Comments by Bill Parker

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Before 2002, The French, Germans, Austrians, and Italians; for instance; had never really considered anything similar to our H&S@W Act: an Act of Enablement: and its regulations. Occupational Safety in Germany was governed by state guidelines laid out under their National Insurance scheme.
Law in these countries falls to Statute though edict, not precedence and, as such, it is in many ways alien to that of the English speaking world.
Britain was the first to impose any safety rules for workplaces (in 1930, formally but previously under similar insurance schemes as once begat the city Fire Services, in Britain. Britain?s safety Regulation of the Workplace has been in the vanguard ?even compared to America and our legal structure has fathered the excellence of safety rules in the Antipodes and Canada, amongst others.
It is a safety structure ? indeed a safety record which, together with that of Scandinavia and our other friends from EFTA days, is second to none.
I am disgusted that our Representatives are prepared to tolerate this stupid, unthinking nonsense, meeting it with pusillanimity and, frankly, complete ignorance of what remains of our industry.
(Note: Industry is the act of producing a palpable product or service {it does not include, lawyers, publishers, money lenders and other coat-tail-hangers-on-of-the-city, who all seem to like calling themselves 'Industry'}.
Mind you, when I think of it, I am pretty disgusted that we entered the common market at all, in 1973, when we had a perfectly good arrangement to achieve all its benefits through EFTA, without any of the crass wastage and inefficiency we have come to love so well.
Other Europeans would mostly have joined us, the Swiss, Dutch and Scandinavians. Most, that is, apart from the French. Good, I say. France has the worst fatal accident record, per capita, in Europe. But I suppose it's illegal to cheer against them in what is certainly no longer my Britain, nor my Economy.
To attain common sense in employment and safety law, I suggest any like minded person has little alternative but to Vote for the UK Independence Party, at the next opportunity. I see no other party backing Britain.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

"This proposed move has proven contentious, as it would allow untrained and unlicensed contractors to remove textured coatings that contain asbestos."
The new Regulations will not allow untrained and 'risk-unaware' operatives to do anything. The H&S@W Act and its regulations, in any case, demand a written Risk Assessment, Operator training and hazard awareness and provision, when necessary, of PPE appropriate for the job.
The COSHH Regulations demand medical surveylance of anyone known to be hazard exposed and records to be maintained, together with maintennace and usage records for any repspiratory protection prescribed, other than for single shift disposable respirators.
The Asbestos Regulations predate the H&S@W Act by five years, originally and its is high time the former were simplified and made more cogent.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Stress is the load applied. The reaction, or disease resulting should more correctly be called strain.
As such, and as broadcast on Radio 4, the other day, in a feature examining this report, there is also recent research suggesting that there is no such thing as a disease called stress and the current, fashionable eulogies to it have opened up a new 'snake-oil' market for stress consultants, life style gurus and, indeed, editors short of material for Health and Safety Issues.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

The new levels will make it illegal for many to drive their cars, in the course of work. For instance, the typical cabin noise levels in most cars made during the 1970's (the last time I surveyed a range o vehicles) was between 78 and 84 dB(A). The figures for commercial vehicles -especially from diesel engines - were higher.
At that time (and bearing in mind that the UK was the first country in the West to research attenuated hearing loss, through occupational noise)it was considered that 90dB(A) was a perfectly acceptable level for an eight hour weighted work shift. 90dB carries sound energy about four times greater than 80 dB! There was no evidence to suggest that workers exposed to LEQs of frequencies higher than 100 Hz suffered significant pathological risk.
Has Brussels discovered something we have not been clever enough to work out? I think not. This is another example of plutocracy by Brussels and pusillanimity by our Government. Do we really think the French, Spanish and Italian administrations will enforce these new rules?
Why have not we done something in law about 'clubbing', where youngsters are exposed to levels many times higher than the OLD RULES? Politically too difficult, I suppose, telling folk what to do, in their leisure time.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

I think some evidence that 'second hand' or passive smoking presents significant pathogeny is needed before widely affecting legisaltion is passed.
There has been nothing substantive presented by ASH, The RCP or any other learned body. The widest survey, taking place under the auspice of the BMA, during the sixties and seventies, indicated no connection between respiratory disorders and those none smokers who lived with smokers, in that particular instance.There was shown a significant genetic link.
There is, of cousre, a connection between ill health and the smoker. The chances of contraction in a smoker are 15 per 100,000, compared to 10 per 100,000, in none-smokers. 'Passive smokers' are, however, subjected to concentrations of smoke several thousand times less that the smoker. In terms of inhaled carbon particulate, for instance, the occupational exposure limits are several times higher than those the anti-smoking lobby considers accepatble. Why? They have produced no palpable evidence, whereas the HSE (EMAS) has based its limits on seventy years of pathalogical evidence.
If the object is to reduce smoking related disorders, then let's ban the sale of tobacco completely and have it over and done. The target should surely be the smoker, rather than by-standers. It is the smokers health that is provenly at risk from his habit, although his genetic history is a more likely influence than his habit - with the exception of Bronchitis, Emphydema, Squamous goblet cells and de-cilliation of the trachea and upper airways.

Personally, I resent specious and medacious claims being used to support legislation that is politically driven. Perhaps Donaldson (and some of his colleagues) should have resigned. As a scientist, he can hardly claim the moral high ground without first underpinning his arguments. If he has any, I publically challenge him to present them.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Good! Some common sense at last. Textured coatings, containing Chrysotile (white asbestos) is no more dangerous than talcum poweder, which chemically, is exactly what white asbestos is.
There has never been a case of Mesothelioma associated with white asbestos.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Why doesn't the rest of the EC adopt our COSHH Regulations, instead of us accepting a new set of what are effectively duplicate rules, which doubtless will involve even more forms and administration. The number of chemical accidents, occupationally, in Britain is less than a tenth of what it was thirty years ago and for the last audited year, amounted to none that I can see from the HSE Bulletins.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Reduction of the WEL/OEL to this level might well be impracticable as it will be almost impossible to measure the WEL in the environments envisaged as presenting significant risk. The only way for an employer of builders/demoloition workers to monitorthe exposure levels from which a meaningful Risk Assessment may be made would invlove using personal dossimeters over relatively long exposure (episodes, the filters of which would have to be examined for particle and size counts, by a specialist laboratory. How many small building firms will be tempted to do this?

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

'Can't blame you for making a bit of money out of yet more EC absurdity

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Even in these days of profound absurdity and Political gobbledigook, this report surpasses all previous in its utter fatuity

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

With the number of, what the Home Office speciously describes as, 'A and B' risk premises declining impressively, due to factory closures during the same period, a decline in accidental fire rates is hardly surprising!

The small and not necessarily significant decline in domestic fires may represent progress but I note that the proportion of such fires affecting socio-economic groups D & E, remains at more than 80%

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

As I've said for some years, we need better safety and less regulation.

It is very significant that, in these litigious times, the rate of accident and morbidity- and indeed the rate of fatalities among blue collar workers - has multiplied several fold!

The number of EC Regulations adopted by Britian, has increased by a similar ratio, during a similar period - by a factor of five, since 1975.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Accidents, while driving in the course of work have always been required to be reported under the Health & Safety @ W Act (and under Road Regulations). This was discussed and agreed by the HSC as early as 1975, following a consultative paper.

The Subsequent Regulations (Six pack etc) under the Act may not specifically mention 'driving accidents' - or near misses but this does not mittigate that general duty under the Act.

Making such obligatory within RIDDOR is probably not worth while; as the HSC is considering its complete revision, or, possibly revocation. It is being revisited because it has never worked!

Where before a reportable accident was closely defined as that needing three days or more sick-leave, under RIDDOR, it became any INCIDENT including minor accidents and nearly accidents. There are very few employers who have closely followed this obligation and I bet an honest 'straw poll' would reveal few who have reported every time they nearly had an accident.

