/PRNewswire/ -- Nearly all of the safety professionals in a survey released today said that workers in their organizations had at some point failed to wear the necessary safety equipment while on the job.
An exceedingly high 98 percent of respondents who attended the recent American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) show in Baltimore answered "yes" when asked if they had observed workers not wearing safety equipment when they should have been, according to the survey, which was conducted by Kimberly-Clark Professional.
To make matters worse, 30 percent of these respondents said this had happened on numerous occasions. Given this, it's not surprising that worker compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols was cited as the top workplace safety issue by all survey respondents.
These findings are in keeping with results from surveys of safety professionals, conducted by Kimberly-Clark Professional at the National Safety Council (NSC) Congress in 2008, 2007 and 2006. Those surveys also found high levels of noncompliance with PPE protocols -- 89 percent in 2008, 87 percent in 2007 and 85 percent in 2006.
"Increasingly high noncompliance with PPE protocols is an alarming trend and a serious threat to worker health and safety," said Gina Tsiropoulos, manufacturing segment marketing manager for Kimberly-Clark Professional. "Whether this is a result of economic conditions, a flawed approach to safety programs, younger workers who are more inclined to take greater risks, or some other reason, it's essential that workers wear PPE when it is required. PPE protects workers against injury, but it will not work if workers fail to use it and use it properly."
It's no wonder then that three-quarters of respondents chose workplace accidents and injuries in response to the question: "What is most likely to keep you up at night?" Potential exposure because of noncompliance with PPE protocols was second, at 13 percent, while fear of a global pandemic and its impact on the workforce was a distant third, cited by only 8 percent of respondents.
Most Challenging PPE
When it comes to compliance with PPE use protocols, eye protection was found to be the "most challenging" PPE category, according to 42 percent of respondents, a disturbing though not unexpected finding considering that nearly three out of five workers who experienced eye injuries were found not to be wearing eye protection at the time of the accident or were wearing the wrong kind of eye protection for the job.(1) Add to this the facts that about 2,000 U.S. workers each day have a job-related eye injury that requires medical treatment(2) and that thousands are blinded each year from work-related eye injuries that could have been prevented(3) and the magnitude of the problem becomes clear.
The next highest category for noncompliance was hearing protection, also disturbing since occupational noise-induced hearing loss is 100 percent preventable when proper preventative measures are implemented. It was followed by gloves and head protection.
While the reasons for PPE noncompliance were varied, the biggest complaint was that it was "uncomfortable," selected by 40 percent of respondents, followed by:
-- Too hot
-- Not available near the work task
-- Poor fit
-- Unattractive looking
When asked what they had done or intended to do to improve compliance levels, these safety professionals' top choice was to improve existing education and training programs. This was followed by:
-- Increased monitoring of employees
-- Purchasing more comfortable PPE
-- Tying compliance to individual performance evaluations
-- Purchasing more stylish PPE
-- Developing incentive programs to encourage greater PPE compliance
How can Suppliers Help?
The issue of PPE comfort came to the fore again when safety professionals were asked what suppliers could do to improve their offerings. The number one selection was to "provide more comfortable PPE," followed by:
-- Providing more instruction on the proper use of PPE
-- Reducing prices
-- Providing greater size selection
-- Offering more stylish PPE
PPE of the Future
When safety professionals were asked about their visions for the future of PPE, fit, comfort and style took precedence. Forty-two percent of respondents said they would like to see PPE that automatically adjusts to fit different body types, hands, heads, faces, etc. Next was PPE with customizable style and design options, so that workers could select PPE based on their own individual tastes and safety requirements (32 percent). This was followed by PPE designed with integrated climate-control features, providing cooling or warmth as needed (15 percent).
The impact of customization and style on PPE compliance was further underscored by the response to another question. When asked if customizable or individualized style and design options would help increase PPE compliance, 87 percent of respondents said that it would.
'Toxic Towels'
Safety professionals were also asked about another area of concern -- the potential health and safety issues for workers posed by oil, grease, heavy metal residues or toxic elements on re-usable Rental Shop Towels. Sixty percent said they were disturbed by these hazards, with 20 percent of these respondents reporting they were "very concerned."
Worries about the risks to workers from "toxic towels" were the chief reason why safety professionals said they would switch to disposable wiping solutions from re-usable rental shop towels. What was the second most important reason for a potential change? A closed-loop solution that converts used disposable wipers to energy and diverts them from landfills. Not surprising, given the increased emphasis on environmental responsibility in manufacturing.
"Manufacturing facilities today are focused now more than ever before on conserving natural resources and reducing waste," said Tsiropoulos. "So a closed-loop solution for used wipers is a very appealing option."
Survey Methodology
The survey of 132 attendees at the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) show in Baltimore, Md., was conducted via the Internet between June 9 and 13, 2010. All survey respondents said they were responsible for purchasing, selecting or influencing the purchase or selection of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or industrial wiping solutions. Ninety percent were safety directors or managers, while the other 10 percent were industrial hygienists, facilities or general managers, or held other positions. They were employed in the following fields: chemical/plastics manufacturing; construction/utilities; computer, electronics and electrical product manufacturing; food processing; metal manufacturing; transpiration equipment manufacturing or other fields.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label injuries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label injuries. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Who Will Hold BP Liable?
24-7 - The Ultimate Losses
No one lost more than those 11 workers who died on April 20 in the massive explosion that engulfed the offshore oil rig in flames and sent it into the then-blue water of the Gulf. Their loss of life has been largely overlooked in the nonstop media coverage that has followed in the weeks since the catastrophe. The workers who suffered severe injuries in the explosion have likewise been ignored.
One day those survivors and those who were injured will have their day in court, however, and liability and compensation for their losses will be determined. Who will be held liable? BP has already to some extent admitted liability in the event by paying out minor sums to fishermen and other business owners and workers who have lost income because of the oil spill.
Two other companies may well share liability in the Deepwater incident: Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig (Transocean leased the rig to BP) and Halliburton, the company that was responsible for the cement casing that was supposed to cap the well.
Injuries Incurred Since the Explosion
As part of the efforts to prevent the enormous swaths of oil from the leak from hitting the Gulf coast, BP has hired shrimpers, commercial fishermen and others with boats to deploy booms and devices to soak up some of the oil.
Though the efforts have had decidedly mixed results, there's no denying that some of the workers hired by BP have suffered a variety of symptoms due to their prolonged (and in some cases, unprotected) exposure to toxic fumes, oil particles and powerful chemical dispersants used to break up the oil.
A CBS News report aired nationally showed Gulf coast workers reporting a variety of respiratory and other ailments after exposure to the oil and dispersants.
The Los Angeles Times reported that seven workers were hospitalized due to sudden illness. According to Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the illness was apparently caused by exposure to a cleaning substance.
Crude oil is a poisonous stew with ingredients including cancer-causing benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a toxin that can damage the central nervous system and brain.
The legal process is already beginning to sort out issues involving negligence and liability and compensation for lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering. Legal experts urge people who have suffered injuries, or have family members who are oil-spill victims, to carefully consider their legal options before entering into agreements with BP or others.
Article provided by Winters & Yonker P.A.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
No one lost more than those 11 workers who died on April 20 in the massive explosion that engulfed the offshore oil rig in flames and sent it into the then-blue water of the Gulf. Their loss of life has been largely overlooked in the nonstop media coverage that has followed in the weeks since the catastrophe. The workers who suffered severe injuries in the explosion have likewise been ignored.
One day those survivors and those who were injured will have their day in court, however, and liability and compensation for their losses will be determined. Who will be held liable? BP has already to some extent admitted liability in the event by paying out minor sums to fishermen and other business owners and workers who have lost income because of the oil spill.
Two other companies may well share liability in the Deepwater incident: Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig (Transocean leased the rig to BP) and Halliburton, the company that was responsible for the cement casing that was supposed to cap the well.
Injuries Incurred Since the Explosion
As part of the efforts to prevent the enormous swaths of oil from the leak from hitting the Gulf coast, BP has hired shrimpers, commercial fishermen and others with boats to deploy booms and devices to soak up some of the oil.
Though the efforts have had decidedly mixed results, there's no denying that some of the workers hired by BP have suffered a variety of symptoms due to their prolonged (and in some cases, unprotected) exposure to toxic fumes, oil particles and powerful chemical dispersants used to break up the oil.
A CBS News report aired nationally showed Gulf coast workers reporting a variety of respiratory and other ailments after exposure to the oil and dispersants.
The Los Angeles Times reported that seven workers were hospitalized due to sudden illness. According to Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the illness was apparently caused by exposure to a cleaning substance.
Crude oil is a poisonous stew with ingredients including cancer-causing benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a toxin that can damage the central nervous system and brain.
The legal process is already beginning to sort out issues involving negligence and liability and compensation for lost wages, medical bills and pain and suffering. Legal experts urge people who have suffered injuries, or have family members who are oil-spill victims, to carefully consider their legal options before entering into agreements with BP or others.
Article provided by Winters & Yonker P.A.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Saturday, May 30, 2009
How Dangerous Is Hydroxycut?
/24-7/ -- On May 1, 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release urging consumers to stop using 14 varieties of the diet aid Hydroxycut and return unused portions to the place of purchase. The FDA also sent a letter to health care professionals stating that officials "believe [Hydroxycut] presents a serious public health risk." In response, the manufacturer of Hydroxycut, Iovate Health Sciences, Inc., decided to issue a voluntary recall of all products named by the FDA. But just how dangerous is Hydroxycut, really? Was the FDA justified in its action, or is this an overhasty response to a minor health concern.
