Talk:Occupational safety and health/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed Merge

I am proposing that the Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Act article be merged into this one. For the sake of consistancy, please discuss this issue at Talk:Occupational_health_and_safety.

Solarusdude 01:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes here Scott 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No. They are not the same. The OSHA Act only applies to the US and it is a regulatory stadard and part of legislation. Shoefly 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, No. The OSH act and OHS in general are different - in fact, many countries have their own laws on the subject. To merge would be misleading. --Evan C (Talk) 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, No. Even better, wouldn't this article benefit from some more work to 'globalise' the content, with references to other jurisdictions?

. I am a researcher in occupational health psychology. Occupational Health and Safety (or Occupational Safety and Health) is across-disciplinary area which brings together ergonomists, psychologists, occupational health specialists, health promotion specialits etc. Different acts and regulations relate to different OHS issues, in different countries (and also there are agreements in Europe which apply to all Member States).The discipline, issues covered, research and relevant legislation are different things altogether. Maria 12:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, No, for all the reasons given above. From a just-dropping-in (because my wrist hurts when using the mouse, go figure!) mostly-ex-Wikipedian. 138.37.199.199 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, No. A global subject that goes beoynd the U.S. borders. Asknine 15:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto again: despite everything the US is not the sole controller of everything including OHS. Certainly a link on the US law (are there state laws too), but for those interested in the subject, perhaps links by nationality to various countries. How about some quotes on OHS, also history of same?

Ditto: No: I have a wealth of OHS knowledge and I know nothing about this Act, as I am not from the US. --Kersizm 07:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto that: No This is a US centered article. When I searched for "work conditions" I expect to see something on hours, pay, holidays, social insurance, benefits, resignation and dismissal. Worst article I've seen on Wikipedia. Reasonable2 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, for all the reasons above, and furthermore, I am unhappy that my search for Occupational Medicine was redirected to this article, because it does not adequately distinguish Occupational Medicine from the research field called Occupational Safety and Health. I agree with the above author who stated that this article is very poorly written, albeit I have not read all the articles on Wikipedia so I cannot say it is the worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.176.80 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

comments on the Wikipedia OH&S article

(1) On the subject of the proposed merger of articles, if this is still under consideration: I oppose it. There are many pieces of occupational health and safety legislation in many different jurisdictions around the world, with differing strengths and weaknesses, and differing underlying philosophies.

Occupational health and safety in the abstract, however, is jurisdiction-independent and seeks "the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations; the prevention among workers of adverse effects on health caused by their working conditions; the protection of workers in their employment from risks resulting from factors adverse to health; the placing and maintenance of workers in an occupational environment adapted to physical and mental needs; (and) the adaptation of work to humans. In other words, occupational health and safety encompasses the social, mental and physical well-being of workers, that is the “whole person”." (definition used by the International Labour Organisation, ILO)

That goal is achieved through workplace policies, programs, and procedures, as well as an external legislative and regulatory framework. As this article is not a law article, specific national regulations should not be included. A links list to articles on occupational health and safety law in different jurisdictions might be justifiably created if someone wishes to do so.

True international standards, (e.g. ILO Guidelines on Safety Management) on the other hand, could be discussed directly in this article.

(2) OHSAS 1800 is NOT an ISO standard (see "Further Reading" list). It is a British Standard being marketed as "compatible" with ISO 9000- and 14000- series standards. The ISO voted DOWN the idea of developing an OHS standard based on the British Standard -- twice! See http://www.iso.org/iso/en/faqs/faq-misc.html

(3) In the Wikipedia entry, under the subheading "criticisms", it is stated that "(t)he benefits of OSH can be offset by too much regulation which forces heavy restrictions in the workplace along with costly practises. Excessive Health and Safety is often blamed on the Nanny State and Political Correctness." Whoever contributed this is not expressing a point of view held by the majority of stakeholders in occupational health and safety - i.e., the workers who face the risks. Most workers would argue that occupational health and safety is under-regulated; not over-regulated. For a reference, the link provided takes one to what appears to be an individual's blog on overregulation. A more scholarly examination of this question can be found in Werner Sengenberger's The role of labour standards in industrial restructuring: Participation, protection and promotion (ISBN 92-9014-482-3, First published 1990, available online at ILO website).

