Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error
Which is worse: immediate injury or latent disease?
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
David Bannister  
#1 Posted : 11 November 2014 10:04:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister
There is a current thread on the Members forum regarding woodworking which has raised an interesting point, perhaps worthy of its own thread:

Which is the gravest matter, going through life with missing fingers & thumb, loss of an eye, eventual nasal cancer (maybe) or lung disease from wood dust?

I guess that sufferers from any of these conditions will have their own thoughts but I pondered it for a while with no firm opinion, other than being thankful that I remain in good health with all my bits intact.

What do others think?
Back to top
RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 11 November 2014 11:16:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
David, I don't think anyone can make a judgement call on this one because it is too subjective. From a psychological perspective we tend to prioritise immediate injuries, possibly because latent injuries are by their nature too distant for immediate attention. Of course, sometimes they never even materialise, whereas chopping your fingers off has an immediate and lasting effect.

I believe the concept is firmly embedded in 'risk perception' which I studied at Uni many years ago. How/why individuals, groups or society in general view risk is based on a number of complex issues which I won't bore you with. A classic example of risk perception was the question, which is the documented safest means of travel - train or airplane? Most people would plump for the latter as that is what they are always being told. However, the answer purely depends on how you measure 'safest' - passenger journeys or miles travelled.

Back to top
walker  
#3 Posted : 11 November 2014 11:17:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker
The eye & then the dust

Actually all the non dust hazards you mention should be easy to get fixed
The dust solution is complex

I know of casual woodworkers (not working week exposure levels) who have been made severely ill by certain wood dusts in very short time scales
Back to top
walker  
#4 Posted : 11 November 2014 11:21:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker
RayRapp wrote:
David, I don't think anyone can make a judgement call on this one because it is too subjective. From a psychological perspective we tend to prioritise immediate injuries, possibly because latent injuries are by their nature too distant for immediate attention. Of course, sometimes they never even materialise, whereas chopping your fingers off has an immediate and lasting effect.

I believe the concept is firmly embedded in 'risk perception' which I studied at Uni many years ago. How/why individuals, groups or society in general view risk is based on a number of complex issues which I won't bore you with. A classic example of risk perception was the question, which is the documented safest means of travel - train or airplane? Most people would plump for the latter as that is what they are always being told. However, the answer purely depends on how you measure 'safest' - passenger journeys or miles travelled.



Even HSE makes this mistake : they have been crowing for years about the fatilities dropping by 10 or so annualy whilst watching thousands die of asbestos exposure.
Back to top
jay  
#5 Posted : 11 November 2014 11:27:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay
Both are important. Woodworking machinery risks, in my view cannot be "trivial"--that is why there is a seperate ACoP for PUWER-Woodworking.

Extract from HSE Website:-
"The woodworking industry has one of the highest accident rates in manufacturing, most of which are caused by contact with moving machinery. This accounted for 25% of all major accidents and one of last year’s two deaths in the woodworking industry"

http://www.hse.gov.uk/woodworking/

The above is true despite control measures /trips/guarding available.

Unfortunately, "health" has been a poor second to "safety" not only in woodworking, but generally in all industries as due to latency and also what occurs outside work to some extent.

Even simple measures such as machinery/tools with mini-LEV and as a last resort, RPE can help
Back to top
walker  
#6 Posted : 11 November 2014 12:03:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker
Of course, non are trivial to the injured party.

WW has some nasty machinery but any injury resulting from it is due to simple control measures being ignored/bypassed.
Most employers are SME and tend to ignore best practice, its probably the one remaining industry were the loss of a digit is seen as a badge of honour rather than stupidity.

HSE can't say how many have died or have life changing illness due to wood dust because they have not been measuring it. Cancers are the tip of an iceberg.
Back to top
RayRapp  
#7 Posted : 11 November 2014 16:16:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
walker wrote:
RayRapp wrote:
David, I don't think anyone can make a judgement call on this one because it is too subjective. From a psychological perspective we tend to prioritise immediate injuries, possibly because latent injuries are by their nature too distant for immediate attention. Of course, sometimes they never even materialise, whereas chopping your fingers off has an immediate and lasting effect.

I believe the concept is firmly embedded in 'risk perception' which I studied at Uni many years ago. How/why individuals, groups or society in general view risk is based on a number of complex issues which I won't bore you with. A classic example of risk perception was the question, which is the documented safest means of travel - train or airplane? Most people would plump for the latter as that is what they are always being told. However, the answer purely depends on how you measure 'safest' - passenger journeys or miles travelled.



Even HSE makes this mistake : they have been crowing for years about the fatilities dropping by 10 or so annualy whilst watching thousands die of asbestos exposure.


What mistake? Unless I misread the original post it was a general question about immediate or latent risks. Thousands may die of asbestos related illness, but that cannot be prevented now because it was contracted many decades ago.
Back to top
Animax01  
#8 Posted : 11 November 2014 16:36:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Animax01
To cut to the chase, if I had to choose, I would always choose an immediate risk. They are generally much easier to spot and ultimately easier to control. Latent risks are much stealthier or unknown.
Back to top
jay  
#9 Posted : 11 November 2014 17:08:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay
It is not "simple" to measure work related illness as it is for accidents. That is why the HSE does not depend upon RIDDOR data comlpletely and has other measures.

In all the annual statistics reports from the HSE, including the latest one, the HSE has not been shy to highlight the number of deaths due to cancer etc or the cost of ill health etc to the GB economy.

The 2013-14 annual HSE statistics report STARTS with ill-health, not safety:-

http://www.hse.gov.uk/St...ics/overall/hssh1314.pdf

Ill health

1.2 million people who worked during the last year were suffering from an illness (long-standing as well as new cases) they believed was caused or made worse by their current or past work. 0.5 million of these were new conditions which started during the year.

