I thought I would share this. While it is a terrible accident and horrible for all involved, hopefully it does not lead to further conservatism in
school science in Australia like j_sum1 has experienced in recent history. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/21/child...
I have tried this experiment myself as a demonstration with kids, opting for it as a safer version of the sulfuric acid dehydration of sugar reaction.
I struggle to see how it could have gone so wrong.....
The only thing I can conceive is that the wind picked the whole experiment up and dumped flaming fuel on the kids.
[edit] Link formatting fixed.
[Edited on 24-11-2022 by j_sum1]j_sum1 - 23-11-2022 at 18:22
To my mind, this should be a relatively simple demonstration to manage risks. I have done it numerous times and it pretty much crawls along. I can
only guess that either too much accelerant was used and/or there was an open container of flammable liquid that spilled and sprayed by the wind. It
is possible that an unsuitable accelerant was used also. I have done it with methylated spirits (95% ethanol). I can imagine it going badly wrong if
something more energetic and volatile such as petrol was used.
Standard safety procedures that i would employ:
Do not have students downwind.
Keep spectators at a distance of several metres.
Use a sensible small scale and only the necessary amount of flammable liquid.
Cap the accelerant container and remove it from the area before igniting anything.
Do the whole experiment on a metal tray filled with sand.
Another possibility is that burning icing sugar was picked up by the wind. But again, this would not have been an issue if (a) it had been done at
small scale (b) the amount of accelerant was kept small (c) the appropriate amount of sodium bicarbonate was used and the mixture was properly mixed
(d) the students were watching from a safe distance and were not downwind. Any one of these would have prevented an accident like the one described. Sulaiman - 23-11-2022 at 19:09
My first question would be ;
Did the demonstrator practice this trick before exposing others to hazards
and do a risk assessment?
If not then there should be criminal negligence charges. j_sum1 - 23-11-2022 at 21:33
My first question would be ;
Did the demonstrator practice this trick before exposing others to hazards
and do a risk assessment?
If not then there should be criminal negligence charges.
Speaking as someone who works within the education system in Aus...
My guess is that the teacher was following a procedure for which a risk assessment had been prepared but may not have actually trialled it.
There is a possibility that it was scaled up. There is a possibility that the teacher did not follow the procedure correctly: for example incorrect
quantities or incomplete mixing. There is a possibility that the procedure was vague or misaligned to the risk assessment.
It is really difficult to do anything with students without a risk assessment. The systems usually require RA paperwork for everything: even stepping
onto a school bus. I would say it is extremely unlikely that RA was not done in this case.
But here's the rub.
The paperwork on Every.Darned.Thing can actually be counterproductive. Risk assessments get prepared, recycled, reused, added to. The sheer volume
means they are not always read carefully. The over-the-top detail and excessive caution means that it is easy to skip steps. They easily lose
alignment with the actual activity, which, combined with the recycling leads to over-familiarity and complacency, again with the propensity to skip
sections. There are often sections or instructions included for completeness but completely irrelevant in a particular instance.
Another thing to consider here is that the response and media reporting is not always a good indicator of the extent of what happened. I personally
had a situation where a student had a laceration in a gardening accident -- an injury that required antiseptic, a single stitch and a tetanus shot.
Attending the scene was an ambulance with two staff, a fire truck with another three staff and the jaws of life. The activity was shut down for 20+
students for the remaining 90 minutes. I am not saying any of this was unnecessary. But looking at the reported data can quickly lead to a wrong
conclusion on the severity of the situation. If I was to guess, the majority of the affected students could have been treated with cold running water
as you do for burns, but were shipped off to hospital for a thorough check-up anyway.
As for the legal implications and criminal charges. It really would depend on the circumstances. Probably the school would feel the heat from the
various occupational health agencies. The teacher would feel the heat from the school. Likely there would be a supervised overhaul or at least audit
of the school's risk management systems and paperwork (possibly with increased complexity and obfuscation of the actual risks). For the individual
teacher it is unlikely that criminal charges would be pursued unless there was deliberate flouting of an explicit instruction. Rather than criminal
charges, it is more likely that the teacher would come under disciplinary action from withing the education system -- a slippery slope from which it
is hard to recover. Which means, even if it was a genuine accident where the teacher did nothing wrong, it could be the end of a career either due to
being deregistered or just because the pressure became too much.
I hate bureaucracy. And risk management bureaucracy is among the worst -- in spite of its good intentions. Systems can become so unwieldy that the
documentation and management lose connection with the true spectrum of risks: either overemphasising the risk, underemphasising the risk (rare) or
misrepresenting a risk when something is changed.numos - 23-11-2022 at 23:48
I unfortunately have to agree with jsum. I've always kind of assumed it to be an unspoken rule that the excessive bureaucracy in safety is to protect
people legally in the case of an accident, not actually prevent an accident or protect victims from injury.
Maybe academia has given me that impression, and it may be an unfair judgement of how things are in industry or other settings. Herr Haber - 26-11-2022 at 23:51
My guess is that the teacher was following a procedure for which a risk assessment had been prepared but may not have actually trialled it.
There is a possibility that it was scaled up.
Reading the article I wondered if the mentioned burns were chemical or fire in nature. Maybe I should read again.
But back to what you are saying, I must have been 14 or 15 when the teacher introduced us to reduction reactions with thermite.
Of course, I was in the first row and my notobook received a few iron droplets...
The teacher was a good competent one, I am certain she followed procedures to the letter. I'm not saying that because she liked me, she did. Fun part:
translated to English her name would be Ms Blowtorch.
Since then, I've seen firsthand the impact of granulometry and particle geometry on the speed of a reaction. Maybe my teacher used a much finer grade
Al or Fe2O3 than required.metalresearcher - 27-11-2022 at 03:19
Doing such experiments (I do such as well, like Thermite, etc) requires, which I do:
* Do it outdoors
* Keep a safe distance (> 2 meters)
* Wear a face shield and gloves
* When toxic gases are released, use a respirator as well, with only dust release use a face mask
* Keep spectators (in my case, my girlfriend) at an even greater distance and upwind
* Perform on a large tile or brick
