Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Hi,
Having trawled through a number of publications and a search on the interweb, I have failed to find a definitive listing of hazards by category.
You know the sort of thing - Physical, Chemical, Biological, Ergonomic...
Most of these are easily defined, but I have a few niggling doubts concerning physical and ergonomic categories in relation to where some hazards should lie.
Now I might have missed looking in some obvious place, but I have to admit defeat on this one.
Any help would be very much appreciated!
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Merchant
Listing the hazards in one category is easy. Putting a hazard into one category is not.
Take carrying a drum of chemicals. It's a chemical hazard to walk over to it, a manual handling hazard to pick it up, a mechanical hazard when you drop it on your toe, and an environmental hazard when it seeps into a river while you roll about screaming in agony... which is a noise hazard for the fish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Many thanks Dave,
Yes it is more complex perhaps than I suggested, but surely some 'expert' has categorised hazards at some time?
It was only when I started to look at H&S publications that I realised there was so little information available.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve H
Maybe a simple starting point would be health hazards and safety hazards.
I do agree though there is a lot of hazards relevant to several categories
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By anon1234
Categorising the hazards is not that important - the important thing is identifying them in the first place
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
And that is not as simple as many assume, particularly where chemicals are concerned. Consider the definitions of a substance hazardous to health contained in COSHH and under item (e) it is clear that any substance or preparation can fit this category, depending upon how it is used. Add to this the complications of use, e.g. mixing, reacting, diluting, heating, contaminating (as in a solvent degreasing tank)and simply trying to categorise any substance or preparation as a hazard can be confusing or even misleading.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Thanks to everyone for your responses. A much bigger subject than appears on the surface then...
The reason I started looking was following a question from someone undertaking the General Certificate.
Whilst I agree with anon1234 that in general circumstances it's not that important to categorise hazards, in the context of the examination and assignment it could be very important.
(still no list though...)
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Alan
Dare I suggest that it could be that the examination is asking the wrong question?
Many substances may be no hazard, or more than one type of hazard, depending upon circumstances.
For example, nickel is one of our most common causes of allergic contact dermatitis. Nickel is also a skin irritant. However, an object made of stainless steel (chrome nickel steel) is unlikely to present any significant allergic or irritant hazard due to nickel, simply because the nickel is so tightly bound into the alloy that none is being released and therefore there is no exposure.
Equally take the case of water. Someone jumps into a swimming pool. Total immersion, but only occasional and not for very long. No significant risk of water causing dermatitis. A nurse washes her hands many times in a day. Short duration exposure, but frequent. Result is a significant risk of irritant contact dermatitis. (It is one reason why we do not have exposure limits for skin exposure.) Very rare, but can happen, is acquagenic urticaria, i.e. a skin allergy to water. Not a problem for the vast majority of us, but very much a problem for that poor person who has the allergy. How would you categorise the hazard of water. (And I have left out climatic problems such as sunamis!)
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins
Hi Chris,
I suppose everything in the world can be a hazard in particular circumstances and that is why we have to assess risk (I don't want to go down that road here though...).
Generally in life water is not considered to be hazardous, but with sufficient exposure it can be, as you rightly point out.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Alan
According to studies presented at the 6th World Congress on Irritant Contact Dermatitis in Weimar last May, water, i.e. wet work, is actually statistically the most common cause of occupational skin disease!
Most dermatologists I know consider water an irritant, even if it has never been given a risk phrase!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.