A further 0.8 million former workers (who last worked over 12 months ago) were suffering from an illness which was caused or made worse by their past work.

2535 people died from mesothelioma in 2012 and thousands more from other occupational cancers and diseases such as COPD.


The report under the "work related ill-health heading states:-

Fatal diseases
Around 13 000 deaths each year from occupational lung disease and cancer are estimated to have been caused by past exposure, primarily to chemicals and dust at work.

This figure includes diseases for which it is possible to either count individual deaths directly, or where there is sufficient data to produce statistical estimates.

Most of these diseases take many years to develop and so deaths occurring now are largely a result of past workplace conditions.

Most of these deaths were occupational cancers or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

Current estimates (based on 2005 data) suggest there are at least 8000 occupational cancer deaths each year in Great Britain.

More than half of these cancer deaths were caused by past exposures to asbestos (either mesothelioma or asbestos-related lung cancer).

The next four biggest categories of occupational cancer were lung cancer due to silica, diesel engine exhaust, and mineral oils, and breast cancer due to shift work.
Back to top
walker  
#10 Posted : 12 November 2014 08:03:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker
Don't get too preoccupied with wood dust & Cancer

If you were to look at COPD and Asthma vs woodworkers then a different picture arises
Back to top
walker  
#11 Posted : 12 November 2014 08:08:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker
RayRapp wrote:
walker wrote:
RayRapp wrote:
David, I don't think anyone can make a judgement call on this one because it is too subjective. From a psychological perspective we tend to prioritise immediate injuries, possibly because latent injuries are by their nature too distant for immediate attention. Of course, sometimes they never even materialise, whereas chopping your fingers off has an immediate and lasting effect.

I believe the concept is firmly embedded in 'risk perception' which I studied at Uni many years ago. How/why individuals, groups or society in general view risk is based on a number of complex issues which I won't bore you with. A classic example of risk perception was the question, which is the documented safest means of travel - train or airplane? Most people would plump for the latter as that is what they are always being told. However, the answer purely depends on how you measure 'safest' - passenger journeys or miles travelled.



Even HSE makes this mistake : they have been crowing for years about the fatilities dropping by 10 or so annualy whilst watching thousands die of asbestos exposure.


What mistake? Unless I misread the original post it was a general question about immediate or latent risks. Thousands may die of asbestos related illness, but that cannot be prevented now because it was contracted many decades ago.


I wouldn't mind betting more people have been exposed to asbestos & have subsequently contracted diseases, just in the past 10 years, than have died from accidents at work in that time.
Back to top
hilary  
#12 Posted : 12 November 2014 08:34:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary
I think I am possibly failing to understand the question.....

Why is it a choice? Both are equally bad, both need to be equally controlled. In the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

So, we can only deal with the known knowns and hazard a stab at the known unknowns, but every hazard whether this be acute or chronic must be dealt with equally on the risk assessment.

An immediate and not life threatening injury may be considered less than an illness such as mesothelioma or emphysema, but what about the mental anguish, the PTSD, the months of rehabilitation, the change of job and career prospects - these may ultimately change the life of the accidentee beyond all recognition.

There is no yes or no answer to this question - each case must be looked at on it's own merits.
Back to top
MrsBlue  
#13 Posted : 12 November 2014 09:12:49(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest
hilary wrote:
I think I am possibly failing to understand the question.....

Why is it a choice? Both are equally bad, both need to be equally controlled. In the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

So, we can only deal with the known knowns and hazard a stab at the known unknowns, but every hazard whether this be acute or chronic must be dealt with equally on the risk assessment.

An immediate and not life threatening injury may be considered less than an illness such as mesothelioma or emphysema, but what about the mental anguish, the PTSD, the months of rehabilitation, the change of job and career prospects - these may ultimately change the life of the accidentee beyond all recognition.

There is no yes or no answer to this question - each case must be looked at on it's own merits.


Brilliant - quite agree
Back to top
Animax01  
#14 Posted : 12 November 2014 09:15:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Animax01
Quite possibly the best post I have read on here Hilary.
Back to top
chris.packham  
#15 Posted : 12 November 2014 12:06:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham
I fully agree with Hilary. May I just add a quotation from Mark Twain:

'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

How often do I find that, when investigating occupational skin problems, that this has been the case!

Chris
Back to top
Ian Bell  
#16 Posted : 12 November 2014 16:03:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell
Both are equally important.

But being pragmatic - as many long term OH diseases etc are just that.

If relatively long exposure is required to develop a disease - many people might not stay in a job long enough / have a career within a certain industry to go on an develop a disease.

Hence they are 'safe' due to no longer working in that particular job.

Quite obviously this doesn't apply in many cases.

Losing a finger/hand etc is pretty immediate etc
Back to top
David Bannister  
#17 Posted : 13 November 2014 11:21:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister
Some interesting thoughts here.

How about this pre-Friday "skunk in the elevator" notion: Restrict work involving any long term health risks to those over age 60 on the basis that they'll be reaching the natural end of their life before any illness/disease develops.

It will also have the side effect of reducing the future pension burden.

I think I'll get my coat!
Back to top
rodgerker  
#18 Posted : 13 November 2014 12:00:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker
David.

This is not so far fetched.

I recall that in the 1970's, Sir Leonard Redshaw, retired former head of Vickers Shipbuilders at Barrow in Furness, put forward the proposal that in the event of a major incident involving radiation leakage at Windscale/Sellafield he and other retired engineers should volunteer to carry out any hazardous remedial works

Rodger Ker
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET