Standards at the Scene: Protecting First Responders

Whether at the scene of a crime or a natural disaster, first responders are on the front line, protecting and serving. But who protects those who protect us? Standards provide help when disaster strikes.

Detective Tom Nolan, Montgomery County Detective Bureau, and 2025 ASTM Board Chair Cassy Robinson, join host Dave Walsh for a discussion of the standards that help keep firefighters, police officers, and EMTs safe.

Follow Us

• Twitter @ASTMIntl
• Facebook @ASTMInternational
• Instagram @astmintl
• YouTube @ASTMIntl
• LinkedIn @ASTM International

Presented by ASTM International

www.astm.org

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Dave Walsh (00:12):

Welcome to Standards Impact ASTMs Official podcast. First responders are really having a pop culture moment here in 2025, hit shows from 9 1 1 Nashville to Chicago Fire and many others. You know, them all, I'm sure have captivated audiences with the life or death role these brave people play in everyday life. But what about the equipment, the protocols, and all the other factors that go into keeping them safe? I'm your host, Dave Walsh, editor-in-Chief of Standardization News, and today we're going to talk about the standards that underpin this critical field with guests. Tom Nolan, deputy Chief of the Montgomery County Detective Bureau here in Pennsylvania, and Cassie Robinson, director of Codes and standards with Copper Weld. And it should be noted, she is also the current chair of A STM International. So my first question is for Tom, who is a detective and who has been in law enforcement for many years, since the 1980s. And during your time, Tom, you've seen many high profile cases that would've involved first responders from scenes of violence to roadside vehicular emergencies. What is the biggest difference you've seen from the beginning of your career to now in terms of safety protocol and the standards that guide the field?

Tom Nolan (01:20):

I think the biggest that I've seen and would go to that one word safety, I think we focus much more on responder safety now than we did back in the eighties when I started. There was very limited departments that have mandatory wear policies for ballistic body armor protection. And now it's much, much more common that law enforcement agencies have wear policies, I think just are activities on the roadway. A lot of our activities, whether it's car stops, accidents or just incidents on the roadway now in some states do require safety vests. In most places, the organization is requiring the first responder to put on a reflective safety vest when being on the highway. So I think we pay a lot more attention to that. Respiratory protection is another one where we focus a lot more on respiratory protection. In the old days of meth labs and cleaning up meth labs and investigating them, many, many officers did not protect the respiratory system as they should have.

(02:21):

And as you talk about violent crime scenes, there's a lot of bloodborne pathogens that we focus more now on the safety aspect of protecting our, our officers, our detectives, our crime scene technicians on the bloodborne pathogens. So I think we focus a lot more on safety. I think we've come a long way in a lot of areas, A lot of work has been done on ballistic body armor. Even the fact that we now look at body armor for females, which is somewhat new and it's a comfort factor, but it's also a protection factor on the coverage that they get from female body armor. So they would be the main things that I would focus on.

Dave Walsh (02:58):

Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't follow up because A STM has many standards for first responders and one of the most recent ones involves helmets for roadside scenes. But with your background, Tom, and uh, I've been saying that I wanna do a true crime podcast with you separately, but <laugh> with your background, are there any specific protocols and safety issues that might have been addressed by standards or maybe just that you've seen in general for crime scenes specifically? Are there toxins, uh, in a scene with that might have blood that might be a, a violent crime that something like that? Roadside scenes are almost the the obvious thing that we all think of where officers are in danger and cars are on a highway, things like that. But what about a crime scene sort of a situation for safety and protocol?

Tom Nolan (03:39):

Yes, and it's twofold. We don't wanna bring in any trace evidence into a crime scene and we don't wanna take any trace evidence out. So there's a lot of stuff that our crime scene technicians wear for that purpose, but it's also protecting them from the bloodborne pathogens. There are a lot of standards, you know, just talks about having a protective ensemble that when you kneel in blood, it's not gonna penetrate through that protective garment and get to the um, end user. So I think there are standards that focus on the crime scene N specifically on the bloodborne pathogens. There are some testing issues with testing of narcotics and handling of narcotics that I think has a lot more safety protocols involved nowadays than they did in the past. And unfortunately most of that comes from some type of contamination issue or a medical issue that occurred because they weren't handled properly.

Dave Walsh (04:30):

Yeah, you just reminded me of a case I saw recently of a, an officer who was poisoned by fentanyl on a crime scene just to trace dust that touched her hands, got her into a shock situation. Well, Cassie, you've been in your field for many years as well, and in the past you've mentioned nine 11 and ground zero efforts as foundational events for you. We've had conversations about this last year for your chair video for A STM, you touched on it. How did standards shape those efforts, uh, back in 2001 and and the cleanup effort going through 2002? And how have you seen things change during your time?

Cassy Robinson (05:04):

Well, thanks for that question. In truth, to be honest, I did not know a thing about standards back then when we were at ground zero. But shortly after that, within just a couple of years because of that work that led me into responder equipment standards. So back in 2001, I didn't have any standards knowledge. However, just thinking back over that time in terms of technology and standards, things have changed dramatically just in general, but also with responder standards. But just in general, think about it, that was less than 25 years ago. And two things that come to mind of really life changing technologies that almost nobody had back then and everybody has now are cell phones and the internet. And those things weren't widely available back then and maybe not available until about 20 years ago. We can't imagine doing life without them today. And everybody uses them because they're reliable and work consistently.

(05:59):

And that's because there are standards for those technologies. So focusing on responders in particular, I think one of the most important advances in standards that has shaped technology or the A STM response robot standards and the need for those standards came directly from our experience with ground zero following the terrorist attacks. So when our team, we went to ground zero and we went there, we took a couple of different robots, very simple ground robots with tracks and wheels. They did not work at all. What we tried to use 'em for, we thought we could use them for, was to go into the destruction where the buildings had collapsed, but they just weren't able to navigate that, they weren't equipped for it. And these are old robots and forget drones, we didn't even have those. They weren't a avail available until about 10 years later. So anyway, all of that led to the Department of Homeland Security funding a project in partnership with a s TM International and nist, the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop response robot standards. And that work's been a game changer for advancements in all kinds of robots. I mean, if you take a look at YouTube and look for QUADED robots, you'll see what performance standards have done to advance those robots and the A STM test methods for drones. They've not only improved the, the drone capabilities themselves, but they've also been used to train drone pilots and to improve their proficiency and demonstrate their proficiency.

Dave Walsh (07:27):

Cassie, I remember in one of our conversations you mentioned that, just to touch on the drone topic that you mentioned, rather than having a drone scanning the entire area that that pile at, at ground zero, you had just a camera on an arm and you had to control it with like a remote control and move the camera angle looking like a 1970s sci-fi movie or something. And that difference must have been just huge to see from then to today.

Cassy Robinson (07:49):

Oh, absolutely, yes. We were very low tech back then and so we did, we had put up about, I think a half a dozen cameras all around ground zero looking down from tall buildings and the firefighters used them to locate things of interest within all that debris field and they could zoom in and pan and tilt the camera view. All that seemed great. And they could look at a TV screen to see what they were looking for instead of using binoculars to look down and try to pick things out of all the debris. But think about what drones can do now. I mean, you don't even have to be near the scene to get a bird's eye view and, and a zoomed in view. It's amazing.

Dave Walsh (08:28):

And as you said, not even 25 years ago, it seems like yesterday to me. So this question goes out to the both of you, and we kind of touched on it in our prep call. What would you each say is the biggest threat to first responders right now today in 2025? I saw a standard recently from the the Committee on Homeland Security Applications E 54 and it covered the protective helmets as we discussed with Tom. We also discussed there have been threats like swatting incidents in the news recently, you know, at and other universities. But I'm wondering what do each of you think is that area of greatest risk and would that be the greatest area of need for standards as well?

