Cheerleading Can Be Brain Damaging

This next story is about a cheerleader who suffered a head injury, then continued to suffer seizures and later underwent surgery to remove a part of her brain in hopes it would stop the seizures. Cheerleader Has Part of Brain Removed to Stop Seizures - AOL Health Cheerleader Has Part of Brain Removed to Stop Seizures By Catherine Donaldson-Evans Feb 25th 2011 11:45AM

Iowans Taking to the Slopes Need a Ski or Snowboarding Helmet

Join me today to learn how to fit a ski helmet to your head. They are also part of your safety equipment while snowboarding. Scott Condon of the Post Independent out of Aspen, Colorado wrote a nice article about what they are seeing in Aspen Colorado with the increased use of ski helmets and which demographic seems to be resisting the movement towards protecting your bean.

Brain Injuries Can Cause An Otherwise Normal Person to Commit Crimes

How many people have TBI?

TBIs contribute to a substantial number of deaths and cases of permanent disability annually.

Of the 1.4 million who sustain a TBI each year in the United States:

• 50,000 die;
• 235,000 are hospitalized; and
• 1.1 million are treated and released from an emergency department.¹

Among children ages 0 to 14 years, TBI results in an estimated:

• 2,685 deaths;
• 37,000 hospitalizations; and
• 435,000 emergency department visits annually.¹

The number of people with TBI who are not seen in an emergency department or who receive no care is unknown.

For more information about TBI in the United States, including the groups at highest risk, CDC’s surveillance activities, and the numbers of TBI cases in each state, see Overview.

On September 23, 2009, Bruce Mundy, riding a motorcycle was allegedly struck by Santos Vidal Rodriguez, age 26 who is reported to have been driving an SUV, according to the Des Moines Register. Santos Rodriguez and his brother Orlando David Rodriguez, age 23 left the Casey’s on Park Ave. allegedly without paying for $27 worth of gas. Both brothers are charged with second-degree robbery as well as vehicular homicide. Their Class C felony could result in up to 10 years in prison. If drugs or alcohol are found in the drug tests, which are still being run they could have up to 25 years in prison. It is being speculated whether Santos Rodriguez will be charged with an alleged role in the 1999 shootout in Des Moines (mentioned in the previous blog). Stay tuned for updates.

If this is true how does anyone make sense out of $27 worth of gas being worth the risk and all the damage it can cause? All I can say to those stealing gas, get a job. And don't tell me you can't find one. Make one by creating a business, mowing lawns, plowing snow, cleaning houses or offices; just work. The driver of the motorcycle has a HUGE civil lawsuit against the driver and probably the passenger who is alleged to be an accomplice in a criminal act that led to an accident and death of another person. I wonder if the driver was married and had dependent children.

Now all of that said there is a component to this case that will surely be explored in the criminal case: The driver's previous traumatic brain injury and whether it's caused a change in personality involving a lack of inhibition. That lack of inhibition is what can cause seemingly law abiding people to behave in ways contrary to the criminal laws. After a brain injury a person can have two types of changes: personality changes and a lower cognitive functioning. If someone you know suffers a head injury and then exhibits irrational behavior they may need evaluation and treatment.

Did this driver suffer a brain injury and a change in behavior? That's the question the defense team will have to explore.

 

University of Iowa injury study is flawed; at least as it concerns TBI's and head injuries

A University of Iowa study examined data causing personal injury to Iowans between 2002 and 2006. Today we examine the findings regarding helmet versus not wearing a helmet while riding on a motorcycle.  Those not wearing a helmet are 2.3 times more likely to suffer traumatic brain injury than riders with helmets.  Average hospital charges were 1.5 times greater for those who were involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet.

The riders without helmets suffered more severe injuries. Eleven percent suffered moderate traumatic brain injury as opposed to six percent for those wearing a helmet.  That is an increase of 1.8 percent greater TBI without a helmet.

Following a motorcycle crash the rider with a helmet can expect 17 out of every hundred to suffer a TBI. As contrasted with non-helmeted riders having 32 TBI’s out of every 100 accidents. That is a 1.9 times higher rate of TBI’s for those not wearing a helmet.

