Recently, NFPA published a study by John R. Hall, Jr. on TheTotal Cost of Fire in the US. To see the complete paper click on the link provided.

The core of the total cost of fire was $134.2 billion in 2007. Other cost components that have been estimated only in one-time special studies may add about $42.3 billion to the total. Human losses, which many people resist converting to dollar equivalents, would add $42.5 billion in 2007 if valued along the lines discussed in this report. And the value of the donated time of volunteers is very roughly estimated as $128 billion, using the rough bases of valuation discussed here.

Adding these all together produces a total value affected by fire - lost to fire, spent to avoid or deal with fire, or donated to avoid or deal with fire - of $347 billion, or about 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product.

It should be clear by this point that most of the analysis supporting these estimates is soft and has wide bands of uncertainty. Nevertheless, the conclusion that fire has a tremendous impact on the way the U.S. uses its scarce resources is indisputable.

It also is clear that we have a dual interest in reducing U.S. fire losses – which include human losses that are among the highest per capita in the industrial world – and in seeking ways to achieve equivalent fire safety at lower costs, since the growth in total cost of fire has been led not by the fire losses but by the other cost components. This provides a clear indication of need for product innovations or other programs (e.g., educational) that can improve fire safety at the same or lower costs. It also shows the need for improved methods (e.g., models) for calculating fire performance and costs, so the implications of different choices can be considered and judged more comprehensively.

Recently, Dave Kaufman from Techlife, sent me an article he found in Gizmodo about a safety inventor who finally got justice.

Years ago, Floridian inventor Michael Powell pitched Home Depot a device that would keep its employees’ fingers safe when cutting wood for customers. It worked so well that they stole his idea. Now Powell’s getting sweet, $25 million justice.

Before Michael Powell came along, Home Depot employees were slicing off fingers left and right, resulting in nearly $1 million a year in worker’s compensation claims. But Powell devised a simple guard for protecting workers’ digits and let the company test it out in eight stores in the area. The trial was a huge success—and cut worker’s compensation claims down to $7000 the following year—but instead of ponying up Powell’s proposed $2000 per device, Home Depot just went ahead and fabricated copies of the saw guards without Powell’s consent.

According to court documents, when Powell’s claim to the invention was brought up in a meeting, one Home Depot executive responded, “Fuck Michael Powell. Let him sue us.” Well, hey, Powell did just that, and after a series of courtroom victories, he’s now looking to collect some $25 million from the company.

Handing down the latest ruling, a district judge said:  ”Home Depot knew exactly what it was doing. They simply pushed Mr. Powell away and they did it totally and completely for their own economic benefit.”

To read the full article check out the Palm Beach Post News.

PEL and REL are acronyms used by the safety industry to define Permissible Exposure Limits (OSHA term) and Recommended Exposure Limits (NIOSH term).

In 1974, NIOSH joined OSHA in developing a series of occupational health standards for substances with existing PELs. OSHA sets enforceable permissible exposure limits (PELs) to protect workers against the health effects of exposure to hazardous substances. PELs are regulatory limits on the amount or concentration of a substance in the air. They may also contain a skin designation. OSHA PELs are based on an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure. Together NIOSH and OSHA set limits for 380 hazardous chemicals.

OSHA currently has about 500 permissible exposure limits (29 CFR part1910.1000), while NIOSH has about 700 RELs. NIOSH is able to evaluate them while OSHA PEL limits has not be updated since late 1960’s.

Acting under the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC Chapter 15) and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (30 USC Chapter 22), NIOSH develops and periodically revises recommended exposure limits (RELs) for hazardous substances or conditions in the workplace. NIOSH also recommends appropriate preventive measures to reduce or eliminate the adverse health and safety effects of these hazards.

The NIOSH Web site features many different types of databases and information collections. The most popular databases include the International Chemical Safety Cards, NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, and NIOSHTIC-2.

Chemical Databases:

· Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH)
Provides the immediately dangerous to life or health air concentration values (IDLHs) for substances and the criteria and information sources that have been used to determine these values.

· International Chemical Safety Cards (WHO/IPCS/ILO)
ICSC cards summarize essential health and safety information on chemicals for their use at the “shop floor” level by workers and employers in factories, agriculture, construction and other work places.

· Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM)
NMAM is a collection of methods for sampling and analysis of contaminants in workplace air, and in the blood and urine of workers who are occupationally exposed.

· NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (NPG)
The NPG is intended as a source of general industrial hygiene information on several hundred chemicals/classes for workers, employers, and occupational health professionals.

·  The Emergency Response Safety and Health Database (ERSH-DB)
Developed by NIOSH for the emergency response community, The ERSH-DB contains accurate and concise information on high-priority chemical, biological and radiological agents that could be encountered by personnel responding to a terrorist event.

·Occupational Safety and Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards
Summarizes information on permissible exposure limits, chemical and physical properties, and health hazards. It provides recommendations for medical surveillance, respiratory protection, and personal protection and sanitation practices for specific chemicals that have Federal occupational safety and health regulations.

· OSHA 1988 Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)
PELs are OSHA comments from the January 19, 1989 Final Rule on Air Contaminants Project extracted from 54FR2332 et. seq. This rule was remanded by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the limits are not currently in force.

·Specific Medical Test Published in the Literature for OSHA Regulated Substances (MEDTEST)
The MEDTEST database lists the specific medical tests published in the literature for OSHA regulated substances. Updates of OSHA mandated tests (July 1, 2000) and NIOSH/OSHA recommendations are included.

Where did that come from? I didn’t expect that! Didn’t see that coming! How did that happen? Sound familiar? After an injury caused by an incident, these are the types of comments often expressed by the victim — sometimes the witnesses.

Witnesses as well as those involved often exclaim that they had no idea what happened. This is an expression of frustration. They thought they were working safely and had probably performed the job hundreds of times. The worker could probably do the task blindfolded. Perhaps he did?

TOTAL AWARENESS IS THE KEY

A common factor in injury incidents is a lack of awareness. A thorough pre-operational inspection of workplaces and equipment is one of the most important acts that anyone can do to ensure his or her own safety each day. But a pre-operational inspection is only a start.

Each worker must constantly be aware of changes in his or her environment throughout the shift and be prepared to react appropriately to changes that occur. These differences may occur because of a change in location, or a natural change in the immediate environment. They may be changes that are forced from outside sources, or they may be changes that we create by the work we perform.

An air hose is normally a safe tool. One could consider it a tripping hazard if it crosses a walkway, or it could represent a strain hazard when lifting or pulling. But normally, if in good condition, an air hose is rather innocuous.

But, suppose someone begins to disconnect the hose. Fittings may be difficult to break. Pinch points may be encountered using tools to break the connection. But what if the hose is pressurized? The valve was shut off and the pressure was bled off. But what if the valve leaks and pressure is re-built? What if the wrong hose was bled off? Each of these hazards is easily controlled if the worker is alert.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

A worker is preparing to splice a section of conveyor belt. It must be cut square. There are machines to help do this, but we don’t make that many splices and the razor knife does a good job. The belt material is designed to resist cutting and abrasion, so the cable resists the action of cutting and requires effort, even with the sharpest knife. The worker may be cutting away from his body, but his leg is under the edge of the belt. The line-of-fire hazard is easily controlled.

Debris takes on many forms, but normally has one common characteristic. It’s disorderly. This fact raises a number of new potential hazards — pointed objects, sharp edges, unbalanced pieces, heavy loads, slippery surfaces, tangles, tension, awkward shapes and sizes, and others. It may be necessary to move smaller quantities (more trips) and/or it may require cutting pieces into manageable sections. These types of hazards are easily controlled if the worker is alert.

You are in the lunchroom and have just finished eating. Time to clean up and go back to work. You go to the sink to wash your containers and silverware. While washing some of the water splashes on the floor. Not too much, it will be fine. Someone else will clean it up and you leave. A couple of minutes later someone, comes to the sink to wash their lunch containers, but they don’t recognize the hazard. They slip on the wet water on sprain their wrist as they fall down. If the previous person had just wiped up the floor this could have been prevented. Now the injured employee will miss a few days of work, have to get medical treatment and physical therapy for a few weeks. Be restricted in their work responsibilities, so other people in the department have to do more work, they might have to get a temp employee or pay overtime. Additional expenses from the profits earned, because someone did not take the time to remove the hazard.

A THOUSAND THINGS TO SEE

Your safety and the safety of your coworkers are dependent on your awareness of potentially hazardous conditions in the workplace. Take off the blindfold. There are a thousand things to see, hear, feel and smell in the workplace. Learn to observe and notice changes. If you do not recognize the hazard, you cannot control the hazard. If you cannot control the hazard, you cannot prevent the injury.

It all starts with awareness.