Posted By Kevin West The New Scientist Magazine has printed the following article recently (url link below). In the article it is supposed that deep vein thrombosis may occur after long durations of sitting still at the DSE station. I think it might be worthwhile informing people of the possible link and the means to reduce the risk of it occurring (as mentioned in the article),so that personnel can make their own mind up. However I am aware that at present the link hasn't been substantiated and I do not wish to be a 'scare mongerer'. What are the thoughts out there in 'Safety Land,? URL LINK: http://www.newscientist....s/news.jsp?id=ns99993323 Kev

Posted By Graham Bullough This is a new one. I have always advocated that VDU users be encouraged not to stay for long periods at their screens, partly to change their posture and partly to give their eyes a change in focus. As discussed in this forum some time ago, the same advice applies to microscope work. Although this advice should effectively deal with e-thrombosis, if it exists, I would be reluctant to mention it by name as it will be another thing for some VDU users to worry about. It was bad enough dealing with the fears about alleged "radiation" from VDUs back in the 1980's. Like the "anti-radiation smocks" which were on sale then, perhaps some entrepreneur will now exploit the anxiety factor and start selling elasticated socks for VDU users! Save your money and persuade your VDU users to have brief regular breaks from the VDU whenever feasible, even if it's only walking a few steps to a shared printer. Sharing printers also saves money and releases desk space which would otherwise be occupied by solo-use printers. There may be more of a potential problem for employees who work in call centres and cannot get up and move about as and when they would wish. However, in order to deal with the known issues of sitting too long at VDUs, there ought to be existing agreements and arrangements about reasonable regular breaks. Perhaps readers of this forum who deal with call centres or know people who work in them, can share their knowledge about what does or does not happen regarding breaks in such places.

Posted By Jack I think the primary aim should be to try and avoid injury not avoid compensation!

Posted By Robert M Edwards Yes Jack I quite agree but also by understanding what makes a good claim from a compensation point of view raises the awareness of what constitutes risk. My background shows that some employees seek a 'good payout' and can often spend far more time than the Health and Safety officer investigating breaches.

Posted By Kevin West Determining 'what makes a good claim' is, as Robert describes, very important in the analysis of risk. A great deal of a Health and Safety manager's time is spent trying to tie up all the loose ends so that there are no procedural 'gaps' so that claims cannot be made (often the greatest incentive to some companies ). The reason why I posted this thread was to explore just how much attention and effort should be given by H and S Managers when posed with emerging developements like this. Do we wait for a link to be proven in a compensation claim (or perhaps a prosecution)and then act, or, do we build procedures and amend risk assessments to take account of the new information to try and protect our workforce as far as is reasonably practicable. I subscribe to the latter doctrine. In this case, I feel, providing information of the possible link and the advice of how to prevent DVT from developing is very little effort indeed when looking at a life threatening condition such as DVT. Of course should personnel have pre-existing conditions that may indicate a greater liklihood of developing DVT or their work means that they are 'tied to the desk' then this should be documented as the risk assessment will identify. Kev