Tom Nolan (09:04):

I will say that roadway helmet standard is very, very important when you get to the numbers and when you hear about the, the data that says that if a first responder is on the highway and is hit, they have a much greater likelihood of surviving. If they have head protection, yes they will have a number of broken bones and other issues that they'll have to deal with. But what we find is roadway workers who die or first responders on the highway who die are because they don't have the head protection. So just getting, first of all, the standard together to get a helmet is a key point. One of the things we really do face in the first responder world is the old traditions and breaking those tradit traditions and getting our first responders to follow the science and follow the uh, standards and the technology that's out there and use something that will keep them safe.

(09:55):

There's an old adage, if you want to know how many firefighters are on a vehicle rescue, just look at the number of fire helmets on the roof of the car that they're cutting open because fire helmets are great for fighting fires, but they don't, they don't transition well on highway safety issue or on a, on a, uh, vehicle rescue. So that what do they do? They take their helmets off and they have no head protection. So that would be one area I would say that would jump out at me more specific to law enforcement would be ballistic protection. We're still looking at ways to get more ballistic protection. I know in Philadelphia and a few years ago they had an officer that was attacked just sitting in a streetlight and uh, a person came up shooting a weapon at 'em and they at the time had no protection on the door glass or even the doors and they've rectified that in the city, but I can tell you they're one of only a few departments in the nation that probably does take, you know, the safety of ballistic protection on their doors and their door window panels to help the officers.

(10:54):

Uh, in a lot of areas we're still seeing assaults on officers and having greater ballistic protection when they're in that vehicle would be beneficial.

Cassy Robinson (11:02):

I just think ballistic protection is huge and you can't get away from it nowadays. And because of standards, it's getting better and better and pushing the manufacturers to use better materials or use novel technologies. And A STM has standards for all these things. We have new standards for ballistic shields, new standards for ballistic helmets. We have ballistic vehicle door panel standards. All those things are available. One challenge we have is getting, like Tom said, officers and agencies to take advantage of those things. But I wanted to highlight that the standards have definitely improved back in the eighties. I'm sure there were ballistic shields, but there weren't any standards for ballistic shields. Only a couple of years ago did A STM take on the challenge of developing standards for that product in particular. And we brought together end users like Tom and he may have actually brought this need to us himself.

(11:57):

I think that is what happened. So we brought together the end users and manufacturers, researchers, all these different stakeholders who had interest and understanding and knowledge so they could bring to the table. We brought them all together to create these standards and they're great. They raise the bar on the technology, they fully assess the shield from its shield body to the viewport to any potential weak points. And one thing I wanted to point out is that's important for agencies to think about is it's not enough to just have a standard. So we took this step of actually setting up an a s TM verification program to test this products and to make sure that they perform as they're supposed to perform and then they get listed on a publicly accessible website, which makes it so much easier for the agencies to take advantage of that.

Dave Walsh (12:48):

As I'm talking, I'm remembering one of the first stories that we did when I joined A STM was on ballistic resistant vehicle door panels and that was uh, standard E 31 13 for anyone who wants to look it up. So now you were going to tell us about <laugh> your, the specific threat you were thinking of.

Cassy Robinson (13:03):

Yeah, so one of the major threats that I think about are major issues is the active shooter or active threat situation. And it doesn't have to be an active shooter. It could be a shooter but could also be a vehicle ramming or a bomb threat or another type of attack. And one of the concerns we've had from different responder agencies is that the fire EMS and law enforcement groups, they're looking for standardized guidance and protocols on how to effectively deal with those issues together so that each responder group is doing their part effectively and in coordination with others. So the threat is an active threat situation, but the need is for standards and guidance for integrative response.

Dave Walsh (13:45):

So we've been talking about some of the more obvious threats, things that people might think of when they think of law enforcement and when they think of first responders and rescue situations like ground zero. I was going to aim this question at Tom. What is a challenge the first responders face in the field of law enforcement that the average person may not think of? As I said, we know all the obvious ones. True crime shows show a lot of the obvious ones. Ballistics are just, you know, a clear cut example and and roadside hazards. But what's something important that people should be aware of that may not be as obvious?

Tom Nolan (14:14):

One thing that I would mention is all the protection that we can provide to first responders. If it causes other secondary issues, you know, the weight of the vest or the heat stress of a vest or, or like when you talk about bomb suits and the heat restrictions. So there's a lot of other issues that just giving somebody protection, we sometimes cause other issues. And so we're always working on the ergonomics and what can we do to make sure the officers can function in that piece of safety equipment. And I go back to years ago we worked on a law enforcement ensemble standard for going into A-C-B-R-N environments and we talked about what was out there at the time the only standard that were out there at the time was written for firefighters and they didn't have to worry about being able to fit their finger in a trigger guard or being able to shoulder a weapon or getting a site picture.

(15:05):

So those are issues that we had to work through to get somebody to see that side of things that different standards were needed. So I think there's a lot of things like that that we have to look at. There are officers are pushing for the outer vest carriers, which are more comfortable for them and there is less heat breach issues. But then the problem comes about do, are we getting the same coverage that we would get if it was underneath the shirt? So I, I know Cassie had talked about there's now a new standard working on that for the outer vest carrier. So the standards that organizations have to stay really up to date on what's the current trend in especially law enforcement, but all first responders to see where do we need to get new standards and make new standards. We all thought we had a body armor standard that covers everything. But then you get into other issues where we do need a new standard to cover the changes in the technology.

Dave Walsh (15:58):

And Cassie, you were name checked there. Yeah. So what would you say, uh, to that same question?

Cassy Robinson (16:03):

Well, first of all, I wanna say that's standard E 3 0 0 3 that covers body armor fit and coverage and includes outer carrier vests. It's a really important standard that I recommend every law enforcement officer be aware of. I was thinking in terms of it's not really threats, it's more hazards for firefighters. If we could go in that direction just a little bit. So one of the hazards most people have probably heard about in the past few years, it's a new hazard because we have new technology and that's lithium ion battery fires from things like e-bikes and electric vehicles and other devices that that use lithium ion batteries. So damage to these batteries can cause thermal runaway reactions and that means they can quickly lead to explosions or fires that burn really hot and really fast and they're hard to put out and sometimes you put them out and weeks later they reignite.

(16:53):

So there's a lot of issues around that. On a positive side, there's also a lot of research and standards work being done in that area to support firefighters who deal with those fires. But actually we are having a task group work on a new standard right now for a newer potential hazard. So a lot of times like with lithium ion battery fires, those issues are coming because we have a new technology, we have an advancement. And so now there's a new potential hazard arising from alternative and creative means of transportation to help avoid traffic congestion. So in in several cities across the United States, there is a move to build a very unique type of passenger vehicle tunnel that's unlike any other tunnel that you might think of. So most people ridden on a train in a subway through a tunnel, we're used to that or you've driven your vehicle in a tunnel under a river or through the side of a mountain.

(17:48):

Those are the tunnels that we're used to. And if you've driven through one of those, think about that. So imagine there's a single lane in one direction and the tunnel's only 12 feet in diameter. So it's really tight tunnel, it's pretty far underground. And the distance between where you actually enter the tunnel and where you exit the tunnel, it's 2,500 feet. So a little less than a half a mile on top of that, you're not actually driving. You're a passenger in one of many electric vehicles that are going through this tunnel and that vehicle's driven by a paid operator. Their whole goal is to transport people quickly through the tunnel. So the thing is, what do you do if the electric vehicle you're in or another one has an accident with a thermal runaway battery event that creates toxic smoke or intense flames and you're in a confined space.

(18:38):

And then if the battery explodes, what happens then? Will the tunnel stay intact? Will it collapse? How will responders get to you to rescue you? I mean, think about how big a firetruck is. It's not gonna be able to get down a 12 foot diameter tunnel. Could you get yourself out if there's nobody there to help you? So it's a great idea for this mode of transportation and yet it's coming with hazards that standards developers have to think about. And so these concerns were raised to A STM by several major metropolitan fire departments across the country. And we're working on standards right now to address the concerns. We're also talking with NFPA, that's the National Fire Protection Association about working together so that we can comprehensively address these concerns and ensure safety in these tunnels.

Dave Walsh (19:22):

The standards work is only in its infancy I'm sure, but what kinds of mitigation do you think they could possibly use in that situation? What you just described sounds pretty challenging logistically.

Cassy Robinson (19:32):

Yes. Well there are specific things from a firefighter perspective, but one of the things just for an example is limiting the distance between the entrance and the exit. So firefighters have to get in there. If somebody has a need, they need to rescue people. Well, they can't physically go that far in a smoke-filled environment potentially without breathing protection. So they're probably gonna wear what's known as closed circuit, self-contained breathing apparatus that they can wear for an extended period of time. It, it kind of recycles the air you breathe and adds a little oxygen so you can go longer on that type of breathing apparatus. So limiting the distance, that's not like a technology solution, but it's a mitigation solution. So that's kind of a design thing. So limiting that distance, making sure that you have a lot of sensors available so that can cease so through fire. If there is smoke, you can't see through that with a visual camera, you have to use a, a thermal imager. So just other simple things like that that fire departments are typically using for other situations, but it's a special situation that they're dealing with here.

Tom Nolan (20:41):

Can I add something on the, uh, law enforcement side that's not as obvious. We still lose too many officers to training injuries or training deaths because of the environment they're training in. And part of that comes from we try to make police training as realistic as possible decision making factors, uh, raising the intensity on the officer so that it, when it occurs in the field, they've kind of dealt with this in the past, but each time you do that, each time you increase the intensity of training and you try to make it more realistic, you also increase the dangers. So I do think there is some need for standardization of how we do those things and potentially are there weapons or training aids out there that we could guarantee officer's safeties when they're using that equipment but still getting the realistic feel that they need for their training to benefit them?

Dave Walsh (21:36):

Well, everything we've been talking about here is in some way touching on new technologies, you know, maybe, uh, new equipment you just mentioned and we're talking about these new tunnels to accommodate new technologies like electric vehicles. Earlier we were talking about how the new technology of drones impacted the field of search and rescue. Tom was even mentioning that a ring cam helped catch a perpetrator, which wouldn't have happened 25 years ago. There were no ring cams. So in the area of technology, what would each of you say are some of the technologies that will shape the, the future of this field? What types of devices, equipment will we see in the next 20 or 30 years that don't exist now, and how will they change things? And of course, how will standards help bring them to the market?

Tom Nolan (22:17):

Going back to that same topic, the video related topic, I think that we are gaining much more video, video from just surveillance cameras every day, homeowners cameras, but we have body-worn cameras on officers, we have in-car cameras now we're tying drones to either, you know, activity on the street acoustic devices that do hear gunshots and tying in a a a drone to that. Could we tie in all the cameras in that area to point to that one direction where the shots are. I think there's a, a lot of work to be done, but that that field does move very quickly and I think we're gonna see much more of it on the video related side of things and, and being able to access video much more quickly and getting it out to the officers in the field so they know how to respond.

Dave Walsh (23:05):

I'm personally hoping for the day when they can do DNA testing right on the spot. I mean someday it, it would be great if that were possible because I know that can take weeks and months even.

Tom Nolan (23:15):

And even that we're not that far off. There's machines that can do a turnaround in 90 minutes. So we're getting, we're getting much closer. Most of the backlog that we, we hear about in state agencies revolves around the, you know, just the number of samples coming in and you know, just the limited time they have to get the stuff in, in through processing. But we do see a lot of promise on that front that we're gonna, we're gonna be able to move that timeframe much quicker.

Dave Walsh (23:42):

And Cassie, what would you say, I'm sure there are going to be new technologies for search and rescue that we haven't even thought of yet. So what are some of those that you see on the horizon?

Cassy Robinson (23:50):

I am sure that there will be so many new technologies we haven't even imagined. One thing that I think is being used already, that's why I have two ideas, but one thing is being used already and that's artificial intelligence. I don't know if Tom is using that in his agency, but it just gives so much capability in the fact that you can ask it a question and it can analyze tons of data and make connections between data sets and then produce something that you can use. Now you still have to have your own intelligence to know what to do with it, but I like to use the example of an AI assisted computer aided dispatch system as an example. I don't know if Tom or is your agency using AI for that?

Tom Nolan (24:31):

Yes, we are actually just starting, we have meetings scheduled next week with every unit at our county detectives to see where AI will help them. And when you talk through lieutenants from each of those units who know their units specifically, you start to find out that there is a lot of use for it, whether it's in special victims threat assessments, you know, even major crimes or violent crime unit can't wait to use it because they do a lot of work with gun registries and people buying guns and multiple guns. And, and just as you said, the data that AI can evaluate quickly and feed us workable, intelligent information is gonna be invaluable.

Cassy Robinson (25:09):

And the second technology that I, I think about this gaining ground for responders may be more for fire and EMS than law enforcement right now, but is exoskeletons and an A STM committee, F 48 on exoskeletons and exo suits is leading the way in standards. So I have to give them a shout out. A STM also hosts a competition where student teams from universities develop exoskeleton prototypes to aid firefighters in the things that they do regularly. Whether it's, you know, carrying a fire hose, using a halligan bar, swinging mallet, climbing stairs, lifting, you name it, what are those things that they do on a regular basis? So these teams bring their exoskeletons to the competitions and one of the student team members will actually put it on and go through some scenarios that have been designed specifically for firefighter activities and they're judged on how well that exoskeleton improves their performance. So I'm really excited about that. Well it's a really great program and allows students to get involved in real world application of standards and technology. And I believe it's pushing technology, it's becoming better and better, more useful meeting the needs more specifically that firefighters have. So one day we might even see an Iron Man suit out there because of the work in exoskeletons and, and wearable robotics,

Dave Walsh (26:27):

Even though there's that love hate relationship with Iron Man in that community that it's uh, the high, the highest profile example everyone knows, but it's not what they want everyone to think of. So

Tom Nolan (26:36):

If I can add one thing I I think that would come in the next 20 or 30 years. If you look at civil unrest and what we've dealt with in civil unrest in the country are tools to handle that less lethal. Yes, there have been some newer less lethal tools to handle that, but in the most recent civil unrest there were agencies that were using chemical agents and that became a political issue about using tear gas and a lot of those things. We've been doing the same thing in that area, you know, since the sixties. I think there's a lot of technology out there that we'll be able to come up with that will move crowds that will break up unruly crowds that will not have the same connotation as tear gas or you know, the same secondary contaminations that teargas does with even the officers that are firing it.

Dave Walsh (27:25):

Believe it or not, we are starting to run out of time, but we have time for a few more questions. And one that I wanted to touch on was ASTMs consensus process and the knock on all standards in the entire standards development community for years is that they take too long to get a final version of it takes too long to bring them to the market. And so I wanted to ask each of you, how important do you think ASTMs consensus process has been, whether it's with creating the standard for protective helmets or standards for search and rescue and drones, how much has A STM and its process helped?

Cassy Robinson (27:55):

So I've been an A STM member for I think 20 years now and I really appreciate the process. It follows the accepted consensus principles for standards development, which if you're in standards development, you know what, those are balance of interest so that no interest category dominates others or outweighs there's openness, meaning anybody can participate and there's due process so that if you feel that you are treated unfairly, you can appeal, you have the right to express your physician and have it considered. So all those good things. But beyond that, and within the A s TM regulations, A STM allows each committee to operate independently. So our committees that support responders, we always start the process by listening to responders who identify their needs and requirements. For instance, like Tom bringing the need for a new ballistic shield standard to A STM, we listened to the needs and requirements, we brought together other end users to fully understand what was needed, how they're using these products. Then we bring in the technical experts and the manufacturers, researchers and other stakeholders that talk about it and work towards a solution. And the ADMs process allows a committee to move at a pace that they feel is necessary. When the need is urgent, we can move quickly and when it's more challenging, we can move slowly. So we can go at whatever pace our committee wants to work at, depending on the need.

Tom Nolan (29:18):

And I've worked in, in other processes of standards development and I would consider A SDM compared to some at warp speed. I think it's a much quicker process even to the point where like the uh, ballistic Shields process, my own SWAT team, we were, you know, when we were first looking at budget issues and we're gonna need to replace shields next year, I'm talking to them about, well there's a new standard in the works and by the time we're ready to replace the shields, the standard is already available. So we can then go to a manufacturer and say, you know, we want a shield that meets this standard so it's much quicker. There's still the issue of getting manufacturers to develop to our standard, but the more we get local law enforcement and and local first responders to demand something that meets the standard, the more they will do it quicker. So the process is quick, we just need to get the manufacturers to be just as quick.

Cassy Robinson (30:09):

That reminds me, I wanted to give a shout out to ASTMs verification program because there is now a ballistic shield on their verified products list.

Dave Walsh (30:19):

Well, that's great news. I wasn't aware of that. So good. Everyone heard it here first. So a related question that we ask all of our podcast guests, and it's usually something that is near and dear to them. What would each of you say to a young professional starting out in your field and that that means working in law enforcement, working in Homeland Security Emergency Services, in terms of engaging A STM in the world of standards. Has it helped your careers, has it been a worthwhile experience for each of you?

Tom Nolan (30:45):

It does. It has been helpful. There have been times in my career, I've been known as the standards nerd of my, uh, organization. I became very fascinated with standards and was able to incorporate standards into some of the little things we do in law enforcement to make sure we're meeting a standard. But I would say to a young person coming into this field, you know, get involved in standards development instead of just being the person that complains that you don't have this tool or that tool, realize that there is a mechanism in place to get the, the message to the right person to start to develop a standard. And if we develop the standards, then we get manufacturers to develop the product to that standard. It's going to improve your world that you work in and, and so anybody really can get involved in standards and, and become a part of the process.

Dave Walsh (31:31):

That's a good point that I don't think a lot of people realize. Anyone can join A STM. So if you were in, for instance, law enforcement, you can sign up for a membership and you can go to the next meeting and make your voice heard.

Cassy Robinson (31:42):

I would encourage young professional to whatever field they're in, do some research online and look up what standards are applicable there. So for instance, if you're interested in robotics, look up robotics standards. You'll find a whole suite of them in various areas within A STM, whatever it is you're interested in. Just do a little research online, reach out to professors or your colleagues if you're already a working professional or just get in touch with A STM staff to find out what standards are relevant and how to become involved. And a great first step for professionals is to participate in ASTMs Emerging Professionals program that is set up just for that very reason to give people a deep dive into standards development, learn leadership skills, meet season standards professionals, and just really understand what standards are about and what they can do for you. And personally, I usually say two things to people about standards.

(32:37):

Number one, being involved with A STM has been a career accelerator for me and introduced me to amazing people like Tom Nolan that I wouldn't have otherwise met. And really, you meet people who are renowned in your industry and you go into the room with them and you're like, my gosh, I never thought I would meet this person. Much less work on something with them. And the second thing is I like to say the most significant impact I've had in my career is through developing standards that affect people's lives. And for responders that can mean protecting them from injury or saving their lives. And there's nothing more meaningful than that.

Dave Walsh (33:13):

Yeah. Well I can't top that as a conclusion, so I just wanted to end by saying thank you both for your time today.

Cassy Robinson (33:19):

Thank you for having us on.

Tom Nolan (33:21):

Thank you very much.

Dave Walsh (33:21):

If you wanna learn more about any of the standards discussed in this episode, visit astm.org for all the latest. And if you enjoyed the show, remember to like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. I'm Dave Walsh and this has been Standards Impact presented by A STM International.