Effects of Environmental Pollution

Air Pollution
Air pollution idensity is about 30,000 per square kilometre, more than in Manhattan in New York City (PRIDE, 1994)
The greatest industry concentrations in Cairo are in the Helwan area to the South and Shoubra El-Kheima to the North. s mainly a problem of large cities. In Egypt, this problem is mainly related to Cairo. Estimated population of Greater Cairo range from about 10-16 million people (mean 12 million). Average population


Prevailing winds from the North, most of the year blow pollutants from the industrial zone in Shoubra El-Kheima directly into the city. Current ambient concentrations for all major air pollutants in Cairo approach or exceed levels that threaten public health. Table 1 show the Concentrations of Air Pollutants in Cairo.
Table 1: Concentrations of Air Pollutants in Cairo.
Pollutant Concentration (ug/m3) U.S. Standard (ug/m3)
Sulphur Dioxide 40-156 annual mean 80 annual mean
Particulate Matter 349-857 annual mean 75 annual mean
Nitrogen Oxides 90-750 hourly means 100 annual mean
Carbon Monoxide 1,000-18,000 hourly means 40,000 hourly mean
Lead 0.5-10 annual mean 1.5 quarterly mean
Ozone 100-200+ hourly maximum 235 hourly maximum

Health Hazards from Air Pollution
In General, although levels of several air pollutants often exceed health standards, they do not do so by as much as particulate matter (PM) (Vida supra). Non-PM air pollutants also generally have less severe health effects and, at levels prevailing in Cairo, often affect only small, particularly sensitive groups (e.g. asthmatics). Sulphur Dioxide, despite the fact that it exceeds U.S. health-based standards, it has few adverse general health hazards for the population.
Particulate matter (PM) Vida supra
Nitrogen Oxides (Nox) irritates mucous membranes, aggravates pre-existing respiratory illness (asthma), causes coughs, headaches, and shortness of breath.
Minimal health problems are expected in the general population including women.
Lead (Vida supra)
Ozone is a respiratory irritant that impairs lung function and leads to lower respiratory symptoms such as cough and chest discomfort. It is significantly hazardous in individuals having pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthmatics, may increase the likelihood of chronic lung injury, fibrosis, chronic bronchitis and heightened susceptibility to respiratory infections.
Pollutants from cooking stoves (CO, Nox and particulate) are not uncommon especially in poorer communities in Egypt and rural areas deploying kerosene appliances. In some instances, concentration of such substances may exceed outdoor ambient concentrations. Apart from fire hazards such pollutants may cause respiratory irritation, eye infections, neonatal deaths and low birth weight babies. Biological contaminants such as moulds, mites and allergens as well as household toxins, particularly pesticide sprays may cause serious health hazards. U.S. and other studies have suggested that ETS may have carcinogenic compounds (PRIDE, 1994).
Drinking Water Contamination by Chemicals
Despite its upstream course of more than 6,000 KM, the Nile is relatively unpolluted when it reaches Cairo. Cairo dispenses 2-3 million cubic meters of domestic sewage and 0.2 million cubic meters of industrial effluents generated daily. The large flow of water in the Nile (daily flow of 80-150 million cubic meters) provides extensive dilution of pollutants.
After treatment and chlorinated, the drinking water generated from the 16 water treatment plants in Cairo is nearly always clean. The negative pressure generated increases the likelihood of infiltration of ground water and sewage into the pipes. Moreover, the tanks are open for contamination by atmospheric depositions, birds and animals.
Chlorine, carcinogenic pesticides, heavy metals especially lead have all been detected in varying levels in our drinking water.
Reproductive Health Hazards from drinking water
There were no confirmed evidence of reproductive health hazards from drinking water chemicals. In a U.S. based study, chlorine and trihalomethane (THM) was associated to non statistically significant increase in cases of miscarriage (in high concentrations) (Savitz et al., 1995) . Another American study suggested, although not confirmed, excess spontaneous abortions rates and birth defect in a single incidence of solvent contamination of drinking water in a certain area in California (Wrensch et al., 1990) .
In Cairo, however, the main health hazard from drinking water is lead contamination. Samples from treatment plants revealed lead levels of 6 ug/l. This surprising high level of lead in drinking water is considered the MAJOR source of lead contamination for humans living in Cairo and major Egyptian cities and constitutes a major health threat for Egyptian (Cairo residents) including pregnant women (Vida supra). The source of such alarming chemical contamination needs further clarification.
In addition, microbiological contamination of drinking water in some suburban areas and rural communities in Egypt is not to be neglected. Potent water supplies are still not available in a major sector of non-urban areas of Egypt including a large section of Egyptian population (CAPMAS, 1993).
Chemical Exposure and Reproductive Health

A growing body of scientific evidence implicates occupational chemical exposures in the aetiology of human adverse reproductive outcome. The major threat in developing countries, including Egypt, is the lack of knowledge in handling those chemicals ( Paul and Himmelstein, 1988). In a large study including 10,879 pregnant women exposed to various household and agricultural chemicals, it was found that there exists a strong association of congenital malformations with chemical exposure (Gibson et al., 1983) In another study including women who worked as factory workers in chemical industry suggested high rate of low birth weight and short gestation length and infant death (Kallsen and Landgren, 1994) . Developmental disorders include not only malformations visible at birth, but also spontaneous abortions, foetal death and functional deficits (Peters, 1993) . Spermatogenic count deterioration, loss of sperm motility, teratospermia, loss of libido have all been related to males exposed to chemicals (e.g. solvents). Moreover, increased rates of abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight, and birth defects and childhood malignancy in offspring has all been recorded in wives of males working in chemical industries (Tas et al., 1996)

Pesticides Exposure and Reproductive Health
Organochlorines including endrin, dieldrin, lindane, and DDT were the most widely used pesticides in Egypt through the early 1980's (Abdel Gawaad, 1989) . The increasing use of household and agricultural pesticides still constitute a major health threat especially in injudicious use. Pesticide food contamination may be a major health threat to the general population in Egypt. Pesticides may applied to crops after harvest (DDT) to prevent spoilage during transport and storage. Pesticides may even appear in crops to which they were not applied when irrigation water that has been contaminated by upstream pesticide use is re-used for additional crops.


readmore»

Exposure

Definition of the exposure indicator
The most appropiate exposure measurement for occupational noise is the A-weighted
to damage human hearing. most commonly used epidemiological measurement of exposure. Exposure is initially
asessing the burden of disease. exposure above and below cut-off values, rather than as a distribution. limits in developed (usually 85 dB(A)) and many developing (usually 90 dB(A))

