Posted By Peter F. If there is a chance no matter how slight he needs to protect by his acts and omissions, thats what the section says not me. Swiss, It's not a win or lose discussion sometimes other people may have point different to yours.

Posted By martinw Surely the level of risk involved informs the acts or omissions, and their relative seriousness? If the risk is almost negligible then why the imperative to talk about taking care of himself or others? Like saying that employers must make employees carry lightning rods with them in case they get struck by lightning. Pointless because the risk is so low.

Posted By Peter F. Your colleague does not put you at risk of a lightening strike! He may well be putting you at risk of a incurable disease. This was nothing to do with the employer it was if the person as a colleague had a duty of care towards you. Which he does.

Posted By martinw Peter again, being put at risk is an intangible in this case. I would not include into a risk assessment something which has little or no chance of causing harm to another, which is the case within this discussion of a known BBV. Semantically, there is a risk. In reality that risk is negliglble within these circumstances.

Posted By martinw I think that this was one of those threads which has two aspects running at the same time, with both sides not understanding why what each was saying was obvious. On one side was the academic question of whether a duty exists and if so how was it fulfilled. On the other side was the pragmatic view that whatever duty may have existed it was moot as there was no real risk attached to it. Frustrating at times but enjoyable! Happy Friday.

Posted By Swis Peter, Perosn with a BBV is no more of hazard than any other fellow worker.

Posted By Peter Still Swis, A hazard is something with the potential to cause harm. If the unfortunate employee with the BBV were not presnt then that hazard would not exist in that particular workplace (OK, an assumption there that there is no other likely source of the same hazard). I would agree that the person is no more of a hazard than anyone else, but only because hazards are not scaleable, only risks are scaleable. What would you think if the person had one of those radioactive implants that are used to treat certain cancers? The implant, while normally completely safe, would have the potential to harm other persons if an accident resulted in it being damaged. I also agree that unfortunately this subject has the potential to become discriminatory, and I assure you that I have no prejudice against persons with BBVs. Peter

Posted By water67. Hi, I'm sorry but this type of posting and subsequent scaremongering really gets on my..... The risk of contamination this is almost zero. Can anyone evidence a BBI being transmitted in this way? Consider similar circumstances.. eating in a cafe, restaurant, drinking from a glass in a pub..sitting in a seat on public transport.. utter nonsense and demeaning of this profession to suggest risk assessments personal duty of care etc. the routes of infection from BBI are well known and well documented..ok rant over.

Posted By Peter Still Martin and others, Yes, that was my point, that this is an interesting academic example in that the hazard exists but the risk from it is in normal circumstances extremely low hence no control measures are necessary. However it is necessary to be aware of the hazard, in order to evaluate the risk, in order to make an informed decision to do nothing. Peter

Posted By Peter Still Martin, Yes, I see where you're coming from. Things are usually much clearer in my world of machinery and control systems. I don't mean that the presence of the person with the BBV is a hazard, it is the BBV itself that is the hazard, i.e. the potential source of harm. As for assuming that the BBV hazard exists unless proven otherwise, isn't that what first-aiders and healthcare professionals are trained to do? The OP referred to an office environment so we can assume that the possibility of exposure to bodily fluids is negligible. Maybe my line of thought would be clearer if we de-personalise it. Let's imagine a smoke detector that includes a radioactive source. In normal use the radiation is contained within the device, which is ceiling-mounted, so there is negligible risk of a person being exposed to the radiation so no control measures are necessary. However if it is damged or dismantled the source could be exposed leading to an increase in the risk. In either case, the hazard is the same, the existence of a hazard, the radioactive source. Peter

Posted By martinw Forgot to mention - never been to the doctors with a potential illness. Always had some symptoms. Medics see you normally when some harm has been caused.

Posted By A Campbell Show off.. China!! Will stick to the village beer festival.. closer and will risk assess the beer! (well it's Friday)!

Posted By Peter Still Martin, You said "There was no real risk assessment necessary regarding your visit as all of the information had been researched and published many times in the past." I would argue that what had been published was the result of risk assessment, just done by someone other than me. In the case of the smoke detector, call me pedantic if you will (you won't be the first!) but I wouldn't "risk assess it for untoward danger", I would risk assess it to help me judge if there was a danger. I think there was a thread on this forum some time ago relating to a demolition where the company involved had inherited a stockpile of redundant smoke detectors and needed to know what to do with a skip full of the things. One could say that commonsense would dictate that you wouldn't put them through a shredder, but how would you reach that conclusion if you weren't aware of the radioactive hazard? Peter

Posted By martinw Sorry - not asbestos and construction as I said above - guidance is for SME refurbs and maintenance. Apologies.

Posted By martinw Thanks Peter have a good one Martin