On October 7 2016, Victoria’s trade union movement held a Young Worker Conference. The major public statement from that conference was the launch of a survey report called Young Workers Health and Safety Snapshot. The report has received some mainstream press which is not unusual for this type of trade union member survey. Almost twenty…
Asbestos is not something this blog writes about often, principally because the risk of asbestos-related diseases is well established and the control measures identified. Ideally asbestos should be left in the ground as, no matter in what state it is used, it presents a serious hazard to someone wherever it has been mined or used. But few countries are willing to make this commitment and even if they do asbestos-containing materials (ACM) continue to be imported regardless of any bans in place, as Australia is currently experiencing.
This fundamental occupational health and safety (OHS) and public health issue is not helped when prominent figures utter dangerous misrepresentations. MotherJones has pointed out that in his co-authored 1997 book, The Art of the Comeback, now United States Presidential-hopeful Donald Trump described asbestos as
“the greatest fire-proofing material ever used.”
That asbestos is
“100 percent safe, once applied,” and “got a bad rap.”
The quotes are 19 years old so Trump may have achieved a different perspective on asbestos and it would be good to have someone pose the question, perhaps in the next debate, although he may simply deny he ever said that. (He would be technically right, he never said it, he wrote it)
Australia does not have a Trump but it does have an Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA) and only last week the Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash (great name for a politician giving out money), gave the agency an
“additional $3.4 million over two years in the 2016-17 Budget”.
This was a timely increase, at least politically, to counter the continued importation of a banned substance as mentioned above. However, the allocation of this money to the ASEA misses the target. ASEA does not control the importation of building products; that is the job of the Australian Border Force.
ASEA released its Annual Operations Plan 2016-17 at the end of September in which it addresses the asbestos importation issue:
“ASEA works with all levels of government to assist in responding to the strategic risks of asbestos in Australia. The agency coordinated the development of a Rapid Response Protocol through the Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities (HWSA) Imported Materials with Asbestos Working Group. The protocol is the first of its kind, enabling government agencies to work cooperatively and efficiently across jurisdiction and portfolio lines when products have been identified as containing asbestos. This allows agencies to work through the practicalities of concerns that such products may cross, or have crossed, state lines.”
This national and cross-agency cooperation is good and required but “the practicalities of concern” is the major barrier to change. Government never seems to have sufficient funds to make a ban as effective as possible or it needs to be. Allowing ACM into Australia, even though the building material contains a government-banned substance, creates costs on public and occupational health but as these costs are further down the supply chain and may not appear for decades, Government considers them to be acceptable. It is highly unlikely that the cost of preventing ACMs at the border would be more expensive than the long-term health costs that the Government will need to pay through public health and hospitals and that employers may need to pay through lost productivity, business disruption and workers’ compensation. (This is another example of why OHS need economists and financial estimators.)
In February 2016, Minister for Border Protection, Peter Dutton, announced an inquiry into the importation of ACMs, to be conducted by KGH Border Services, a company with which the Minister’s Department has been in a partnership since early 2015. The final report seems to imply that the issue is too difficult to police and that the current process is the best the Government can do, particularly as a large part of the asbestos problem originates in China, Australia’s most lucrative trading partner.
“For most businesses involved in international trade, a rational cost/benefit analysis of investment in compliance is not justified by the incentives that government offer to promote voluntary compliance. Despite the critical effect of asbestos exposure to public health and safety, it remains a cheap and effective material for use in a wide range of goods. Asbestos continues to be widely used internationally, and is incorporated in goods manufactured by Australia’s largest trading partners, such as China.”
This paragraph from the KGH report illustrates the tone of the report. Asbestos is cheap and effective and used widely, however it is also deadly. As mentioned above, asbestos and ACM is only cheap to purchase but can have decades long costs that would/should render the cheap purchase a nonsense. That asbestos is effective echoes Trump’s position.
The report also states:
“Due to the differing standards applied to asbestos regulation internationally, it may be inefficient for suppliers that sell to a range of markets, to ensure compliance with the Australia’s strict import prohibition. The Australian prohibition relates to all forms of asbestos, but chrysotile is not internationally recognised as a dangerous form of asbestos. Countries that mine chrysotile maintain that it is safe, and continue to export it to a number of other countries, where it is still widely used in products that supply a range of industries.”
Regardless of what other countries do, Australia’s Department of Health identified the hazard of chrysotile asbestos as early as 1999 and has stated for some time that:
“There may be no safe exposure level for chrysotile, so all exposure should be avoided” and
“If a safer product or process can be substituted for one involving chrysotile, this should be done.”
According to KGH Border Services chrysotile is not internationally recognised as a dangerous form of asbestos. So what? The government that commissioned the KGH report has stated it is dangerous!!??
The KGH report also outlines what is already known and the reason for the existence of the ASEA:
“There is also confusion about policy and regulatory responsibilities across Government in Australia and some ambiguity in the overarching legal framework that establishes Australia’s strict prohibition. The Department of Employment (DoE) has policy responsibility for the legal framework that establishes the border control. The DIBP administers the import and export prohibitions at the border. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA) is responsible for administering the import and export permission regime on behalf of the Minister for Employment. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and state and territory work, health and safety (WHS) regulators have a role in enforcement of the asbestos prohibition domestically. This cross-over between various Commonwealth and state and territory authorities can confuse the public’s perception of the DIBP’s role in asbestos regulation, and its ability to affect changes to the legal and policy frameworks that establish the prohibition. Clarification of the responsibilities and coordination efforts across Government would reduce this confusion and increase the effectiveness of the Government’s response to asbestos issues.”
If asbestos was not killing Australian workers and their families, it would be funny that overlapping and conflicting responsibilities (a responsibility managed by the Government) “can confuse the public’s perception of the DIBP’s role in asbestos regulation”. The public may not understand the role of the DIBP but it certainly understands the fatal risks associated with asbestos. The calls from the public and the unions for stronger policing of banned substances is less a criticism of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) that it is a criticism of the Government for inaction.
The report also suggests that other levels of Government should be pulling their weight on asbestos management. They should, and they are, but how much easier, cheaper and more productivity their jobs would be if the Federal agencies prevented ACMs entering the country. It just may be possible to eliminate the established asbestos hazards if new asbestos was stopped being imported.
It may also be useful to note that Minister Dutton seems to see the call for controlling asbestos imports as a trade union conspiracy. One could just as well claim that safe asbestos is a Trump conspiracy.
The Australian Government is mismanaging the latest controversies around the importation of asbestos-containing material but to manage it appropriately requires hard questions that this government chooses not face. The deaths associated with asbestos exposures are increasing and are likely to for some decades yet. How many decades, is the choice of this Government. Act now and seriously and fewer people will die, businesses will be more sustainable, health and compensation costs will be less. In fact there may even be more jobs and growth.
Politicians are regularly called on to provide vision. Asbestos seems to be one of those issues where the vision can be readily understood and easily explained. Addressing the issue in a serious way could also be seen as an example of leadership and the basis for a political legacy. And it is not as if asbestos is irreplaceable. Trump may see it as a miracle building material but the combination of new products with safety in design principles should be able to achieve a comparable fire protection level.
Vision and leadership. Where have we heard those words before? Oh yes, EVERYWHERE.
A recent safety convention in Australia had as its theme “Disruption”, a fashionable term that can mean many things to many people. Perhaps why it is a marketer’s dream word. The initial session of the convention was unnerving because speakers were saying that the current jobs and activities of safety professionals will be undertaken by artificial intelligence in a decade. This change is not a coordinated strategy but bits and pieces of this change/threat keep appearing, the latest was in The Guardian on 25 September 2016 in an article called “You’d better listen up“.
That article, ostensibly about headphones included this workplace application:
“Bragi has recently announced a partnership with IBM where it hopes to deliver the massive processing power and cognitive capacity of the Watson AI system via its devices. At the moment, it is exploring how these capabilities could be employed in the workplace. For example, maintenance workers could describe an issue, Watson recognises the problem and talks them through the solution – without their having to refer to manuals or computers, keeping their hands free for the repair. Similarly, doctors could get help with recognising rare conditions and their conversation with a patient would be recorded and saved to the cloud for their records.”
