Category: OHS

Mobile phone cancer link still unclear

A new research study into the possible health effects if using a mobile phone remains inconclusive.  According to a report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,

“The current study found that there is possible evidence linking mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta-analysis of low-biased case-control studies.  Prospective cohort studies providing a higher level of evidence are needed.”

Basically this is saying there is a bit of evidence but more research is needed.  In the context of cancer risks from using mobile phones, status quo remains.

Although only the abstract of the research is available online for free, a long discussion is available at Australia’s ABC website. The significant issue in this article is that “high quality” research found evidence of a possible cancer link and “low-quality” research found none.

If one is not a medical researcher, as SafetyAtWorkBlog is not, this research provides no practical guidance for the reduction of risk.  In fact, it goes some way to fostering the layman’s suspicion of research.

If one has the task of minimising the (perceived) risk of receiving cancer for workers using mobile telephones, this study is useless.  In reducing the increasing concerns from staff about this occupational hazard, this study is useless.  The research does indicate that, at least, research is continuing but it adds nothing to the state of OHS knowledge needed to manage the potential hazard.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”* seems to fit the situation of mobile phones and cancer.

Kevin Jones

*  Both Carl Sagan and Donald Rumsfeld have used this phrase.  Allocate credit to whichever you choose

OHS is becoming criminal law in a social context

On 14 October 2009, Australian law firm Deacons hosted a breakfast seminar of the draft OHS model law proposed by the Australian Government.  The speaker, Mike Hammond, expressed concern about many sections of the draft laws because they do not seem to fit how OHS law has been structured in Australia and the UK for over thirty years.

This is not to say the clauses and sections are worthless, useless or wrong, but the Government has not provided enough information on the rationale for the changes or the context for those changes so that those who need to use the law understand the law.

Hammond had five major concerns with the proposed law in the Victorian context:

  • Person conducting business or undertaking vs employer
  • Officers’ duty to exercise due diligence
  • Failure to acknowledge “Control” as issue of first principle
  • Abrogation of right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination for individuals
  • Unions able to cause work to cease

Hammond is, of course, looking at the laws from a lawyer’s perspective and not that of a safety professional or business operator but he raised some excellent points, some of which have been discussed previously in SafetyAtWorkBlog.

The coverage of the proposed OHS laws is so broad as to include anywhere where work is conducted.  Tooma, a partner of Hammond at Deacons, touched on this impractical definition in some of his statements.  The way some work is done in 2009 is radically different from 1985 for example, mainly due to technology.

This blog article could be written on a kitchen table, in a cafe, on a park bench or a desk in an office.  Each of these would be workplaces because work is being undertaken however if the article is being written on a laptop in a cafe, at the moment, the cafe owner would have no OHS obligations on my actions.  There would likely be public liability and safety issues, particularly if the laptop was also plugged into the cafe’s power supply, for instance, but the cafe is only a workplace for the employees of the cafe.  Under the draft Safe Work Act (or Bill), if the customers are working there, the cafe owner would have OHS obligations for them.  The customers, the workers, of course would have their own OHS obligations as they do now.

Hammond made the point that the new proposed laws dispense with the legal relationship of employer and employee.  This fundamentally changes the coverage of OHS legislation.  As I put it to Hammond at the seminar, the changes remove the “occupational” from the OHS law.  It has become a criminal law in a social context.

Hammond sees no reason to change the employment relationship to the extent proposed if the aim is to encompass the new varieties of work activity and workplace.  He believes that these circumstances can still be met specific provisions to deal with the new varieties of work whilst maintaining the fundamental employer- employee relationship.  Business and society would then be able to better understand some of the changes because the context would be within what has been understood for decades as “work”.

The proposed Safe Work Bill is trying to be too much too quickly and will set back OHS gains a long way.  OHS has accrued considerable social awareness and acceptance.  The legal principles of a safe workplace and safe work have been largely embraced by the community.  Australia has not experienced the “OHS has gone mad” campaigns waged in the United Kingdom but if this law proceeds as it is, government will not be able to manage it, business will dismiss it through frustration, and the community will think (rightly) that OHS is a joke.  Safety professionals and OHS regulators will be seen as sucking the sense out of what used to be sensible.

Mike Hammond has seen criminal law reacting to changing social circumstances.  He said that this proposed law is attempting to set a social agenda and a dangerous precedent.

Kevin Jones

Verify website data

At SafetyatWorkBlog the use or reuse of material is carefully considered.  Some articles are not proceeded with, or media used, because of copyright, restrictions or cost.  No content is used from websites without permission or without referring back to the original source and providing hyperlinks if possible.  An example of how internet information can go wrong occurred earlier this month in Australia.