--Nodal Plane 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This article falls well below the standard I usually expect from Wikipedia: absolutely none of the assertions are cited and the article contains heavy bias in favour of all OHS regulation. Please could someone with more knowledge than me just present cited facts about the history and practice of OHS? --Chris

This page needs to be clarified with regards to the geographical area it is relevant to, (Ie the US) Once this happens it would pave the way for new pages to be created that are relevent to the OHS laws of each country. Each page could then be tailored to include details of relevent legislation and training for That country such as Iosh managing safelytraining for the UK etc. As this subject is fundamentaly defined by the laws of the county about which you are enquiring, this approach would allow wikipedia to offer far more detailed and precise results. Wikipedia is a global resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Davison (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OHSAS 18001

Having read the discussion on incorporating American laws into the OH&S page, I wonder why no one has included material on OHSAS 18001? There are few articles available that give any information of relevance in terms of implementation of the Guidelines. Surely, with it being an internationally recognised standard, albeit with resistance from America, it would be wise to incorporate it into the article? Christopherta 14:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Go ahead and do it. Pzavon 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This still has not been done. Is there any reason for this? Wiki-uk (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No reason I know of, other than that no one interested in doing so has actually stepped forward. Pzavon (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Worker Health and Safety here

Robert Weemeyer suggested merging the article at Worker health and safety into this one, but did not begin a discussion of why that would be a good thing to do. It seems to me that the topic of worker health and safety overlaps a great deal with Occupational health and safety and the two ought to be merged. The worker health and safety article is rather minimal at present, and the title is narrower than Occupational H&S, so I supporting a merger where Occupationla H&S is the one that survives. Pzavon 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposal on the same basis as outlined by Pzavon (that Occupational Health and Safety is the article that survives). Nodal Plane 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Merger

'OSH' and 'Worker Safety' are surely the same thing. If it is deemed necessary to have an Article on OSHA US then thats ok. The present article seems to cover this and has an overall International approach. I like the definitions of "Hazard, Risk and Outcomes". The British also defined "Danger" on the grounds that Danger may be quite obvious to most people but some Hazards may be hidden, such as toxic vapours or fumes. (Legal concepts of - Danger, Hazard & Risk are defined in BS5304: Now PD5304: Safe use of Machinery. Following advances in technology and changing domestic legislation together with the publication of a series of harmonised European Standards BS5304 of 1988 has been replaced by PD5304: 2000 Safe use of machinery. Available from the British Standards Institution.)

In Ireland we have the latest "Safety, health and Welfare at work Act, 2005". That follows from a long line of legislation, starting with the Factory & Workshops Act 1901-1920, Adapted and adopted by Constitution of Ireland Art 50 (Art 73/1922)and used until 1955. See Health and Safety Authority website http://www.hsa.ie/ [[1]] --Conh 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree. This topic can come under many names and we shouldn't have an article for each. I will merge next week (5 May 2007) if there are no further comments/votes - Ctbolt 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


merged Ctbolt 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: Length/Abridging

Regarding the length (and abridging) of the introduction, my suggestion would be to break out the latter paragraphs on OSH in various countries into a new section. DA Sonnenfeld 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, I would suggest adding a new section, "Experience Around the World", or something like that, just before the 'Emerging Concerns' section. The argument for this placement is that everything prior would be more universal. DA Sonnenfeld 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

no because they are both completely diffrent things This comment was placed by Bob54321on 16 March 2007

The comment by Bob54321 makes no sense to me Pzavon 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the size of the Introduction by about half by placing the latter half in a new section titled "National implementing legislation" I still think there is stuff in the introduction that could simply be eliminated, and at the very least needs citation, but I'll leave that for later, or for others. Anyone care to remove the "Long Intro" template? Pzavon 03:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

External links - April 2007

Refer to external links. Clean up of links- Since the article is a general article on OS&H (there is a lead to more specifics in common workplace hazard groups) I would expect the links to cover most of what is in the article (but expand on the information), not be country specific and not require the reader to go searching for general information through search features.

The links below were taken from the article. The bold links are now the current external links (I've removed the others). The links with out a 'dot point' are new ones that I googled for (to see if there were better ELs).

