Previous Article Next Article Under the skinOn 1 Jun 2001 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Occupational skin disease may be even more prevalent than previouslybelieved, according to new research from the HSE, and many employers arefailing to take adequate measures to protect their staff, by Eliza O’Driscoll About four million working days are lost in the UK each year because of skindisease, with an annual cost to industry of hundreds of millions of pounds,according to the Health and Safety Executive.1 And a recent piece of researchcommissioned by the HSE on occupational dermatitis in the printing industryshowed that nearly half of all printers had suffered from dermatitis at onestage or other.2 The main aims of the study were to investigate the prevalence of dermatitisin a sample of people working in the printing industry and to assess how muchcurrent dermatitis might be occupationally related. The findings are very muchhigher than current UK surveillance schemes which monitor occupational healthdisease. A total of 58 per cent of the skin problems diagnosed were thought tobe occupationally related, and three-quarters of those reporting a problem saidthat it cleared up when they were away from work. The findings of the report have serious implications for other industrysectors which are known to be at a greater- than-average risk of occupationalskin disease. Industries and occupational groups identified by the HSE as beingat particular risk of work-related skin diseases are: catering and foodprocessing, engineering, agriculture, hairdressing, cleaning, printing, healthcare, construction, rubber manufacturing/processing and offshore industries.3 The duties of employers to safeguard the health of employees are clearly setout in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 . COSHH Regulations Regulation 7(1) states: Every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees tosubstances hazardous to health is either prevented or, where this is notpracticable, adequately controlled. Regulation 7(2) states: So far as is reasonably practicable, the prevention or adequate control ofexposure of employees to a substance hazardous to health shall be prevented bymeans other than the provision of personal protective equipment. So the employer is required to ensure that the exposure of employees tohazardous substances is either prevented or adequately controlled. If it is reasonably practicable, exposure must be prevented by changing theprocess or activity so that the hazardous substance is not required or generated;or replacing it with a safer alternative; or using it in a safer form – forexample, pellets instead of powder. If prevention is not reasonablypracticable, exposure should be adequately controlled by one or more of themeasures (such as total enclosure of the process) outlined in the Regulations. But as Chris Packham, occupational skincare expert and managing director ofskincare consultancy Enviroderm Services, points out: “reasonablypracticable” only applies to prevention not to “adequate control”.Thus legally if the employer cannot adequately control exposure then legally hecannot carry out that operation. However, the meaning of “adequatelycontrolled” is legally unclear. Occupational exposure standards do notapply to skin exposure, only to respiratory exposure. Personal protective equipment However, in many industries, even after taking all the steps to remove orcontrol the hazard that are reasonably practicable, further precautions toprevent occupational skin disease are still going to be necessary. In this casetraining and instruction for both employees and managers, and healthsurveillance, in the form of visual inspections, are the next line of defence.And this is also the point where personal protective equipment comes into play.”Risk management requires that we control the exposure by methods otherthan the use of personal protective equipment,” says Packham. “Gloves must be a last resort. This is for a number of reasons, notleast because we then rely upon the worker and thus have less control andbecause gloves are always in danger of being damaged.” The findings of the HSE’s report into the printing industry bears this out.”The research has demonstrated that all too often there is a mistakenbelief that sufficient protection will be achieved by using gloves alone.However, gloves need to be carefully selected to give protection against theproduct in use, they need to be maintained and replaced when damaged, andpeople using them need to be aware of good hygiene practice to avoidcontamination within the glove,” says Andrew Porter, chairman of thePrinting Industry Advisory Committee. Barrier creams And if gloves are not the answer, barrier creams are even less likely tohave a protective effect. In fact a recent HSE publication declares,”Pre-work creams cannot be relied upon for primary protection of the skinas there is no information on the rate of penetration of chemicals throughcreams. “Also, people habitually miss areas of their exposed skin when applyingcreams and so complete skin cover cannot be guaranteed. It is not alwaysobvious if the barrier has been removed, damaged or thinned. Because of this,pre-work creams should not be regarded as personal protective equipment. Theycannot give the same level of protection as gloves and should not be used as analternative to properly selected protective equipment.” 3 In his most recent skincare bulletin Enviroderm’s Chris Packham reinforcesthis point.4 “The performance of personal protective equipment such as gloves can bequantified by tests carried out by the manufacturer. The manufacturer will thenpublish these data, usually showing the performance of each product against arange of chemicals. I have yet to find a manufacturer of the creams able toproduce similar data for the performance of their product as protection. Alltoo often vague claims are made, hedged with ‘let-out’ clauses, such as ‘helpsprotect’, the meaning of which is impossible to determine. “What is required is a series of double blind studies under strictlycontrolled conditions of actual work to demonstrate whether or not a cream iseffective. As far as I am aware no such experiment has ever been carried outunder actual working conditions,” says Packham. References 1 Health and Safety Executive (1996) Skin creams and skin protection in theengineering sector, EIS14 C25. 2 Livesley E, Rushton L (2000) The prevalence of occupational dermatitisamongst printers in the Midlands. (Contract research report 307/2000) ISBN0717619001. 3 Health and Safety Executive (2001) Assessing and managing risks at workfrom skin exposure to chemical agents, ISBN 0-7176-1826-9. 4 Enviroderm Services. Barrier creams, Technical Bulletin No 10, www.enviroderm.co.uk. HSE advice on pre-work creamsPre-work creams are not liquid gloves. There is no such thing. They will notgive the same level of protection as properly selected gloves. Never use acream if a glove will do the job because: – When washing their hands most people regularly miss certain areas. Equallythe same tends to be true when applying a cream. Areas of the skin may be leftunprotected – the equivalent of wearing gloves with holes.– When selecting gloves it is necessary to take into account how quickly thehazardous substance will penetrate the glove material. Data is available forgoves but is not yet available for creams. – Personal protective equipment is subject to wear and tear. With glovesthis can easily be checked.– Creams begin to wear off as soon as work commences, but the loss ofprotection is unlikely to be so apparent.
Last night, Trey Anastasio Band continued their current Paper Wheels tour with a stop at Royal Oak, MI’s Royal Oak Music Theatre. One of the show’s most memorable highlights was a cover of Motown classic “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” the worldwide smash that became a hit single for both Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell (1967) and soul superstar Diana Ross (1970), and has been covered and featured virtually everywhere ever since.Getting To Know James Casey: The Saxophonist For Trey Anastasio Band And Meghan TrainorThe Royal Oak rendition of “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough” was a special surprise for fans of Trey Anastasio Band, as it saw James Casey and Natalie Cressman step out from behind their horns treat the crowd to some hair-raising lead vocals, trading lines on the classic tune. Thanks to JEMP Radio, you can watch fan-shot footage of the performance below:Full audio of the show is available via LivePhish. Trey Anastasio Band’s tour rolls on tonight with a performance at The Danforth Music Hall in Toronto. For tickets, or for more information on upcoming TAB dates, head to Trey’s website.SETLIST: Trey Anastasio Band | Royal Oak Music Theatre | Royal Oak, MI | 5/6/17 (setlist via LivePhish)Set One: Sand, Acting The Devil, Cayman Review, Ocelot, Magilla, Curlew’s Call, Work Song. Dark and Down, Money, Love and Change, Everything’s Right, Last TubeSet Two: Night Speaks to a Woman, Shine, 49 Bye Byes, Burlap Sack and Pumps, Gotta Jiboo, Alaska, Simple Twist Up Dave, Bounce, Clint Eastwood, Ain’t No Mountain High Enough, First TubeEncore: Sweet and Dandy, Valentine, Architect, The Parting Glass[Cover photo via Capacity Images, from Cressman’s album release show in NYC on 4/24/17]
Coronavirus numbers: For a map detailing where cases are located in the county, click here. (WBNG) — Broome County Executive Jason Garnar announced the county will hold a public hearing to address its COVID-19 post-disaster recovery plan. The hearing will be held at 5 p.m. on June 10 via Zoom. Additionally, Garnar says the Broome County Public Library will begin allowing curbside pickup Mondday. There are 80 active cases of the coronavirus in Broome County. 45 people have died from the virus and 462 people recovered. In total, 587 cases of the virus have been reported. Broome County June 5 coronavirus update Garnar also says the county is on track to move onto phase three. County updates
ASA monitoring sweep marks gambling as the worst underage advertising offender August 26, 2020 Related Articles Submit Lee Willows, YGAM: Education is central to gambling reform July 9, 2020 Share Share UK gambling adopts toughest online advertising code to protect underage audiences August 27, 2020 StumbleUpon The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has penalised betting tipster rixbets.com, after a complainant challenged the misleading nature of a claim made in a print advert, as well as whether it could be substantiated.First seen in August of last year, the ruling by the ASA states the press ad read: “… Outstanding results in the last 16 months… £34,970 PROFIT. An extraordinary 62% PROFIT on investment and an incredible tax free profit of £492 per week”.With small print below going on to announce “(All bets at just £100 per point at advised prices or SP – total stake 9/4/16 to 19/8/17 = £56,000)”.Questioned by one complainant, responding Racing 4 Profit Ltd, trading as rixbets.com, pointed out that text in the main body of the ad stated the stake per point required (£100), as well as the time period in question (9/4/16 – 19/8/17) and the overall total staked (£56,000) to achieve a profit of £34,970, stating a belief that information was presented clearly.Going to be outline a viewpoint that text size and placement was not out of the ordinary, Racing 4 Profit also explained its proofing process and provided a spreadsheet “which they said listed all the bets made in the referenced 16-month period, including the race date, name of horse, points staked, odds and the number of points won/lost.”During its detailed assessment, within which the ASA upheld the complaint and concluded that the ad was misleading, it explained: “We were concerned that the ad did not make sufficiently clear the amount a consumer would be required to stake to achieve the £34,970 profit. “We noted that the text which stated “total stake 9/4/16 to 19/8/17 = £56,000″ was in small print in parentheses under the body copy and we considered that that text, and the text which stated”62% profit on investment”, did not make sufficiently clear to consumers the amounts they would need to invest to achieve the advertised profit. “We also understood that £492 was an average, calculated by dividing the total profit amount (£34,970) by the number of weeks in the relevant period (71), and we noted that the spreadsheet showed that there were periods of several weeks at a time when no races had been won but significant amounts had been staked. “We therefore considered that the ad gave a misleading impression that consumers would achieve a weekly profit of approximately £492, when that was not the case.”Racing 4 Profit must not display the ad again in its current form, as well as ensuring future ads make it “sufficiently clear” the amounts needed to be staked to achieve the quoted profits, and “that they did not misleadingly imply that consumers would achieve a weekly profit, if that was not the case”.