News for 2008
February
New Safety Passport and Fireworks courses announced
STAGESAFE are running another Safety Passport course in the South West on 24th April. For further details and a booking form, please click here.
Hampshire festival under threat
Having won the battle against treacherous weather last year, Hampshire's biggest live music festival could be on the move having lost the war against council safety bosses. Organisers performed miracles last year to ensure the Wickham Festival was not axed due to violent downpours. More than 12,000 music lovers turned up. But despite its huge success over the past two years the festival is looking for a new location after Winchester City Council was called to review the event's licence due to public safety concerns.
The blow has left organiser Peter Chegwyn with no other alternative but to move the festival to another location in the county. Even if Mr Chegwyn kept the licence he says it is impossible to wait until after the review in March to start planning the four day event in August. With artists already booked and £10,000 worth of tickets already sold he has no other choice but to confirmanother location to ensure that the show will go on.
He said: "We cannot keep waiting forever. Tickets have been sold and many of the artists have already been booked, these people need to know there will be a festival. I find it so frustrating because the Wickham Festival has been hugely successful and done so much for the village. We performed miracles last year, battling against the terrible weather to ensure the event went ahead. It would be nice to get some credit for that.
"The council have until the end of the week to sit down with us because by Friday we will have a new location for the festival. The show will go on. It just won't be in Wickham. Wickham's loss will be another's gain."
The Wickham Festival prides itself on its safe, relaxed and family- friendly atmosphere. There was not a single theft, crime or incident of any kind in 2006 and 2007. An e-mail survey of more than 5,000 people who attended in 2007 showed an overwhelming 96.3 per cent thought it was "safe" and "friendly". However health and safety chiefs at Winchester City Council have ordered the review which could see the licence revoked because of fears over public safety following a site visit during last year's event.
Head of environment Rob Heathcock said that the review had not taken place earlier because officers were considering prosecuting Mr Chegwyn over safety offences. He said: "Mr Chegwyn was then informed in mid-December that we were looking at a licence review rather than prosecution, which we do not consider to be a lengthy delay."e have a duty to protect the public and you must remember that we would not go through this process unless there were serious concerns about safety at the festival."
Artist charged with manslaughter after inflatable accident
The creator of an inflatable artwork that lifted off its moorings, killing two North East women, was recently charged with manslaughter by gross negligence. A council director and his authority were also charged with health and safety breaches. Maurice Agis, 76, was charged in connection with the deaths of Elizabeth Collings, 68, and Claire Furmedge, 38, who were killed when his inflatable artwork Dreamscape reared up into the air on a warm Sunday afternoon on July 23, 2006.
The women were among dozens of visitors to the colourful walk-in attraction which had been installed at Riverside Park in Chester-le-Street, County Durham. Mrs Furmedge, a radiographer, of Whitehills, Chester-le-Street, was visiting the park with her children Jessica, eight, and Emily, six. Mrs Collings, a retired clerk, was with her grandson Craig, 14, who suffered cuts and bruises. Rosie Wright, then three, of Langley Park, County Durham, suffered multiple injuries. Her life was saved by paramedic Jane Peacock and an off-duty anaesthetist who stabilised her before she was flown to hospital in Newcastle.
Last night Rosie’s mother Penny, whose daughter has made a remarkable recovery, confirmed police had informed her of the charges and said she had been advised by officers not to discuss them. A police statement issued yesterday said: “Durham Constabulary has today charged Maurice Agis, aged 76, with gross negligence manslaughter following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Mr Agis, who was charged at Charing Cross police station in London, also faces an offence under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. He has been released on police bail to appear before Peterlee magistrates on February 26 at 2pm.
“The CPS has also authorised proceedings, arising out of the same incident, against the Liverpool-based promotions company Brouhaha International Limited for a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Chester-le-Street District Council for a breach of Section 3(1) of the same Act. In addition, Tony Galloway, the district council’s director of development services, has also been charged with a breach of Section 37(1) of the same Act. They will all be summonsed to appear before Peterlee Magistrates’ Court on February 26.
“These proceedings follow a lengthy investigation by Durham Constabulary and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The CPS special crime division has been advising the police and the HSE during the investigation. The families of those killed and the people injured have been informed of today’s developments.”
The charges against Mr Galloway and his employer, Chester-le-Street District Council, concern failure to protect visitors to Dreamscape from risk. The council booked the artwork for the park. A spokesman said: “The council has co-operated fully with both the HSE and police investigations. We are not in a position to make any further comment on the Health and Safety Executive conclusions at this stage.”
Brouhaha International’s chief executive is Agis’s son Giles. Dreamscape – a labyrinth of coloured pods and tunnels described by the artist as “surreal, magic, like swimming in a sea of changing colours” – was first shown in Copenhagen in 1996 and had been enjoyed by 250,000 visitors across Europe before the tragedy.
Celebrated as an accessible piece of art, it enabled hundreds of people at a time to enter the maze-like structure. After removing their shoes, they wore capes and wandered around inflated walkways to specially composed music and sounds. Investigators are looking into whether the sun warmed the air inside so much that despite the attachment of extra ropes, the structure rose 150ft.
IOSH calls for health & safety lessons
Health and safety professionals have repeated calls for better supervision of young people at work and for health and safety to be made part of the National Curriculum, following the sentencing of three companies and a manager for their part in the death of a 17-year-old trainee scaffolder.
The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) said that the killing of Steven Burke emphasised the need for employers to take extra care of young, inexperienced workers and also the need for young people to receive good preparation for working life during their time at school. Three companies, along with a manager, were fined a total of £217,500 plus £125,000 costs.
Ray Hurst, president of IOSH, says: “As a nation, we need to do something very different if we’re to reduce the loss of life in our workplaces. “In the last decade, 64 under-19s have been killed at work. These deaths come from many sectors of the workplace, from construction to vehicle mechanics, stable hands, warehouse workers and the agricultural sector.
“The workplace can be a dangerous place, especially for the inexperienced. Employers and young people need to understand this and young people must be given adequate workplace training and supervision.”
According to the Law an employer should not employ a young person unless he has carried out a risk assessment to ensure that all relevant hazards and consequent risks have been identified.
In particular, an employer should consider:
- if the work is beyond the young person’s physical or psychological capacity;
- if there is harmful exposure to radiation or agents which could be toxic or carcinogenic; or
- if there is a risk to health from extreme cold or heat, noise or vibration.
Confusion over new fire regulations
Never mind business owners - more than three quarters of fire safety professionals admit they are "unsure" about major fire safety regulations introduced over a year ago. The Fire Industry Association (FIA) said it was concerned by the findings of a recent survey, which asked fire safety professionals how "aware" they were of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. The Order came into effect in October 2006.
As many as 78% of respondents to the poll - carried out by the organisers of Firex South 2008 exhibition - said they were "unsure about it". Speaking in the February edition of the FIA's newsletter, the Association's chief executive Graham Ellicott, said: "Whenever new legislation is introduced it takes time to filter through, but given the importance of this particular legislation and its implications for protecting business from the ravages of fire, it is vital that the message is driven home.
"What is particularly concerning about this survey is that it is aimed at fire safety professionals who you would expect to have a much better understanding of the legislation and its implications than the general business owner." Norwich Union's property risk manager Allister Smith said the findings of the survey were "very worrying": "If the people who are often called upon to advise firms on fire safety regulations are not up to speed, what chance to businesses themselves have?
"Ironically, the Order is not that complicated, in fact much of it is about simplifying the rules on fire safety. I would urge everyone, safety professionals and business owners alike, to make sure they have some understanding of what is required."
New advice on liability clauses
Exclusion and limitation clauses in commercial contracts are used to control, or put a cap on, a party’s liability. One of the most common types of clause is one that attempts to limit liability for “indirect or consequential” loss or damage. The reason for wishing to exclude liability for “indirect or consequential” losses is that these losses may be unpredictably large, or open-ended, representing an “unquantifiable risk”.
There is no standard wording of exclusion clause for “indirect or consequential” losses. However, one increasingly common form of wording states that party X will not be liable for “indirect or consequential” losses suffered by party Y, including loss or deferment of profit or revenue, loss of business or other specified losses.
Clauses of this nature can potentially be difficult because a “loss of profit” (or similar loss) may be either a direct or an indirect consequence of a breach of contract. In such cases, the question arises: does the clause exclude liability for “direct” and “indirect” losses of profit (or similar losses), or only “indirect” loss of profit?
There has been a surprising dearth of guidance from the English courts on this issue, although a case from last week leant in favour of the latter (narrower) interpretation of the exclusion clause in question. The case concerned whether a ports authority was liable to pay the costs of repatriating the body and paying compensation to relatives for the death of a Ukrainian merchant seaman. The ship owner (who engaged the seaman) paid these costs and compensation, and sought to pass them on to the negligent port authority.
The claim was made under a stevedoring contract between the ship owner and the port authority. The contract contained a clause excluding the port authority from liability for “indirect or consequential” losses in providing stevedoring services, including for “the liabilities of” the ship owner “to any other party”. The court held that although the liability of the ship owner represented a liability “to any other party”, it was nevertheless a direct liability which was not caught by the exclusion clause.
The court interpreted the exclusion of liability for “indirect or consequential” losses, including “the liabilities of [the ship owner] to any other party” to exclude only those liabilities to other parties which were “indirect or consequential”, not all liabilities to third parties. The court said that a party seeking to limit liability for such losses must do so by using clear and unambiguous language.
In summary: Care should be taken when drafting to ensure that a clause excludes what it is supposed to. Don’t expect others to know what losses you are trying to exclude. Referring to “indirect or consequential” losses is often ambiguous, so if there are particular types of losses that you wish to exclude, they should be specified.
This is particularly relevant to those who use standard forms of contract, such as those in the construction industry (where, for instance, the NEC3 form includes an optional clause (X18) for capping indirect or consequential losses). Where appropriate, standard forms should be amended to identify the particular types of loss that a party is conscious of that it wishes to exclude.
Exclusion and limitation clauses should be drafted to comply with the legislation regarding fairness where the legislation applies.
Fire anniversary marked with safety advice
This week will mark the fifth anniversary of the Station Night Club fire in West Warwick, R.I., which occurred on Feb. 20, 2003, and claimed 100 lives. This fire was the fourth-deadliest nightclub fire in U.S. history. Since that fire, the National Fire Protection Association has enacted tough new code provisions for fire sprinklers and crowd management in nightclub-type venues. Those provisions mark sweeping changes to the codes and standards governing safety in assembly occupancies. Hopefully, these changes will help eliminate the possibility of such a fire happening again. Even so, it is the responsibility of each individual to take extra caution as they visit these types of venues or any public event.
The following information was provided by the NFPA to help make everyone's life a little bit safer as they participate in day-to-day activities. Every day, millions of people wake up, go to work or school, and take part in social events. But every so often, the unexpected happens - an earthquake, a fire, a chemical spill, an act of terrorism or some other disaster. Routines change drastically, and people are suddenly aware of how fragile their lives and routines can be. Each disaster can have lasting effects, people may be seriously injured or killed and devastating and costly property damage can occur. People entering any public assembly building need to be prepared in case of an emergency.
Before you enter
Take a good look: Does the building appear to be in a condition that makes you feel comfortable? Is the main entrance wide and does it open outward to allow easy exit? Is the outside area clear of materials stored against the building or blocking exits?
Have a communication plan
Identify a relative or friend to contact in case of emergency and you are separated from family or friends.
Plan a meeting place
Pick a meeting place outside to meet family or friends with whom you are attending the function. If there is an emergency, be sure to meet them there.
When you enter
Locate exits immediately: Whenever you enter a building, you should look for all available exits. Some exits may be in front and some in back of you. Be prepared to use your closest exit. You may not be able to use the main exit.
Check for clear exit paths
Look to make sure aisles are wide enough and not obstructed by chairs or furniture. Check to make sure your exit door is not blocked or chained. If there are not at least two exits or the exit paths are blocked, report the violation to management and leave the building, if it is not immediately addressed. Call the local fire marshal to register a complaint.
Do you feel safe?
Does the building appear to be overcrowded? Are there fire sources such as candles burning, cigarettes or cigars burning, pyrotechnics or other heat sources that may make you feel unsafe? Are there safety systems in place, such as alternative exits, sprinklers and smoke alarms? Ask the management for clarification of your concerns. If you do not feel safe in the building, leave immediately.
During an emergency
React immediately. If an alarm sounds, you see smoke or fire, or another unusual disturbance, immediately exit the building in an orderly fashion.
Get out, stay out
Once you have escaped, stay out. Under no circumstances should you ever go back into a burning building. Let trained firefighters conduct the rescue operations. Follow their instructions, and stay out of the way of other rescue efforts.
Hopefully, you never find yourself in a situation where you must react to ensure your safety. But, if you should experience such an emergency, the information above could help save your life or the lives of others.
Venues fail fire safety checks
A third of pubs and clubs in Norwich city centre checked out by firefighters in a crackdown were found to be lax when it comes to fire safety. Eighty premises in the Tombland and Prince of Wales Road areas were checked out by Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service and revealed a worrying number were not sticking to health and safety legislation.
Fire safety officers today said the majority of problems were pubs, bars, clubs and restaurants which did not understand how important risk assessments are and did not follow procedures. Other issues identified in some premises included no training records in terms of who was trained to use a fire extinguisher and a lack of detail on how to evacuate a property in the event of a blaze.
George Bray, fire safety advisor for Norfolk Fire and Rescue, said: "Some people say they aren't aware of the guidelines and others simply don't do it. "Others just aren't capable of interpreting what needs to be done. It's quite rare to go somewhere and have to make no comment at all.
"In an entertainment building, for example, you need a pretty robust system because there are a lot of people in there. If you ask how they plan to get everyone out of the building in the event of a fire for example, quite often there's no specific evacuation plan in terms of who does what. That's the kind of level of detail you need.
"It's something we're quite robust on and we make sure the problems get sorted out. If I serve a notice on someone it's likely it'll get sorted out in a relatively short amount of time. It's usually a place with a large number of small things wrong or a very large problem. Usually it's a culmination of things.”
The checks were carried out in the run up to Christmas last year in an attempt to halt any problems before they began. The fire service handed out notifications to premises which had issues which needed to be sorted out and served seven enforcement notices on those which did not quickly fix the problem.
That meant the premises were given a set amount of time to complete the work needed — or face prosecution. Craig McLaren, president of the Norwich and Norfolk Licensed Victuallers Association, said: "It's a surprise to me that enforcement notices were handed out and a bit of a worry, especially in this day and age of claims. It's expensive but it's going to cost a lot more to stand up in court and defend yourself.”
Mr Bray added: "We deal with so many different types of premises and we tried to get round as many as possible before Christmas, but the work is all done now and all the problems are sorted out.”
Cap-less in Casper
Why do employees at the Casper Events Center keep the caps when you buy bottles of water or soda during concerts and shows? It all started with a concussion. Actually, it all started with several concussions, numerous bodily wounds, random broken instruments, and a steadily growing group of angry and/or scared musicians.
Those of us who stopped throwing random objects sometime during first grade may not understand the problem. But it turns out the Casper Events Center has a pretty good reason for keeping our caps during concerts. Bud Dovala, building manager for the Events Center, said the caps are removed because flying bottles and the concert industry don't get along.
"Bottles with liquid in them are heavier than bottles without, and can be used as a projectile item," Dovala said. "It doesn't happen very often, but even here (in Casper) bottles are thrown, and when they are, it's very dangerous."
Dovala doesn't remember an exact incident that sparked the rule in Casper. But the concert industry has begun asking people everywhere — even in relatively small and seemingly calm towns — to remove the caps.
Paul Wertheimer, who works with Crowd Management Strategies, a Los Angeles-based security company specializing in large event management, said bottle throwing has become such an issue in the past decade that he'd like to ban bottles entirely from concert venues.
"Generally people aren't rowdy, but sometimes good people don't use common sense or they get carried away," Wertheimer said. "Caps are just part of the problem."
Wertheimer, who has seen crowds throw everything from the stuffed bears and flowers to sewer grates and animal intestines, cited concerts at music festivals like Woodstock '99 and Ozzfest where audience members pelted the less well-liked acts with anything they could find, including glass and plastic bottles.
"I would enforce the idea of no caps, but even if it loses some of the water along the way, I'm not in favor of plastic bottles at all at concert events or at any events where people have been known to throw them," Wertheimer said. "Fans do it on occasion, and they're known to hurt people seriously."
Wertheimer said the safest way to serve drinks at a live entertainment event is to serve them in plastic cups, but because cups would be an extra cost, many venues opt to keep caps instead.
"We don't do it to upset people, we do it because we're asked to for safety reasons," the Events Center's Dovala said. "It's unfortunate for the honest people, but it's the few people who throw things that cause problems for everybody else."
HSE warning on moving vehicles
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is warning employers to ensure they have suitable controls in place to prevent people being struck by moving vehicles. The warning follows HSE's prosecution of a Coventry scrap and recycling business, after a worker was killed. Easco (Midlands) Limited was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £55,000 costs after pleading guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
On 14 June 2005, Ronald Barnacle, 58, who was working as a burner at the company's site in Coventry was killed when he was struck by a reversing skip lorry. Speaking after the case HSE Inspector Jenny Skeldon says: "Scrapyard owners need to ensure that they make a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the movement of vehicles and pedestrians on site and, identify and implement appropriate control measures to prevent people being struck by moving vehicles.
"In this case, particularly between March 2004 and December 2005, there were inadequate precautions in place to segregate pedestrians from vehicles, despite previous warnings from HSE at other sites within the Easco group. Had basic health and safety precautions been observed it is most unlikely that such a fatality would have occurred."
10 dead in Indonesian rock concert
JAKARTA, Feb. 10 (Xinhua) -- A trample incident triggered by crowd at a rock concert in Bandung of West Java province, Indonesia resulted in 10 people dead and some of others injured, local police said on Sunday."10 youngsters died with one's identity has not confirmed, at least six others were injured," Bambang Suparsono, local police chief officer, was quoted by local news website Detik as saying.
Hundreds of teenagers assembled in a hall to watch performance of local punk rock band named Beside on Saturday night. When the show ended, many people were anxious to get out from small doors but some others still intended to enter. In the chaos, some people asphyxia and were trampled, added Bambang.
Indonesia's pop music stars and bands sometimes face pressure of fans safety when they hold concerts, because of hotheaded fans, poor organization and crowded performing field.
Warning over fork lift truck misuse
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is warning employers of the danger of using forklift trucks inappropriately. The warning follows the prosecution of a Carlisle joinery company after an employee was lifted eight feet into the air on a forklift truck to fit a company sign.
Dick Thompson and Co (Cumbria) Ltd was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £834.39 costs at Carlisle Magistrates Court after pleading guilty to a charge under section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, that they failed to ensure the safety of an employee.
The court heard that on 8 August 2007 HSE inspector Mhairi Duffy visited the premises when she saw employee Ryan Jewett being lifted eight feet into the air on a pallet on a fork lift truck to fit a company sign to their own premises. The company was issued with a Prohibition Notice at the time and the prosecution has subsequently followed.
HSE Inspector Mhairi Duffy says: "Although no one was injured on the occasion, this incident had all the hallmarks of an accident waiting to happen. Employers must realise that they have to take the health and safety of their employees seriously. "Accidents involving fork lift trucks account for a large proportion of accidents in the workplace and it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that drivers are properly trained and use the equipment properly.
"Working at heights should never be carried out from the fork arms or from a pallet balanced on the fork arms of a lift truck. Specifically designed work platforms secured to the truck may be used under limited controlled conditions."
MP3 generation is reluctant to turn down the volume
Call it acoustic trauma or noise-induced hearing loss. By any name, it's not something the iPod generation wants to hear about. But since acoustic trauma is the most important preventable cause of permanent hearing loss, it's a message that should ring out clear (if not loud).
Now hear this
Noise-induced hearing loss is a product of modern life. It first surfaced during the industrial revolution, when workers were exposed to loud machinery for hours on end. Occupational exposure is still the most common cause of acoustic trauma, but recreational noise threatens to catch up. When this problem was first recognized, it was called boilermakers' disease because of the impaired hearing that plagued men who manufactured steam boilers.
If present trends continue, though, it may someday be known as iPod Ear. Although estimates vary, up to 28 million Americans have impaired hearing; for as many as a third, acoustic trauma is a significant contributor.
Normal hearing, abnormal sounds
The ear is divided into three parts. Sound waves first enter the outer ear, which is little more than a passive sound-collecting channel. Next, the waves strike the eardrum, the tympanic membrane, causing it to vibrate. The vibrations are transmitted through the middle ear along a short chain of three small bones, the hammer, anvil, and stirrup. Finally, in the inner ear these vibrations reach the cochlea, which is lined by tiny hair cells, the cilia. The vibrations caused by sound produce a shearing force on the cilia, which translate it into electrical impulses that are transmitted along the acoustic nerve to the brain. But the cilia are delicate structures. Excessively loud sound produces excessive force, which can damage the hair cells. The cells can recover from mild damage, but severe damage will kill nerve cells, producing permanent hearing loss.
Sounds that are especially loud will damage anyone's ears, but some people are more susceptible than others. In addition to genetic differences, environmental factors such as smoking and exposure to heavy metals and solvents can play a role. Still, in the last analysis, it is the sound itself that in time damages the fragile hearing apparatus.
How loud?
The intensity of sound is measured on the decibel (dB) scale; the higher the number of decibels, the louder the sound. The table lists typical dB values for some common sounds. Note that this is a logarithmic scale. That means an increase of just 3 dB indicates a doubling of the sound intensity.
A sound's potential to damage the ear depends on the duration of exposure as well as the intensity of the sound. For example, just four hours at 88 dB will deliver the same dose of sound as eight hours at 85 dB. And a single gunshot at 140 dB will be as damaging as 40 hours at 90 dB.
How much sound is dangerous to your hearing? The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed guides based on the intensity of sound and the duration of exposure. Sounds below 75 dB are safe, but eight hours at 85 dB can be harmful; OSHA regulations require hearing conservation programs for workers exposed to this level of sound. And you should take steps to conserve your own hearing as well.
Warning symptoms
Most often, noise-induced hearing loss begins with a subtle difficulty hearing high-frequency tones, then slowly begins to encompass lower tones as it becomes more severe. Both ears are usually equally involved, but if one ear is closer to the offending sound, the impairment may be asymmetric.
Once your hearing is lost, it can't be restored; your only recourse is to wear a hearing aid, which amplifies whatever sound your acoustic nerve can still pick up. That's why it's important to recognize early symptoms. If your ears ring or buzz after being exposed to noise, it's loud enough to cause damage. And if noise exposure makes hearing painful, muffled, blurry or distant for hours or days, your cilia are already in trouble. If you allow the noise exposure to continue, you're likely to suffer permanent hearing loss.
Who is at risk?
Everyone who is exposed to loud noise is vulnerable. If background noise makes it necessary for you to shout to make yourself understood by someone just an arm's length away, that noise is loud enough to be damaging to your ears. Occupational exposure is the most common cause of noise-induced hearing loss. Construction workers, factory workers, policemen, firefighters, military personnel, farmers, and truck drivers are especially at risk. Enthusiastic crowds at sporting events can also generate excessive sound, putting stadium workers and fans who attend many games at risk.
Musicians are also at risk. Many classical performers wear earplugs for protection during orchestral performances. Some rock musicians are less cautious; acoustic self-mutilation by the young seems to have become a tribal rite. Dr. Walter Brattain regrets "the use of solid-state electronics by rock musicians to raise the level of sound to where it is both painful and injurious." Hardly a disinterested observer, Brattain won the 1956 Nobel Prize in physics for inventing the transistor.
Personal stereos are a particular threat to the younger generation. Prolonged battery life means these devices can be played for hours on end, and iPods can store lots of music for continuous listening. Listeners are conditioned to like loud music, and since they often listen to their music in public, they are likely to turn the volume even higher to drown out competing environmental sounds. The trendy earbuds that are replacing earmuff-style headphones make the problem even worse by focusing the sound directly into the ear.
What to do?
First, turn down the volume wherever you can. You may have a hard time persuading your kids to keep their amplifiers and MP3 players set halfway between low and max, but you can set your own devices properly. And when you are at a loud concert or party, angle for a seat far from the band.
Even if you can't get away from sound, you can keep it away from your ears. For occasional exposures, use disposable earplugs -- but if you're often at risk, invest in custom-fitted earplugs. For protection outdoors or at work, try acoustic earmuffs. And for maximum protection, wear both.
Used properly, plugs and muffs can provide 15 to 40 dB of sound attenuation. They may seem awkward, ungainly, or unsightly, but temporarily wearing protectors now is a lot better than wearing a hearing aid in the years ahead.
Like it or not, it's sound advice.
THE INTENSITY OF VARIOUS SOUNDS
Approximate loudness (in decibels)
- 140: Gunshot, jet plane taking off, siren
- 110: Sand blasting, rock concert, chain saw
- 100: Snowmobile, personal stereo (high volume), car horn
- 90: Lawn mower, motorcycle, heavy traffic
- 60: Normal conversation
- 50: Quiet room
- 30: Whisper
- 0: Softest audible sound
Fire doors cause problems for pupils
When teachers at Marsh Hill Primary send their pupils to the toilet, they go in pairs – not for security or even companionship, but because the fire doors are so heavy it takes four little hands to open them. The doors at the Birmingham school illustrate the dilemmas that can face schools trying to meet today’s health and safety standards.
Ministers this week published new plans to ensure that young people are safe, while calling on schools and parents to ensure that children were not "wrapped up in cotton wool”. But headteachers have said they are torn between complying with health and safety regulations and providing pupils with a good learning environment.
Cate Ball, head of Marsh Hill, said it was difficult to strike a balance: "It’s about common sense versus bureaucratic paperwork.” When Ofsted inspectors visited her school, they were so concerned about the weight of the fire doors that they measured the force required to open them. But the doors must remain, despite the difficulties they can cause when small children have "little emergencies” and the problems they could create for younger pupils if there were a fire.
The Government’s Staying Safe Action Plan, published this week, should make it easier for teachers to organise school trips. It suggests awarding venues such as museums and field study centres with "quality badges” proving they manage safety effectively, so teachers do not have to draw up endless risk assessments.
A series of highly publicised deaths on school trips and the threat of legal action have made school trips an increasingly unattractive prospect for teachers. But Ed Balls, the Children, Schools and Families secretary, said: "We should not let a fear of a compensation culture prevent pupils from learning outside the classroom.”
At Marsh Hill, Mrs Ball has been unable to arrange any overseas trips for her pupils because she could not find anyone to prepare the necessarily complex risk assessment. "And if there’s ice or snow in the playground, we can’t even let the children out to play,” she said. "One of them might get injured and the parents might sue.”
This week, health and safety bureaucracy prevented children from holding an annual pancake race on roads in Ripon, Yorkshire. Instead, it was held on the playing fields of Ripon Cathedral Choir School. Other measures in the Government’s plan include a review of safety education materials for personal, social and health education, and new guidance on protecting children with disabilities or special educational needs from bullying.
Pancake race cancelled over health & safety fears
A Cathedral pancake race that is part of a 600-year-old tradition has been stopped because of health and safety rules. The bell at Ripon Cathedral, which has rung at 11am to mark Shrove Tuesday since the 15th century, has signalled the start of the city's pancake race for the past 11 years. However, the event, in which children, traders, soldiers and even clergy compete, has been abandoned because of the amount of work needed to carry out risk assessments.
The Dean of Ripon, the Very Rev Keith Jukes, who helps organise the races, said: "We have looked at this and there are a number of reasons why it won't take place and a big reason this year is, sadly, health and safety. "Any organisation that runs an event has to go through risk assessments. The insurance companies demand it and in the end you have to work out whether it's a risk you take.
"There is also the issue of road closures, which can be an expensive business." Bernard Bateman, one of the organisers, said it was also becoming increasingly difficult to find volunteers willing to help as marshals. In past years, the event, part of a long tradition of pancake races in Ripon, was likened to a village sports day, a last chance to have fun before the solemn season of Lent.
The race has been growing in popularity and even involved members of 38 Regt Royal Engineers, based in Ripon, who cook pancakes from a field kitchen outside the west front of the cathedral. Mr Bateman, a councillor, said: "The main problem is health and safety. There are so many things to put in place to make sure the event can get off the ground. We had hoped to make the pancake race as much of a tradition as the pancake bell and it's a travesty that it has been killed off.
"Everyone involved in the race is a volunteer and at the end of the day fewer and fewer people are volunteering these days, and it's because of the paperwork that started off as well-meaning but has now gone overboard. "It puts people off helping. It's just one thing after another." Jean Smith, 61, a resident of Ripon, said: "It's totally daft. Why should paperwork get in the way of kids having fun? We seem to hear it all the time now but it's bureaucracy gone mad."
Ripon Cathedral traditionally used the "pancake bell" to summon penitents to church to be "shriven" by making confessions before the start of Lent. A survey has suggested that two thirds of people in the country no longer mark the Christian tradition of making pancakes. Many are even unaware of its place in the calendar.
Pancakes have featured in cookbooks since 1439. The custom of flipping or tossing them is believed to have started in the 17th century. They are made from rich ingredients that include eggs and milk, which were used up in households before the 40 days of Lent during which only plain food should be eaten.
Corporate H & S training comes under scrutinity
Company directors and senior managers with responsibility for health and safety should take steps to becoming suitably qualified, warns Norwich Union Risk Services (NURS). A survey of 130 companies revealed that 42% were unable to show their nominated board member - with responsibility for health and safety - had any formally recognised qualifications such as IOSH or NEBOSH.
John Phillips, training and consultancy manager for NURS, said recent guidance concerning directors' responsibilities for health and safety, along with new corporate manslaughter legislation coming into effect in April, meant such qualifications would be seen as increasingly important: "Our research supports anecdotal evidence from the experience of our health and safety consultants that some company directors and senior managers may well be failing to take health and safety seriously.
"Cost issues, lack of time, or quite simply health and safety being seen as a low priority could all be contributing factors to such behaviour. Time and money may be short for many companies, but in fact, good health and safety management can avoid substantial costs and save money and time in the long run."
Philips went on to say that organisations convicted of new corporate manslaughter laws could face fines of 10% of their annual turnover, together with potentially damaging 'publicity orders': "Guidance from the Institute of Directors and the Health and Safety Commission states that all staff, including board members and directors, should be trained and competent to fulfil legal responsibilities for health and safety.
"The introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, coupled with the IOD/HSC guidelines for directors, should help raise the profile of health and safety in the boardroom."
