Who needs Powerpoint?

I do, but only sometimes.

It seems that everyone expects speakers/trainers/teachers to have a deck of Powerpoint slides to use when they’re talking. They’re often badly designed and used poorly, but they can be a useful way of making a talk more visual and interesting. However, they can also be a distraction and if overused their impact is reduced.

I probably overuse Powerpoint. It’s easy to do this. Preparing a talk or session on a training course can easily turn into preparing a set of slides which form the structure of the talk and end up being used a speaker prompts. The problem with this is that your talk starts to follow a rigid framework imposed by the default Powerpoint template. I think that Nancy Duarte and Garr Reynolds have it right when the recommend “going analogue” when preparing a talk – i.e. using paper to plan it out. This can free your thought process and allow you to think about how to present your ideas without getting stuck in a Powerpoint induced rut..

From an audience point of view, watching contiuuous streams of slides projected on a screen can become tedious. Its much more interesting if there is some variety in the way material is put across. You’re more likely to keep their attention.

I was running a revision course last week for occupational hygienists preparing to take their Diploma examination. A lot of topics were covered during the week. For the first three days I’d used some slides for some, but not all of the sessions. I’d tried to avoid too many “lectures” and involved the delegates in discussions and group activities.

On the fourth day of the course we started with an open session. I’d asked the delegates to go through past some exam questions the previous evening and decide which questions they’d like to talk through in the class. This meant that I only had a broad view of we’d need to talk about. The session inevitably threw up some topics where the delgates didn’t have much knowledge and were looking to me to help them fill the gaps. I could have started opening up relevant presentations from my laptop but instead we just had a general discussion and where I needed to fill in some details I relied on description and the old fashioned “talk and chalk” approach, using a flip chart. It was really refreshing to do this from my perspective and the delegates seemed to like it too.

I didn’t switch the projector on all day . For the other sessions I used techniques such as brainstorming, breakout groups an, where I had to “lecture” I stuck with the flip chart.

Slideware such as Powerpoint is a useful tool, but it’s only one item in our toolbox. Unfortunately it’s overused. Its refreshing to use other techniques and I think we all benefited from a “Powerpoint free” day.

What's a "confined space"?

I recently received the following query regarding the application of the Confined Space Regulations 1997:

“is the intent that any room that has a hazard in it is considered a Confined Space? Let’s say we have a room with 2 doors, some general dilution and exhaust ventilation, and has a CO2 line running through it with several flanged connections. The line has never leaked, but I suppose it could if something breaks. Is that a confined space according to the regs?”

The term “confined space” has a particular legal meaning. Once a space is defined as such then the requirements of the “Confined Spaces Regulations 1997″ become applicable and employers are required to

• avoid work in the confined space “as far as reasonably practicable”
• where work is necessary, ensure that there is a safe system of work
• make arrangements to safely rescue anyone who becomes incapacitated within the confined space.

It isn’t true that any room containing a hazard would be considered as a “confined space”. However, I would probably categorise the situation described in the query as such. I once had to deal with a similar situation – a pub cellar where there are CO2 cylinders. There was a risk of a cylinder “bursting” which could release gas into the room. HSE does include “unventilated or poorly ventilated rooms” as an example of a confined space in their guidance on the Regulations in their guidance leaflet, indg258 .

Our British approach is a little woolly, but allows flexibility. The crucial questions to answer when deciding on whether something is a “confined space” are

1. Is the room “substantially” enclosed? i.e. is access / egress limited?
2. Is a potential hazard present in the room ( or one is “reasonably foreseeable”)?
3. In the case of a hazardous gas/vapour/fume/dust, is ventilation limited so that a dangerous concentration is possible?

If the answer to each of these is “yes”, particularly if access/egress limited, then I’d classify it as a confined space and the Confined Spaces Regulations would apply.

In the example given in the query, it appears that there is limited access/egress and there is a reasonably foreseeable risk (albeit small) of a leak. If the concentration could build up to a dangerous level than I’d definitely classify it as a confined space under the Regulations. So the crucial test is whether a leak would lead to a dangerous concentration.

Detailed guidance on the Regulations are available here

BOHS Meeting on the Thermal Environment

Working in extreme heat

We had a good turnout at the meeting today in Ellesmere Port 28 people turned up to listen to four speakers who covered a number of aspects of managing the thermal environment.

Doug Hiebert talked about how BNFL dealt with a problem at their Selafield site. Maintenance work has sometimes to be carried out in relatively high temperatures and high relative humidity and the risk is increased by the need to wear very comprehensive protective clothing to protect workers from the radiological hazards. One problem they faced when assessing the risk is that it wasn’t possible to use the usual equipment to carry out environmental measurements due to the potential for it to become contaminated.

After assessing the problem a number of measures were implemented including

• classifying the area as a “confined space” and introducing restrictions on acess based on factors that could affect an individual’s susceptibility to heat strain
• trying to schedule maintenance work during plant shutdowns
• introducing quite stringent and conservative time restrictions for work in the area
• providing cooling vests

Andrew Moore from the HSE was the second speaker. He provided a regulatory perspective but also gave some good advice on how to manage the health risks associated with work in hot environments. He stressed the importance of obtaining competent advice and effective management, ensuring that all the relevant stakeholders are involved. He illustrated his presentation with a case study where workers at a leisure pool were working in relatively high temperatures and high humidities. Although treated as a thermal comfort problem, the temperatures involved meant that the workers could be considered to be experiencing thermal stress.

I was the third speaker. Copies of my slides with notes can be viewed on Slideshare and a previous post.

The final speaker was Len Morris of the HSE who announced the formation of a BOHS Topic group on the thermal environment. Anyone interested in getting involved should contact BOHS HQ.

There are a number of good on-line information sources for anyone who’d like to find out more about managing the risks to health presented by the thermal environment, including the following

• the HSE thermal environment website
• the BOHS Technical Guide on the thermal environment andaddendum
• HSE’s guidance on heat stress

Visual Notetaking

I stumbled across this presentation on Slideshare the other day

I think it’s a really example of the modern approach to presentation design as advocated by Garr Reynolds and Nancy Duarte. It’s well designed and very visual. No not boring lists of bullet points here. The content is good and interesting too.

To understand the message fully you’d need to listen to the presenter – and that’s what presentations are about – the slides should support the presentation. With Slideshare that’s not possible (unless the originator records a soundtrack to go with it) so the full message doesn’t come across. However, the creator, Eva-Lotta Lamm, has made the notes that go along with the presentation available on her blog “Do Not Forget”

I like the idea of using sketchnotes and have tried to use them when I’ve attended conferences and meetings over the last 12 months – but I’ve not got the hang of them yet. I’m not a natural sketcher and I still find myself writing out linear lists. But I’m going to keep trying!

Thermal Comfort

The thermal environment is one of the traditional topic areas studied by occupational hygienists. There are two issues:

• thermal stress and strain
• thermal comfort

Excessive thermal stress means that the body has to work hard to avoid he core temperature moving outside narrow limits (37 + 2 C). If that happens we’re in a serious situation that leads to serious health effects and may be fatal. Our efforts to prevent this happening can also lead to adverse effects. This is most likely to occur in extreme environments or, sometimes, in more moderate environments where particularly heavy work is being performed or clothing is worn which prevent metabolic heat escaping.

Thermal comfort is most likely to be an issue in workplaces such as offices, but complaints or concerns can sometimes occur in manufacturing environments and other types of workplace. In this case the body is not experiencing a level of stress that it can’t cope with. There isn’t a physiological problem and ill health will not occur due to excessive thermal strain. But that encompasses a wide range of conditions. Will all of them be “comfortable”? Experience clearly shows that the answer to that is “no” !

Most occupational hygienists don’t work in industries work in high or low temperatures and so usually don’t have to deal with problems due to workers experiencing excessive heat or cold stress. However most of us, at some time or other, will be faced with a situation where workers are complaining that an environment is uncomfortable.

The BOHS is holding a Regional Meeting at Ellesmere Port tomorrow on the thermal environment. I’ll be giving a presentation on how to evaluate thermal comfort. These are the slides I’ll be using.

