Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By kamran
We define Hazard as :anything has potential to cause injury
Risk :Likelihood of hazard occurring
in many Risk assessment the writer write
lifting operation is Hazards ??but in my opinion lifting a load without suitable slings is hazard ,in fact any unsafe Act or unsafe situation is a hazards and i think in other situation we will confuse the people.and there are a lot of risk assessment which has be produced by different people which is in different interpretation of Risk and Hazards!!!in our profession.
Grinding is not Hazard.but if we make grinding with out guard in place, is a hazards?but we could interpret in other way too ,Grinding has potential to cause injury???
Any idea about this issue is highly appreciated
Kamran
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
kamran,
Your comments do raise the issue that often confuses risk assessors in the workplace.
But to take the example of Grinding. Yes it is a hazard. Even if you have good guards in place the Grinding should be included in a workplace risk assessment so that you can then explain what controls are in place (guards, training, good maintenance) and a young operative reading the risk assessment for the first will see what controls SHOULD be in place. So he can look at the grinder and think:
is the guard in place
have I been trained
when was the last maintenance check
Similarly a supervisor reviewing the risk assessment can then inspect the guards, the maintenance schedule and find out who is using the machine and look at their training records.
Sorry that's a long explanation/opinion, but I think it's important to list all potential significant hazards, otherwise when the controls fail and you don't have the machine on a risk assessment then you might not have a job or an eye :o)
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tom Doyle
The use or misuse of terminology is surely one of the challenges faced by those responsible for assessing risk.
While I agree with most of John's post I would argue grinding is not a hazard. I would see it as an activity during which a worker could be exposed to one or more hazards thus creating a potentially hazardous situation.
Both unsafe acts and unsafe situations are a result of protective system failures. They can lead to worker exposure to hazards which in turn can lead to lead to an increased likelihood of harm. This can effect risk.
The terminology contained in ISO 14121:2007 helps to explain the differences between these terms and can help to limit the confusion.
I am not trying to start a long complicated discussion here; just the clarification of terminology.
Cheers,
Tom Doyle
Industrial Safety Integration
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
I agree with Tom
Grinding is the activity
Hazards - emitted particles, electricity (grinder), rotating disc, etc
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Clifton
Grinding is an activity.
The hazards associated with this are sparks, hot materials, dust, projectiles, entanglememnt with moving parts etc
The risks are burns, breathing problems, puncture wounds, cuts/abrasions etc.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark linton
How about this explanation (referencing 3 steps of five steps)?
1. Hazard - grinder (which has the potential to cause harm)
2. Who could be harmed and how - person using the grinder, for example, being injured by eye injury from particle, cut or abrasion from coming into contact with grinder, burns from sparks (this is where you differentiate between various 'harms')
3. Is level of risk acceptable - risk is likelihood of injury not the injury itself, at which point risk tends to be represented as a function of likelihood and severity.
Terminology aside - if your target audience understands what you are getting at that is the important thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tom Doyle
So much for "just a simple question".
Hazards
The hazards associated with this are sparks, hot materials, dust, projectiles, moving parts etc.
(entanglement removed)
Consequences
The "consequences associated with the hazards" are burns, breathing problems, puncture wounds, cuts/abrasions etc.
Hazardous situations
Burns caused by sparks and/or hot materials produced during the process.
Breathing problems caused by inhalation of dust produced during the process.
Puncture wounds caused by projectiles due to disintegration of the abrasive product.
Cuts/abrasions caused by entanglement with moving parts during the grinding process.
So now that the hazards, consequences, and hazardous situations are understood by the risk assessor the estimation of risk can begin.
It is my understanding that the risks are a result of the the severity of each consequence and the likelihood of that consequence being realized by the person doing the work.
Cheers,
Tom Doyle
Industrial Safety Integration
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
OK point taken, the sparks, rotating wheel and electricity are the hazards presented by the grinding machine.
But kamran was asking if a controlled risk could be ignored in a risk assessment. Hopefully I answered that correctly ;o)
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
Many have the same problem with definitions.
I usually ask in training course the following question-
A cable with exposed conductors - what is the hazard?
Most people say the exposed conductors or electrocution, when actually it it the electricity.
Or is it?
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
I'll have to switch my NEBOSH helmet on.
zzzzzzfffffft
I'd say
electricity: hazard
exposed conductors: unsafe condition
electrocution: the harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
I still stick to the definition of "the inherent ability or property of something to cause harm".
I also think it important to keep in view the purpose of risk assessment as enabling control measures to be devised or confirmed in place.
What many refer to as risk assessment is a simple form of hazard ranking to allow sensible and proportionate controls to be applied on a priority basis.
So in the examples given:
The hazard from the load is falling or moving objects.
The hazard from the bench grinder or hand held grinder is mechanical(those already given) and whatever power source is used to drive the kit. There may also be lifting/carrying and environmental hazards (noise etc) dependant on the actual use of this piece of kit.
The hazard from the bare conductors is electrical and mechanical.
The risk of each is determined by the detail of controls in place or designed into the whole work process.
Thus whilst the load is on the ground, it does not present any risk from falling or moving objects but once on the move, the risk profile changes and therefore the risk controls must also change.
The grinding wheel when properly guarded, maintained and only used by trained operators presents a different ranking to one with no guards. The lack of guards is a missing control measures for the hazard, not a hazard.
And the bare conductors, well if they are on one end of a section of cable that is not attached to any energy source, say for example on the end of a cable roll?
I don't worry too much about the esoteric definitions, I just have a principle in my head and try to be consistent and keep focused on devising and enabling those control measures.
That should muddy the waters nicely :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By kamran
Thank you very much for those who respond to my simple question.
I think IOSH,NEBOSH,BSC have more job to do,to clarify some simple Question like this for OHS practitioners,(i have all mentioned Qualifications in acceptable level)seems all becoming machine to produce certificate and money maker instead of try to make an standard concept and ensure candidate understood the issue which are basic for OHS practitioners.how we should transfer it to others,when we still are not clarify on this simple term.
pete,just following your own criteria which is your mind ,is not solving issue.
Again thanks for those who respond to my thread.
Kamran
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Safety Stu
Kamran
Your question - like many others on the site revoked the same response - namely everyone jumps in with their 2 cents worth .....
To summarise this is just like a Toolbox talk - pre job discussion where ALL of the above points get noted / discussed and appropriately dealt with prior to commencement of the task.
The Risk Assessment remains a document which can then be referred to, if and when, the hazardous task is carried out again.
Obviously this is a "Live" document which gets reviewed and updated accordingly - as and when the situation / personnel / circumstances change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Kamran, thanks for the response. I was perhaps unclear in my comment. I was not suggesting that I had made up my own system. I was referring to the fact that one needs to understand the principle rather than the definition. The confusion that you identified arises only if you have not fully rationalised, within your own experience, the principles of simple hazard rating by "risk".
It is not the simple exercise that many would have us believe. It can be simplified but it is not simple.
Take the comment by Safety Stu. It might work in a workplace scenario but the toolbox talk analogy mixes a control measure with hazard rating. Equally the process of talking everyone through an assessment is a control measure. It is not rating of hazards by risk. It may apply to some situations but not to all, it may be common in some industry sectors but not all. So, it works for him and if it enables the right control measures to be defined and confirmed then that is surely the point. There will always be some variation in the application and practice of any standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.