James,
Now I understand why Chris felt the need to make his statement. I, too, am
not decrying health surveillance and I accept that it has an important place
in an OH strategy. There have been times, however, when it has been relied
upon as the SOLE method of 'managing' health at work (read Inenson and Thom
1985 for an example), That was my concern. Again, in the case of wood dust
exposure (hard and soft) the risk reduction hierarchy should be used in
order to pre-empt the problem.
Well structured Health Surveillance strategies are also important since
humans do not come in standard biological sizes or states. Ulrich BECK
(1992), to whom I often refer in this discussion list, and his ideas on the
concept of 'safe' levels of exposure would also underscore the importance of
proper health surveillance. Having said that, he would also harangue the
society that permits ANY exposure to toxic materials in the first place.
Regards
Kevin
Beck U., 1992, Risk Society, London, Sage Publications
Inenson and Thom, 1985, "TNT poisoning and the employment of women workers
in the first world war" in Weindling P. (ed), The social history of
occupational health, Beckenham, Croom Helm Ltd.
-----Original Message-----
From: James Beresford [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 July 2001 5:04 pm
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rosin flux solder
Kevin,
But on the wood dust issue, as Chris and I have discussed seperately, don't
forget about the benfit of health surveillance checking for nasal
cancers...problem is that many people wander off down the sensitising issue
without exploring other possibilities..
James
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|