countries for an 8-hour day (Hessel & Sluis-Cremer, 1987; Alidrisi et al., 1990;
Shaikh, 1996; Hernandez-Gaytan et al., 2000; Osibogun, Igweze & Adeniran, 2000;
Sriwattanatamma & Breysse, 2000; Ahmed et al., 2001):
− minimum noise exposure: <85 dB(A)
− moderately high noise exposure: 85−90 dB(A)
− high noise exposure: >90 dB(A).
4.2 Determining the distribution of exposure in the population
The most accurate assessments of health impacts at the national level are obtained
from local exposure data, since population exposure distributions can vary between
countries. The most commonly used methods to assess health impacts are:
− area surveys: noise levels are measured at different sites across an area, such as
− dosimetry: a person’s cumulative exposure to noise over a period of time is
measured with a dosimeter;
− engineering surveys: noise is measured using a range of instruments.
Ideally, representative data will be available on the average levels of occupational
noise for all major occupations within the country, either from the published scientific
literature or from other sources of data. If such data are not available,
epidemiological surveys can be carried out to determine the distribution of noise
exposure by occupation. distribution will have to be estimated from existing sources of information. A reasonable estimate of the exposure distribution can be obtained by extrapolating
from existing data for studies undertaken elsewhere, provided that the data are from
similar occupational environments. determinant of exposure level is worker occupation. Industry-specific studies in the
perceived hearing loss, and 90% of coal miners have hearing impairment by age 52
Also, it is estimated that 70% of male metal/nonmetal miners will have hearing
impairment by age 60 years (NIOSH, 1991). workplace-specific factors will also influence the level of exposure. These factors
whether there are engineering and work practice controls; and whether personal
protective devices are used and properly maintained. developed countries than in developing countries). extrapolations should be made from data for comparable occupations in comparable
countries.
The Global Burden of Disease study estimated exposure distributions using an
occupational category approach, modified to reflect the different noise exposures for
occupations in different economic subsectors. national level, using country data where available, or by extrapolating from data for
other studies if local data are not available.
The first step is to assess the proportion of workers in each occupational category that
is exposed to at least moderately high occupational noise levels (>85 dB(A)); see
Table 4). If these data are not available from national surveys, the distribution can be
based on the results of a large survey in the USA (DHHS, 1986; NIOSH, 1998). For each occupational category, the proportion of production workers exposed to high
noise levels (i.e. >90 dB(A)) is estimated from a survey of over 9 million production
workers in the USA carried out by the USA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration in 1981 (cited in NIOSH 1991; DHHS, 1986). shown in bold font in Table 4. Of the 6 063 000 production workers with exposures
at or above 85 dB(A), 3 407 000 (or 56%) were exposed to noise levels above 90
dB(A). We therefore estimate that among production workers exposed at or above 85
dB(A), half were exposed at 85–90 dB(A), and half were exposed at >90 dB(A).
Exposures in the remaining occupational categories and economic subsectors are
estimated either by extrapolation from the most relevant subsector of the survey of
production workers (figures shown in italics in Table 4), or by expert judgement
the agricultural workers and sales and service workers exposed at or above 85 dB(A),
approximately 70% are exposed at 85–90 dB(A), and 30% at >90 dB(A). All
professional, administrative, and clerical workers with noise exposure at or above 85
dB(A) are assumed to be in the 85–90 dB(A) exposure level.
the country in which the assessment is undertaken. In developing countries, because
hearing conservation programmes are rare, the global assessment assumed that only
5% of the production workers would be exposed at the 85–90 dB(A) level, and 95%
would be exposed at the >90 dB(A) level. exposed at or above 85 dB(A) are assigned to the 85–90 dB(A) level, because
mechanization is not widespread in countries in WHO developing subregions (e.g.
The second step consists of defining the proportions of workers in each economic
subsector, by occupational category. These data may be available from national
proportion of workers in each occupation is multiplied by the proportion of workers in
the occupation exposed to moderately high, or high, noise levels). proportion of the working population in each economic subsector is determined by
gender. In the fifth step, these values are multiplied by the proportion of workers in
the occupational category exposed to the specific noise level. calculations is performed for all economic subsectors, and the results summed to give
the proportion of the total working population that is exposed at each noise level.
work, by defining the proportion of the working-age population that is currently
employed. the working-age population. Finally, the overall population exposure is given by
multiplying the proportion of the working population exposed at each exposure level,
by the proportion of the total population in work.
Table 5 summarizes these steps and the sources of data necessary to complete them,
and gives example calculations for the proportion of the male working-age population
in the USA that is exposed to moderately high noise levels. assessment of the exposure distribution, the calculations would be repeated for
exposure to high noise levels, and for females as well as males. Estimates for the prevalence of noise exposure, determined using the described
The figures assume there are equal employment rates
in all age groups of the working-age population.




readmore»

Occupational noise

1. Introduction
Physically, there is no difference between sound and noise. Sound is a sensory
perception and noise corresponds to undesired sound. By extension, noise is any
unwarranted disturbance within a useful frequency band (NIOSH, 1991). Noise is
present in every human activity, and when assessing its impact on human well-being
it is usually classified either as occupational noise (i.e. noise in the workplace), or as
environmental noise, which includes noise in all other settings, whether at the
community, residential, or domestic level (e.g. traffic, playgrounds, sports, music).
This guide concerns only occupational noise; the health effects of environmental noise
are covered in a separate publication (de Hollander et al., 2004).
High levels of occupational noise remain a problem in all regions of the world. exposed to hazardous noise (NIOSH, 1998). (12−15% of the workforce) are exposed to noise levels defined as hazardous by WHO
Although noise is associated with almost every work activity, some
activities are associated with particularly high levels of noise, the most important of
flying commercial jets. Occupations at highest risk for NIHL include those in
manufacturing, transportation, mining, construction, agriculture and the military.
The situation is improving in developed countries, as more widespread appreciation of
Data for developing
countries are scarce, but available evidence suggests that average noise levels are well
above the occupational level recommended in many developed nations (Suter, 2000;
The average noise levels in developing countries may be
There are therefore several reasons to assess the burden of disease from occupational
noise at country or subnational levels. Occupational noise is a widespread risk factor,
with a strong evidence base linking it to an important health outcome (hearing loss).
It is also distinct from environmental noise, in that it is by definition associated with
An assessment of the burden of disease associated with occupational noise can help
guide policy and focus research on this problem. occupational noise (WHO/FIOH, 2001).
2. The risk factor and its health outcomes
2.1 Measuring noise levels
There are a variety of metrics for quantifying noise levels, the most useful of which
for measuring sound as a health hazard is described in de Hollander et al. (2004). In
account for the sensitivity of people to noise. These corrections depend on the noise
frequency and characteristics (impulse, intermittent or continuous noise levels), and
the source of noise. The following measures are most relevant for assessing
occupational noise levels.
Sound pressure level. The sound pressure level (L) is a measure of the air vibrations
that make up sound. Because the human ear can detect a wide range of sound
pressure levels (from 20 μPa to 200 Pa), they are measured on a logarithmic scale
with units of decibels (dB) to indicate the loudness of a sound.
Sound level. frequencies. To account for the perceived loudness of a sound, a spectral sensitivity
factor is used to weight the sound pressure level at different frequencies (A-filter).
These A-weighted sound pressure levels are expressed in units of dB(A).
Equivalent sound levels. When sound levels fluctuate in time, which is often the case
for occupational noise, the equivalent sound level is determined over a specific time
period. In this guide, the A-weighted sound level is averaged over a period of time
A common exposure period, T, in occupational
studies and regulations is 8 h, and the parameter is designated by the symbol, LAeq,8h.