Probation service loses employment case
The EAT has held in North Wales Probation Area v Edwards that a worker who worked on a casual basis was employed under a contract of employment for each session of work. Mrs Edwards worked under a "Relief Hostel Worker Contract" on a casual basis. Her contract stated that the hostel was under no obligation to provide her with work, that she was not obliged to accept their offer of work and that she could make direct arrangements with another relief hostel worker to cover a shift for her. The Probation Service argued that there was no mutuality of obligation under Mrs Edwards' contract and therefore that it was not a contract of employment.
However, the EAT considered that a contract of employment was formed when Mrs Edwards actually came to work. At that point she was bound to carry out the work personally and could not leave or ask someone else to replace her part way through a shift.
There was a contract of employment during each session but not during the periods when Mrs Edwards did not attend work. Mrs Edwards was therefore an employee for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and could bring a claim for disability discrimination for which no continuity of employment is required.
Impact on employers
Employers should be aware that separate employment contracts can exist for each period during which a casual worker actually works, even though they are under no obligation to accept any particular offer of work and can send a substitute in their place. Whilst the individual contracts may not be long enough to confer sufficient continuity for an unfair dismissal claim, the employer may be liable for discrimination and other claims for which no continuity of employment is required.
Restaurant owner in smoking row
A restaurant owner campaigning for the right to serve shisha pipes on his premises appeared in court accused of ignoring the smoking ban. Markaz Restaurant and Shisha Lounge owner Shabbir Mer Ali wanted the case deferred yesterday because Bradford West MP Marsha Singh is calling for a Government debate on whether shisha lounges should be exempt from the regulations.
He claimed if the Government were to act then it would leave Bradford Council, the organisation bringing the prosecution, in an "embarrassing dilemma". But Bingley magistrates said the trial should go ahead.
Mr Mer Ali and his wife Syima face three charges of ignoring the ban, which has prevented people lighting up in enclosed public spaces from July last year. If guilty, they could face fines of more than £5,000. They relate to failing to stop customers smoking on two dates in August and failing to display the required No Smoking signs since September.
H&S bodies to merge under new govt proposals
Legislation to abolish the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission and replace them with a single body has been laid before Parliament. The draft statutory instrument, the Legislative Reform (Health and Safety Executive) Order 2008, has been published on the OPSI website and is currently awaiting approval by each House of Parliament before it progresses to the next step.
The aim of such a merger is to strengthen the work that the two, currently separate, bodies do. By joining with the HSE, says the HSC, it will bring "governance arrangements in line with best practice and strengthen the links between strategy and delivery to allow the level of accountability expected of a public body in the 21st century”. The draft Order amends the Health and Safety at Work Act "with the aim of modernising and improving the corporate structure of the bodies responsible for regulating health and safety in Great Britain”.
Fire Safety Orders having effect
A flurry of fire safety cases have now made it to the courts, suggesting that the effects of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2006 (RRO) are now being felt across the UK more than a year after it came into force. In Blackburn, the manager of a snooker club was said to have put "lives at risk” after inspectors found emergency exits blocked and the fire alarm broken.
The club’s manage, Zafar Aslam, was found guilty of eight breaches of the RRO; he did not turn up to court for sentencing, but a warrant has been issued to bring him to court where he could face fines of thousands of pounds. As well as the blocked fire exits and the broken fire alarms: no risk assessment had been carried out at the snooker club; no extinguishers were on hand; and there were no emergency lighting in case a fire had broken out.
Also this week, the manager of a tanning salon in Barrow was prosecuted for breaching the RRO. Paul Cook was ordered to pay £2,000 in court costs and was handed a conditional discharge, suspended for 12 months, after pleading guilty to the breaches. Cook had failed to carry out a fire risk assessment, and emergency exits were obstructed. Inspectors also said they found no firefighting equipment at the tanning studio.
An enforcement notice had previously been issued by the fire service, setting out a timescale in which the improvements needed to be carried out, but it was not complied with. The BBC’s File On 4 has also revealed this week that 22 NHS trusts had received enforcement notices since October 2006 for breaching the RRO which, in light of the recent fire at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, has led to questions about whether fire safety in hospitals is given enough of a priority.
The news of action being brought under the RRO suggests that fire safety cases are starting to trickle through the courts now that the legislation has been in place for over a year; whether that trickle turns into a tidal wave as more and more managers fail to act on enforcement notices remains to be seen.
Are you aware of the current National Minimum Wage rates?
If you aren't, you could face new penalties. Businesses need to ensure that they're paying their staff, at least, the national minimum which is currently £5.52 for people aged 22 and over, £3.40 for 16-17 year olds and £4.60 for 18- 21 year olds.
Regulations covering minimum wages and statutory pay apply to almost every business so you need to be clear about your responsibilities as an employer if you are going to minimise disruption to your business and prevent disputes arising.
IOSH warns govt over occupational health
Health and safety must figure prominently on the agenda of the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, James Purnell MP, if the UK is to improve its worrying increase in workplace deaths and still overly-high rate of occupational ill-health.
That’s the message from the president of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), Ray Hurst, as Purnell settles down to his first days at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP): "We hope that with Mr Purnell coming in there will be renewed focus, vigour and support at the DWP, for tackling health and safety issues in the UK. One of the first challenges he needs to get his teeth into is to ensure that there is adequate funding provided to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) so that they are able to fulfil their statutory duties to provide appropriate enforcement and advice on health and safety.
"In our evidence to Dame Carol Black on the health of the working-age population, we’ve backed an evidence-based approach to tackling occupational health problems. We’ve also called for renewed government funding for occupational health provision and a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary working."
Ray added that IOSH also urged the government to support IOSH campaigns to protect young workers and improve training and supervision, consult on legally regulating the profession, help get health and safety into vocational, professional and business curricula and to make public reporting on health and safety performance compulsory.
Barrier maker sponsers new training centre
Global manufacturer of crowd control barriers Mojo Barriers has sponsored Buckingham New University’s crowd management and security studies training centre. The Mojo Barriers Education and Training Centre was opened by the University’s vice-chancellor, Dr Ruth Farwell, and Patrick Jordan, Mojo’s managing director, in December, in the company of many distinguished guests from the security, crowd management and close protection industries. It is the world’s only centre for training staff indoors on using pressure sensing equipment with the revolutionary Barrier Load Measuring System (BLMS), the most technically advanced piece of crowd management safety equipment in use at major music and sporting events today.
The BLMS is the only commercially available crowd barrier that can measure load at specific points in an audience where there are people pressing against it, and, with the help of specifically developed software, it can collate information to help improve site design for subsequent events or can be used for real-time assessment of audience behaviour.
The launch featured a full demonstration of the BLMS, enabling guests to witness the benefits of the system at first hand. Mojo has donated the BLMS to the university for the purposes of educating others in its use. As well as providing BLMS instruction to Buckinghamshire New University crowd management, music and events students, the centre will also offer training to event organisers and Student Union representatives from other universities, as well as corporate training where required.
Buckinghamshire New University is considered to have outstanding credentials in the area of crowd/event management and research. The Centre for Crowd Management & Security Studies is dedicated to making events across the world safer places to be, and its purpose is to help promote the creation of a safer concert and security environment. In addition, to providing a research/study centre, it offers work-based Foundation Degrees and Short Courses in areas such as Music, Entertainment and Live Events Management, as well as programmes of study in crowd management, and events and festival management.
The Centre for Crowd Management & Security Studies works with and is supported by institutions and businesses all over the world, and is involved with many major events including VE day in London, Knebworth, Glastonbury and the V2 Festival.
Dr Farwell welcomed the opening of the Centre, saying: "It demonstrates Buckinghamshire New University’s commitment to making technological advances at an international level and within the wider context of public safety at major events. It’s a really exiting project and I am very interested to see it in operation! "
Meanwhile Mojo’s Jordan commented: "It is a privilege to work with the team at Buckinghamshire New University. The understanding of crowd dynamics at events has developed a lot in recent years and it is exciting to be part of a team that is continually pushing that development, with a view to making concerts and events safer for audiences. The BLMS has already offered us some fascinating insights as to what audiences actually experience at a range of events and I hope that this new Centre will help in the area of audience safety.”
Now researchers say 'safe' lifting advice DOESN’T protect your back
Ouch! 'Safe' methods may be useless. For years we have been trying to bend at the knees, keep a straight back and squeeze those tummy muscles when picking up something heavy. But maybe we should have saved ourselves the strain. Researchers claim there is no evidence that the techniques taught around the world to encourage safe lifting can prevent back injuries.
The findings from their study of more than 18,000 workers suggest that training courses for handling heavy items - which are often mandatory for employers and workers - could be a waste of time and money. Researcher Jos Verbeek said: "It seems that what is currently accepted as best practice for heavy lifting does not prevent back pain." Dr Verbeek and his colleagues at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in Helsinki analysed 11 studies. Eight dealt with health workers who manually handled patients and the remainder looked at baggage handlers and postal workers.
All those taking part had jobs where there was a strain on the back and training was recommended to avert possible injuries, according to the report published in the British Medical Journal Online First. The researchers found no difference in back pain in studies where one group received training in lifting techniques and the other did not. The researchers conclude that either the recommended techniques do not actually work in reducing the risk of back injury, or workers don't change their habits sufficiently for them to make a difference.
In Britain it is estimated that four out of five adults will experience back pain during their life. Back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders cost the economy around ten million working days each year, and are the cause of half a million getting long-term incapacity benefits. For the past two years the Health and Safety Executive has run a Better Backs campaign to reduce the incidence of work-related injuries and working days lost as a result of back pain.
It publishes guides and shows videos on 'correct' lifting techniques on its website. However, Dr Verbeek says there is emerging consensus among biomechanical specialists that these are a waste of time. He said: "The techniques themselves, which include advice to bend the knees and keep a straight back, don't appear to improve the chances of preventing back pain or disability. "The reasons are not clear, although people may be tempted to lift heavier loads than they should because they've had training."
In fact, said Dr Verbeek, there was one small study that showed a "no lifting policy" was "possibly the most effective way to avoid back pain". A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive said the findings were actually consistent with their own, that avoiding lifting is best. "Our message is: ask yourself do you really need to lift or carry this heavy object - putting yourself at risk - or is there a better, safer way to get the job done?"