Thermal comfort for bohs version for slideshare notes

View more documents from Mike Slater.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell - "Beautiful Minds"

On Wednesday this week I watched the first of a series of 3 programmes profiling British Scientists. It told the story of Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who, as a postgraduate student, discovered pulsars – highly magnetized, rotating neutron stars that emit pulses of radiation at regular intervals.

Jocelyn Bell comes across as a genuine, self efacing, modest person. She speaks quietly with a distinct brogue revealing her Northen Irish origin (interestingly, her sister, who was interviewed during the programme, didn’t have a trace of a Ulster accent!). The programme included segments of an interview with her, where she expressed views on the practice of science but mainly concentrated on the story of her discovery of pulsars. As a PhD student in Cambridge, working under Antony Hewish, she was given the task of building a radio telescope (not the dish type but a field full of wires) and analysing the data obtained. Being in the 1950’s this data was in the form of chart recorder data – yards and yards of paper.During this analysis she noticed a series of small “blips”. Initially dismissed as “noise” by her superiors she carried on obtaining better data by slowing down the pen recorder! This allowed her to analyse these “blips” in more detail and it was then quite clear that she had found a series of regular pulses, This led to quite a furore as initially it was thought these could be signals from ET. However, she went on to analyse other parts of the sky where she found similar signals, ruling out the ET theory.

Despite this marvellous work, it was her supervisor, Antony Hewish, who was awarded the Nobel prize. JBB didn’t get a mention. Hewish was interviewed during the programme and justified this by almost dismissing JBB’s role and arguing that it is a team effort and that the team leader is the person who deserves any credit. I think this was absolutely disgraceful and is indicative of the attitude of the scientific establishment. The “top men” taking all the credit and glory and also the embedded misogyny. Despite this, when discussing it during the programme (and I’ve seen other interviews with her where she takes the same attitude), she does not come across as bitter. I don’t know whether she feels any anger inside – if so, she does a good job of hiding it. I suspect this is partly explained by her religion – she is a Quaker and a gentle, stoic attitude and lack of bitterness seems to go allong with that.

Although I enjoyed the programme the content was inevitably limited it mainly concentrated on the pulsar story, only touching on other aspects of her life and career. I would have liked to have known more about how she squares her deep religious conviction with being a scientist and to have learnt more about her career after the 1950’s. In other programmes I’ve seen about her life she has mentioned how difficult it was to work in science as another and how she was able to keep in touch by working as a tutor for the Open University.

More information on JBB can be found on the Internet including some interviews with her that delve into some more detail, here.

Picture credit: NASA via Wikipdedia http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/objects/heapow/archive/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.html

UK Nanotechnology Strategy

The UK Nanotechnologies Strategy was published on 18th March 2010. It outlines the strategy of the current government, so things may change after May 6th - we'll have to wait and see!

Nano Strategy Fully Accesible Version - Final

The potential health risks from nanoparticles are one of the "emerging issues" that occupational hygienists and health and safety professionals in general need to keep abreast of. Nanotechnology is a fast developing field and the toxicological implications are not fully understood. Governments see nanotechnology as an important emerging technology that can lead to economic benefits and is encouraging its development. It's important that sufficient emphasis is given to research into the health implications.

One of the strategic aims set out in the strategy document is a commitment to

"Better understanding of the risks associated with the use of, and exposure to, nanomaterials, and enough people with the right skills to assess them. "

In respect to this aim the document sets out the following actions

• Approaches to Government EHS research on nanotechnologies will be explored by the Chief Scientific Adviser network, with the aim of improving co-ordination. A meeting will be chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, John Beddington.
• There will be an ongoing portfolio of Government and publically funded research into a wide range of crucial EHS nanotechnologies issues including the behaviour of key nanomaterials in the gut when eaten and when inhaled into the lungs.
• Contributions will be made to international work programmes on nanotechnologies including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Nanotechnology Working Parties and the EU’s Framework Programme. The UK will work to influence the future scope of these projects.

All commendable, if rather vague.

One of the problems is that its only possible to see an effect once exposure has occurred so there is a dilemma - how can we detect effects in humans without exposing them to possible dangers? Animal experiments present difficulties both in terms of transferability of the findings to humans and the ethical implications.

