Deadly collections: Learning to see collection hazards more clearly

Tonight I attended “Deadly Collections: An ABC of Hazardous Collection Items,” presented by Emily Fryer and supported by National Services Te Paerangi. Around 30 participants joined the session, mostly conservators, for what was both a fascinating and sobering look at the hazards that can sit quietly within heritage collections.

The “ABC” format made the range of risks feel very real. We moved through examples including ammunition, picric acid in burns medical kits, canned food, mould, fire extinguishers, formaldehyde and fluid-preserved specimens, gas masks, heating elements, poisonous darts, fuel cans, knives and sharps, lacquerware, medical kits, cellulose nitrate photographic negatives, batteries, Paris green books, liquid mercury, radium dials, asbestos, pressurised devices, uranium, raw pigments, weighted silk, X-rated or traumatic content, taxidermied specimens, zippeite, and restricted drugs.

It was a powerful reminder that hazardous collection items are not rare exceptions. They are often familiar, historic, ordinary-looking things.

One of the strongest messages from Emily’s presentation was that it is a big ask for conservators to be across every possible hazard. These issues can sit at the intersection of chemistry, toxicology, radiation, medicine, law, cultural sensitivity, psychology, and workplace safety. Emily spoke about bringing health and safety specialists into the analysis, which felt like an important and reassuring point: conservators do not need to solve these questions alone.

The session also raised important concerns about vulnerable populations. Contaminated or hazardous materials may present different levels of risk to pregnant people, young people, immunocompromised staff, volunteers, visitors, and communities. That means hazard management is not just a technical exercise. It is a duty of care.

For me, one of the most useful takeaways was the idea that we do not need to invent a completely new health and safety world for collections. Most organisations already have systems for managing workplace risk in other areas, such as working at heights, manual handling, chemicals, or contractors. The challenge is to bring collection hazards into those existing structures.

A practical starting point is:

Determine what hazards might be present in the collection.
This might involve reviewing object types, materials, labels, acquisition histories, old treatments, storage areas, and known risk categories.

Identify the level of risk.
Not every hazardous material presents the same risk in every context. The condition of the object, likelihood of exposure, access, use, handling, storage, and who may come into contact with it all matter.

Label and educate colleagues.
A hazard that only one person knows about is not well managed. Clear labelling, internal guidance, and shared awareness are essential.

Store appropriately and limit access.
Safe storage, containment, segregation, ventilation, and controlled access can reduce risk while preserving the object and its information.

Develop training and resources.
Institutions can build internal capacity by creating simple decision trees, hazard registers, handling guidance, and escalation pathways.

The presentation also made me think about private practice studios. Large institutions may have dedicated health and safety teams, facilities staff, radiation officers, hazardous substance registers, and established policies. Private conservation studios often work with more limited infrastructure, but the risks do not disappear because the studio is small. In some ways, the challenge is sharper: how do we create proportionate, realistic systems that protect staff, clients, communities, and collections without becoming unworkable?

For private practice, the answer may be to keep systems simple but consistent. Record hazards as they are identified. Ask for object history before accepting work. Pause when something does not look or smell right. Build relationships with specialists. Know when to decline, quarantine, refer, or request further testing. Use the health and safety resources already available rather than assuming collection hazards sit outside normal workplace processes.

Emily also touched on another area that deserves more attention: emotional and psychological harm. Some objects carry trauma. Some content is distressing. Some collection work asks people to repeatedly engage with violence, death, medical trauma, racism, or other forms of harm. These risks may be less visible than asbestos or mercury, but they still need to be recognised and managed.

I left the session thinking about the many complex decisions hidden inside apparently straightforward questions. How do you balance research value, cultural significance, legal obligations, staff safety, and future care?

There is rarely a single answer. But there is a clear process: identify the hazard, understand the risk, seek the right expertise, document the decision, and make sure people are protected.

“Deadly Collections” was an excellent reminder that conservation is not only about preserving materials. It is also about caring for the people who work with, hold knowledge of, and inherit responsibility for those materials. Some hazards are obvious. Others are quiet, historic, and easily overlooked. Our job is to learn how to see them.

Thank you to all of the panel speakers and to Emily for presenting such valuable information!