On 2 October 2009 the Safety Institute of Australia advised its members through its homepage that the Cancer Council, one of its strategic partners, is

“is gearing up to launch three new workplace guides as part of National Skin Cancer Week in November.”

The guides are listed on the SIA website:

  • Skin cancer and outdoor work: a guide for employers
  • Skin cancer and outdoor work: a guide for working safely in the sun brochure
  • SunSmart and iCourses ‘Working safely in the sun’ online training course

www-sia-org-au_news_updates_sun-protect-workplace-announce20091002-htmlThe odd thing was that the first guide listed was published in January 2007.  The second seems to be a companion leaflet for the guide for employers.  They are not new and are not being launched in November 2009.

When the anomaly was brought to the attention of the Cancer Council advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that their website had not been updated for a long time and that the information was out of date.  Not only should this have been obvious from the age of the publications listed but the page said the guides were to be launched on Tuesday November 20.  In 2009 November 20 is a Thursday.  The advice on the SIA site is based on old information.

(A slightly more recent policy statement for “sun protection in the workplace” is available elsewhere on the Cancer Council website)

It is very important, particularly in OHS where safety advice can change frequently, that any information taken from the internet is verified, especially if one is putting one’s name to it as the SIA’s CEO did in this instance.

The Sunsmart guidances produced by the Cancer Council still contain solid advice but if the risk of skin cancer or the hazard of working in direct sunlight is relevant to your worksites, make sure that the safety guidance is current and do not just rely on one information source.  In this instance, see what advice  the local OHS authority can provide, particular in the couple of months preceding summer.

If you run your own OHS information website or intranet, be extra careful when using other organisation’s information………..and check the dates of the information.

Who is advising John Holland?

The person, Sir John Holland, died in May 2009.  The company, John Holland Group (JHG), is in danger of a shortened life if it continues to make bizarre decisions.

John Holland Group has been widely criticized by the union movement, principally for its decision to jump out of State OHS jurisdictions to the Commonwealth (Comcare) structure.  This was seen as a purely financial response to a politically sensitive  opportunity that was presented by the Liberal government of then-Prime Minister John Howard.  Comcare was seen as the insurer of the defence forces and public servants and, unions claimed, enforcement of OHS to an acceptable level was beyond the skills and resources of the administrative agency.

Due to union pressure, John Holland Rail was dropped from the finalists for a national safety award in early 2009.  JHG probably came in for more criticism than other companies who also jumped because it is in the highly-unionised construction sector and their construction work is so public.

One of the advantages of moving to the Federal OHS scheme was that any prosecutions would occur in that jurisdiction and JHG has been prosecuted there.  JHG had several OHS breaches in 2005 and 2006.  It came under the Federal OHS law in March 2007.  In September 2008, Worksafe Victoria charged the company over one of the 2006 breaches.

According to a report in The Age on 14 October 2009, JHG

“issued a High Court challenge, claiming the charges were ”incompetent” because it was not liable for conviction under Victorian workplace law for offences committed before it came under the Commonwealth jurisdiction.”

John Holland v Vic Workcover Authority John Holland v Ins_High Court challenges are not cheap and the wisdom of the decision to contest the State actions was always questionable, doubly so now the High Court unanimously decided against JHG’s arguments.

The High Court challenge confirmed for many the impression that John Holland Group will try to avoid safety obligations, if possible, and that the move to a “softer” regulatory scheme was one of the reasons behind the move to the Comcare scheme.  The legal action undermines all of the positive safety culture messages that the corporation has issued.

JHG is involved with many new infrastructure and construction projects.  Harmonised OHS laws are set for 2011 which include the federal OHS laws under which Comcare operates.  Within a decade of taking up an opportunity for a “softer” regulatory regime, the advantage may be gone and the John Holland Group Board should ask themselves “was it worth it?”

Kevin Jones

Grappler death in forestry operations – WorkSafeBC Slide Show

Below is the latest safety video from WorkSafeBC.  It is included not only as an important indication of a hazard that can be readily controlled or avoided but as a terrific example of how generic safety alerts can be given currency by using the available technology.

It is one thing for text-based safety alerts to be circulated, or for media releases to be broadcast, but this type of safety alert has more influence and provides a clearer understanding of the hazard than text ever could.

Yes, the video is Canadian and may not reflect the work practices in other countries but the hazard is usually the same.  In this case, it was the location of the spotter, the level of communication between the workers and overall a clearly inadequate system of work.

WorkSafeBC should be applauded for its efforts in communicating safety to a broad audience in an effective manner.