2.2 Disease outcomes related to the risk factor
In general, the health consequences of a given level of occupational noise are likely to
review has therefore been carried out of all well-designed epidemiological studies that
link occupational noise exposure to health outcomes, regardless of where the study
The review of the literature indicates that noise has a series of health effects, in
addition to hearing impairment (Table 1). with noise in the workplace. Other consequences of workplace noise, such as
annoyance, hypertension, disturbance of psychosocial well-being, and psychiatric
disorders have also been described (de Hollander et al., 2004).
For occupational noise, the best characterized health outcome is hearing impairment.
The first effects of exposure to excess noise are typically an increase in the threshold
of hearing (threshold shift), as assessed by audiometry. hearing thresholds of an average 10 dB or more at 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hz in either
ear (poorer hearing) (NIOSH, 1998). NIHL is measured by comparing the threshold
of hearing at a specified frequency with a specified standard of normal hearing, and is
reported in units of decibel hearing loss (dBHL).
Threshold shift is the precursor of NIHL, the main outcome of occupational noise. It
accompanied by tinnitus. Because hearing impairment is usually gradual, the affected
worker will not notice changes in hearing ability until a large threshold shift has
occurred. Noise-induced hearing impairment occurs predominantly at higher
frequencies (3000−6000 Hz), with the largest effect at 4000 Hz. increases in severity with continued exposure.
− social isolation;
− impaired communication with coworkers and family;
− decreased ability to monitor the work environment (warning signals, equipment
sounds);
− increased injuries from impaired communication and isolation;
− anxiety, irritability, decreased self-esteem;
− lost productivity;
− expenses for workers’ compensation and hearing aids.
2.3 The strength of the evidence for disease outcomes
The mechanisms linking occupational noise to the health outcomes described in the
countries or regions. strength of relationships, other studies are usually relevant for assessing the strength
of evidence for causality.
Evidence is usually assessed on the grounds of biological plausibility, strength and
consistency of association, independence of confounding variables and reversibility
(Hill, 1965). psychosocial well-being, psychiatric disorders, and effects on performance are
plausible outcomes, but are only weakly supported by epidemiological evidence.
Other plausible outcomes include biochemical effects, immune system effects, and
birth-weight effects, but again there is limited evidence to support these outcomes.
There is stronger evidence of noise-based annoyance, defined as “a feeling of
resentment, displeasure, discomfort, dissatisfaction or offence which occurs when
noise interferes with someone’s thoughts, feelings or daily activities” (Passchier-
Vermeer, 1993). Noise annoyance is always assessed at the level of populations,
There is consistent evidence for annoyance in populations
about 42 dB(A). doubt that annoyance from noise adversely affects human well-being.
A recent meta-analysis reviewed the effects of occupational and environmental noise
on a variety of cardiovascular risks, including hypertension, use of anti-hypertension
drugs, consultation with a general practitioner or specialist, use of cardiovascular
medicines, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction and prevalence of ischaemic heart
disease (van Kempen et al., 2002). The analysis showed an association with
hypertension, but only limited evidence for an association with the other health
outcomes. Reasons for the limited evidence included methodological weaknesses,
such as poor (retrospective) exposure assessment, poorly controlled confounding
variables, and selection bias (such as the “healthy worker” effect, where the studied
work through disability). individual studies, and summary relative risks were statistically significant in only a
limited number of cases. Overall, the causal link is plausible, and the meta-analysis
provides support for further investigation of cardiovascular effects in the future.
the meta-analysis. Global Burden of Disease study, and methods for estimating the cardiovascular
effects of noise were not defined (Concha-Barrientos et al., 2004). This guide does
not therefore provide information for assessing the cardiovascular effects of noise at
national or local levels. the physical properties of noise and damage to the hearing system). supported by epidemiological studies that compared the prevalence of hearing loss in
different categories of occupations, or in particularly noisy occupations (e.g. Arndt et
al., 1996; Waitzman & Smith, 1998; Hessel, 2000; Palmer, Pannett & Griffin, 2001).
The studies showed a strong association between occupational noise and NIHL, an
effect that increased with the duration and magnitude of the noise exposure. For
example, the risk for “blue-collar” construction workers was 2 to >3.5-fold greater
(Table 2). exposure to vibrations, ototoxic drugs and some chemicals, the association with
occupational noise remains robust after accounting for these influences. epidemiological evidence for an effect of high levels of occupational exposure on
hearing loss in unborn children (e.g. Lalande, Hetu & Lambert, 1986), but there was
Global Burden of Disease study, and it is not covered further in this guide.
3.4 Health outcomes to include in the burden of disease assessment
The selection of a health outcome should be made principally on the strength of the
evidence of causality and on the availability of information for quantifying health
impacts. It is also important that the health outcome has been assessed within the
study population, or can reasonably be extrapolated from other populations. several possible sources for health statistics, including national health statistics, a
national burden of disease study, or “prior estimates” provided by WHO. More
(Prüss-Üstün et al., 2003).
Depending on the aim of the study, it may be preferable to assess disease burden in
terms of attributable disease incidence, or overall disease burden, using summary
measures of population health such as DALYs (Murray, Salomon & Mathers, 2000).
with the health burden from other risk factors. A goal of burden of disease
assessments is to maximize the compatibility of frameworks for assessing the burden
of disease for risk factors. associated with each disease.
health outcomes often assessed in national health statistics and as part of WHO
burden of disease assessments. se. Should annoyance cause other health outcomes, such as hypertension and
associated cardiovascular disease, then other outcomes could be considered. comparative disability weights independently, to take them from other studies (e.g. de
Hollander et al., 2004), or to extrapolate them from similar health outcomes. You
should be aware that an independent assessment of the severity of such outcomes
introduces additional uncertainty when the results are compared with other risk factors
This guide follows the previous global assessment of occupational noise, in that only
the effects of occupational noise on NIHL are assessed. Several definitions of hearing
impairment are available in the literature. In the occupational setting, hearing
impairment is generally defined as “ a binaural pure-tone average for the frequencies
Sriwattanatamma & Breysse, 2000). correspond to the WHO definition of disabling hearing loss (i.e. with an associated
disability weight, and corresponding to a quantifiable burden of disease). This level
of hearing impairment is defined as “permanent unaided hearing threshold level for
4000 kHz” (Table 3). prevalence of hearing loss that corresponds to the WHO definition, as it is preferable
for burden of disease assessments. procedure is supported by large epidemiological studies, and should therefore



readmore»

Environmental Health & Safety

Purpose:
The purpose of this procedure is to define and document the process and primary agenda of issues to be included in the "EMS Management Review" meetings for WSU.
The "EMS Management Review" process is intended to provide a forum for discussion and improvement of the EMS. At least once a year, WSU's top environmental management shall review the EMS to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. The management review process shall ensure that the necessary information is collected to allow management to carry out this evaluation. The review shall be documented.
The management review shall address the possible need for changes to policy, objectives and other elements of the environmental management system, in light of environmental management system audit results, changing circumstances and the commitment to continual improvement.
Procedure:
The Director of EH&S is responsible for scheduling and conducting a minimum of one "EMS Management Review" meeting a year. This meeting must be conducted between the Director of EH&S and the Vice President of Business Affairs. The Director of EH&S needs to provide following information for the meeting:
Progress at meeting objectives and targets
Any changes to objectives and targets
Any changes to Aspect list
Summary results of internal audit and external audits conducted since the last "EMS Management Review" meeting
Resource use and resource needs
Summary of benefits of EMS system versus costs of the system
At a minimum, each "EMS Management Review" meeting will consider the following:
The suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the Environmental Policy
The suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the environmental objectives (as well as WSU's current status against these objectives)
The overall suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the EMS
The results of action items from the previous "EMS Management Review" meeting
Recommended changes to the EMS to ensure continual improvement
Output from the meeting:
Meeting minutes and list of attendees
Summary of key issues discussed
Summary of decisions including any: action plan changes to strategic plan, changes to procedures and policy, budget and resource reallocation, changes to objective and targets, and action items arising from the meeting
Feedback to faculty, staff, students and public: A copy of the meeting minutes will be distributed to attendees and any individuals assigned action items.


readmore»

Health and safety representatives

Your employer has a duty to consult all staff about health and safety issues in the workplace. They do this by either talking direct to employees or to a safety representative acting on behalf of the employees.

