I agree with Alan about the academic sector. I always make a point of
telling PhD students that I will guarantee that they will be able to finish
their project even if it is in a space suit as long as they ensure that we
know immediately if they are having any problems. With this assurance, and
evidence that we have experienced this before I don't think any of them are
afraid to come to us if they develop symptoms.
Anne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Swann, Alan B" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Recent Court of Appeal Judgement


> This crops up all too frequently in the academic sector when animal care
> technicians or researchers using lab animals developing occupational
asthma.
> A blanket policy of exclusion half way through a research project is
> unacceptable to many and, I believe, unjustified & dangerous. If it
becomes
> known that declaring symptoms may endanger a career, we'll drive the
problem
> underground: people will conceal symptoms. For many researchers, review of
> their work methods & provision of a powered respirator can prevent
symptoms
> and allow the person to safely complete their project. More difficult with
> technicians, but not impossible
> I also think it too patriarchal of an OP to say 'we know what is best for
> you'. The person should be informed of the risks and allowed to make their
> own choice. If they elect to continue, provided they adhere to additional
> precautions and these are successful in alleviating symptoms & preventing
> disease progression (as judged, I admit, using the appallingly imprecise
> tool of spirometry) then I support them in their wish to continue.
> Myself & others argued the toss on this with Chris Erlam at HSE and, I'm
> pleased to say the recent HSE guidance on control of LAA, allows for
> informed choice.
> Regards
>
> Dr. Alan Swann, BM, AFOM
> Director of Occupational Health
> Occupational Health Service
> Imperial College Health Centre
> Watts Way
> London
> SW7 1 LU
> Tel:    +44 (20) 7594 9385
> Fax:    +44 (20) 7594 9407
> http://www.ad.ic.ac.uk/occ_health/
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Dennis Macwilliam [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   13 January 2003 19:58
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        Re: Recent Court of Appeal Judgement
>
> 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
>