I’m critical of this study because TBI and head injury were not defined and there isn’t really a good way of measuring the extent of TBI. First what is a head injury and what is traumatic brain injury? All head injuries do not result in traumatic brain injury. In the case of motorcycle accidents and wrecks a head injury is simply injury to the head. A traumatic brain injury is trauma to the head that results in a brain injury.  If I knocked your head with my hand you have suffered a head injury. But you don’t have traumatic brain injury. What criteria did they use would be important to know.  Without this information the findings are not very useful.

This story is also covered by Radio Iowa.

Motorcycle helmets still a choice in Illinois

The Illinois Senate has rejected a mandatory helmet plan for those riding on a motorcycle. This is one of the more frivolous legislative efforts by the State of Illinois Legislature. The research on traumatic brain injury (head injury and TBI) proves just how foolish it is to allow those riding motorcycles to do so without a helmet.

Iowa, Illinois and New Hampshire continue to allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets. Iowa dn Illinois should know better. New Hampshire is just trying to live up to its state motto: Live Free or Die. Yeah I suspect they are doing just that on New Hampshire highways.

Failing to pass a mandatory helmet law is really an amazing feat. When you consider the states suffering financial hardship and wanting to decrease medical care expenses for the various state and federal programs; having no helmet law is incredibly irresponsible. This is legislative short sighted pandering to a few motorcycle riders who shouldn’t have any clout with the legislature.

I could see failing to pass a mandatory helmet law if there was a higher insurance requirement for anyone not wanting to wear a helmet. But there isn’t in Iowa. Iowa law doesn’t require a person to have private health insurance or medical pay coverage on their auto policy. Casualty insurance limits are a paltry $20,000 per person, $40,000 per accident and $15,000 for property destroyed. ( Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law – 321A.1(11) That law hasn’t changed since January 1, 1983.

Iowa Code – Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility

321A.1  Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall, for the purposes of this chapter, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section, except in those instances where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

 

….

 

11.  Proof of financial responsibility.  Proof of ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of the proof, arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, in amounts as follows:  With respect to accidents occurring on or after January 1, 1981, and prior to January 1, 1983, the amount of fifteen thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and, subject to the limit for one person, the amount of thirty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and the amount of ten thousand dollars because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident; and with respect to accidents occurring on or after January 1, 1983, the amount of twenty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and, subject to the limit for one person, the amount of forty thousand dollars because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and the amount of fifteen thousand dollars because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.

And the costs of a motorcycle accident without a helmet increase the chances of suffering traumatic brain injury. The University of Iowa just completed a study.

JAMA -- Abstract: Motorcycle helmet-use laws and head injury ...

Motorcyclists live Better longer: Prevent traumatic Brain ...

Add increased deer population and the single motorcycle collisions become a fact of life. Throw in some alcohol and the numbers increase further. Then there are driving distractions of the other drivers choosing. There are distractions involving GPS navigation, DVD players, cell phones, text messaging along with iPods. Each of these electronic devices can and do cause driver distraction.  Children cause distractions and the risks of not seeing a motorcycle and striking one increase further. Fault aside the risks of being in a motorcycle accident are far and away one of the most dangerous of all motor vehicle collisions.

Motorcycles and Deer Don't Mix in Iowa, S.Lombardi September 24, 2007

I have no intention of standing on a soap box to preach individual freedoms like most personal injury lawyers will do. I like my clients too much to pander to popular opinion just to get a few personal injury cases. If as a rider you’re angry with me for taking the opposing view than you aren’t being realistic about the risks of injury.

Iowa Motorcycle Helmet Law - A Choice To Protect Your Brain, S. Lombardi August 21, 2008

Helmets are a proven, low cost and effective way of combating brain damage. If the legislature won’t step in then riders need to protect themselves and voluntarily wear a helmet.

2. Motorcycle helmets

Countermeasure	Effectiveness	Use	Cost	Time
2.1 State motorcycle helmet use laws	Proven	Medium	Low	Short
2.2 Helmet law enforcement; noncompliant helmets	Unknown	Unknown	Low	Medium
2.3 Helmet use promotion programs	Unknown	Low	Varies	Medium

Yamaha's Rhino unsafe and recalled, in Iowa

Yamaha Motor Corp. issued a recall of more than 120,000 Yahama Rhino ATVs today. All Rhino 450 and 660 model vehicles are being recalled for repairs intended to prevent accidents that have resulted in 46 confirmed deaths and hundreds of injuries. These Yamaha Rhinos suffer from inherent design flaws that make them unstable and susceptible to low-speed rollovers. 