The safety benefits of this contraption is obvious – a manual on call and responsive to vocalised questions. As anyone with a Glaswegian accent trying to set up voicemail in Australia will know, vocal recognition still has a long way to go unless the world is able to be un-Babelled and speak with one accent. (Please not Australian, as artificial intelligences (AI) would struggle with the constant answering of “Yeah – Nah”) Voice recognition software has needed long hours of training to be functioning at a basic level.
Thankfully that tech challenge can be left to the technologists. What is more important, and could provide safety professionals with a future, is the back-end of the application of Watson. Any AI needs knowledge so that the advice it provides to the user/listener/engager is accurate and relevant to the situation, literally, at hand. AIs will not create their own knowledge, at least in the short term, and so will rely on safety professionals and others to provide the knowledge to the software.
Safety professionals are unlikely to provide knowledge of a specific process but will likely be called on to add value to the mechanical work activity or discussion. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is likely to be one of the assessment criteria used by the AI. For instance, in the response to the work activity quoted above the maintenance worker will want to know how to do something. The OHS contribution to the AI’s response would be to ensure that the task is undertaken safely, in a safe environment or with the suitable protective equipment or the correct tool.
The convention was shown video of an AI that verified that workers were dressed appropriately for the work conditions before allowing access to site. This would replace those OHS consultants who like to be safety police but the situation described in the video was understandable. There are rules for specific PPE prior to entering a workplace with hazards that could be reduced by wearing the PPE. No PPE, no site access. The argument in favour of AI applications would be that the safety professional could attend to more important activities. The sad reality is that some safety professionals rely on this type of activity to give their jobs worth.
The reality of AI in OHS cannot be avoided. Those who advocate for disruption argue that disruption provides opportunities for the creative, the agile and the clear thinkers but it is also the case that many safety professionals will be left behind like Neanderthals to Hom (OHS) Sapiens.
Every profession and occupation has its weird stories, the “you wouldn’t believe it” stories. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is no different. There are stories of a degloved penis, complications from piercings in private places or chemical burns on private parts that reinforce the important of washing hands thoroughly after touching chemicals. Such stories can be…
SafetyAtWorkBlog originated from the SafetyAtWork magazine, a PDF subscription magazine that ran for a few years. In October 2001 we published a special edition of the magazine focussed on the 9/11 disaster. It has some exclusive articles and other safety content from a range of authors. We have made it available for the first time through this blog to mark the 15th anniversary of the event.
Occupational health and safety (OHS) is usually taught around various safety theories that can include pyramids, icebergs, dominoes, cheese and damaging energy. All of these theories were useful at some point in time to identify a new perspective, to counter an ideology or to explain why people cock-up. But which OHS theory has stood the…
Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reviewed a safety book of terrific content but poor presentation. Last week I received an Australian book which presented different issues. “Risky Conversations – The Law, Social Psychology and Risk” has been written by Dr Robert Long, lawyer Greg Smith and consultant Craig Ashhurst and is the fifth in a series of books about risk. The title is accurate as the book is essentially a transcript of conversations between the authors but reading is complicated by videos of these conversations also being available on-line through a password available to purchasers of the book. The authors seem to have tried to do too much with the information they have.
Format and Marketing
Freelance writers in this new world of computer technology and social media are advised to maximise their media opportunities when attending a conference or interviewing someone. An interview can be recorded for its video and its audio. The interview could be photographed and the audio could be transcribed. All of these formats can come from a single interview. It seems that Long, Smith and Ashhurst have followed these opportunities by writing a book and producing videos of a three-way conversation recorded over several days but why offer both media formats to the book’s purchasers, when the information is the same? Why incur the cost of videoing a conversation that could have been conducted over a teleconference?
One reason may be that Long is much in demand as a speaker at conferences and an adviser to companies that are looking for a fresh way to look at safety management, and he cannot be everywhere. Andrew Hopkins undertook a similar option when he partnered with FutureMedia in the wake of his successful book on the Longford disaster.
The package of information may be confusing but is the content of the book any good? Reading transcripts can be difficult, even edited and cleaned transcripts as are found in this book. Interview transcripts are usually easy because there are only two voices, including the interviewer, the thread of the conversation is clear and the format is familiar. This book’s transcripts are more difficult to follow even though there is a good amount of facilitation and the conversation diversions are minimised. The book hopes to get its own tone after a while but never seems to establish its own personality.
The information in the videos is a little easier to follow as the three voices are represented visually. The viewer hears the three personalities and accepts the three perspectives. The book tries to unify or harmonise the voices, or perhaps it is the mind of the readers that does this, but reading the book requires a great deal of attention.
The previous safety book referenced above, written by Carsten Busch, had an enormous amount of footnotes and references. The level of detail was appreciated but the book format did not seem to suit it. Long, Smith & Ashhurst prefer annotations to footnotes and this book reads better for it. The annotations sometimes explain a concept where an explanation in the conversations would have interrupted the flow. Sometimes they include hyperlinks for more information. These are not quite text boxes but they are reminiscent of the boxes used so successfully in the Dummies series, though without the bomb symbols and thumbs-up. Annotations allow for the reader to leave reading these until chapter ends or the whole book.
Another advantage is the format required for annotations also leaves plenty of space for the reader to include their own annotations.
Wickedity?
Sometimes the book sounds like a panel discussion of three academics who are very enthusiastic about the topic. And it is easy to have this wash over the reader. But annotations help pull this back to attention. For instance, Long encourages Ashhurst to talk about “Wicked Problems”, the apparent topic of Ashhurst’s PhD. The annotation provides a brief explanation:
“The idea of ‘wickedity’ and ’emergence’ are critical concepts for understanding dialectic and paradox in tackling risk.
The very act of seeking certainty and control by fallible people for things that are uncertain sets the scene for fascinating interacts between the known and the unknown.” (page 14)
Wickedity may be a new and useful concept but the outline is not helped by creating doubt in the reader’s capability by using a verb – interact – as a noun. This forces the reader to reread the sentence to interpret something that should have been pretty clear on the first read through.
One paper that mentions wickedity reports that
“Rittel and Webber (1973) introduced the notion of wicked problems in the context of urban planning where such issues as safety, aesthetics and ease of movement within a given space represent just a few of the more intractable and unique daily challenges facing urban planners.”
The application of concepts from one discipline to another is a major tool of the occupational health and safety consultant and can provide new understandings but wickedity, even as it is expanded upon later in the book, seems to be short hand for multifactorial considerations. The concept is not new but the shortcut is.
Is it any good?
This article has not discussed the content of the book as much as was intended. Partly this is because the book covers so many interesting topics. Partly it is because so many of the conversations seem to require a good knowledge of the books that have come before.
One of the options for purchasing this book is as part of a package of five books and this is an attractive option for those coming to Long’s work for the first time. In some ways this book is like a favourite trilogy. You read each book wanting the next and when the next one comes, you want the pleasure of reading the first book again. Risky Conversations took me back to the first book which still holds the revelations about risk that the current book discusses.
Sometimes articles based on books reveal a great deal of content and identify the dominant themes. I have struggled with this article because while reading the book I felt like I was intruding on a discussion of peers or a study group. The discussion is intriguing but I was from listening from outside the circle or even listening in at the window. Perhaps it has been too long since I studied and immersed myself in the academic rather than working in the real world of applying safety, selling safety and being as creative as I can within the organisational structures I work within.
Rob Long, especially, needs to keep communicating his ideas and this book is a great addition to anyone’s safety library. By including other voices in this book, he is showing that others have embraced his thoughts and are pushing them in new directions, sometimes bizarre ones. His books deserve careful consideration or, even better, to generate discussions. It seems his thoughts demand explanation, refinement, expansion and challenge. In a way this is reflected in Risky Conversations.