safety – Page 465 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

New seismology report on Crandall Canyon mine disaster

I reported on the August 6 2007 Crandall Canyon mine disaster in my OHS publications last year as there seemed to be some similarities between that disaster, in which 6 workers and 3 rescuers died, and the events at Beaconsfield Mine in Tasmania of April 2006. At the time seismological events were mentioned as a possible cause of the mine collapses.

According to an August 17 2007 AFP report in Safety At Work magazine:

“Controversy has swirled over the precise cause of the initial cave-in, with mine owner Robert Murray insisting it was the result of a powerful 3.9 magnitude earthquake. However, scientists at monitoring stations in Salt Lake City have suggested the seismic activity was caused by mining excavation.

The University of Utah Seismograph Station said the cave-in yesterday had been recorded as a 1.6 magnitude event at 6.39pm (1239 AEST). Spokesman Lee Siegel told the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper the nature of the seismic waves measured indicated it was a “mining-induced settling of the mountain”.

A seismological report dated May 2 2008 says that there are indications

“…that most of the seismic wave energy of this event was generated by the mine collapse rather than a naturally-occurring earthquake.”

A June 2 2008 TV report on KSL shows old footage of the mine owner, Bob Murray, denying that the seismic event was made by minework processes. There is now a mountain (or coalmine) of evidence to the contrary.

Of interest on this issue of mine safety are two general statements issued by the CEO of CONSOL Energy shortly after the mine collapse and later to the Utah Mine Safety Commission in January 2008.

Law Review or Safety Review

The issues paper of National Review into Model OHS Laws is a peculiar beast for several reasons. Firstly, it is a review of legislation and restricts itself to the OHS Act. However it wants submissions on other safety legislation that has“interdependence” such as road safety, rail safety and others. That is a very big ask…

Times when work/life balance should be sacrificed

Further to my post on public service workloads, the Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, author of the 2003 book on work/life balance, has stated on television (if you get through the fuel price discussion) that

“There’s always going to be some disgruntled people in a large organisation,” he said. “Whether there’s truth in what they say, who knows. You just don’t know. But I believe that things will settle down to a degree. We’ve got a big agenda, we expect a lot of ourselves, we expect a lot of people working with us but it’s for the betterment of the nation, it’s for getting better outcomes for Australia.”

The challenge facing the government at the moment is that it is confusing productivity with hours of work. And I don’t accept that there is a difference between those who work in the civil service and those in private companies in terms of the health and safety risks associated with hours of work.

In today’s The Australian newspaper, John McDonnell, a public policy consultant, mentions the inconsistency in the government’s approach in passing. He says

“leaving aside the inconsistency between the Government’s view of work-life balance for the public service as opposed to that for the rest of the community…”

Lindsay Tanner has written about work-life balance yet is not prepared to apply his knowledge to the industry he works in. His comments above, and similar ones from his colleagues, are the first time that I have heard patriotism used in relation to workload. I wonder when the public service workers compensation claims begin to appear for stress-related disorders and depression, whether they will be rejected on the basis of “working for the betterment of the nation”.

Safety, Whistleblowers and Media Disinterest

Workplace safety usually gets little attention from mainstream press. Until recently, with the growth of online specialist content, trade publications covered OHS events, but the lead time made the news events of historical interest more than something that generated enthusiasm or outrage.

Last weekend the Australian Labor Party in Victoria held its annual conference in Melbourne. The Premier, John Brumby, stated that workplace safety was of continuing high concern to his government. This comment was reported nowhere other than the Sunday night (25 May 2008 ) news bulletin of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The ABC news website has mentioned other comments that the Premier made at the conference:

“It’s vital for workers and for occupational health and safety representatives that they can raise safety issues without suffering recrimination or discrimination,” he said. “Because if people can’t speak up, then people’s lives can be put at risk.”

The comment is very welcome but why make such a statement now? Has an OHS whistleblowing incident happened recently? No. Has the issue been a sore political point? No.

Given that neither the ALP or the Premier’s office has released the Premier’s speech almost a week after the event, it can only be assumed that the comments were intended for the union audience at the conference and were said, mainly, to have something to say.

His comments are a reiteration of party policy and any support for OHS is welcome but if anyone makes a positive comment on workplace safety, let them be loud and proud about it. The OHS profession and worker safety needs the profile.

Political jostling on OHS reform

The national review into OHS law in Australia has started to generate political jostling as individual states start to realise exactly what they may be asked to relinquish. All government departments and jurisdictions try to maintain their authority, influence and turf and the concern with this OHS review is that it may introduce reforms, or at least tweaks, that could derail the more politically important and controversial changes to industrial relations.

Coroner Critical of OHS Regulator in Mine Investigation

In an AAP report on 21 May 2008, the Tasmanian coroner has been highly critical of the OHS legislative regime applicable to Tasmanian mines. His comments have particular relevance during Australia’s national review of OHS law and as the coronial inquest into the Beaconsfield mining disaster is due to start within the next six months….

Nanotechnology hazards update

There has been a bit of media attention lately on the risks of nanotechnology to the workers who use the technology and to the people who wear socks that contain the technology. NPR’s Day-To-Day program for May 21 provides a useful summary of the latest findings on the OHS issues of nanotechnology. The podcast and transcript is available at NPR

Category: safety

New seismology report on Crandall Canyon mine disaster

Like this:

Law Review or Safety Review

Like this:

Times when work/life balance should be sacrificed

Like this:

Safety, Whistleblowers and Media Disinterest

Like this:

Political jostling on OHS reform

Like this:

Coroner Critical of OHS Regulator in Mine Investigation

Like this:

Nanotechnology hazards update

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: