would it be acceptable for someone to wear just a hi vis vest, no shirt when on site in 30 degree heat? Operative is following all site rules and has full PPE. They want to work without a shirt as it is too hot.

Opinions anyone?

operatives have recieved a toolbox talk on dangers of skin cancer and are making good use of the suncream provided on site.

Is this an H&S issue or an issue of taste? You could issue hi-vis polo-shirts if it's a problem of too many layers.

Agree with Smurf, I suspect it more to do with taste than it is health or safety. Let them go Brazillian if they so choose. Treat men like men and re-inforce personal responsibility through TBTs if you wish.

Is there such a thing as "short sleeve high viz"?

I'll answer my own question - yes you can. Just google high viz short sleeve.

Keep in mind that sun protection creams can never be as effective as properly selected clothing. if you are going to rely on sun protection creams, then they should be very high factor, i.e. at least factor 30, and higher for those with type 1 and 2 skin. You will also need to ensure that the cream has a high protection factor for UVA. The normal factor only applies to protection against UVB. For example, creams with a high level of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide tend to provide better protection against UVA.

To be effective they must be applied relatively thickly and you will have to be sure that they cover the whole skin. They will then need to be replaced frequently as the cream will be lost through sweating, friction, etc.

Given the possibility of failure to provide adequate protection I would also suggest that regular skin checks should be implemented. You would not only be looking at changes in moles, etc., but also to ensure that no-one's skin is being sunburned.

Chris

You know your own tricks best :-)

I'd be interested in why it's not reality or why it cannot be so?

My safety career has been in construction, I've managed to ensure on projects that I've been involved with we haven't had issues with this type of weather one of which was a major gas pipeline project in Kent.

There are the legionaire tails that are available as clip ons for hard hats - prior to them being widespread I'actually made them. From a wet trade point of view long trousers and shirt sleeves work so what is the difference? From a heat exhaustion point of view I've made very sure that the guys on site have access to drinking water and have drummed into them the importance of it.

Maybe I'm of a different culture - I'm ex RAF and was told every summer that sunburn is considered to be a self inflicted injury and a chargable offence, working with a bushcraft and survival school I teach all our students to very aware - and the most shade they are likely to get is from clothing or trees!

Maybe a little contentious, but I have run systems where on site there is adequate areas to rest in shade, ample supply and access to water and sunscreen - the staff have all been made aware of this and whilst not running the forces system, if someone is unfit for work due to sunburn - they don't get paid. It did cut down on guys stripping off on site, the attended sunburn and absence and also reduced minor nicks and scrapes that clothing would normally protect from.

Errr, what is summer?

Colin, Shetland .......

Have only had time to skim through this article, but I believe it should be essential reading for anyone responsible for health and safety where there are outdoors workers. It explains many of the myths and misconceptions that abound. I think it also supports the comments I made in an earlier posting.

Yes, UV protective creams have a role, but we need to be aware, and allow for, their limitations.

Chris

Claire

I have to disagree. If we set our working conditions such that workers are exposed to UV radiation, then surely we have a duty to ensure they are suitably protected. Equally, they have a duty to comply.

If we make an exception for UV, then surely we could argue that the same applies to other workplace hazards, e.g. chemicals, noise, etc.

I don't think that we can be selective about which hazards we need to protect against and which not. If the risk assessment says that there is a significant risk then we need to take action. Equally, on the basis of your argument we could allow workers to say: "I won't wear the gloves when working with that chemical."

Chris

I go along with the arguments for protection against the hazards connected to exposure to strong sunshine but to argue on the grounds that it doesn't project the right image? Good grief. What are we now, the fashion police.

"Fred Bloggs you are charged with being in possession of an offensive body. You have the right to remain silent, any shorts will be taken down and may be used in evidence"

If you are going to argue against bare skin then at least put up a reasoned argument on the grounds of health and safety.

So I can just turn up at offices in my jeans and t-shirt then can I? Of course image matters. As to my comments about most men looking unattractive with their tops off, that was a bit of light hearted comment so perhaps you need to consider whether you have a sense of humour!

I stand by my posiiton. Unless you advocate full shirts sleeves, full length trousers, neck, coverage, face coverage how on earth can you state that you are protecting employees against the weather. So why just say they have to have tops on, it's inconsitent. And so then we say that everyone that ventures outside during their work activities must have full body coverage (sun block is not an adequate protection IMO) and that would include maintenence people, car show room sales people, mechanics, teachers on playground duty as well as the gardeners & agriculture workers.

Ypou can take half measures either it applies to evertyone who goes outside and it must include coverage pof all their body or it's lip service.

Protection from the sun is not PPE in my opinon not unless you are providing your workers with their full clothing, as don't forget if you class it as PPE the employer has to pay for it.

Obviously give employees the info but I don't think you can enforce it. I certainly never did as an inspector.

It is this sort of attitude, demanding that employees have full body coverage from the sun, that makes me want to leave the profession.

Must agree with Claire, although it seems in the minority, to argue for shirts in the sun on the basis of UV protection is ridiculous. Plenty of other exposed skin, arms, face, neck and possibly legs. Remember, I am talking about hardened construction blokes, not boy scouts. Let's risk assess...never done one for the Sun and don't intend to start now. Why always default to a RA? I make plenty of decisions each day without doing a formal risk assessment. The methodology is quite simple, fellas its hot, use sun cream on exposed parts of body - crack on.

My chaps on site have to wear a hard hat, light eye protection, gloves, boots and hi-vis vest with a tee shirt underneath - it's hot! They were asking for water to be made available in the immediate vicinity where they are working. The site supervisor said he would not because they litter the area with plastic cups - I can asssure you they have plenty of water now.

Must remember to put on my sun cream on my legs when I play golf this afternoon, or should I cover up and wear long trousers...?

In that case, i'd recommend Factor 50 for Claire.....

rdtodd

Welcome back and thanks for brining some sanity to the forum.

Too many people getting slapped wrists by the moderators!!