Posted By John Cook
I have tried searching for this but can't find what I'm looking for in relation to a problem I have inherited.

I work in a prison environment and individuals are allowed to smoke in their cells. I have been approached by a TU appointed safety rep and asked if a COSHH assessment has been carried out for this activity to ensure that his members are not exposed to substances which are harmful to their health.

Is anyone able to point us in the correct direction for data/ information that could realistically be utilised for this.

There are the obvious health risks but at what level of exposure or length of exposure do they become a risk.

There are some control measures in place but how would we determine whether or not, measurement of air quality is possible but what exactly do we measure.

Posted By John Cook
Paul

thanks for the advice. It is a difficult question, which has been passed up the way to the policy holder.

The main difficulty is that the government is saying how bad passive smoking is and yet are expecting prison staff to enter cells full of second hand smoke, hence the challenge from a number of individuals.

I shall refer my union colleague to the specific paragrapgh.

John

Posted By philip john
People are still getting confused and I hear this numerous time with the year COSHH was brought in (Even studying for the Nebosh Diploma from tutors).

http://www.uk-finishing....Chromium%20Processes.PDF


COSHH replaced the Chromium plating regs in 1984

Posted By Rob T
There is no need to do a COSHH assessment of smoking as passive smoking hazards are a myth. If you do a COSHH assessment on this you'll have to do one on underarm deoderants and perfumes as well!

No-one has ever died of passive smoking and no-one has ever got cancer from passive smoking. There has never been a death certificate issued with passive smoking as the main causal factor (not including allergic reactions as I haven't researched this area to any great degree).

So my advice is to tell the TU rep to go find something useful to do!

Posted By Sean Warburton
Does anyone have a COSHH assessment from drinking too many bottles of Magners on a Sunday night, i need one:)

Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Perhaps if we can focus more on the exposure levels, how would you measure it and what would you measure, it might be more helpful to the original poster?

I've never come across anyone measuring tobacco smoke for COSHH purposes, but it's a while since I was involved in monitoring.

Have WEL's now been set for tobacco smoke? If not then I can't see how you could monitor it (irrespective of how you feel about the issue of passive smoking).

Posted By Jay Joshi
It is accurate to state that the first version of COSHH Regulations, COSHH 1988 did come into effect in 1989!

Posted By Wendi Gibson
If you make something illegal, the only ones who do it are the criminals.

Posted By Rob T
To Ian Dale,

Yes completely serious.

If there are no statistics to back up spurious comments why on earth would you just believe conjecture? No cases of type 1 cancer have ever been found in non smokers! Fact! Therefore you can say with an unequivocal statement that passive smoking does not cause lung cancer. Unfortunately it is more difficult to prove with bronchitis as this can be caused by a myriad of reasons but more related to environment, spores and damp. Those looking to prove what they already think is correct will twist and turn to ensure that their own theory is the one that is presented.

It is very difficult to show that something doesn't happen but it is very easy to show something that has. Why hasn't anyone (BMA included) actually backed up their argument with anything other than "we THINK this is the case" and backed up by statistics made up on the spot.

It's rather like the booster seat law for children. The road safety campaigners said that it would save 3000 lives a year in the UK! Funny then how there have never been 3000 deaths of children attributed to the position of the child in a seat. How do you work that out then?

I would just like to see more honesty in our profession that in either the Government or specific pressure groups who by their very nature are unable to see the wood from the trees.

No you don't need a COSHH assessment until, as Jonathan say's, tobacco smoke is listed with a WEL.

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Rob

A COSHH assessment is needed if there is exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace; this does not depend on the substance having a WEL. After all, there are many more hazardous substances than there are WELs. A WEL just gives one something against which to assess the measured exposure; in the absence of a WEL (or TLV, MAK, etc), assessment is more difficult, that's all.

Paul

Posted By Rob T
Hi CFT,

Roy Castle had type 2 lung cancer which has no known association with tobacco smoke - hence he was dropped immediately after his Post Mortem, by ASH! Such a caring organisation.

Posted By Paul Graham Baskeyfield
There are no WELs for tobacco smoke, but after looking at the CHIP3 Classification & Labelling guide, I'd say that 2ry tobacco smoke would reasonably be classified as R49 (may cause cancer by inhalation) Cat 2 (evidence available to strongly presume that exposure may result in cancer in humans). Aka Roy Castle who died of lung cancer despite never smoking himself, although having a huge exposure to 2ry smoke. This would mean that COSHH Reg 7(7) would apply whereby you are legally required to reduce exposure to as low a level AIRP.

Would banning smoking by prisoners be a reasonably practicable measure? (even though other legislation allows it) - zero would be as low as you could get. I'd say that the alternative of BA sets or power assisted RPE worn by all prison staff would be less practicable and would'nt get exposure as low.

Posted By Paul Graham Baskeyfield
Hi,

You may be correct wrt Roy's cancer, but
i've just looked up secondary tobacco smoke in the official IARC List of Cancer causing agents & I can tell everyone it is listed as a group 1 carcinogen - causes cancer in humans.

If anyone would like the source, i can send them the link.

This means that it is R49 cat 1 & employers do have to get exposure down as low as is reasonably practicable.

Posted By Paul Graham Baskeyfield
MP,

I agree - obviously the risk of violence would have to be considered when control measures are planned. If one presumes that the cost of exhaust ventilation in each cell would be prohibitive for such a short term exposure, then it looks like RPE is the only reasonable answer. There would not be any reason to measure the levels however, as the best suitable RPE would be needed to control a cat 1 carcinogen whatever the exposure.

Posted By Konstanty Budkiewicz
John,

In your originally posted query you asked if a COSHH assessment has been carried out for this activity. The purpose being to ensure that union members were not exposed to substances which are harmful to their health. When you reply, I suggest that as a point of clarification you mention that the intent of the law is control exposure at below harmful levels, and not to necessarily stop exposure entirely.

The only other point of detail that may require clarification to answer your colleague's query is:
a. was the assessment related to passive smoking only?

b. was the stated WEL linked to an 8-hour shift?

c. do your staff actually work to this pattern of contracted hours?

All of the above have the ability to affect the stated WEL.

Kon CMIOSH