We handle these types of claims for people in Iowa who have been injured as a result of riding on a Rhino ATV. Call us if you have questions or need representation.

Teen drivnig decisions – turning a night of fun into a lifetime of sorrow

Here is the 2004 Hyundai Elantra being crash tested in what is called the “frontal offset test”. Siimply stated they crash head-on into a fixed object (it won’t move) off to one side of the car. What you may find interesting is the problem identified with the airbag being deployed. It was late in two tests exposing the driver and passengers to a greater risk of head trauma and brain damage. A second problem was with the fuel tank being punctured by a hose clamp, cauing fuel to leak after the collision.

 

I don’t like this vehicle due to the higher incidence of head injuries possible because the head can hit the steering wheel even though the airbag has deployed. That’s not a good thing. If you’ve never met someone with a head injury you should. If every teenager had the opportunity to visit an institution where head injured survivors, yes we call them survivors, they might think more about the consequences of what they are about to do when behind the wheel.

 

Traumatic brain injuries are unforgiving. Brain damage makes it so you can’t figure out what to do next. Nothing seems to work right. Your whole life is changed. While in Argentina recently The Lookout was on the television.  A teenagers life is explicably changed when driving with his girlfriend and other teens down a dark country road for a thrill he turns off the lights of the car. Switching them back on they are surprised to see a combine broken down in the middle of the road. Crashing into the combine leaves them all hospitalized. The girlfriend loses her leg and the driver suffers terrible brain damage. The story is about the difficulties he experiences trying to cope with his lower IQ and behavior changes. I’ve got think that even the doctors and staff at the neuropsych  unit in Iowa City would determine there is some brain damage in this guy.  Well, then again maybe not. Have you teen sit down and watch this movie it’s a lesson about making teen driver’s making the right decisions and the consequences of doing otherwise.

The Lookout (2007)

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jeff Daniels Director: Scott Frank

Visit the Craig Hospital website and watch the head injury movie. It’s about traumatic brain injury that will forever change your life.

Teens, don’t be stupid protect your brain. I don’t care what someone dares you to do, think first and consider what your life will be like if you could no longer think, no longer had the patience to even text-message.  Life after brain damage can be like walking through your life in a haze.

Now back to this crash test. Do note that Hyundai has changed the design to accommodate both problems.

Hyundai Elantra
2004-06 models
FRONTAL OFFSET TEST

OVERALL EVALUATION: Good
Structure/safety cage Injury measures Restraints/dummy kinematics
Head/neck Chest Leg/foot, left Leg/foot, right
Good Acceptable Good Good Acceptable Good

Important: Frontal crash test ratings can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight.
Test details:

The Hyundai Elantra was redesigned for the 2001 model year. The Institute evaluated the 2001 Elantra and identified a problem with the airbag system. The driver frontal airbag fired late in two crashes resulting in high head injury measures.

All 2004 and later Elantra models have redesigned driver frontal airbags and all 2004 and later Elantras manufactured after August 2003 also include redesigned passenger frontal airbags (note: information about when a specific vehicle was manufactured is on the certification label typically affixed to the car on or near the driver door). At the request of Hyundai, the Institute agreed to test the 2004 Elantra with the redesigned airbag system.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has evaluated the crashworthiness of the 2004 Elantra with the redesigned driver and passenger airbags in three 40 mph frontal offset crash tests into deformable barriers. A fuel leak occurred in the first test. Hyundai identified a fuel hose clamp that was improperly positioned, which led to puncturing of the fuel tank during the crash. Hyundai has recalled the affected models to reposition the hose clamp. A second test was conducted to assess the effect of the fix.

In the second test, no fuel leakage occurred, but the driver frontal airbag failed to deploy. This led Hyundai to modify the frontal airbag deployment characteristics beginning with 2005 models produced after December, 2004. Also, Hyundai will initiate a recall to modify at its cost 2004-05 models produced earlier. The Institute tested a third Elantra with the modified airbags, and the driver airbag inflated properly.

