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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wendyn  
#1 Posted : 23 April 2017 12:08:36(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
wendyn

I have the follwing question and I am absolutely stuck. It's from the element entitled: Knowing how to identify, assess and control health and safety risks.

The question is: 

Describe external factors influencing the identification of health and safety hazards, including:

(4.3 b)   tolerability/acceptability of risk

I think of UK and EU as external factors but other than that, I am stumped.  Can anyone help?

Once I have a starting point, I'll be fine. 

Many thanks in advance.

ryangavin777  
#2 Posted : 23 April 2017 20:53:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ryangavin777

- Manufacturers instructions

- Trade unions

- Industry bodies

- Local authorities

- HSE ACOPS / Guidance

- Financial Reporting Council - "The Code"

- Public perception 

- Recent incidents

- Social media

hope that helps?

Edited by user 23 April 2017 20:53:51(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked ryangavin777 for this useful post.
wendyn on 25/04/2017(UTC)
peter gotch  
#3 Posted : 25 April 2017 13:13:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Wendy

I'd start with HSE's Reducing Risks, Protecting People - google search for R2P2 will bring it up

+ DfT Values for Preventing a Fatality (VPF) or various categories of Injury (VPI)

then contextualise as regards what is reasonably practicable. Compare judgments in Edwards v National Coal Board and Marshall v Gotham.

If you follow Edwards v NCB you would spend a lot more money than if you apply Marshall v Gotham.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
wendyn on 25/04/2017(UTC)
chris.packham  
#4 Posted : 08 May 2017 10:07:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

My interpretation of this could be that this would include factors such as:

Inadequate or incorrect information from suppliers, particularly the inadequacy of information on chemical hazards on the safety data sheet. 

Chronicity - i.e. the fact that the effect of exposure to chemical hazards will often not be immediately apparent, but may only manifest itself after a long time, possibly many years. Physical accidents tend to be acute, i.e. the effect is noticeable quickly, whereas chemical exposures are frequently chronic and often not confined to a single exposure, nor a single chemical. 

Errors and omissions in some 'official' guidance. Believe me, in my field (skin in the working environment), it is there.

Just a few thoughts for starters. If you want more feel free to contact me by PM

Chris

Hsquared14  
#5 Posted : 28 June 2017 14:27:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Hsquared14

I would also do some research on societal acceptance of risk and how society tolerates risk.  For example the lucky to get away with it -v- the unlucky to get caught mindset.  Also think about how people challenge acceptance and tolerability - a good example would be attitudes in the construction industry which have changed considerably in recent years.  People are not so ready to accept poor standards but what about when it is somebody else's risk?

Users browsing this topic
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.