About Hydroxycut Injuries
The main rationale for the FDA's action regarding Hydroxycut is liver damage. In some patients it seems to create acute liver toxicity that required hospitalization in more than 2/3 of the reported cases, and required liver transplants for two of them. One of the patients was deemed unsuitable for a liver transplant because of significant damage to other organs. This patient, a 17-year old male, had taken an elevated dose of Hydroxycut, and died after the decision was made not to pursue the liver transplant.
In addition to liver damage, the FDA determined that a number of serious illnesses have been associated with Hydroxycut use, including cardiovascular injury, seizures, and severe muscle damage known as rhabdomyolysis.
The Numbers of Hydroxycut Injuries
In its press releases and statements, the FDA claims there have been 23 cases of confirmed liver damage resulting from the use of Hydroxycut. The cases appeared over a seven year period. With millions of bottles of Hydroxycut being sold every year, the number of injuries may seem very small, making many believe that FDA's statement and subsequent recall is something of an overreaction.
The Rationale for the Hydroxycut Action
Hydroxycut seems to cause what is known as idiosyncratic liver toxicity, a condition which is inherently very rare. The toxic reaction occurs in less than 10 people per 100,000, and often in less than 1 per 100,000. Although toxic reactions are rare, idiosyncratic liver toxicity is the most common form of drug-induced liver toxicity because it is unpredictable, generally undetected in clinical trials, and often occurs with only recommended doses of a drug.
In addition, the FDA did not know what ingredient of Hydroxycut was responsible for the liver toxicity. It did not know whether liver toxicity was the result of a biologic extract or a heavy metal. It did not even know whether the toxicity may have been the result of contaminated or badly blended pills. Reports of liver damage have been associated with Hydroxycut since its introduction, but it was believed at first that the ingredient ephedra, associated with seizure, cardiovascular damage, and other adverse health effects, was responsible for the damage. But Hydroxycut has been ephedra-free since the ingredient was banned in 2004, and reports of liver damage have continued.
Because of all the unknowns, the FDA could not issue a specific caution that would identify users with an elevated risk from Hydroxycut and thereby reduce future cases of liver toxicity. The only way the FDA could protect users was to ask them to stop using Hydroxycut, a request that will likely stay in effect until a causative agent can be identified.
So, How Dangerous Is Hydroxycut?
We're back to the place we started then, with the question of how dangerous is this diet aid? The answer is: no-one knows. The FDA's action is designed to stop more people from suffering adverse, potentially deadly reactions to Hydroxycut while the agency and the manufacturer of the supplement determine what is the cause. Once the ingredient responsible has been identified, we can expect Hydroxycut to return to the market either reformulated or with specific warnings that may help users make informed decisions about whether a diet supplement with no proven effectiveness is worth the potential risk.
If you would like to learn more about Hydroxycut or other dangerous drugs, visit the website of pharmaceutical injury law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton today.
Source: Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
-----
Please research all information and any organization prior to donating or contacting. The Georgia Front Page and the Fayette Front Page share information as provided from a variety of sources. We do not necessarily support, endorse or research the legitimacy of the various organization's information prior to including. We can not be held responsible for the reliability of the information or outcomes if you choose to donate or follow up with the organization (s).
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Follow on Twitter @GAFrontPage
About Hydroxycut Injuries
The main rationale for the FDA's action regarding Hydroxycut is liver damage. In some patients it seems to create acute liver toxicity that required hospitalization in more than 2/3 of the reported cases, and required liver transplants for two of them. One of the patients was deemed unsuitable for a liver transplant because of significant damage to other organs. This patient, a 17-year old male, had taken an elevated dose of Hydroxycut, and died after the decision was made not to pursue the liver transplant.
In addition to liver damage, the FDA determined that a number of serious illnesses have been associated with Hydroxycut use, including cardiovascular injury, seizures, and severe muscle damage known as rhabdomyolysis.
The Numbers of Hydroxycut Injuries
In its press releases and statements, the FDA claims there have been 23 cases of confirmed liver damage resulting from the use of Hydroxycut. The cases appeared over a seven year period. With millions of bottles of Hydroxycut being sold every year, the number of injuries may seem very small, making many believe that FDA's statement and subsequent recall is something of an overreaction.
The Rationale for the Hydroxycut Action
Hydroxycut seems to cause what is known as idiosyncratic liver toxicity, a condition which is inherently very rare. The toxic reaction occurs in less than 10 people per 100,000, and often in less than 1 per 100,000. Although toxic reactions are rare, idiosyncratic liver toxicity is the most common form of drug-induced liver toxicity because it is unpredictable, generally undetected in clinical trials, and often occurs with only recommended doses of a drug.
In addition, the FDA did not know what ingredient of Hydroxycut was responsible for the liver toxicity. It did not know whether liver toxicity was the result of a biologic extract or a heavy metal. It did not even know whether the toxicity may have been the result of contaminated or badly blended pills. Reports of liver damage have been associated with Hydroxycut since its introduction, but it was believed at first that the ingredient ephedra, associated with seizure, cardiovascular damage, and other adverse health effects, was responsible for the damage. But Hydroxycut has been ephedra-free since the ingredient was banned in 2004, and reports of liver damage have continued.
Because of all the unknowns, the FDA could not issue a specific caution that would identify users with an elevated risk from Hydroxycut and thereby reduce future cases of liver toxicity. The only way the FDA could protect users was to ask them to stop using Hydroxycut, a request that will likely stay in effect until a causative agent can be identified.
So, How Dangerous Is Hydroxycut?
We're back to the place we started then, with the question of how dangerous is this diet aid? The answer is: no-one knows. The FDA's action is designed to stop more people from suffering adverse, potentially deadly reactions to Hydroxycut while the agency and the manufacturer of the supplement determine what is the cause. Once the ingredient responsible has been identified, we can expect Hydroxycut to return to the market either reformulated or with specific warnings that may help users make informed decisions about whether a diet supplement with no proven effectiveness is worth the potential risk.
If you would like to learn more about Hydroxycut or other dangerous drugs, visit the website of pharmaceutical injury law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton today.
Source: Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
-----
Please research all information and any organization prior to donating or contacting. The Georgia Front Page and the Fayette Front Page share information as provided from a variety of sources. We do not necessarily support, endorse or research the legitimacy of the various organization's information prior to including. We can not be held responsible for the reliability of the information or outcomes if you choose to donate or follow up with the organization (s).
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Follow on Twitter @GAFrontPage
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sports Concussions: Common and Preventable
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Sports and recreation related concussions impact an estimated 1.6 to 3.8 million individuals in the U.S. each year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
A concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury (TBI) caused by a blow or jolt to the head and can range from mild to severe. It is important to note that even if you do not lose consciousness after a fall, it is possible to have a concussion.
Symptoms of concussion can include headache, nausea, dizziness, and visual changes, but it is important to note they are different for every individual and are not always immediately evident. In fact, it can take days or weeks before symptoms are present. Therefore it is important to seek medical attention immediately following any type of blow to the head.
"Recovery from concussion and brain injury never really stops, so even if an injury occurred in the past, it is not too late to seek medical advice," according to Patrick Walsh, Psy.D., Marianjoy Director of Psychology and Brain Injury Program Coordinator. "It can be a very slow process and usually requires long-term rehabilitation."
March is National Brain Injury Awareness Month; this year the focus is on sports and concussions. It is important to wear protective gear -- including a helmet -- when engaging in physical activities such as snowboarding, skiing, bicycling, rollerblading or contact sports.
Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital is proud to have received full accreditation from the Council for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) for its inpatient brain injury program. Its experienced staff is dedicated to improving the outcomes of patients with brain injury by addressing their physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioral challenges. The Marianjoy Brain Injury Team works with the patient to optimize the patient's life skills that are necessary to transition home and integrate back into the community.
In addition to offering an acute inpatient brain injury program, the Marianjoy Post Concussive Institute Program offers treatment for individuals experiencing physical, cognitive or emotional difficulties following a mild head injury.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
A concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury (TBI) caused by a blow or jolt to the head and can range from mild to severe. It is important to note that even if you do not lose consciousness after a fall, it is possible to have a concussion.
Symptoms of concussion can include headache, nausea, dizziness, and visual changes, but it is important to note they are different for every individual and are not always immediately evident. In fact, it can take days or weeks before symptoms are present. Therefore it is important to seek medical attention immediately following any type of blow to the head.
"Recovery from concussion and brain injury never really stops, so even if an injury occurred in the past, it is not too late to seek medical advice," according to Patrick Walsh, Psy.D., Marianjoy Director of Psychology and Brain Injury Program Coordinator. "It can be a very slow process and usually requires long-term rehabilitation."
March is National Brain Injury Awareness Month; this year the focus is on sports and concussions. It is important to wear protective gear -- including a helmet -- when engaging in physical activities such as snowboarding, skiing, bicycling, rollerblading or contact sports.
Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital is proud to have received full accreditation from the Council for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) for its inpatient brain injury program. Its experienced staff is dedicated to improving the outcomes of patients with brain injury by addressing their physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioral challenges. The Marianjoy Brain Injury Team works with the patient to optimize the patient's life skills that are necessary to transition home and integrate back into the community.
In addition to offering an acute inpatient brain injury program, the Marianjoy Post Concussive Institute Program offers treatment for individuals experiencing physical, cognitive or emotional difficulties following a mild head injury.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