The evaluation of the Elantra below is based on the first and third tests, except for the structural rating, which is based on all three tests.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled in the first test and well controlled in the third test. During rebound in both tests, the dummy's head hit the B-pillar.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the neck and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions in the first and third tests in a crash of this severity. A high head acceleration occurred when the dummy's head hit the steering wheel through the airbag, indicating that head injuries would be possible. Head acceleration from the B-pillar hit was high in the first test but low in the third test. Forces on the right tibia in the third test indicate that injuries to the lower leg would be possible.

 

Infant Safety: How mercury kills brain cells.

In an earlier blog post I covered mercury poison. In this post we cover by way of YouTube video how mercury kills the brain cells. There is a lot of controversy over dental fillings and vaccines having mercury and causing autism. I take no position on whether vaccines cause autism, but realistically the incidence of autism is increasing and parents have to make a personal decsion that is in the best interest of the infanct child.

How Mercury Kills the Brain: Autism

How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration, University of Calgary, Department of Physiology and Biophysics Faculty of Medicine.

Florida jury awards millions for death of police officer who suffered brain damage and died

Wrongful death award in Florida set by jury at $11.5 million dollars for loss of a police officer’s life. The defendant’s were the Florida Department of Transportation, William Russo and Natasha Russo. According the firms’ press release:

Officer "Oreo" Lorenzo, a highly decorated Police officer with the City of North Miami Beach Police Department, was driving westbound on Pines Boulevard in Pembroke Pines, Florida on July 2, 2004, when 18 year old Natasha Russo failed to stop at a stop sign and attempted to make a left turn eastbound on to Pines Boulevard, causing Officer Lorenzo to swerve to avoid a direct impact. As a result, his car swerved and tripped on the median curb, rolled over and slammed up against a Royal Palm tree within the median that crushed the roof of his police car and ejected him into the street. He sustained a serious head injury that resulted in his death a week later.

There is no indication whether post-trial motions have been filed by the defense.

Is your cheerleader better off with tort reform immunity statutes?

In the past few months the issue of Cheerleading dangers has been put to the forefront here and at InjuryBoard. In a Fox News video report the lawsuit between cheerleaders and the Wisconsin School District is explored.  

In this post let us examine the assumption that all tort reform is good, saves money for everyone and encourages participation in school activities.

I've sat in the stands at football games and basketball games watching the cheerleaders perform. Okay well maybe I don't always watching the moves but sometimes I do. What may seem like an exciting cheer move can, if the acrobatic move goes bad, lead to ruin for all involved. At a Drake Basketball game a season or two ago one aerobatic move resulted in the cheerleader hitting the floor extremely hard when the base missed catching her. It stunned the crowd waiting to see if she could get up or would be taken out on a stretcher. In that case she got up and was lead to a chair to get her wits together. The moves these cheerleaders are doing should be a concern to every parent whose child participates in sports, but especially in Wisconsin.

Here is what I mean by this. Let's say five Iowa State, University of Iowa or Drake University Cheerleaders, both male and female, are involved in a move where one small young lady is tossed into the air. If the move fails and the young lady lands on her knee, shoulder, spine, neck or head and injuring herself catastrophically, who pays for the costs of medical care and rehabilitation? What parents have to ask themselves is if the young lady is their child or if the students at the base are their children, who can get sued and how will the hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for the injured young woman be covered?

What parents have to ask themselves is if the young lady is their child or if the students at the base are their children, who can get sued and how will the hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for the injured young woman be covered?

In this Wisconsin case Brittany Noffke, and Kevin Bakke, both cheerleaders were told by the instructor to practice a move in the hallway. While executing the move Noffke's head came into contact with the tile floor resulting in a cracked skull.

Wisconsin law prohibits participants in contact sports from suing each other for unintentional injuries.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering the question of whether cheering is (under the Wisconsin statute) considered to be a contact sport. Seem like an odd question to you? If you can't believe that anyone would consider cheering a "contact sport", think about the contact between the cheerleaders head and the floor. Wasn’t that contact? In essence the Court will decide what type of contact was contemplated by the legislature.  Contact with the floor or contact between cheerleaders may not be contact at all under this Wisconsin law.  The statute doesn't list those sports the legislature wanted to be included as contact sports. So what is a contact sport in Wisconsin? And in this instance it may not be the right kind of contact. You may be lead to ask the question: So contact may not be contact?

Is volleyball, wrestling, track and field, soccer, chess, badminton or golf contact sports?

Well one has to consider what the legislature intended to mean when it wrote the contact sport statute. What is sport and what is intended contact? Contact with anything, including the floor or contact with just opponents? In this case the Plaintiff doesn't want cheering to be a contact sport, because then she can't sue to recover for costs of mending a cracked skull. The Defendant does want cheering to be a "contact sport", because then he gets immunity. The Court of Appeals Of Wisconsin ruled in favor of the  Plaintiff when it ruled that cheering isn't a contact sport.  The Court also ruled that the school district is immune from suit. According to that ruling the kid who did what he was told by the cheer coach can get sued but the adult coach can't be sued.

Not all tort reform is fair, equitable and for some it doesn’t save money.

Is this fair? Let's see, kid does what instructor tells him to do, the way the instructor told him and in the location where he was told to do it - he gets sued for doing it wrong and in a location where there was no mat and his parents get to sit through depositions while the teacher gets to go to practice. Certainly Kevin’s family won't be encouraged to allow participation in this "non-contact sport" in the future. He'll be playing chess for the next three years. Certainly not golf because it includes steel shafted clubs and hard-as-a-rock balls. Not tennis because of the titanium metal rackets and 100+ mph serves that can take out an eye. And forget doubles because two players on the same side of the net could easily strike each other with a racket or collide and tear an ACL. Volleyball probably isn't probably a contact sport either, although it's out due to spiking the ball into a players face. Do they have competitive typing in Wisconsin?

Most tort deform, I mean reform (sorry) goes like this: Okay if we take away the right to sue it's gotta be good for everyone involved. Right? Wrong!

The Appeal Court sided with the Plaintiff saying because cheerleading doesn't involve contact between opponents it's not a contact sport as intended by the statute. Which means Brittany and her parents can sue Kevin. The Supreme Court is considering whether it interprets the statute the same and the Court of Appeal's decision that Brittany can't sue the school. The Court of Appeals found the Spirit Rules are not laws or regulations that apply to the School District and it's staff.  The Spirit Rules were never adopted by the school district and therefore can not be used to establish negligence; with regard to proper training or spotting. So while coaches may abide by the rules, or not abide by them, in the end in Wisconsin they get to walk away from responsibility for their lack of oversight. Meanwhile Kevin and his parents, along with their homeowner's insurance company, assuming they had insurance, get to defend this pimply faced kid who was doing what he was told to do by the adult supervisor.

Later today I'll publish the entire decision here at InjuryBoard along with the Wisconsin Supreme Court oral argument announcement of October 8, 2008.

And we wonder why this next generation is confused?

I bet the Wisconsin legislature intended to encourage participation through immunity to participants of contact sports. Or the legislature intended to at least take away any disincentives. But in reality the way tort reformed immunity works is at odds with the idea of what tort reform does. Tort reform is intended to save everyone money and to encourage participation in doing things society wishes to encourage.

Does immunity encourage participation? Not from Kevin’s standpoint.

Does immunity save everyone money? No, because all the Kevin’s who participate in any sport whether it’s considered contact or non-contact need to be insured with both an umbrella liability policy that covers catastrophic injury to anther and health, life and disability insurance policies that cover their own child’s risk of injury while participating in school sports. Instead of the school district carrying one policy and covering all participants, every parent in the district that can afford one and cares about their child’s economic future need to purchase insurance coverage.

Does this type of tort reform make sense? No, not if you’re the one who might get sued. Yes from the standpoint of selling insurance it works very well; because you get to sell a lot more policies.

The real assumption made in all tort deform is this: I or my family will never be injured and need the civil justice system to help me.

Assumption number two: If I get sued I don’t care if I was right or wrong, I just don’t want to be responsible.

What does make sense? We have kids who are just trying to get good grades and go on to college while staying active and learning to be well rounded adults. Their parents want them to participate and to know kids are safe; or, when they are injured that the school district will take responsibility or at least have some insurance to assist with taking care of medical costs. In this instance the cost of participating in this non-contact sport that participation lead to a cracked skull is shoved all onto another kid and his family. Kevin and his family get to shoulder the burden. If the school district had one policy covering everyone and said if each acts reasonably and not negligent they aren’t legally responsible then everyone saves money and participation is encouraged.

Tort reformers assume that without immunity everyone sues everyone for anything. And that’s just one more unfounded assumption created by the insurance industry that has resulted in selling more insurance. Adopting that kind of tort reform simply shifts the burden from those responsible for the injury to those who are injured. And in this instance, the Wisconsin contact sports immunity statute has muddied the water even more allowing the teacher a get-out-jail-free card while forcing parents to buy more liability insurance covering catastrophic injury.

Clear as mud right? I know we lawyers are terrible with talking in ways that lay people are too lazy to learn. So allow me to try in simple terms to help you understand how to protect yourselves.

Until people can get that thought through their heads let's consider what you can do to protect yourself.

1. Buy an umbrella policy that covers your child’s liability when participating in school activities.

2. Buy a disability policy that does the same.

3. Buy a health insurance policy with unlimited lifetime coverage.

School Safety: How to avoid being injured in the science laboratory

Megan wrote yesterday about science laboratory accidents that injure students. Her post Experiments in Education, discussed the danger for serious injury while conducting lab experiments. I was surprised how many students were injured in school labs. I went to high school from 1968 to 1972 at Bristol in High SchoolRhode Island. Back in the day, our labs were pretty basic. We horsed around and made it through without anyone getting seriously injured. I did like to experiment. I’d better leave it at that lest some parent take me to task for suggesting one more way a young student can get hurt.

Today I’d like to talk about student responsibilities and tomorrow the teachers. Remember these “responsibilities” are the foundation that creates a duty. And duty is one of our elements to be proven in any tort action. And a tort is that civil wrong or negligent act, where money damages can be sought.

NIOSH publishes a publication that teachers and students should all read at the beginning of the year. Every student and teacher should be familiar with it and what each other’s responsibilities are.  It’s titled “What are the Safety Do’s and Don’ts for Students?” This publication recognizes life threatening injuries can happen in the laboratory. That means serious burns, explosions, cuts from flying glass, lacerations from broken beakers, poisonings from ingesting or inhaling poisonous gas and a whole assortment of brain injuring events if things aren’t done right. So listen up, because your future may be at stake.

There is certain conduct you should not do.

There are certain procedures you should follow about the way you work together in the lab.

Housekeeping is important, meaning cleaning up after yourself and others. Keeping your work area neat and tidy is important. 

The way you dress and what you wear is important.

You should maintain a clean environment by washing your hands and maintaining an organized and clean work area. Don’t touch your face or eyes and heavens don’t be applying makeup while in the lab.

How you handle chemicals is important.

And, how you react when an accident does happen. You should know emergency procedures.

Below are the laboratory safety rules that if followed will help students remain safe, healthy and injury free. Read them and follow them for your own good.

Conduct

• Do not engage in practical jokes or boisterous conduct in the laboratory.
• Never run in the laboratory.
• The use of personal audio or video equipment is prohibited in the laboratory.
• The performance of unauthorized experiments is strictly forbidden.
• Do not sit on laboratory benches.

General Work Procedure

• Know emergency procedures.
• Never work in the laboratory without the supervision of a teacher.
• Always perform the experiments or work precisely as directed by the teacher.
• Immediately report any spills, accidents, or injuries to a teacher.
• Never leave experiments while in progress.
• Never attempt to catch a falling object.
• Be careful when handling hot glassware and apparatus in the laboratory. Hot glassware looks just like cold glassware.
• Never point the open end of a test tube containing a substance at yourself or others.
• Never fill a pipette using mouth suction. Always use a pipetting device.
• Make sure no flammable solvents are in the surrounding area when lighting a flame.
• Do not leave lit Bunsen burners unattended.
• Turn off all heating apparatus, gas valves, and water faucets when not in use.
• Do not remove any equipment or chemicals from the laboratory.
• Coats, bags, and other personal items must be stored in designated areas, not on the bench tops or in the aisle ways.
• Notify your teacher of any sensitivities that you may have to particular chemicals if known.
• Keep the floor clear of all objects (e.g., ice, small objects, spilled liquids).

Housekeeping

• Keep work area neat and free of any unnecessary objects.
• Thoroughly clean your laboratory work space at the end of the laboratory session.
• Do not block the sink drains with debris.
• Never block access to exits or emergency equipment.
• Inspect all equipment for damage (cracks, defects, etc.) prior to use; do not use damaged equipment.
• Never pour chemical waste into the sink drains or wastebaskets.
• Place chemical waste in appropriately labeled waste containers.
• Properly dispose of broken glassware and other sharp objects (e.g., syringe needles) immediately in designated containers.
• Properly dispose of weigh boats, gloves, filter paper, and paper towels in the laboratory.

Apparel in the Laboratory

• Always wear appropriate eye protection (i.e., chemical splash goggles) in the laboratory.
• Wear disposable gloves, as provided in the laboratory, when handling hazardous materials. Remove the gloves before exiting the laboratory.
• Wear a full-length, long-sleeved laboratory coat or chemical-resistant apron.
• Wear shoes that adequately cover the whole foot; low-heeled shoes with non-slip soles are preferable. Do not wear sandals, open-toed shoes, open-backed shoes, or high-heeled shoes in the laboratory.
• Avoid wearing shirts exposing the torso, shorts, or short skirts; long pants that completely cover the legs are preferable.
• Secure long hair and loose clothing (especially loose long sleeves, neck ties, or scarves).
• Remove jewelry (especially dangling jewelry).
• Synthetic finger nails are not recommended in the laboratory; they are made of extremely flammable polymers which can burn to completion and are not easily extinguished.

Hygiene Practices

• Keep your hands away from your face, eyes, mouth, and body while using chemicals.
• Food and drink, open or closed, should never be brought into the laboratory or chemical storage area.
• Never use laboratory glassware for eating or drinking purposes.
• Do not apply cosmetics while in the laboratory or storage area.
• Wash hands after removing gloves, and before leaving the laboratory.
• Remove any protective equipment (i.e., gloves, lab coat or apron, chemical splash goggles) before leaving the laboratory.

Emergency Procedure

• Know the location of all the exits in the laboratory and building.
• Know the location of the emergency phone.
• Know the location of and know how to operate the following:
  • Fire extinguishers
  • Alarm systems with pull stations
  • Fire blankets
  • Eye washes
  • First-aid kits
  • Deluge safety showers
• In case of an emergency or accident, follow the established emergency plan as explained by the teacher and evacuate the building via the nearest exit.

Chemical Handling

• Check the label to verify it is the correct substance before using it.
• Wear appropriate chemical resistant gloves before handling chemicals. Gloves are not universally protective against all chemicals.
• If you transfer chemicals from their original containers, label chemical containers as to the contents, concentration, hazard, date, and your initials.
• Always use a spatula or scoopula to remove a solid reagent from a container.
• Do not directly touch any chemical with your hands.
• Never use a metal spatula when working with peroxides. Metals will decompose explosively with peroxides.
• Hold containers away from the body when transferring a chemical or solution from one container to another.
• Use a hot water bath to heat flammable liquids. Never heat directly with a flame.
• Add concentrated acid to water slowly. Never add water to a concentrated acid.
• Weigh out or remove only the amount of chemical you will need. Do not return the excess to its original container, but properly dispose of it in the appropriate waste container.
• Never touch, taste, or smell any reagents.
• Never place the container directly under your nose and inhale the vapors.
• Never mix or use chemicals not called for in the laboratory exercise.
• Use the laboratory chemical hood, if available, when there is a possibility of release of toxic chemical vapors, dust, or gases. When using a hood, the sash opening should be kept at a minimum to protect the user and to ensure efficient operation of the hood. Keep your head and body outside of the hood face. Chemicals and equipment should be placed at least six inches within the hood to ensure proper air flow.
• Clean up all spills properly and promptly as instructed by the teacher.
• Dispose of chemicals as instructed by the teacher.
• When transporting chemicals (especially 250 mL or more), place the immediate container in a secondary container or bucket (rubber, metal or plastic) designed to be carried and large enough to hold the entire contents of the chemical.
• Never handle bottles that are wet or too heavy for you.
• Use equipment (glassware, Bunsen burner, etc.) in the correct way, as indicated by the teacher.

 

NIOSH Publication No. 2007-107