chemistry teacher, you have an opportunity to share information with fellow teachers. In many districts it may be practical to provide inservice training on conducting safe demonstrations and laboratory activities. And while this may not be practical in very large districts, individual conversations about safety with even one fellow teacher may prevent a serious accident. One can argue that even if fellow teachers do not regularly read relevant periodicals or attend science-teacher-oriented conferences and workshops, there is ample
information available in catalogs. Perhaps that is true, but school accidents continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate.
Never doubt that one individual's action can make a tremendous difference. As an example, Cliff Schrader, then a high school chemistry teacher in Summit County, Ohio, took responsibility for removing hazardous chemicals from a storeroom he "inherited" when he took the position. His quest for rational, safe methods of resolving the problem eventually led to the development, under his leadership, of the statewide Ohio Hazardous Waste Removal Program (3). His initiative further led to service as a chair of the Safety Committee of the Division of Chemical Education (CHED) of the American Chemical Society. Other high school teachers in many places have shared their concern and knowledge about safety through regional and statewide meetings. At whatever level available, it is critical that we each take action today.
Hindsight Is 20:20
After an accident occurs there tend to be a variety of responses from school administrators. One is to bring in an expert, who may have had high school teaching experience but more likely has not, to conduct an inservice session on safety. This can be very valuable and the chemical education community is fortunate to have some very articulate and knowledgeable safety experts. However, even the best lessons are quickly forgotten. A better approach is through frequent contact as a reminder of the importance of safety, and through spontaneous discussions of safe ways to achieve a learning objective.
Another type of response is to sharply curtail laboratory inquiries and classroom demonstrations. Eliminating or reducing inquiry-oriented laboratory experience is contrary to what is known from research about how students learn science. This understanding is reflected in
The National Science Education Content Standards, which calls for more emphasis on inquiry, not less. Two interesting examples of apparent lack of personal experience in the laboratory on the part of the reporter appeared in the news reports of the whoosh bottle incident. It was reported that the students were injured by flying glass from an "exploding 10 gallon beaker" and that the teacher was attempting to "separate methanol into methane and water". It should be noted that a later report described the vessel as a "7-gallon bottle".
While it may not be crucial that a journalist be able to distinguish between a beaker and a bottle, a conceptual misunderstanding of such a common chemical reaction as combustion is a more serious matter, at least to me. A curriculum altered out of a knee-jerk response to an
accident that in turn offers less hands-on manipulation and less variety of sensory experience certainly does not bode well for the future of science teaching and learning. So consider proactive leadership among your peers, locally and as far as you wish to take it. And remember to read this month's Accident Anecdote, "Someone Thought It Was Grape Juice!".
Literature Cited
- Fortman, J. J.; Rush, A. C.; Stamper, J. E.
J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1092.
- Young, J. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1488.
- Schrader, Clifford L. CHED Newslett. 2000, Fall, 12.
|
Citation