Kevin Jones

A spotter working in blind conditions was struck by a grapple. Confirm spotters are in the clear before throwing a grapple.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.882790&w=425&h=350&fv=allowfullscreen%3Dtrue%26quality%3Dhigh%26bgcolor%3D%23ffffff%26]

The bad news and the good news of New Zealand agricultural safety

On 8 October 2009, New Zealand’s Department of Labour issued a press release that stated

“New research confirms the importance of work in agriculture safety and health. The research by Otago University’s Injury Prevention Research Unit found that the rate of serious injuries and fatalities on New Zealand farms has remained high in contrast to declines in other industries over the past two decades.”

The release states that DoL continues to place a high importance on preventative action in the agriculture sector, an undeniably important economic sector for New Zealand.

OR72 coverHowever, what was most noticeable was that

“the rate of serious injuries and fatalities on New Zealand farms has remained high in contrast to declines in other industries over the past two decades.”

Surely this is not a good news story.  Twenty years of preventative interventions in the agriculture sector have not been as successful as those in other industries.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted DoL for clarification.  The commitment of DoL to the agriculture sector was re-emphasized.  DoL responded very promptly to our enquiries and provided links to additional information including the original research report.

Part of the Otago University project was a literature review in the sector from 2000 to 2008.  The major findings were

  • “The most common mechanisms for serious non-fatal injury and fatal injury include agricultural machinery (including vehicles –tractors, ATVs), livestock and falls for all age groups, in all three regions under review.
  • The exposures and risks of disease in the agricultural sector currently being researched and where researchers agree there is a need for further research include:
    • exposure to dust and organic materials and the relation to respiratory disorders;
    • exposure to pesticides, herbicides and insecticides and associations with various cancers including: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; prostate cancer, breast and ovarian cancer, leukaemia, multiple myeloma and brain cancers;
    • environmentally associated cancers (for example, skin cancer and cancer of the lip) and their association with production practice.
  • Occupational fatalities in agriculture remain high, despite decreases in occupational fatality rates for other industry groups, in all three regions over the last decade. The research demonstrates that there are various groups that are particularly at risk, these include:
    • men in all age groups;
    • older workers/farmers;
    • migrant and seasonal workers;
    • youths (particularly those aged between 11-15 years and male)
    • Children (particularly male children)
    • Farm-owners and managers, with respect to intentional fatal self harm injury) again predominantly men.”

Several other surveys were undertaken, one by telephone.  Those results are also telling.  Amongst the results was this paragraph concerning injuries:

“With respect to injury, thirteen percent (13%) of farmers from the AgriBase™ sample had had an injury, in the three months prior to interview, which had restricted their activity for a half a day or more and/or which required medical treatment from a health professional.  Generally these injuries were reasonably serious and respondents reported work capacity was poor following injury.  For two-thirds of those injured it was over a week before they could resume normal farming duties; yet only a third of these respondents made a claim to the Accident Compensation Corporation.”

Key findings of the report for governments include

“….there is no long term prevention strategy for injury and disease that specifically addresses the agricultural sector.”

“The dominant stereotype of the farmer as being rugged, independent and self-sufficient (and masculine) is also largely uncritically accepted by many stakeholders. These and associated stereotypes about the nature of rural life and notions of rural isolation are problematic and potentially can undermine effective health interventions in this sector.”

“…there is a tendency for initiatives to be ad-hoc and for there to be a lack of co-ordination and coherence, and in some instances, where there are some questions around the efficacy of various interventions, an unwillingness to accept that there are problems.”

There are many others that discuss a lack of resources, dubious targeting, a lack of coordination and inter-organisational politics.

For farmers and other individuals, some of the findings include:

“In connection to this evident stoicism was a vocational identification to the work they do; most could not imagine not farming, it was not just a job.  The implications here are that they would often keep on working with an injury (such as a back condition), as doing the work was more important, not just economically, but also in terms of their identity, and an underlying belief that it would heal itself if they just kept on going.”

“Many said they were too tired at the end of a working day to read about injury and disease or to go onto the internet to learn about it either.  When they opened the paper they wanted to know about local and international news, not health matters.  This presents some real challenges for the sector in terms of disseminating information.”

The University of Otago also issued a media release on the research project.  This release reflects the tone and results of the research project much more accurately.

The whole report reflects the current status of safety in the agricultural sector in New Zealand.  It reports on good intentions in the wrong areas, a need to look beyond the stereotypes and the need for sustained intervention.

What seems to be needed is a creative and effective response from the Government that acknowledges that past strategies have failed, or at least that some of them have.  All the existing strategies need reviewing to determine which have shown promise and could succeed if appropriate resources were allocated.  Inspiration needs to be sought from within the region and from around the world.  If this has already been sought and found wanting, the sad reality will be that it falls to New Zealand to make the change.

New Zealand’s DoL may already be facing this bleak reality.  In their media statement, the Department’s Chief Adviser, Safety and Health, Dr Geraint Emrys said:

“The Department will use the findings of the research to inform policy decisions and to better target operational interventions to make them more effective in reducing the injury and death toll in agriculture.”

New Zealand could lead the world in this important area.

Kevin Jones

Recent Queensland OHS prosecutions

In early October 2009, Workplace Health and Safety in Queensland (WHSQ) released a raft of media statements about recent court cases involving OHS prosecutions.  WHSQ seems to do this regularly rather than releasing each statement individual.  Below is a quick cut and paste from the media reports:

Brown Engineering & Construction Pty Ltd has been fined $38,000 after a worker was injured in a fall on a construction site in April 2007.  It pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard a worker for a sub-contractor on the construction site where the company was principal contractor had placed a ladder against a steel beam on the building to access the roof frame/purlins to take measurements. His left leg was broken when the beam fell, causing him to fall 5.5 metres to the ground.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the company was responsible for leaving the steel beam unsecured at the end of work the previous day.

Russell Matthew Pratt has been fined $8,000 after a worker was severely injured at Sheldon in August 2006.

Pratt pleaded guilty in the Cleveland Industrial Magistrates Court on 24 April 2009 to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The court heard that during a tree-felling operation a worker was struck by a falling tree and sustained multiple injuries to the spine, chest and head resulting in him becoming a quadriplegic.

Two workers started work that day at Mr Pratt’s premises and were supplied with equipment for the day’s activities. However, they were unaware that the task they were being used for was not Mr Pratt’s job.

The WHSQ investigation found that Mr Pratt did not have systems in place to ensure his workers were not exposed to health and safety risks at the times that they were undertaking work for him.

LaSpina, Trabucco & Co Pty Ltd has been fined $34,000 after a worker was injured at Karana Downs in August 2008.  The company pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard a tele-lifter, its bucket filled with concrete, had been parked by the company’s supervisor on an incline with the engine idling while two workers stood in a trench nearby scooping concrete from the bucket, filling a besser-brick wall.

As the machine was moved forward to allow easier access it’s front wheels went over the edge of the incline. One worker jumped out to the way avoiding injury, but the other was struck in the chest and lower left leg and pushed against a besser block wall which then collapsed and fell on top of him. He sustained a crush injury to his left leg.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the workplace did not have a work method statement for the job being performed or for high risk construction using mobile plant.

Launderers Pty Ltd has been fined $35,000 after two workers were injured at Southport in April 2008.  The company pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The court heard the two workers were attempting to ‘un-jam’ a piece of metal that caused a guided platform hoist to cease operating. The platform hoist was used to raise and lower materials between floors.  When the wedged piece of metal was released, the platform hoist, along with the two workers, fell to the ground floor.

One worker sustained crush injuries and the other a fractured right arm.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the company did not adopt and implement a safe system of work for the operation of the guided platform hoist. It also failed to adopt and implement a safe system of work for how maintenance or repairs were to be undertaken on the hoist.

Mark Frawley Plumbing Pty Ltd has been fined $30,000 after a worker sustained facial injuries in a workplace incident at East Brisbane in November 2007.  The company pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard two workers were beneath a house working within a 2.1 metre clearance. While one used a 100mm grinder to cut a cast iron pipe, the other, an apprentice, held a torch to provide light. The grinder jammed and kicked back striking the operator in the left cheek causing a full thickness cut requiring surgery and 20 stitches.

The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation revealed:

  • the guard supplied as standard by the manufacturer had been removed at some time prior to the incident and the company could not locate it
  • the system of work used did not adequately account for both the confined space and lack of illumination.

As a result of the incident the company took the grinder out of service and instituted a system to audit and monitor the use and integrity of plant and tools.

Industrial Magistrate Mr Graham Lee, found that the injury occurred because the grinder was used without its guard and the confined space and lack of illumination had increased the likelihood of such an incident.

MJ Fallon Pty Ltd has been fined $30,000 after a sub contractor was injured in a fall from a roof in September 2008.  It pleaded guilty to having failed to ensure workplace safety.

The Court heard the worker was a sub-contractor carrying out construction work for the company on a domestic building site in Toowoomba.

While working on the roof he slipped and fell 3 metres to the concrete slab below, fracturing his left wrist and right elbow.

The WHSQ investigation revealed the company failed to implement appropriate safety control measures such as edge protection for workers when working at height.

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd