Occuaptional Hygiene in developing economies

I found this presentation on Slideshare

Although I'm not so complacent to think that control of asbestos is perfect here in the UK, I think it would be unlikely to find anything quite as blatant as the situation shown on these slides.

I guess that this example illustrates the difference in standards between "developed" and "developing" economies. Some commentators argue that the health, safety standards required by legislation are driving work away from Western Europe and the US to countries such as Turkey, Eastern Europe, India, the Far East, Latin America and that we should lower standards over here. But this argument has been used many times in the past - only with different countries being cited (in the past it was Spain, Portugal, Greece etc). There will always be somewhere where standards and wages are lower. The standards adopted in the developed countries are helping to protect workers' health - and uncontrolled use of hazardous substances, such as the example in the slides, needs to be addressed in the developing world, and will be in due course as workers there become more organised.

In order to improve standards, professional expertise will be needed, including occupational hygiene. Although these skills could be provided by hygienists based in Europe, the USA and Australia, this is not a solution in the long term. The best approach is to develop the profession in the countries where occupational hygiene skills are required. The International Modules being developed in partnership by a number of occupational hygiene organisations, including BOHS and the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists should, hopefully provide a foundation for this.

IARC review of Category 1 carcinogens

In March, 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reassessed the carcinogenicity of metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres previously classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) and to identify additional tumour sites and mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Their findings are published in:

A review of human carcinogens—Part C: metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres : The Lancet Oncology

Key points from this article include:

Metals

• The classification of beryllium and its compounds, cadmium and its compounds, chromium (VI) compounds, and nickel compounds as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) was reaffirmed .
• Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds was classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

Asbestos

• Epidemiological evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite) with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma.
• Sufficient evidence is now available to show that asbestos also causes cancer of the larynx and of the ovary.
• The Working Group classified the evidence for an association between asbestos and colorectal cancer as “limited”.

Silica

• The Working Group reaffirmed the carcinogenicity of crystalline silica dust as Group 1. An increased risk of lung cancer was observed across various industries and processes.

Wood dust

• Wood dust was reaffirmed as “carcinogenic to humans”.
• Epidemiological studies report a strong association between exposure to wood dust and development of sinonasal cancer.
• There is strong evidence of carcinogenicity for hardwood dusts.
• For softwood dust there is a smaller riskthan for hardwood dust

Leather dust

• A particularly high risk of sinonasal adenocarcinoma was noted among workers with the highest exposure to leather dust.
• Leather dust was classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).

Music lessons for conference organisers

I came across this on aWordPress blog http://returnon.wordpress.com/

I think the speaker makes some good points in his short presentation. Conference organisers everywhere take note!

Parrots or professionals?

The following article by the philosopher AC Grayling appeared in The Guardian on Saturday:

Knowledge and genius

I think it makes some very valid points which are relevant to education and particularly so with respect to the training of professionals.

In the article, Grayling states:

“there is no automatic connection between knowledge and intelligence“.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Simply being able to reel off facts isn’t proof of ability to perform a task. Even a parrot can be trained to reel off lists of facts. Yet there is too much reliance on rote learning in the occupational hygiene profession where trainees are required to learn masses of facts for the BOHS modules, while there is relatively little testing of their ability to apply the knowledge to solving problems.

An enormous amount of information is available to us in the modern world - and it continues to expand exponentially. It is not only unrealistic to expect a professional to absorb and remember a mass of facts, it is, in my opinion, poor practice. It is more important to know how and where to locate information than to memorise it - and then to be able to use it to analyse and solve problems.