Hypothetical – a saw bench has an unguarded blade and no dust extraction. Which is the higher risk – the blade that could take off a few fingers or the lack of extraction that could result in nasal cancer or lung damage? Similarly - machine cutting concrete blocks not wearing eye protection, potential for eye injury, and, with no extraction or wetting – possible result Silicosis. The main difference being physical injury will be immediate but health problems could be many years. I will appreciate your thoughts on how people would assess these hazards, thanks

Ooh good one - hypthetically I would obviously deal with both Hazards!! If pushed I would plump for guard, then - could chop your fingers off and, in some circumstances, possibly bleed to death in minutes. Worse case scenario

Two good replies. I think you get the point - so is a short term likelihood worse than long term? I believe it should be the same but personal perception only tends to see what is right in front.

The guard issue is the low hanging fruit and should therefore be the priority. Fix what can be fixed immediately and then work on the long term exposures. While engineering always trumps PPE, I can always require workers to don a respirator while a proper ventilation system is installed.

I think this would be my reasoning... but my underlying concern would be the lousy management that they are both symptomatic of.

doh... "less significant"

Thanks for all the responses. It looks like we all think the same, what is in front of us is easier to deal with whearas the invisible health risk may be disregarded or not considered as important. To deal with the guarding issue may take longer than to fit a dust bag and facemask? What I was looking for is, especially for those who use a matrix to quantify the risk, would either be a higher number or both the same?

I agree with Chris here. It seems some are jumping on the 'everyone ignores the health issues' bandwagon. You put your hand into an unguarded blade and you WILL get a serious injury immediately. If you're exposed to wood dust you MAY get a lung disease later on. That is why the guarding issue is addressed first. But the health issue would then be addressed as soon as possible as well. And to be fair may take more thought to get the right solution. It is not so black and white. No one is saying ignore the health issue, just prioritise. That is what we are supposed to be trained to do. That is why inspectors would slap a prohibition on the unguardeed blade but an improvment notice on lack of dust control. In other situations the health issue would be addressed first, for example with asbestos. And lets not start belittling an amputated finger. You wouldn't belittle it if it was your finger! As usual some perspective has been lost on these forums.