Rank: New forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I'm baffled by this suggestion:
"A comprehensive exposure history needs to be taken which includes
domestic responsibilities, such as exposure to cleaning chemicals and
caring responsibilities"
I don't see how or why I would inquire into the private lives of workers, nor what I would do with such information.
|
 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I would look to the realisation that in both the "domestic" and working environment there are so many agents and exposures it would be impossible and impracticable to record them all to glean useful data for control.
Instead we will forever be playing catch up and as example look at the output from ECHA on restrictions and authorisations since Europe adopted REACH. Those annex entries being the agreed tip of the iceberg based not only on the science but socio-economic deliberation.
Why do we still have asbestos in buildings? (Rhetorical)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would look to the realisation that in both the "domestic" and working environment there are so many agents and exposures it would be impossible and impracticable to record them all to glean useful data for control.
Instead we will forever be playing catch up and as example look at the output from ECHA on restrictions and authorisations since Europe adopted REACH. Those annex entries being the agreed tip of the iceberg based not only on the science but socio-economic deliberation.
Why do we still have asbestos in buildings? (Rhetorical)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi TheVenerableetc I think if employers (AND OSH professionals) in the UK consistently give sufficient attention to occupational health risks instead of debating e.g. this year's up or down year on year change in the number of fatal accidents recorded by HSE, we would be a long way forward in terms of the work-related HEALTH of BOTH sexes. If we get to a stage when we have done that, then perhaps it MIGHT be time to start considering the additive or even synergistic impact of non-work related exposures. We know that just about the single biggest cause of dermatitis is exposure to dihydrogen oxide. That doesn't really discriminate by sex, except to the extent that historic practices both in and out of the workplace may have resulted in women getting more exposure. Possibly the IOSH Magazine should start taking account of people with various sight problems. But, no it continues to publish a magazine with an appalling selection of font colours and background contrasts which cause people to have difficulty in reading the full magazine (instead of individual articles which can be read with black font on a white background - how sensible such an innovation). Have I commented on this issue to the Magazine? - of course I have but to be honest the Magazine now published so few articles of genuine interest, it's not worth me labouring the point. So, I read this Venus and Mars article and thought "just another person trying to make a name for themselves, whilst deflecting from the much bigger picture - ILO estimates that 2.6 million come to premature work-related deaths each year and most of them are down to similar immediate causes as since the start of the Industrial Revolution - yet now we have an author who wants to snoop into people's home lives",
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The article also seems to confuse sex and gender - it maintains "The cancers experienced by female fire fighters differ from those experienced by their male counterparts, while certain chemical exposures are associated with early onset menopause." but then apparently extrapolates from this to advocate that gender based risk assessments should be done.
While it's at least reasonably credible that the physiological effects of certain chemicals may differ in men and women (and influence on menopause is sex-specific), it seems to me a bit of a leap to assume that there will be different physiological effects depending on how the individual identifies or expresses their gender. Conceivably the author is advocating assesment by gender assuming it's easier to run with what an individual identifies as rather than requirng details of their chromosomes, but that's unexplained. I also acknowledge that since psychology and physiology can interact (cf the various studies about health benefits of having friends / going to church / etc) it's not impossible that gender (as distinct from sex) influences physiological response, but that extraoplation seeems to be done silently in the article (except the implication that those that identify as female use more cleaning chemicals than those that identify as male - and I'm not sure that's true - my wife tends to favour 'natural' vinegar and tea-tree-oil and whatnot, whereas I tend more to just blast it with the highest concentration hydrochloric acid I can lay my hands on). FWIW, we do have female-specific and male-specific PPE. It is differently-shaped not just differently-sized. Actually the women get 'better' than the men in some cases, because it tends to be the more expensive options that come in different cuts (that is, teh male-specific we issue is just the standard item, but our suppliers' female-specific items tend to be only in the 'premium' range - possibly the only case in existence where the ladies garments have more pockets than the mens...).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.