Career Path > Safety
Safety
RAD-GHOST:
I believe the street expression is...... "The Say'er vs. the Players"!
WTF, you got'z to quit drinking the Kool-Aid :o
RG!
kp88:
--- Quote from: Chimera on May 06, 2010, 11:51 ---
I don't think it matters too much which "safety system" is used. What does matter is that whatever that system is, it must be conscientiously applied in the field and continuously reinforced every day.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. The moment the Safety Department utters the words "not required by OSHA" in response to a concern, the "safety system" loses a lot of credibility. Nobody in Radiation Protection is running around saying that it's alright to pick up 4.9 Rem, even though it is allowed by the NRC.
Already Gone:
That's a really good point. When you think about it, radiation is the easiest hazard to handle from a risk perspective. It is one of the few hazards where exposure can be mathematically correlated to risk -- even if the relationship is not linear. You can measure exposure rates and cumulative exposure. Therefore, you can anticipate, mitigate, and control the risk on any particular task.
There are other hazards, like noise, lead or asbestos, where you can do the same. Maybe not as easily or in real-time like radiation. In fact, other than radiation, the only exposure that can be measured with a survey meter and tracked with a dosimeter in real-time is noise. Because it can be sensed, it is easier to control because workers can tell where it is, from where it is coming, when and where the levels change, and it has an annoyance factor which triggers protective action ont their part without prompting. (Well, not in every case. It's mind-boggling the times when you have to remind people to use ear plugs when it should be obvious.)
Obvious is the word I was looking for. It seems that the more obvious an exposure to risk is, the less likely people are to protect themselves.
If you separate health hazards -- radiation, lead, asbestos, noise, ... etc. -- from injury hazards, you will see a definite split in the behaviors people use to protect themselves. Even when both acute and chronic exposures are coming from the same source, or from different sources simultaneously, you'll see people taking the precautions to protect against the chronic and ignore the acute. Take for example a painter on a ladder with a spray nozzle. You'll see him wear a respirator to protect his lungs from the paint, but jump the ladder to move it without getting off. Or, the guy doing a bulk chemical delivery in a full-body suit, respirator and face-shield, but takes a shortcut to disconnect his hose from the tank while he is climbing on top of it with no fall arrest equipment.
In bodily injury hazards the risk exposure needle is always either zero or pegged high. Likewise, the cumulative exposure resets to zero at the end of the task. It seems that it is harder to manage the higher-risk behaviors than those which are relatively lower but cumulative.
So, I'm going to use your analogy to influence behaviors. Let's see how well that works. Thanks.
illegalsmile:
--- Quote from: kp88 on May 07, 2010, 04:05 ---Agreed. The moment the Safety Department utters the words "not required by OSHA" in response to a concern, the "safety system" loses a lot of credibility. Nobody in Radiation Protection is running around saying that it's alright to pick up 4.9 Rem, even though it is allowed by the NRC.
--- End quote ---
The only reason dumber than that is "We've always done it that way..." ::)
retired nuke:
--- Quote from: illegalsmile on May 07, 2010, 01:13 ---The only reason dumber than that is "We've always done it that way..." ::)
--- End quote ---
That's the phrase that raises my attention level - an immediate indicator that preplanning wasn't done, questioning attitude wasn't used, and peer checking failed. :(
I do the hardhat / safety glasses / shoe police thing - but fall protection, permit required confined spaces and overhead work are where my eyes focus hard.... them issues will kill you... :o
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version