tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post3821111102570254516..comments2024-03-28T08:51:15.561-04:00Comments on Human Health Risk Assessment to Chemicals: We do NOT spend enough on Risk AssessmentMike Jayjockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02521885327730438390noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post-87629856122950013992014-11-28T10:38:36.609-05:002014-11-28T10:38:36.609-05:00My point is that WE have to know and understand ab...My point is that WE have to know and understand about risks and to do this more resources are needed. We can not teach or inform without the basic information. Also, I am honestly not sure that worker have much power in this area to demand safety. When Unions were stronger they did but not as much today.Mike Jayjockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02521885327730438390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post-54401572460692968632014-11-28T01:54:00.539-05:002014-11-28T01:54:00.539-05:00Worker education and information. Its all black bo...Worker education and information. Its all black box unless we explain enough at grass roots. No matter what formal regulations its still in the workers control to demand safety if they know about risks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post-45366170262331678662014-11-27T10:21:24.294-05:002014-11-27T10:21:24.294-05:00Mike
Ram's closing comment seeking feedback pr...Mike<br />Ram's closing comment seeking feedback prompts this post. <br /> The consideration for changing the regulatory approach must come from those benefiting (workers) , rather than the advocates (us). I had presumed that I could construct a position paper for use by the Department of Energy enforcement that would restate the statistical reality recognized by OSHA (even a well controlled process would infrequently yield exposures above limits on the order of a 5% occurrence). I gave up when I recognized we already say it in the current AIHA Strategy Book, and have no means to force them to read anything new. <br />You witnessed the pressures facing the regulators at Hanford. The pursuit of an ALARA perspective reflects “hazard = risk” culture that is not at all unique to DOE. <br />So how do we advocate the change to the regulator community? I don’t have an answer. Our legislative bodies seem incapable of true dialogue and pursuit of a common goal; you constantly hear the Republican side arguing job impacts from regulation, yet the successful worldwide companies have been able to show that worker health protection and reduced risks are compatible goals. And the Democrats expect safety at all cost (read unlimited funds).<br />AIHA revisiting the “exposure and risk assessment management” (ERAM) concept should help whomever needs a technical banner to sell. But I don’t see our efforts bearing fruit soon (you have made an audience at Congress and are recognized for leadership in this regard, and know this better than all!) Let’s hope we can influence change sooner rather than later.<br />Thanks Steve<br />Steve Jahnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4705097374441454471.post-35043601383264026722014-11-24T11:11:19.716-05:002014-11-24T11:11:19.716-05:00Dear Mike, Thank you for highlighting this paper. ...Dear Mike, Thank you for highlighting this paper. For a variety of reasons, I published it in a journal that does not get much readership from the OH community. So, it is good to get this publicity. Please do go ahead and send the paper to anyone who asks for it. <br />We elicited opinions from a group of 27 experts, consisting of representatives<br />from industry, academia, and the highest levels of federal agencies (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and OSHA). Three groups of criteria were used to evaluate relationships between features of the OSHA oversight system and important outcomes: (1) those associated with the initial development of the system (e.g., establishment of policies, procedures, or regulations); (2) the attributes of the system (e.g., how the system operates for particular processes or decisions); (3) and the outcomes of the system (e.g., social, economic, cultural, health, environmental, and consumer<br />impacts). As you point out, the results were striking and dismal. The oversight system was considered neither adequate nor effective, and characterized by inflexibility, inadequate resources, lack of incentives for compliance, lack of transparency, insufficient data on health effects from manufacturers, and the most telling of all - low impact on worker health and safety. <br />There is a strong case to be made for changing our approach to regulatory oversight. I would like feedback from the participants of this discussion group. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16177528856733691256noreply@blogger.com