Workplace Safety & Health Co. Inc. Blog

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

A recently published study from NIOSH examined hearing difficulty and tinnitus in various industries, based on data from the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. This provided detailed, self-reported information on hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and exposures to occupational noise. Some other findings are that:
-Seven percent of U.S. workers never exposed to noise on the job had hearing difficulty, 5 percent had tinnitus, and 2 percent had both conditions. Among workers who had at some point in their working careers been exposed to occupational noise, the prevalence was 23 percent, 15 percent, and 9 percent, respectively.

-Workers in agriculture, forestry, and the fishing and hunting industry had a significantly higher risk of hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and their co-occurrence. Manufacturing workers also had significantly higher risks for tinnitus and the co-occurrence of tinnitus and hearing difficulty.

-Workers in life, physical and social science occupations, and personal care and service occupations had significantly higher risks for hearing difficulty. Workers in architecture and engineering occupations also had significantly higher risks for tinnitus.

-Workers in sales and related occupations had significantly lower risks for hearing difficulty, tinnitus and their co-occurrence.

The study is the first to report prevalence estimates for tinnitus by U.S. industry sector and occupation and provide these estimates side by side with prevalence estimates of hearing difficulty, according to the agency. According to NIOSH, hazardous noise affects approximately 22 million U.S. workers.

Read entire article - http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-02-01-16.html

Tagged in: NIOSH

Posted by on in Uncategorized

Whether it’s on the way to-, from-, or for the purpose of work, reaching the destination safely involves the driver being focused on the task at hand: driving.

Over the past decade or so, distracted driving has emerged as a major public safety concern – as well it should. Distracted driving remains one of the main causes of transportation-related accidents. According to Distraction.gov, the federal government’s website on distracted driving, in 2013, 3,154 people in the U.S. were killed in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers. That’s a 6.7% decrease in the recorded number of fatalities from the previous year. However, approximately 3,000 more people were injured in 2013 compared to the 421,000 injured in motor vehicle crashes

April is Distracted Driving Awareness month, and the National Safety Council’s theme this year is “Take Back Your Drive.” One estimate by the NSC puts the number of crashes caused by cell phone use and texting while driving at 1.6 million each year. It’s easy to blame the devices themselves, but a growing body of research suggests that they are part of larger picture, one in which they are just another set of contributors to a state of mental distraction.

A newly published study from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute seems to support this.1 In looking into which type of activity puts a driver at greater risk of being involved in a vehicle crash – a state of emotional agitation or performing activities such as using a hand-held cell phone – emotional agitation came out on top, researchers found. A person who is observably angry, sad, crying or emotionally agitated is almost 10 times more likely to experience a crash. The risk of a crash more than doubles when drivers perform activities that require them to take their eyes off the road, including reading emails or texts, or using a vehicle’s built-in touch screen.

Other research suggests that it isn’t the physical activity of operating a device (or devices) while driving that is the major cause for concern; rather, as some studies involving the use of hands-free cell phone use have shown, cognitive distraction caused by switching between language comprehension and processing the external cues needed to drive properly may be partly to blame.

It’s something to ponder – just maybe not when you’re behind the wheel.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2016/02/022316-vtti-researchdistraction.html

Tagged in: Distracted driving

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and ASIS International (ASIS) recently hosted a joint stakeholder meeting to address active shooting incidents. More than 100 experts from the security, fire, law enforcement, EMS, life safety, professional associations and government fields discussed existing resources, the crossover between security and fire disciplines, operational solutions, management procedures, building design and construction issues, and cost considerations with an emphasis on preparation and planning. According to the NFPA, the intent of the collaborative effort was, and will continue to be, to examine gaps and exchange knowledge as they relate to active shooter events.

Read entire article - http://nfpatoday.blog.nfpa.org/2016/02/nfpa-and-asis-hold-joint-stakeholder-meeting-to-address-active-shooter-incident-preparation-and-planning.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nfpablog+%28NFPA+Today+BLOG%29

Tagged in: NFPA

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has announced a rulemaking proposal designed to enhance the Agency’s ability to identify non-compliant motor carriers. The Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), to be published in the Federal Register, would update FMCSA’s safety fitness rating methodology by integrating on-road safety data from inspections – along with the results of carrier investigations and crash reports – in order to determine a motor carrier’s overall safety fitness on a monthly basis.

 Read entire article - https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/fmcsa-proposes-new-rule-determining-safety-fitness-motor-carriers

 

The final deadline in OSHA’s four-step conversion to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) is less than three months away. By June 1, 2016, employers, manufacturers, importers and distributors of hazardous chemicals will have to be in full compliance with the revised hazard communication standard (HCS). OSHA adopted GHS in 2012 to make labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) consistent with those used in most of the rest of the world.

Previous compliance deadlines were December 1, 2013, by when employers needed to have trained employees about the format and presentation of the new GHS labels and safety data sheets (SDSs) they will be seeing in the workplace; June 1, 2015, by which date all new labels and SDSs from manufacturers, importers and distributors needed to completed; and December 1, 2015, the date when manufacturers, importers and distributors could no longer use 1994 HCS-compliant labels.

According to the OSHA document Small Entity Compliance Guide for Employers That Use Hazardous Chemicals:
“If an employer identifies new hazards after December 1, 2015, due to the reclassification of the hazardous chemicals, it has six months, until June 1, 2016, to ensure that those hazards are included in the hazard communication program, workplace labeling reflects those new hazards, and employees are trained on the new hazards.”

According to that same document, OSHA inspections will be looking for at least the following aspects of an organization’s labeling approach:

-Designation of person(s) responsible for ensuring compliant labeling of shipped and inplant containers;
-Description of written alternatives to labeling of stationary process containers, if they are used;
-Appropriate labels on all workplace containers, including those received from a supplier, secondary containers, and stationary process containers;
-A description and explanation of labels on both shipped and workplace containers included in the employee training program; and,
-Procedures to review and update workplace label information when necessary.

Here is some more food for thought, even if your organization doesn’t handle chemicals: According to Federal OSHA, the HCS has been the second most violated standard it cites – 5482 times in 3055 federal OSHA inspections from October 2014 to September 2015, with a total of $3,308,262 in proposed penalties. The fall protection standard for construction took the top spot.

Tagged in: ghs OSHA

certifications

Go to top