chemicals – Page 19 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Corporate health adviser’s recommendations on swine flu

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog wondered why the ACT OHS Commissioner referenced a commercial website instead of a government authority. The commercial website was www .fluthreat .com operated by HSA Group which since early April 2009 is part of Medibank Private.

Fluthreat.com.au provides information on its Flu At Work page that is very flimsy and seems to be intended to generate further enquiries to its commercial advisory service. We’re not comfortable with that or the lack of badging from the parent company but…….

SafetyAtWorkBlog put some questions to HSA Group/Medibank and received the following responses from their media advisor over a week later. We could be picky but we have decided to let the responses speak for themselves.

The questions were based on the bulletpoints listed on the Flu At Work page in order to flesh out the advice to a more practical level.

What does HSA Group recommend for basic personal respiratory hygiene methods?

HSA’s fluthreat website covers basic respiratory hygiene considerations. Personal habits that we all should adopt include covering mouths when coughing and sneezing, using tissues and disposing of them properly, and regularly washing of hands.

In this time of swine flu, is the old way of throwing tissues in a waste basket no longer the right option?

Using a waste basket is fine. The important thing is the waste is disposed of appropriately, and the waste basket does not require excessive handling in the disposal process.

Handwipes and gel have issues of their own – should they be applied after handwashing or instead of, should they be used after each sneeze or cough? What does HSA recommend?

Considerations of personal hygiene should be a regular occurrence – not just simply after each sneeze or cough. Handwipes and gels are for occasions when you can’t wash your hands – it is not necessary to use both. Handwipes and gels should be alcohol based, which has been shown to be effective in killing influenza type viruses.

Regarding adequate cleaning of surfaces and equipment, should this be undertaken by the users of the equipment or should cleaning contractors be contacted in order to upgrade their processes?

Unfortunately there is no one simple answer to this question. Every business operates differently, and therefore will require a different response to a pandemic. We encourage all businesses to have a pandemic plan, which will guide the business wide response.

Certainly cleaning of surfaces and equipment should be considered in the context of an organisation’s pandemic plan, and may include having staff take additional care for hygiene and cleaning, or having cleaning contractors upgrade their processes. The appropriateness of such considerations are linked to the pandemic phase & an organisation’s response strategy in the context of their pandemic plan.

Regarding telephones, which are the closest item most office workers have to their mouths, years ago there were phone cleaners who physically came to the office to clean and disinfect handsets. Would HSA recommend this service be reinstated?

These services are still available for businesses who want them. Alternatively staff can be trained to do it themselves with alcohol based wipes. Again the specific needs of businesses will vary, and cleaning of telephone handsets should be set out in the pandemic plan.

In a closed environment, such as an office, where possible, should ventilation be increased by opening a window? Some office buildings turn off they ventilation overnight even when nightshift workers are in the building. Does HSA believe that nightshift workers could be at increased risk of contracting influenza?

Ventilation is important in workplaces, and not just due to swine flu. Where windows can be opened without affecting the air-conditioning flow this will help with ventilation. Air conditioning should remain on if people are present in the building. However there is no evidence that nightshift workers are at an increased risk of contracting influenza – it is the behaviour of workers and their levels of personal hygiene that are the strongest influence on this.

Regarding encouraging sick persons to stay at home, why only “encourage”, when employers have the legislative obligation to not place their employees at risk? What if the employee has shown no symptoms of influenza but may be infectious due to contact with a family member who is sick?

Employers should have policies in place that articulate how staff should behave in such circumstances, and ideally a plan that covers pandemics specifically. There is only a very small risk of people being infectious prior to symptoms appearing.

Sending workers home after the illness has appeared is an acknowledgement that illness is already present in the workplace. In this instance, what would HSA advise the employer to do?

Employers should continue to activate their pandemic plan, which will trigger workplace specific staff communications and contingency plans.

Does HSA recommend the wearing of facemasks as a suitable control measure for anyone who may come to work sneezing (for whatever reason)?