Let's have better safety and less paper-work.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

The 'research' published in the BMJ contains no shred of scientific truth but simply idle speculation, pandering to the current witch hunt on smoking in public places.

The only meaningful research, conducted over twenty years amongst GPs and over a significantly large sample found no evidence whatever to suggest the respiritory challenge to 'passive' smokers was pathogenic.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

The evidence of the report seems largely to revolve round a Swedish study (in which country, cell-phones have been popularly used the longest time) and the contention that there were four auricular tumours in children who had used cell phones. It did not mention that this frequency, within the sample group, appears about the normal rate of incidence!

Where it is prudent to proceed with caution, one trusts we will not have yet another single issue campaign.

I suggest the health of the nation is more adversely affected by the size of our children?s mobile phone bills, than by exposure to 0.5 Joules/second of microwave signal.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

There has been a proposition by the EC, to introduce pan European Health & Safety Legislation; bearing in mind that the UK is the only member state that has a Health & Safety at Work Act (an instrument of enablement, rather than a particular set of Regualtions, such as we operated under the old Factories Acts and as remains the case in Germany and France, for instance. This difference is mainly because our law is case precedential, whereas, in Germany and France the structure of Law tends to be edictorial.

I would feel a new Act unnecassary, as the current Act and its increasing Regulations appear adequate for the purpose. The problem in Britain, is that the number of registered premises has risen from two to more than three million and the number of Factory Inspectors has risen from 800 to about 1000, over thirty years. Thus the role of the HSE has changed from Policeman to advisor. Amongst employers that encourage a safety culture in employees, this seems a reasonable approach but there are many who are ill-informed or uncaring. The plethora of new regulation tends to increase not the safety record of those with a good safety record but just the amount of paper work: whereas; those who can't be bothered just carry on in blissful or willful ignorance and can not be policed, as there are not enough 'police'.

There is a revised set of PPE Regulations currently on the Statute. It will probably come in to force in about two years time.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Public Authority Fire Officers often suggest calling the Brigade, rather than tackling a fire.

The Law (revised this year) states adequate provision of First Aid Fire fighting devices AND regular training and fire-fighting practise for employees (fire marshalls).

IFEDA (the fire fighting trade association) surveyed about two thousand Fire category A & B premises, in 2002, to disover that more than three quarters of fires were tackled successfully by employees, without Fire Service Intervention. On average, the Fires were controlled with 2.4 Fire Extibguishers. Most Fire Extinguishers employed were dry-powder type.

The Fire Regulations require the employer to conduct a Fire risk survey and to produce a written fire and evacuation plan. This is quite simple but it does require the employer to make informed decision, rather than to rely on the FPO from the local brigade to do the work for him!

You may call me on 01952 461541, for any particular advice, based on a knowledge of your premises.

Helios Safety & Rescue, Shropshire

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

One sympathises greatly with the Inspectors. Since 1980, much of the HSE work in occupational morbidity, prevention, research and face-to-facing with the customer has been curtailed, whilst inspectors have had to grin, unconvincingly, whilst explaining their role is to encourage autonomous behavior and 'safety cultures', rather than to police reluctant employers.

This has not been helped by vacilating regulation and a plethora of paper designed for nothing other than to displace the possibility of anyone being held responsible for anything!

Those invloved in occupational safety will know exactly what I mean by this.

Bill Parker
Member - 55 posts

Now that the State Pension Scheme seems completely out of its depth, having originally been based on needing to fund just five years of retirement and that private pensions reveal our cash better invested in a Building Society, fixed retirement ages are impractical, unnecessary and divisive for those of us with our own business and who will probably have to die with our boots on.

Anyone who wanted such benefits as evident to pensioners during the seventies and eighties, should have done more to see that GB & Coy managed to hang on to its industry, which drove the growth in Pension values. It would have been a good idea to curb the activities of deregualted usurers in the so called 'city', at the same time as such fellons have greatly contributed to the demise of our economy, kidding us on that growth in the money supply means growth in the economy!