A Picture of Health: Workplaces that are Bad for your Health are Bad for your Business
It is now well recognised that occupational disease is the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK and that thousands of people suffer from the results of an occupational disease each year.
Occupational exposure to hazardous substances, noise and vibration can lead to long-term, disabling health problems, and in the worst cases can result in fatalities.
Asbestos related deaths are the highest in the UK, along with occupational cancer, and other lung diseases are also towards the top of the list.
There are a number of reasons why the UK still has high rates of occupational disease in the 21st
century. Over the years, occupational health has been seen as secondary to physical safety issues. There is still a national shortage of specialist occupatio- nal health professionals, from physicians and nurses to occupa- tional hygienists and competent safety practitioners.
Occupational diseases are notoriously difficult to manage and this can be attributed to the lack of awareness demon- strated by employers, emplo- yees, contractors and the self-
employed regarding the severity and nature of exposures to certain chemical and physical agents.
More often than not the level (and route) of exposure is not immediately obvious. For example, levels of respirable dust in the workplace or actual levels of harmful hand-arm vibration cannot be determined without specific and accurate monitoring.
Occupational diseases often have a long latency period, so people can work in an environment that is noisy or where chemicals release vapours and fumes without feeling the ill effects for some time after the exposures begin. Asbestos related cancer such as mesothelioma is a vivid example. Workers exposed to asbestos fibres may not develop disease until 15 years or more after the initial exposure.
The UK Today – Not Quite the Picture of Health Statistics published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reveal that:
• 2.1 million people were suffering from an illness they believed was caused or made worse by their current or past work.
• 2056 people died of mesothelioma (2006), and thousands more from other occupational cancers and lung diseases. • 229 workers were killed at work, a rate of 0.8 per 100 000 workers.
• 34 million days were lost overall (1.4 days per worker), 28 million due to work-related ill health and 6 million due to workplace injury.
Exposures in the workplace to chemical and physical agents (such as noise and vibration), require strategic health and safety plans and ongoing effective management in order for employers to drive down occupational diseases and safeguard the health of their employees and other stakeholders. However, due to the nature of these agents, employers often struggle to implement effective controls to reduce the risk to health.
Unlike some safety issues where the danger is obvious, an employee’s exposure to hazardous substances or physical hazards, such as noise and vibration, can go undetected. In order to effectively manage occ- upational health risks, employers must undertake suitable and sufficient risk assessments which will determine the most appropriate means to prevent or control exposure to an acceptable level.
Exposure to Chemical Agents
There are several pieces of legisla- tion in place to protect workers from exposure to harmful materials. The key piece of legislation is the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health 2002 regulations (as amen-
Exposure to Hand-Arm Vibration
The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 provide action and limit values for hand-arm (HAV) and whole-body vibration (WBV). Prior to this the UK followed guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) but the new regulations made the control of exposure an explicit legal requirement.
ded) (COSHH). In addition there is the Control of Asbestos at Work regulations (CAW) and the Control of Lead at Work regulations (CLAW). More recently, the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) regulations have also been implemented with a view to improve performance in reducing harmful exposures to substances in the workplace.
Furthermore, the UK is currently in a transition period over the way in which hazardous substances are classified. On 1st
June 2015 the
Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (also know as the CLP regulations) will be fully in force for the classification of both substances and mixtures. This regulation is being implemented by the European Union as our enactment of the Globally Harmonised System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). These changes are intended to improve the quality of hazard information made available to suppliers, transporters and end users of chemicals in an increasingly global market. To allow for a smooth transition, amendments are being made to the Chemical (Hazard Information for Packaging and Supply) regulations (CHIP), the latest version being CHIP 4 which came into force on 6th
April 2009.
Historically, employers have struggled with COSHH, despite the regulations being in place for over 20 years now. Efforts to harmonise standards across Europe and to simplify procedures has prompted the UK to redefine a number of personal exposure limits to both chemical and physical agents. For example, the updated COSHH regulations make reference to Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs) which has replaced the Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL) and Occupational Exposure Standard (OES), limits that are fundamental to controlling personal exposure to hazardous substances.
The European Agency for Occupational Safety and Health has recently published a report outlining what is considered to be new and emerging chemical risks across Europe. Some of these chemicals are a relatively new phenomenon. Nano-particles and ultra-fine particles are becoming more prominent as developing technologies emerge in the modern workplace. Some more familiar dusts and particles are also cited in the report ‘Expert forecast on emerging chemical risks related to occupational safety and health’. Substances such as diesel fume, Machine-Made Mineral Fibres (MMMF) and respirable crystalline silica are still not being adequately controlled.
It’s not just the airborne contaminants that pose a problem.
According to the HSE statistics 2007/08, an estimated 20,000 individuals who worked in the previous 12 months suffered "skin problems" which they believed to be work-related. There were 2,617 cases of occupatio- nal skin disease in 2007 reported by dermatologists and occupational physicians. Of these, 1,780 (68%) were contact dermatitis and 614 (23%) – most of the remainder – were skin cancers.
Exposure to Noise
Recent changes to noise regulations have seen action values become tighter with the extension to industries that have previously been exempt, the most recent being the music and entertainment industry.
Recent statistics published on the HSE website show that 175 individuals qualified as new cases of noise-induced deafness under the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme in 2006/07. This has fallen from 210 individuals in 2005/06. There has been consistent reduction in cases awarded under the scheme from 1995/96 (530 cases) to 2006/07 (175 cases). Nevertheless in 2007/08 an estimated 21,000 individuals who worked in the last 12 months were suffering hearing problems which they believed to be work-related, according to the Labour Force Survey.
In order to qualify for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, the level of hearing loss has to be quite severe so this is not an accurate measure of people who may have experienced hearing problem attributable to work.
IET
Annual Buyers Guide 2009
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128
