Yahoo news. The USA are to run a seris of disturbing photo's on there cigarette packs of the consequences of smoking,like the ones we use in this country. I posted on this forum under 127 hours the new Danny Boyle film, of using actual gore of real industrial accident/injuries of real people and having them, the real people explain how there injury came to be, being incorperated in to exsisting company H&S training progammes. Some replies suggest this approach is a NO NO. While still fresh in the minds of the tragic loss of 4lives & 1 survivor from the pembroke refinery blast. Do people think (Horrific as it is) that this approach would alter the way workers & company apply H&S to there thinking and change there behaviour when working. Or are H&S trainging programmes still to use the method of re-enactments of situations and/or safety awareness cartoons? What would make frontline workers help change the culture of there thinking? Real life, or vertual life?

I remember a safety practitioner who did this shock approach. Everybody for years after remembered him, but not his message and applied no great thought about why the situation occurred.And it is distressing to see your workmate plastered all over company literature, making you hate or deride health and safety issues and the company too. Few operate really open safety cultures and attach blame to the victim, so burying the means of stopping it happening again or causing altered truths to avoid blame. Strive for an open culture, but carefully, because in some companies you will find your career affected, avoid shock, use intelligence.

I am strongly anti gore in H&S material. I don't react well to pictures of injuries and blood - rushing sound in the ears, hot feeling, and I'll probably not take in anything much for the next half hour or so (even assuming I do remain conscious). I am a first-aider, and on the occasions I have met real situations (fortunately few - a couple of deep stanley knife cuts, I was once in a M-way multiple pile-up that had overturned cars and moderate amounts of blood) I have had no problems. On a simulation (arranged by the army - lots of simulated blood and vomit, and some guts hanging out) I was also fine. But pictures - I just switch off / shut down. Is the intention of H&S training to disturb people or teach them something? It sometimes seems to me that for the producers / users of some safety videos, it's the former.

While I can see the logic of the idea, it often has the reverse effect, as mentioned above. You tend to find that the graphic image will make the majority of people just switch off and ignore what message is being pressed, in the real world, look at how many people still smoke despite the graphic lung damage pictures on cigarette packs they haven't stopped many people from smoking the smoker just doesn't look at the picture.

Having worked for over 30 years in an organisation that deals with the aftermath of bad things on a daily basis, I do have to say that FUNNY works much better than SHOCK HORROR if you want to get a message across.

Whaaat!! No Have I Got News for You?? SHOCK HORROR!

well i've done this type of things when i'm still doing an induction training for our contractor, having different nationality in one occasion, some people are getting sleepy coz they could not understand english language, when ive put some disturbing picture then they suddenly interact with the topic and some are even translating the answer to their question. putting in their mind the picture of what will be the consequences of their unsafe act give them the knowledge of working safely. but some case it will be a nightmare for them to picture this on their mind, thats why i stop putting disturbing photo's. there would be some good and bad message to everyone.

Another aspect of this topic relates to what people who will see the gory/graphic images regard as acceptable or not. During the Bosnian conflict I came across an example of this when seeing a news programme on what I understood was a mainstream German TV station broadcast via satellite. It included footage of the aftermath of one or more artillery or mortar explosions in the market place of Sarajevo with shots of dead bodies lying on the ground, plenty of blood and injured people with horrific injuries to limbs. The same circumstances were featured on the BBC TV news but with footage which was highly "sanitised" by comparison with the German footage, e.g. no graphic depictions of wounds and dead bodies only shown if on ground well away from camera or covered with blankets. Even if the German TV channel involved observes an evening watershed timing with what it shows or doesn't show, it seems that its adult viewers are generally less likely to be offended/upset by graphic images that would offend/upset viewers in the UK. Can anyone with experience of living and working in Germany and/or other countries confirm this impression? This aspect is mentioned mainly for interest. Generally I agree with other responders that using graphic images in OS&H or other fields is unlikely to have much effect in trying to change people's attitudes and behaviour. Humour may have more effect than shock, not least because it may be more likely to prompt discussion between people. While driving the other day I was intrigued to see "Careless talk costs lives" as a slogan on the back of a bus. I can't recall the organisation/s behind the advert, but do remember seeing that it was aimed at deterring people from using hand-held mobile phones while driving. My own thought was that it was quite witty and also being displayed where errant drivers would actually see it. However, I guess that it will be difficult to tell what effect, if any, such adverts will have on people who phone while driving. In my opinion, the snag is that such people are so stupid, self-centred and besotted with using their phones while driving, that almost nothing will effectively induce them to change their behaviour. Also, as a parallel with OS&H situations, e.g. not using PPE when necessary, the vast majority of such people find from their own experience that they can phone and drive without causing injury or damage - or being pulled up by the Police. Therefore, their own experience/self-feedback causes them to misperceive that they can safely continue to make and take calls while on the move.

