Posted By AJM Hi Everyone, I was asked about this at work today by a concerned worker. I dont want everyone jumping on the band waggon saying dont be stupid its hysteria etc.. But it isnt a specialised subject of mine. Surely looking at this from a purely risk assessment point of view we should be doing something to protect our current workers of all nationalities under our duty of care. Is there anything like testing everyone or is that infringement of civil liberties if this article has any shred of truth then surely we should be doing something. http://www.thesun.co.uk/.../0,,2-2006530343,00.html Views please Regards Alan

Posted By J Knight I find it quite incredible that this sort of scaremongering goes on, but that's the beauty of a 'free' press for you (actually it costs a lot of money to buy a newspaper). There is no need to test anybody for HIV/AIDS. All body fluids must be treated as hazardous substances irrespective of any knowledge about what the person spilling them might be infected with. The most common blood-borne diseases are the Hepatitis family (surely you must know them, they're the ones with the flashy BMW down the road) and the meeja hardly ever mention them. This is because they're not widely known to be sexually transmitted (though they can be) and so lack frisson; they aren't especially connected with forinners; and hepatitis is much much harder to spell than AIDS. However, to protect workers from infection with any blood borne disease just, as above, treat blood and other bodily fluids as a bio-hazard. You can't catch any of the blood-borne diseases from casual contact, though you can get Hep C by sharing fivers to snort coke. You need to reassure your colleagues that whether or not there is any substance in this report it will not affect their chances of getting AIDS from their fellow-workers. I know people with HIV, count them among my close personal friends, and I am utterly certain that they present no health risk to me, John

Posted By AJM Tabs you cant make a Statement like that and not say what you mean. I am refering to not just hospitals where obviously the risks are higher, but what about all the factories length and breadth of the United Kingdom where like ours we have already up to 40% Foreign labour and growing who all use the same toilets day in and day out. I just want to know when this whole immigrant labour issue is going to be taken seriously and the health and safety implications fully examined. For all issues protecting all parties. Alan

Posted By peter gotch Alan, Why do you think sharing toilets in a factory is going to spread AIDS? This myth was long since put to bed. Regards, Peter

Posted By J Knight Hi AJM, The Sun is spreading hysteria here. As I say, there are a number of things at issue here. First of all, HIV is rare, so even if it is at a higher level among some groups of workers it is still present in only a small number of people. Second, Hepatitis is a life threatening life-limiting condition; the Hepatitis viri are very much more common than HIV; if the Sun was really concerned with debating the real issues about blood-borne health, don't you think they might be talking about Hep as well? But they're only talking about HIV, because people are scared of it and fear sells newspapers. Finally, if you want to know why HIV is not likely to spread in a factory environment have a read of this http://www.playingsafely....uk/worried/what/hiv.asp Its from the NHS and it describes the four ways by which HIV and other blood-borne illnesses spread. If your workers are doing any of these things at work, well, they shouldn't be, John

Posted By Chris Packham As previous postings have made clear, catching HIV/AIDS is not something "occupational", unless your work involves personal contact with body fluids. If it does, then the appropriate risk assessment should have been done and the required controls introduced. The biggest problem, and apparently this escaped the SUN, who could have made a real meal of it, is surely the added cost of treating those suffering from these diseases. Chris

Posted By J Knight Re my last post; they could of course be breast-feeding (or at the very least expressing breast milk) but once again its not their fellow workers who would be thereby at risk, John

Posted By J Knight Merv, I knew that ;-), but I was just paraphrasing something Beeverbrook said when he was asked what he thought about the idea of a free press. Part of my general deep cynicism about all the meeja; never read the papers if I can help it, John