General links:

NOTE: the above link to emprocom was added by 87.102.5.112 on 7 August 2007, long after the rest of this list was posted. Pzavon 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Government sites that are generally good - but we can't have each countries site. Proposal is to pick the ones that are more generic to a world view.

Australian government site Useful
Canada government site no easily accessible general information
UK Health & safety of the Health & safety executive One of the better introductory pages.

Health only

Journal sites that would be better to use as references in the article, otherwise they are just promoting their product (and some don't have the full article - you pay for the extra).

Associations or university sites that promote their organisation with out their site adding to the information of OH&S:

Specific links that belong on other Wikipedia pages:

Private Corporations that contribute to OS&H

The above link to an entirely commercial site was added long after the rest of this list was removed to this location from the article. I believe it was posted by an new editor who did not understand what this page is for or why this list is here. I also beleive it deserves to be ignored. Pzavon (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Link broken:

I've changed the external links to the bold ones above. Please discuss here before adding new ones to the article. thanks - Ctbolt 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll start a discussion of your changes by noting that two of the three external links you left in place are very poorly described. In addition the UK link it not to the H&S Executive but to a limited part of that which is addressed to Small Businesses. By itself a useful link but the full UK H&S Executive, as well as US OSHA ouh to be there. In the US, OSHA and NIOSH are the agencies providing primary infomraiton in this area. While CDC has some, it should not be a primary link when so few are offered. Pzavon 17:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having external links to parent sites to use as 'entry portals'. The external links should take the reader directly to further information on the general topic of OS&H (what this article is about) that "could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." Leave the 'full' links to their respective pages within wikipedia - HSE, OSHA and NIOSH. Although I wouldn't recommend making this page into a list of national OS&H bodies like it is starting to get - see National implementing legislation - Ctbolt 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to add a link to the Global Environmental and Occupational E-Library (www.geolibrary.org) which is an important resource for occupational safety training materials and other educational materials. It is currently undergoing development by the University of Illinois at Chicago, with support from a number of reputable partners; notably, the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Anyone opposed?? It contains only materials that are in the public domain or have been posted with permission. --Chrissy385 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It would help the discussion if you placed the intended link here, so others could easilly review the site and tell you if they had concerns. Pzavon 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a link to the Collegium Ramazzini - an influential organization of 180 internationally renowned experts in the fields of occupational and environmental health?

  • Ramazzini Collegium The Collegium supplies information on risks and prevention of injury and disease attributable to the workplace and the environment.

--AJim (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose a link to this useful guide to health and safety at public events; indoor and outdoor, private or corporate

I hope that you will aprove this link as a useful resource for those looking to further their career in H&S.

Safety Regulations

the phrase "safety regulations" reverts here instead of having a page about regulations in general, such as those which govern (*cough*screw with*cough*) action figure manufacturers. comment placed by 75.72.21.221 on 13 May 2007

I am not certain, but it looks like 75.72.21.221 is suggesting that "Safety Regulations" is a broader topic that should not redirect to this article. If so, I agree and suggest that editor being a real article, or a disambiguation page, on safety regulations in general. Pzavon 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Health and Safety Insanities

I propose that this section be added to the discusion of the topic as this is fast becoming very influential - especially in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.99.121 (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst that would be an interesting topic, particularly when considering the possible negative effects of 'over-protectiveness' on the development of children, it is probably out of place in an article which focuses on the genuine attempts to improve workplace safety. Chrisj1948 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Harry McSHANE

I submit that a page for Harry McSHANE be created considering the impact that his accident had on workplace laws; All workplace safety law discussion really did start with his picture, much moreso that the Triangle Waistshirt Factory Fire, which has it’s own article; Though the Triangle Fire had a much greater impact in terms of laws made and changed, McSHANE’S picture started people discussing the matter, and he should have at least a nominal acknowledgement. 174.25.99.225 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

See also section

According to WP:ALSO this is a "bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links": there shouldn't be any redlinks. But, as someone has seemingly gone to some effort in drawing it up, I thought I'd propose the needful heavy trim on this page, before jumping in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Untitled

Some public domain material on OSHA is available at [2]. Klaus

OH&S or OS&H?

The article is currently called Occupational safety and health. But I have an Australian school marking criteria sheet sitting in front of me that calls it Occupational Health and Safety. I would have expected it to be OH&S since these things are usually put in alphabetical order. It also seems that most comments on this page refer to it as OH&S. So why is this article called OS&H? I am a lemon 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because that was how the article was started. In many areas OSH is the usual order, often because the writer is following the usage begun in the US with the passage of the Occupational Safety & Health Act in 1970. The US Congress used that order to place the legislation under the committees responsible for oversight of the Department of Labor rather than the (then) Department of Health, Education and Welfare. REgardless of the history, the fact is that both orders are widely used these days, in part depending on whether emphasis is wanted for "Safety" or for "Health"

alberto nunez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.162.18 (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One final reason for some is that OSH is a pronounsable abbreviation, while OHS is less so, especially if one wants the hearer to clearly catch all the letters involved. Pzavon 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC) - AGREED J Powell UK 7 Jan 2010

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the introduction? OSH sounds like an Americanism to me. I think the standard form, such as for legislature, in other countries should at least be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storleone (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing

I find this article to be written a confusing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.20 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Health & Safety Expert Required

The page Large Hadron Collider needs the opinion of an expert. There is a section about safety concerns which has only been edited by physicists and needs a health and safety expert to review the information and make more of a definitive contribution. Robfrost (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Would a general article on Occupational Health be improved by a discussion of the history of the field?

You could consult, for instance, Chronologic History of Occupational Medicine, available here as a pdf.

And the original journal citation:

Gochfeld, Michael (2005-02). "Chronologic history of occupational medicine". Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 47 (2): 96–114. ISSN 1076-2752. Retrieved 2009-02-28. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--AJim (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a discussion of the history of a topic is always appropriate in an article on that topic.
It is important, however, to recognize that this is an article on Occupational Safety and Health, not on Occupational Medicine. While the two fields are related and have some overlap, they are in fact different fields. Occupational Physicians, Occupational Nurses, and other medically trained professionals (who might otherwise be engaged in other aspects of the practice of medicine) are the primary practitioners of Occupational Medicine. Occupational Safety and Health is more the field of the Industrial Hygienist (Occupational Hygienist), Safety Engineer, Ergonomist, and related professionals who generally are not required to have medical training nor medical licenses to perform their functions. Pzavon (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well then, isn't it curious that no historical information before 1950 is presented in any of these articles. Somebody ought to put in something somwhere, even if there's some overlap. And BTW, this link, Chronologic History of Occupational Medicine, is no longer valid. Laguna greg (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Workplace Safety in to this article

{{merger proposal}} Occupation Health and Safety Occupational Safety and Health is more commmonly used term on the web, amongst professionals and in the academia. As a matter of fact the topic of this article should have been workplace safety and health. It is the health consequence that safety seeks to address and health consequences like diseases, injuries and fatalities attributed to work remain the core element in the field of workplacce safet and health or occupational safety and health. The tradition of occupational safety and health goes back to ancient times from hipppocrates to long before the industrial revolution wit Agricola and later Ramazzini who addressed issues of dangerous trades and their effects on workers.Industrial revolution led to passing of the first factories act in 1802 the goal was to prevent the social and health consequences of among other things child labour, long working hours and hygiene issues in the workplace. The modern concept of safety or workplace safety with its pletohora of models (swiss cheese, domino,FRAM etc ) are an product of the 20th century with evolution of mass production of cars, NASA missions , growth in the petroleum sector and development of nuclear reactors. The focus workplace sfaety seems to be somewhat skewed to accomadate production, productivity and deviation from production goals. Preventing negative health consequences remains core to the field of workplace or occupational safety and health. There is a lot already of information on the occupational safety and health wikipedia page. It is also seems to be a rudimentary article with disjointed information and statistics.