Good selection of donated pictures here Ron. http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/index.html

Cheers Andrew Good site that one - most useful.

Perhaps I simply didn't see or hear it, but there semed to be no warning at the start of last night's episode of "Kill it, cut it, use it" on BBC 3 TV which included the slaughtering and processing of pigs. However, the programme started at the 21:00 watershed after which it seems that the BBC thinks that no young children are still awake to watch such programmes. As for adult viewers, perhaps the programme title itself was considered to give sufficient warning of what would be shown. A fascinating programme which explained some of the many different products derived from pigs. In my HSE days I was told by the manager of one abattoir I visited that 'every part of a pig has a use - the only exception is the grunt!'

I think graphic images have their place in H&S if used correctly. I agree that there is no point showing a photo of a serious injury to an office worker screaming 'this is what could happen if you're not careful' however in more high risk industries when workers become complacent, a sharp reality check sometimes works wonders. I have observed this effect on many construction sites in England and Ireland and I can tell you that the cartoon characters on posters are not really taken seriously but reading out case studies and showing graphic images does have an effect. I noticed the effect was only useful when everyone was together sitting down in a quiet site cabin with no distractions. Kangos, plant and traffic, passing people etc. all take away the attention of your audience. I think its important for H&S professionals to remember their audience and adapt the technique to fit around them. All too often I come across people who think they are made from rubber and accidents dont happen to them. But the ones who really do take it seriously are the ones who have either had a previous accident, are close to someone who has had a serious accident and witnessed the effect or actually witnessed a serious accident take place. Sometimes a cold splash of water to keep everyone on track is a good thing even if the cold water is a graphic photo. Interestingly, the most hard hitting posters I had ever seen on a Construction Site was a collection of childrens coloured drawings of their fathers at work onsite and a site sign above them saying 'remember why you come to work, be safe' For some reason this stood out for me. Keep open minded and adapt your approach to suit your audience and you cant go too far wrong. If it is going wrong, change your approach.

I totally agree with James Martin. I worked for a high risk plant and the workers had become completely complacent with the maintenance personnel at direct risk of a fatality. After a lot of banging my head against a brick wall, it took a couple of cases studies, some photographs of their equipment highlighting the poor practice, then asking them if they know each others families before asking how they would handle the phonecall from their mates wife asking why their mate was not home on time.... that worked wonders! Harsh but fair.

For examples of the shock horror type see the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of Ontario videos on Youtube. Have to say I liked the stationaryisbad.com ones better - e.g Rubber band safety at work!

because we are usually drawn to the yucky 'Disturbig photos' to see how bad they really are!!!! Perhaps it's just me that's 'Disturbed'. Rhea

Zimmy Many people who have suffered a loss have tried to use that loss as a means of preventing further losses. The St. Johns Ambulance website used to show photos of people that passed away but who may have survived if they received first aid. This is a shock tactic that I found was very effective and I applaud the families for their brave efforts. If my efforts to educate my audience were ineffective I would not consider my audience thick and consider them beyond help as I would not be doing my job. I would indeed seek alternatives such as shock photos. As per my previous post, use what works and if it is no longer effective, change tactics to suit the audience, not the trainer.

quote=Safety Smurf]Hmmmmm? The problem with disturbing photo's or video is that it might actually disturb somebody?

A friend recently went on a safety harness training course ( use and inspection ). The female trainer showed a graphic photograph of what happened to one gentleman's lower regions when he failed to adjust the harness correctly and took a fall. The fall resulted in a serious injury to his love spuds. My friend stated that the image made everyone wince but the point was made. Some times a strong image is what you need - but not always - depends I suspect on subject and audience.

I'm really not sure about the use of graphic images, because I fear that to most they are simply that - images. There are so many graphic images on TV, film, video games, that it seems that people have become de-sensitised to it - they don't think it is real anymore. However, as Thirst says above, close contact with the real thing is often life-changing, not only for the poor soul involved but also for the witnesses, particularly if the injuries are severe. As Thirst is advocating, simple real life scenarios (but without the blood) can be just as effective to get the message across. ..and I still think if you make them laugh at the end they will remember it for longer.