Until stronger evidence is available the only sensible approach is to be cautious and apply a high degree of control. Nano-particles may or may not have serious health effects - we don't know - but if we treat them as if they do and design our control strategies similar to those for carcinogens and sensitisers, then we should ensure that worker health risks are minimised.

Surviving in extreme cold

I watched a TED video today of a talk by Ken Kamler. He was a medic on an expedition to Everest where the climbers were caught out by extreme conditions nearing the summit. Several were killed. Last week on our BOHS Module courseM201 "Thermal Environment and Non-ionising Radiation" we discussed the effects of exposure to cold conditions. This video provides some dramatic illustrations.

One of the climbers caught out on the summit survived unexpectedly. An example of where willpower can lead to someone triumphing against extreme adversity. In his talk, Ken Kamler provides a physiological explanation for this.

Drive

I've just finished reading the recently published book, "Drive" by Daniel Pink. I bought it having seen his talk on motivation, delivered at the TEDGlobal conference in Oxford last year online.In it he argues that the old approach to rewarding people using "carrots and sticks" is outdated and doesn't work for jobs that are about innovation and initiative. He advocates a new "intrinsic" approach to motivation to replace the outdated "extrinsic" approach for this type of job. The new model of motivation has threHe elements:

• autonomy - allowing people to direct their own work and organise their workload
• mastery - feeding the urge to do work that is enjoyable and to get better at what you do
• purpose - doing something with a larger objective rather than self-interest

Here's the talk he gave at TEDGlobal

I think that he makes a strong case and can see how it applies to my own work. I can see how it particularly applies to my work as an Associate Lecturer for the Open University. I've given up the role this year after working for them for 6 years. The work doesn't pay very well, much less than my "day job", so I clearly wasn't motivated by their "carrot". The pay was welcome, but was not so great. I did it because I enjoyed the work, think that I did a good job, and also was committed to the OU's purpose and ethos. The first two reasons fit into what Pink calls "Mastery" and the third is what he refers to as "Purpose". Within limits (you have deadlines to meet for marking assignments and set dates for tutorials) I could largely choose when I wanted to do the work, fitting it around my other commitments - so I had a large degree of "Autonomy".

I quit this year though. The OU is under severe financial pressures and this has had an impact on ALs. The size of tutor groups have been increased (in some cases this has been achieved by making some ALs redundant) meaning that there are more scripts to mark leading to a heavier workload. So called e-TMAs (assignments delivered electronically) have been made virtually compulsory, but no thought has been given to whether the assignments need to be modified to take account of this. I've found that marking on-screen rather than working with paper scripts is a lot more time-consuming and tiring to mark. This has further increased the workload. This has affected my autonomy and my enjoyment. The OU management style has also changed becoming more aggressive and making more demands on ALs. My feeling of purpose has also been adversely affected.

As my intrinsic motivation has been eroded the old-fashioned extrinsic motivational factors become more important and now the amount they pay comes into the equation and it quite simply isn't enough.

Coping with extreme cold

We’re running the BOHS module M201 “Thermal environment and non-ionising radiation (including lighting)” in a couple of weeks.

One of the topics we’ll be covering is cold stress and control of risks to health from work in cold environments.

An interesting blog I’ve been following is reporting on the Catlin Arctic Survey 2010. This is a British led expedition to the Artic who are investigating how greenhouse gases could affect the marine life of the Arctic Ocean. The team will be experiencing temperatures down to -30^oC (by way of comparison, a domestic freezer is only–18º) and wind speeds of up to 40kph. There is a real risk of condition such as frostbite and hypothermia.

The expedition doctor, Martin Rhodes, or “Doc Martin”, will be posting information on the medical aspects of the trip. A short video interview with him about the hazards to the human body when operating in a polar environment is available on their website here.

n-hexane

There was an interesting article in the Guardian a few days ago about the use of n-hexane in a factory in China. The company in question, which produces touch screens fro companies including Nokia, was using the solvent to clean the screens.

N-hexane is one of the organic compounds we study on BOHS Module course M101 ”Effects of hazardous substances”. As an alkane, we wouldn’t expect it to be particularly toxic. Alkanes generally are mild irritants and narcotics (substances that cause depression of the nervous system leading to effects similar to drunkenness). N-hexane is different in that it has been found to have another more serious chronic (i.e. long term) effect. Exposure to the compound can lead to peripheral neuritis – damage to the peripheral nervous system – causing symptoms such as loss of sensation in the fingers. There’s a good summary on the effects of n-hexane here.

The effects on the peripheral nervous systems are not due to the substance itself, but one of it’s metabolites - hexane-2,5-dione. It’s an example where the bitransformation of a substance in the body produces a more toxic compound.
The harmful effects are well known, and in the UK, Europe and the USA companies with a commitment to the health and safety of their workers would avoid using n-hexane wherever possible. It seems that the Chinese company actually used n-hexane as a substitute for the less toxic ethanol. According to the Guardian report about 49 workers were affected. The problem could have been avoided if a serious attitude was taken to health and safety and the principles of occupational hygiene were applied.

Selecting chemical protective gloves

Where gloves need to be worn for chemical protections its important that they are suitable for the chemical and application concerned and will provide protection for an appropriate time period. Too often inappropriate gloves are worn and even if suitable ones are used, they tend to be used long after they are capable of providing protection.

If it is necessary to use gloves then the first consideration is “what is the chemical we’re protecting against“. Once we know this data should be obtained from glove manufacturers on the breakthrough time, and the permeation rate. The breakthrough time is the time it takes for the chemical to work its way through the glove, which is normally well before any physical degradation has occurred. This will allow the most suitable glove to be selected, as breakthrough times for different gloves for a particular chemical will vary considerably. It will also usually allow the useful life of the glove to be defined – and the replacement frequency.

Degradation data should also be obtained – this is about the physical deterioration of the glove – as this can sometimes occur before breakthrough. Usability considerations are important too. It’s no good specifying gloves that aren’t usable because they’re not compatible with the work or the user.

Each manufacturer should provide data for their own products .

A pdf version of Ansell’s latest chemical resistance guide is available from here. They also have their information on line.

One of the other main suppliers, Marigold, also have an online guide.

Other manufacturer’s should have similar information available. If not, you can’t use their gloves for chemical protection.

New asbestos guidance

The HSE has jst launched it's new asbestos survey guide.

It can be ordered, or, even better, download for free from http://tiny.cc/6XNcH

"This heavily illustrated publication replaces and expands on MDHS100, surveying, sampling and assessment of asbestos-containing materials. It is aimed at people carrying out asbestos surveys and people with specific responsibilities for managing asbestos in non-domestic premises under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The book covers competence and quality assurance and surveys, including: survey planning, carrying out surveys, the survey report and the dutyholder's use of the survey information. It includes extensive appendices and references and it complements and supports other guidance on managing asbestos."

Girls Aloud on occupational health?

I wouldn't admit to being a fan of Girls Aloud - I'm not sure what it would do to my reputation of I did! However, it was good to see the article in the Observer today about the campaign by Nicola Roberts, the red headed, pales skinned member of the group, against the use of sunbeds by under 18s. She features in a documentary - "Nicola Roberts – The Truth About Tanning", on BBC3 on Thursday 4th February.

Excessive exposure to UV radiation can lead to a number of skin problems including malignant melanoma. Young people are particularly vulnerable. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the risk of melanoma was increased by 75% in people who started using sunbeds regularly before the age of 30. Yet peer pressure forces many pales skinned young people to use sun beds to try to give themselves a fashionable tan.

We cover the risks of non-ionising radiation on BOHS module M201 "Thermal Environment and Non-ionising radiation" which we are running w/c 22 March. I can't promise that Girls Aloud will be performing though!

Photo credit: Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/22948324@N08/2520077527/

P601 and competence in LEV testing

I received the following query a few days ago:

A large part of my working life during the last 14 years has been involved with the Thorough Examination and Test of Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV) systems within the company I work for.

I have now moved on within the same company to a health and safety position, but over the last two years, I have been training another person to carry out the LEV testing under my direct supervision. This person I feel is now capable of carrying out the full inspection and tests on his own.

Being qualified myself to the BOHS P601 standard, can I signs off the reports done by my trainee as being correct (if I feel they are done to a satisfactory standard) or does he need to prove he is competent himself by attending a formal course such as the P601.

This was my answer:

"COSHH requires that anyone carrying out any work required by the Regulations must be competent. This applies to the testing of LEV systems.

Passing P601 is a way of demonstrating competence to test LEV systems to an employer, client or the regulatory authorities. HSE strongly encourage those testing LEV systems to have passed P601, but it is not a legal requirement as such (although I do know of one situation where an Inspector placed an Improvement Notice on a company that required their personnel to take P601).

If you are certain that your colleague is competent and you could demonstrate this by some means if challenged (particularly by the HSE) then, it is probably not necessary for him to have taken the course. It is more important for consultancy/testing companies who provide a service to ensure there staff have the qualification as a means of reassuring the client that they know what they are doing. There are lots of companies offering LEV testing and not all of them are competent.

So, you need to make your own decision based on how confident you are that you can satisfy the HSE that your colleague is competent.

Of course, the above is only my personal opinion. A HSE Inspector could have a different view!"

What's a safe dose?

It was interesting to see an article in The Guardian yesterday discussing dose response relationships and threshold doses. Generally, increasing the dose of a substance increases the severity of the effect it causes. Similarly, for a given effect, due to individual susceptibility increasing the dose leads to an increase in the response – i.e. the number of people affected. For most substances, however, there is a threshold dose – that is a dose below which no-one is affected. This is because at doses below he threshold, the body’s mechanisms can deal with the substance, preventing harm. This can be represented graphically.

Typical dose-response curve showing a "threshold dose" (source:http://www.unido.org/index.php?id=5297)

With some substances, such as carcinogens and sensitisers, it is not possible to detect a threshold experimentally. It is argued that this is because they do not have one . The response is still dependant on the dose and at very low doses there are still some people who will be affected, albeit a relatively small number. Nevertheless, there is no “safe dose”. In such cases the dose-response curve is likely to be linear.

The Guardian article discusses the views put forward by an Oxford University physicist, Wade Allison, who has published a book in which he argues that there is a threshold for the effects of ionising radiation. He contends that DNA damage caused by exposure below this threshold dose can be repaired by the cells natural processes. This goes against the established view that radiation, like other direct acting carcinogens, has a dose response curve which doesn’t have a threshold, so that there is no identifiable dose below which adverse effects do not occur. Other radiation specialists are quoted in the article who do not support his view.

The difficulty with carcinogens is that at low doses it isn’t possible to accurately determine whether there is an effect. Cancer can be caused by many agents, including some related to lifestyle (e.g. smoking) and natural sources (e.g. background radiation from cosmic radiation and from rocks) and in reality we are normally simultaneously exposed to multiple agents. At low doses a carcinogen, such as radiation, is only associated with very low incidences of the disease. So it can be difficult to determine exactly what is the causative agent. If there is a threshold, it is likely to be very low, and detecting it would be difficult.

HSE Publications on-line

When I was a young junior occupational hygienist working in industry (a long, long time ago!) one of my bosses' favourite sayings that an occupational hygienist is only as good as his information sources, and, consequently, he always emphasied the importance of having a good library of books and other documents. Of course, in those days, before the advent of the Internet, we had to rely on text books and printed copies of documents published by HSE, NIOSH, ACGIH. It was important that they were kept up to date which entailed purchasing new copies of documents we already had when a new edition came out.

The Internet has changed this to a large extent. Many information sources are now online. This has the benefit of easy acess and ensures that you have the most up to date information - printed documents (particularly toxicological information) can be out of date the moment its published!

The HSE have been quite slow in putting information on-line. The HSE website has improved over the years but the information available has been restricted. Many of their key publications had to be purchased via HSEbooks. They were clearly seen as a source of income. However, this has changes as fairly recently the hSE has made many of their key publications available on-line as pdf documents. They can be read on-line or downloaded from here.

Particularly useful documents now available free of charge include

• HSG173: Monitoring strategies for hazardous substances
• HSG258 : Controlling airborne contaminants at work: A guide to local exhaust ventilation (LEV)
• HSG53 : Respiratory protective equipment at work: A practical guide
• The COSHH ACoP
  
• HSG 170 : Vibration solutions: Practical ways to reduce the risk of hand-arm vibration injury
• L108 : Controlling Noise at Work