I propose that the workplace safety article be merged in to the occupational safety and health article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety --Enfolkefiende (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Seconded, these seem pretty obviously the same subject Mxheil (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OSH Management Systems - too technical

The section is confusing and poorly cited. Never does it define what an OSH management system actually is, making it incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already familiar with what the section is describing. The language is consistently vague, long-winded, and technical, eg "These guidelines encourage continual improvement in employee health and safety, achieved via a constant process of policy, organization, planning & implementation, evaluation, and action for improvement, all supported by constant auditing to determine the success of OSH actions". It's parsable, but not readily, and extremely vague. Mxheil (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo of workplace safety notices at the entrance of a Chinese construction site

I appreciate your (Aussie72's) desire to have an apt photo but the photo is not terribly clear. Most English-speakers/readers cannot read the Chinese type in the photo. The type in the photo is so small it may be difficult for Chinese-speakers/readers to read. Iss246 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

External Links

Following comes from Workplace safety

Tommy Pinball (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted irrelevant mention of I/O psychology

I deleted the section on relationship to industrial/organizational psychology because it doesn't belong in the OSH article. The field of I/O has little to no overlap with OSH. The fields are totally separate, and they are taught in separate colleges of university. That occasionally an I/O psychologist does a study of workplace accidents is no reason to include an entire section on the I/O field, any more than the existence of studies of accident costs by economists should require an entire section on relationship to economics. Psyc12 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Article also doesn't need an entire section on occupational health psychology (OHP). Although there is some connection with OSH, e.g., in the US through the NIOSH-funded Education and Research Centers (ERCs), this article mentions OHP near the beginning and in the list of related disciplines with hyperlinks to the OHP article for more detail. Reproducing that detail here is unnecessary. Psyc12 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Just added reliably sourced addition to opening paragraph and subjects that are involved. Clearly, modern work, occupational and organizational psychology is concerned with occupational health & safety research and practice. And increasingly so in graduate programs around the world, particularly Europe. The source I used is this: 2013 comprehensive text by Munir, F., & McDermott, H. (2013). Design of environments and work: health, safety and wellbeing. In Lewis, R., & Zibarris, L. (Eds.),. “Work and Occupational Psychology: Integrating Theory and Practice” 217-257.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
OSH is a specific field concerned mainly with accidents and injuries in the workplace that has little to do with work and organizational psychology. It is not sufficient to cite a source that says sometimes work and occupational psychologists are concerned with health and safety. One MUST have a source that says that W&O psychology is relevant to OSH. Psyc12 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Simply made addition to this sentence, "OSH may involve interactions among many subject areas, including occupational medicine, occupational hygiene, public health, safety engineering, industrial engineering, chemistry, health physics, work and organizational psychology, ergonomics, and occupational health psychology." Reliable source 2013, includes an entire section on OH&S as a 'key area' of professional work and organizational psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Mrm1717, thanks for asking me to comment on this diff. As I may have mentioned, I'm not a psychologist and haven't read any of the references. As a Wikipedia editor, I'd suggest that lists of associated professional areas may have some use in the article, but in the lede they are not essential. If I were trying to decide whether to include a specific professional area, I would start by looking for a reliable statement - you've provided one - but that would not be enough on its own. I would also want to assess whether the professional area makes a large enough contribution to the subject of the article to warrant space in the article. We are, after all, writing an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive textbook; this is meant to be an introduction to the subject for people like me and the introduction is meant to give major points only. I would assess the magnitude of the contribution to both practice and research, in relation to the contributions made by other professional areas, and I would bow to the opinions of other informed editors even if they disagreed with me. In Wikipedia terms, both reliable sources and consensus would be required to include the point. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Is mentioning different subjects in the lede necessary?

I think you made a good point with the 'contribution' made by each of these subjects to the area of OHS or OSH. Work & Organizational psych has as much, if not more relevance, as far as 'weighting' or 'contribution' goes in comparison to each subject in the lede. It was deleted only recently? Plenty of reliable sources for work & org psych and its contribution to OHS, (and increasing), justifying its inclusion, that is, if we were to keep this line in the lede at all. What stays in, what goes out in that sentence, if it was kept in article? Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OSH is a specific discipline within Public Health. So what should go in the lead should be disciplines that are specifically linked to this field. There are many fields in which you can find some studies done on topics concerning accidents and safety, but only a few of them are linked to the field of OSH. What would be best is to find some source, e.g., a textbook, on OSH that lists linked/related disciplines, and let that inform what should be listed here. Maybe there's something on the NIOSH website. But as you say, maybe it isn't necessary to have this sentence at all. Psyc12 (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There is another section under 'related fields' in this article, which seems pretty comprehensive, so we are doubling up here in the lede. Perhaps we should delete this sentence entirely? I also noticed a few years ago, the discussion on this talk page between editors over 'OHS or OSH.' Was left open-ended. I think both OSH & OHS are valid. Occupational health & safety (OHS) seems the most popular term internationally though? Also noticed over the years on this talk page, most editors use term OHS rather than OSH. Reliable sources supporting contributions to OHS, can come in many forms.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Merging Occupational health

