I have had a private reponse to my recent posting concerning the
application of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and COSHH 2002 - and
the controls which they impose on workers who are already sensitised or who
are atopic.
It has been pointed out that atopy is not a well defined entity and you may
then preclude 40% of the population from working in such posts.
The writer goes on to point out that "Sensitisation" is again dependent
upon definition. The skill in his view is in ensuring the effective control
measures and health monitoring are in place to detect any evidence of
adverse effects after full discussion with the informed employee.
On reflection I think I went a little too far by including 'atopics' among
those who must be excluded from any exposure.
Clearly if someone is found to be atopic, then it is an issue to be
followed up, and not automatic exclusion from a particular work activity.
When I posted my most recent mailing to the list I was thinking of those
working in platinum refining, where atopicity is routinely used as one
measure to screen out potential workers, because of the potency of platinum
salts at levels which are difficult to measure.
However, if someone is already sensitised to a particular asthmagen
[identified as such by recognosed health surveillance techniques], then I
would have thought that the sensitised person should not be further exposed
to that particular asthmagen in a work-related activity?
Dennis M
|