Facemasks can be very helpful in controlling the spread of respiratory diseases. However it should be noted that a sneeze does not necessarily equate to H1N1 or seasonal influenza. A diagnosis of suspected H1N1 or seasonal influenza requires consideration of a number of other factors.

Regardless of the further information from HSA Group/Medibank, SafetyAtWorkBlog still recommends that the best advice is available from the relevant health authorities in your State or country.

Kevin Jones

Environmental tobacco smoke, workplace stress – podcast 2006

In 2006, one of the earliest editions of the SafetyAtWork podcast featured several speakers on issues that remain topical. The podcast is available for download

Anne Mainsbridge, currently a Solicitor with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre talks about her report on environmental tobacco smoke.

This is followed by Associate Professor Tony LaMontagne of the University of Melbourne talking about a systematic approach to managing workplace stress. This was a report that was published by the Victorian Health Department and, as such, slipped by many OHS professionals. The report is now available for download

The audio production is rough for such an early podcast, and I apologise, but I think you will find the content of interest.

Kevin Jones

Offshore industry regulator performance

Australia’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) has released a report of its own OHS performance based on data from 2005 to 2007. NOPSA has been in the public eye far more than normal due to the Varanus Island explosion and the various investigatory reports.

The report seems to indicate that, as a regulator, NOPSA is performing to expectations. NOPSA’s CEO John Clegg has acknowledged that the industry is below the level of its overseas counterparts. This is peculiar given that other Australian resources industries, like mining, are ahead of other countries and that safety in the offshore industry has had a high profile ever since Piper Alpha.

The report identifies challenges that are difficult but not very surprising:

improving leadership – strong leadership is required for the Australian industry to move to the next level

dealing with a shortage of skilled personnel

managing ageing facilities and minimising gas releases

It will be very interesting to watch the benchmarking of NOPSA and its future role through the OHS harmonisation process that Australia is undergoing.

Below is the full report and the performance summary.

Kevin Jones

Fearing the invisible – selling nanotechnology hazards

The community is not getting as concerned about nanotechnology as expected (or perhaps as needed). There is the occasional scare and the Australian unions have relaunched their campaign on the hazards of nanotechnology manufacturing. There have been several articles about the potential ecosystem damage of nanotechnology in our waterways. Frequently, it can be heard that nanotechnology is the new asbestos.

Nanotechnology is a new technology and all new things should be used with caution. It is odd that none of the nanotechnology protests seem to be gaining much traction.

Part of the problem is that nanotechnology is invisible and how do people become concerned about the invisible? This is a point of difference from the asbestos comparison. Asbestos was turned into asbestos products – from dust to roofing. But nanotechnology goes from invisible to items such as socks. The public see new improved versions of common items, nanotechnology is used in familiar items, but the public does not see the nanotechnology and therefore does not comprehend nanotechnology as a potential hazard.

It may be useful to jump back before asbestos to look for new communication techniques for warning consumers about the invisible.

In 1998 Nancy Tome published “The Gospel of Germs“. Tome looks at the slow realisation in the first half of last century by the public that germs and microbes exist and can cause harm. She is not interested in the germs themselves but how society accepted their existence and how they reacted. This reaction – improved hygiene, infection control, disinfectant, etc – can provide us with some clues as to how society embraces the invisible, particularly if the invisible can make us sick.

Nancy Tomes wrote the book in the time when AIDS was new. But since then SARS is new, Swine Flu is new and other pandemics will become new to a generation who have only known good health and good hygiene. Now we are creating invisible things that we know can have positive benefits but we don’t know the cost of the benefit.

It is perhaps time for the OHS lobbyists to take a page or two from the public health promotion manual (and Tome’s book) and begin to explain rather than warn. Nanotechnology is not asbestos and the comparison is unhelpful. The application of nanotechnology will be in far more products than was asbestos and the nanotechnology is smaller.

If the lobbyists can make the invisible visible then progress will be much quicker.

Kevin Jones

Swine Flu lessons – presenteeism is real

There is some debate today about whether Swine Flu (in deference to the request from some pig farmers, now renamed “the Mexican Flu outbreak of 2009“) has peaked. Colleagues in Asia over the weekend told SafetyAtWorkBlog that in most circles, the Mexican Flu outbreak has not generated the same level of interest, or concern, as elsewhere. Perhaps the media studies academics can contribute to a redefinition of “global pandemic” as any disease outbreak that occurs in a country next to the United States. (Beware the Canadian Beaver Flu)

But flippancy aside, this dry-run at an influenza pandemic has many benefits and one particularly useful benefit will be a change in attitude to presenteeism in workplaces.

As the Southern Hemisphere enters its flu season and the early round of flu vaccinations concludes, Australia and others will be a test case for any attitudinal change in workers towards bringing their flu-ridden bodies to work, or in workers objecting to the contagious hazards that the presenteeists (?) introduce.

It has always been a suitable HR and OHS process to send someone home who appears impaired or unfit-for-work. In the past “essential” staff would continue to work for the sake of workload or productivity. Over time the folly of such an attitude has become obvious and workplace safety advocates have had a major role in this change. The increased absenteeism of, and the decreased productivity from, a team who have been infected by a single member is now an unacceptable health hazard and productivity threat.

This change has also been helped by the increasingly viable option in some industries for people to work from home.

The Mexican flu outbreak is likely to verify the reality of presenteeism, probably from colleagues demanding that control measures be taken on the unthinking infectious workmate. Masks may be tolerated but in the tradition of the hierarchy of controls, elimination is always preferable to personal protective equipment.

In the 1980s taxation department and many other workplaces, telephone hygienists were employed to disinfect telephone handsets. Modern handsets cannot be disassembled in the same way however, SafetyAtWorkBlog was reminded of this, at the time, peculiar hygiene practices when watching Mexicans disinfecting subways and public telephones.

In all things there must be balance, but the Mexican flu outbreak of 2009 will undoubtedly revise the way people touch things and others. In relation to influenza this is a good thing.

Kevin Jones

Two serious incidents in Victoria

In the days leading up to International Worker’s Day, their is a heightened sensitivity about workplace incidents. Today, 20 April 2009, there were two incidents in Victoria that have involved emergency air ambulance flights to Melbourne. One is being undertaken as this blog article is being written.

The Rural Ambulance service has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that a 53-year-old logger has been crushed under a log on Black Range Rd, Narbethong this afternoon. He has a fractured pelvis and rib injuries and is being airlifted to a city hospital. Narbethong was affected by the savage bushfires on 7 February 2009 about which a Royal Commission is investigating

The welding explosion incident reported by the ABC apparently occurred at a depot of the Department of Sustainability & Environment at Alexandra. The incident involved a petrol explosion. The 31-year-old male was airlifted to the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne.

Kevin Jones

Lawyer speaks on nanotechnology risks

A leading Australian OHS lawyer, Michael Tooma, spoke to ABC Radio on 16 April 2009.

Tooma spoke about the potential risks employers face by dealing with a substance whose hazard rating is unclear. HE says

“Employers at the moment may be unaware of the extent of the potential liability sometime down the track. …We could be facing another epidemic in our industrial history of people, large groups of people, displaying latent symptoms from current exposures that are taking place at the moment. “

The unions have repeatedly made the comparison with asbestos hazards but as Dr Craig Cormick of the Australian Office of Nanotechnology says, in the same interview, that in the early usage of asbestos evidence of potential harm was available but not shared.

An April 2007 legal update from Tooma on the issue is available

Category: chemicals

Corporate health adviser’s recommendations on swine flu

Like this:

Environmental tobacco smoke, workplace stress – podcast 2006

Like this:

Offshore industry regulator performance

Like this:

Fearing the invisible – selling nanotechnology hazards

Like this:

Swine Flu lessons – presenteeism is real

Like this:

Two serious incidents in Victoria

Like this:

Lawyer speaks on nanotechnology risks

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: