Rank: Super forum user
|
God they are boring and always get left till last! (DSE Assessments come a close second)
That is all
Thank You
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not in my book! In a workshop at the recent Occupational and Environmental Exposure of the Skin to Chemicals Conference (OEESC2011) in Toronto it could be shown how complex this aspect of health and safety really is and how easy it is to get the risk assessment wrong. Perhaps this explains why statistically, as was shown at a meeting of the World Health Organisation in Geneva earlier this year, occupational skin disease remains one of the most common causes of occupational ill health, costing the EU an estimated Euros 600 million annually (Figure by the EU's Agency for Safety and Health at Work). And that is just skin disease. We have no real statistics on the damage to internal organs that occurs due to penetration of chemicals through the skin, as was clear from evidence presented at OEESC2011. Indeed, it may well be that skin exposure is at least, if not more significant for systemic toxicity than inhalation.
Challenging - yes! Boring - no!
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mr.Flibble wrote: God they are boring and always get left till last! (DSE Assessments come a close second)
That is all
Thank You
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris, I agree with your comments, although I find the biggest challenge is making the topic understood to the end user.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
MaxPayne wrote: Chris, I agree with your comments, although I find the biggest challenge is making the topic understood to the end user.
Worse stil is persuading them to read the ruddy assessment in the first place and then apply the precautions stipulated. Badger
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quote=Mr.Flibble] God they are boring and always get left till last! (DSE Assessments come a close second)
That is all
Thank You Dangerous to think that there are safety people who regard controlling substances that are hazardous to health as boring and more of a chore than display screen assessments. If your hazardous substances assessments are boring then I hope that in fact you don't really have dangerous to health situations and that you are just going through the motions for some tick box exercise. And they should not get left till last: Assessment of the risk to health created by work involving substances hazardous to health 6.—(1) An employer shall not carry out work which is liable to expose any employees to any substance hazardous to health unless he has—
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And, what's that thing where you say "COSHH Assessment" and they hear "Safety Data Sheet" and you say "no, that's not an assessment" and they say "yes, it is. It's got all the safety information on" and then....
Just saying.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Interesting comments from these postings that perhaps explain why so many of the COSHH assessments I see are simply invalid. In a recent dermal exposure audit for an engineering company they had assessments produced by a large consultancy (and who had members on the consultancy register) not one of which was a real and valid assessment, simply a regurgitation of the safety data sheets. Risks from chemicals used depends upon how you are using the chemical(s) and what happens to it/them when used. The resultant hazard can be very different from that on the safety data sheet. So risk assessment has to be task based, i.e. starts in the workplace, not with a list of the chemicals in the stores. This may sound obvious but it is surprising how often this is not done.
Incidentally, in my earlier posting I mentioned the conference in Toronto. During a discussion at this event it became clear that the most common cause of occupational contact dermatitis is due to excessive contact between skin and water (and wearing occlusive gloves can be equated with exposure to water due to hyperhydration of the skin under the glove). When did you last see water on a safety data sheet?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You're assessing a task, process or activity that happens to involve use or exposure to a substance hazardous to health. If you find that boring, that doesn't bode well for general Reg 3 MHSWR assessments. DSE = predominantly self-assessment by the User, not the in-house H&S bod, who need only concern himself with any 'filtered' significant findings.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have just spent a considerable amount of time completing COSHH assessments. If wouldn't want to use the substance myself, then I try and find a safe & suitable alternative. To me COSHH assessment is one of the cornerstones of health and safety as it links in to so many of the other risk management functions such as risk assessments, Safe Working Procedures, PPE selection and potentially leads to Occ Health intervention & Insurance claims if you get it wrong.
Bit shocked with the attitude to be honest
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my experience with chemicals (with particular reference to skin exposure) it isn't the ones that are really hazardous that account for most of the skin problems I am often asked to investigate. It's the ones that have not been classified as hazardous, i.e. have no risk phrase allocated to them and thus do not appear on the safety data sheet, that cause most workplace skin problems - and there are thousands of these. (There are several very common skin sensitisers (ones that dermatologists stock in their refrigerator as they need them so often for patch testing) that have never been assigned R43 and thus won't be on your safety data sheet.)
Since these substances are not classified as hazardous and are not on the safety data sheet, they are all too often ignored, with subsequent unpleasant consequence.
Actually - forget the safety data sheet. Instead take a look again at section 6-1 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. If suppliers would comply with their duties under this section life would be much simpler!
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Crikey,
So you like all aspects of your job do you...?
Nothing wrong with someone admitting that COSHH isn't their pet subject - as long as he/she isn't avoiding giving it the priority it needs due to personal preference.
Mr. Flibble may be a COSHH guru who simply doesn't like that aspect of his job. Also, due to the specific hazards within his workplace it may be o.k. to leave COSHH assessments until last - after more relevant, and hazardous risks, have been addressed.
For what it's worth, I can't stand doing DSE assessments. "Are you sitting comfortably?" grrr.
Ian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Me I like DSE. It’s an opportunity to get out of the office and directly help people in a positive way rather than finding yourself in the position of explaining to them why they shouldn’t be doing something. And as for COSHH well then... we quite a bit of it here including biological agents (I’m a microbiologist by trade). What causes most lost time incidents, that’ll be the manual handling? What are the really exiting bits of H&S looking at machines that go round and round and chop things up, scaffolding ( why can’t I just roll this scaffold tower along while the guy on top paints the ceiling?) ? Or perhaps you are a systems person who spends all of their time drawing up action plans and flow diagrams of processes: risk assessment leads to safe system of work leads to compliance. Who enjoys doing the statistics and likes creating pie charts showing the number of accidents described by severity of injury. There is always that really detailed piece of guidance that has just come out from the latest HSE programme: what does it mean and do you care? Finally that ultimate H&S job: standing there wearing your hi-vis vest, hard hat etc with clipboard staring into a hole. It’s the variety of things that H&S does that make it so fun.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is of course the obvious pitfall of focussing on the acute, obvious and immediate risks in the workplace and entirely forgetting about the chronic issues. As Chris P is forever reminding us, the consequence of chemical exposure is very often a chronic issue, and the personal harm is often potentially much more debilitating and life-changing.
We don't always "see" these risk outcomes in safety tours or when we're out and about, but as safety professionals we must give all these 'chronic' issues proper priority, managing tomorrow's risk potential today.
The on-going "dumbing-down" via current health-and-safety-made-simple "initiatives" is I fear tending to further obscure these chronic risk issues.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Wow bet some of you guys are a right barrel of laughs at the annual Christmas Party!
To me COSHH Assessments are boring, I did not say they weren't important or taken seriously and considering ours are 6 pages long I think they evaluate the Hazards, controls etc pretty well enough rather then just copying from the MSDS which most people do (as mentioned above). Then considering I then run COSHH Tool Box talks for the guys that use the substances covering the hazards and what they need to do, I think I take it seriously.
And as for DSE Assessments being self-assessments by the user to me is a complete cop out and not worth the paper they are written on as 95% people think they need a foot rest!!! How would you prove their competence to undertake a self assessment? Seems to me people consider it not important enough to do themselves....
But if it would appease people, I apologise for stating that I found some aspects of my Job boring and as COSHH is very low risk in the place a work and very minimal how dare I put it near the bottom of my Work Plan, yes shocking I know!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can't be easy with a name like Flibble either.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No wonder you find it boring, if you do six page assessments and COSHH tool box talks for a very low risk issue in your workplace.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I've got more than 6, 500 DSE Users in my employer's undertaking Mr Flibble.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I can't stop saying 'flibble'.
Still, brightens up a dull day working on noise assessments (doh!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
safetyamateur wrote:I can't stop saying 'flibble'.
Still, brightens up a dull day working on noise assessments (doh!) Entrigued by the interest in Fibble, I googled the name as I didn'y know the significance: "Mr. Flibble was a penguin hand puppet found by Arnold Rimmer aboard Red Dwarf and used to terrorize his crewmates" For anyone who is interested, Max Payne is a character form a computer game series.... A dull afternoon indeed.
|
|
|
|
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.