Rights and functions of safety representatives
If your employer recognises a trade union and the union has appointed a safety representative (rep), your employer must consult the safety rep.
If there is no recognised union, your employer must either consult you direct or, if a representative of employee safety (ROES) has been elected, consult the ROES.
Safety reps have certain rights and functions including the legal right to:
represent workers in talks with the employer or the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or other safety or environmental enforcement agencies
investigate complaints, possible hazards and dangerous incidents
carry out regular inspections of the workplace
take part in workplace risk assessments
A ROES functions include:
representing the interests of workers to the employer in consultation with the HSE and other safety or environmental enforcement agencies
speaking to the employer about hazards at work and other health and safety issues
Employer's duty to consult on health and safety
Your employer has a legal duty to:
consult about anything that may affect health and safety in the workplace
give you, if you are being consulted directly, or your safety rep or ROES, the chance to state their views
Your employer must consult on:
changes in working practices or procedures that could affect your health and safety
arrangements for using competent people to help the business comply with health and safety legislation
information to be made available on health and safety risks in the workplace
planning of health and safety training
health and safety issues with new technology
Employers' health and safety responsibilities
Are you protected if you report something to your safety rep?
Under the law you are protected as a safety 'whistleblower' if there has been:
a criminal offence
a danger to the health and safety of any individual
Public Concern at Work is the leading authority on public interest whistleblowing. Blowing the whistle on workplace wrongdoing
If your trade union is recognised and you want to become a safety rep, speak to your branch secretary about how to get yourself elected or appointed to represent the workforce. You will normally need two years’ experience of working in your job or in similar work.
time off for relevant training and to be paid for the time off if it’s during normal working hours
As a ROES your employer is required to provide you with and pay for relevant training in health and safety matters. If the training is during your normal working hours you have the right to time off with pay.



readmore»

Introduction to Safety and Health Management System

1. Introduction
Safety management can be traced to as far back as 3000 BC in Egypt and Babylon. In the 18th century, the Factory Act sets standards for safe working conditions and work hours in England. Following that, other laws such as the Explosives Act (1875) and the Safety and Health Act (1974) were passed.
The world’s first workmen’s compensation law was written in Germany in the 18th century in response to the dissatisfaction of workers with increasing hazardous working conditions as a result of industrialization.

Industrialization in North America also brought about activities that exposes workers to risks and as a result, many laws (e.g. Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1915) were passed to protect workers and compensate them for injuries.

Several major accidents such as the Piper Alpha, England (1988), Flixborough, England (1974), Texas City, United States (1947), Bhopal, India (1984), Seveso, Italy (1976) and Spyros, Singapore (1978) had also triggered a growing concern over safety and health issues.


readmore»

MACHINE SAFETY

It's tough to imagine modern society without machines hard at work all around us. New and improved machinery leads to increased productivity, higher quality, and more affordable production. But misused machines can be as harmful as they are helpful. Machines that cut metal can cut off fingers. Machines that punch through steel can punch through flesh. Such injuries can cause career-ending disabilities as well as severe pain and suffering.


Be alert to these areas when working around or operating machinery:
The point of operation: That is where the work of the machine takes place. It's where the pressing, cutting, punching and boring takes place. It's a place where no part of the body should be. If any part of the body is in the way at the point of operation, the force of the machine can cause a serious injury. The point of operation may also produce sparks or fragments that can fly toward the operator. Safety glasses are important for this type of work.
The power train: That is where energy is transferred through moving parts like gears, shafts, belts, cables, hydraulic or pneumatic cylindersWhen working on this type of machinery, always follow the lockout/tagout procedures and replace all guards when repairs are complete. Employees should report any missing guards to their supervisor before operating this equipment.
Workers must control machines carefully. In addition to avoiding the power train and point of operation, employees should always:
Make sure machines are anchored securely to prevent "walking," tipping, excessive vibration or other movement that could be hazardous.
Never reach blindly into areas that may contain energized parts.
Keep conductive items -- watches, rings, steel, belt buckles -- away from exposed electrical parts.
Never plug or unplug electrical equipment with wet hands.
Follow all lockout/tagout procedures.
Always wear the proper protective equipment for each job. Material handling equipment: Power lifts, forklift trucks, etc. are not considered to be production machinery, but their points of operation and power train can be just as hazardous.


readmore»