This information might better on a pre-existing Occupational safety and health page.l santry (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Probably a good idea to integrate?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Santryl and Mrm7171, I agree with you both and I performed the merge. I did not follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging in that I did not tag the pages to begin a merger discussion, but as there was little useful information at "occupational health", and as we three all felt that the intent of that article was to describe what is already established at "occupational safety and health", and as I was of the opinion that the sources cited at "occupational health" did not suggest that it was a subject distinct from "occupational safety and health", I felt justified in performing the merge with only consensus among us three. We could revisit this if someone objects at a later time.

Mrm7171, before talking of the merge, you rearranged content in that article. I feel like I have preserved what you did by moving that content from that article into this article. I moved most of the content which was there here, and I feel that nothing was lost in the merge which was not already here.

Thanks both of you for recognizing this need. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No problems. I'm fine with the merge Bluerasberry. I think you have done a good job integrating it actually. Thanks for your efforts.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Good job Bluerasberry it is a seamless merge. Thank you :) l santry (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Identifying safety and health hazards

What is the section on 'hazard identification' about ? It does not appear to be about hazard identification. Its second sentence talks about 'hazard analysis' but that seems to be something quite different from what is described in the Wikipedia article on hazard analysis. As far as I can see, from the 3rd sentence on the text is trying to assert the preferability of applying the hierarchy of hazard control and removing hazards at source. Spot on, but the real enemy of that is reliance on personal protective equipment and behavioural safety exhortations ("Arkwright's Mill reminds all hands not to fall asleep whilst minding a loom" or some modern descendant), not risk assessment; nor is identifying a hazard necessarily the same as identifying its source. A properly conducted risk assessment should start with the hazard and then apply the hierarchy - a poorly conducted one may start with 'what we always do' and set out to justify doing that again, but that is an argument for adequate training of people to do risk assessment properly, not for not doing it at all (In my experience, the problem arises not so much because the author is a member of the boss class, as because people's 'risk thermostat' (sense of an acceptable risk level) is largely set by how they did the job when they did it first)

The text of the section seems to invite the following analysis:

  • hazard based programs do not accept that there are acceptable risks or satisfactory risk levels,
  • hazard based program may not be able to eliminate all risks

hence either

  • hazard based programs do accept that there are acceptable risks or satisfactory risk levels

or

  • the outcome of a hazard-based program may be inherently unacceptable (in which case why do it?)

and is a bit of cultural imperialism, since it runs contrary to the legislative/regulatory framework in the United Kingdom where it is a given that there are "acceptable risks" and that the 'satisfactory' outcome will not be one in which there is no risk, but one in which the risk level is as low as reasonably practicable As was pointed out during the passage of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, there can be no legal duty upon the employer to eliminate all hazards from the workplace because some operations inherently pose hazards and must have associated with them some residual risk. (The suggestion that risk-based approaches (and the ALARP principle) are a trick of the boss class was an argument heard and rejected by Parliament during the passage of HASAWA in 1974 - but HASAWA made provision for safety representatives to look after the workers' interests; most of the controversy over HASAWA was the presumption that safety reps would be trade union nominees). Rjccumbria (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjccumbria I am not ready to think as deeply about this as you are because that section cites no sources at all. If the section is to be rewritten then all of the content should be followed by citations to sources from which the content is derived. You or anyone could delete this content outright if you do not find it satisfactory; Wikipedia's content is supposed to all be backed with citations, and this content is out of compliance.
I would tolerate "cultural imperialism" if it is backed by sources and since we have no better content which does not have cultural bias. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The issues sign

how is the issues sign sign from November 2010、July 2012 still exist?

didn't any administer at least came and check it? 

 phoenix 2015-11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.97.247 (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Skid mark from a faulty ladder.

An ip has added this picture to the construction section. I don't see how this picture adds anything to the article. This might be a picture about ladder safety but not a generic article about occupational safety. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 23:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Line needs editing

Hi, this section needs editing (hope this is how you notify these things:

Health has been defined as It contrasts, for example, with the promotion of health and safety at work, which is concerned with preventing harm from any incidental hazards, arising in the workplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escape domain (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mention sanitation workers?

The article talks about some professions that are "risky" ones. I would like to add a mention of sanitation workers but not sure if I should start a new sub-heading or if it can go together with healthcare workers? EMsmile (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea User:EMsmile. How to start would be to identify and read papers that cover health and safety in sanitation workers. But you have to find such papers in reputable health journals. It would be most useful if you could find in a reputable journal a review article that describes findings that have been replicated across studies. There does not have to be perfect replication (replications are almost never perfect in occupational health research because findings vary from sample to sample and from research method to research method). This is probably rarer but it would be helpful to identify studies that are designed to assess the efficacy of interventions designed to improve sanitation worker health and safety. Pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) would be a good place to look to identify such papers. Most libraries have Medline, a more streamlined version of Pubmed. Iss246 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Iss246, I doubt that many such studies exist, especially not for people in developing countries who work in the informal sector as sanitation workers and whose working conditions are very unsafe. You don't need a fancy medical study with replications to know that emptying a pit latrine without any PPE and with stepping into the full pit (!!) is risky... The main publications available so far are cited in the new Wikipedia article on sanitation worker. Probably the best one is the one by Worldbank and WHO: [1] Would that one be good enough?EMsmile (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Of course studies by the WHO, the CDC, and the World Bank would be worthy of citing. I would take minor issue with you regarding not really needing studies. It is always good to have research to document the effects of sanitation work, or any other type of work, on the health of workers. We need those formal studies because there are always nay-sayers who deny science, perhaps because by denying science there is a profit to built on the lives of those workers. Iss246 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Bad practice example: A sanitation worker removing fecal sludge from the pit of a pit latrine without wearing any personal protective equipment (in a village in Burkina Faso).
Well, yea but this reminds me a bit of the parachute RCT... Do you know the one? See here. "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial". You just need to see a photo like this to know that this is really dangerous (see on the right). But a detailed study to investigate how many sanitation workers in e.g. India suffer from preventable diseases would of course be good. No doubt. But does that mean in the absence of such a study (there might be not much funding for it) we cannot write about it in Wikipedia? Anyway if anyone has time (I will also try to make time), let's dig through the report by Worldbank and WHO and see what we can use. WHERE in the article would it fit? New sub-heading or existing sub-heading? EMsmile (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I liked reading the mordant parachute RCT story. Thank you for pointing it out. Of course, I never mentioned conducting an RCT. There are other studies besides RCTs. I am interested in examining the incidence rates of specific diseases and orthopedic problems in sanitation workers and other blue collar workers as well as in sanitation workers in different jurisdictions, jurisdictions that differ in unionization, levels of safety procedures etc. Iss246 (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:EMsmile, here is a paper that is oriented toward social science research that bears on the heath and safety of janitorial workers.[2] Iss246 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

that's pretty good (but nothing compared to having to climb into a pit of a pit latrine...). Either way, WHERE in the article would information about sanitation workers fit best?EMsmile (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Review

Lead Section: Offers clear definition of occupational safety and offers brief but concise description of its purpose.

Content: Content is well outlined. Provides subheadings and Headings for each specific important aspect of occupational health. Does not go askew of intended examples or historical significance. Provides good citing. The tone is neutral, no indicated bias.

Sources: overall are consistent with current issues of worksite health. Images: Clear, and not confusing.

Article is well written, no grammatical errors.

OVERALL: Well written, good article. overall no problems in the article. Everything is consistent and accurate.

--Jeslyndv (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sam5chat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ World Bank, ILO, WaterAid, and WHO (2019). Health, Safety and Dignity of Sanitation Workers: An Initial Assessment. World Bank, Washington, DC.
  2. ^ Yragui, N. L., Pacheco. P, Sibrian, D., Chavez Santos, E. (2020). Mistreatment of Janitorial Workers: A Hidden Health and Safety Issue. Report to the Washington State Legislature. Technical Report # 102-56-2020. Washington Department of Labor & Industries, Olympia, Washington. [3]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupational_safety_and_health/Archive_1&oldid=1214457353"