Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
The next version of the BAJR H&S guide
I would appreciate if anyone wants to put together a hit list of common issues that should never be forgotten.. or are often overlooked bit like this
Weils ..... spread by rat urine... wash hands
Leptospirosis ..... spread by pigeon poo ..... always wear mask
sand section ... loose sections .. loose rocks...
could be in the form of a table
Risk Name What is it What do I do Danger Level
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Without making this thread pages and pages long with advice and guidance on these individual diseases here is a link to a site I use on a regular basis for this sort of stuff.
http://www.lhc.org.uk/index.htm
They're not a bad bunch and have a free helpline.
If you go to the "On Line Resources" section theres loads of stuff in there.
One question, do all of you carry suitable PPE when you go to a site?
I'm not just talking about the Health and Safety Tw*ts favourite item, I mean a suitable mask (not one of those disposable cheap things), disposable gloves, eye protection etc?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Weil's and Leptospirosis same thing - main vector rat pee. Pigeons carry psittacosis, another nasty. Dust masks will not do - you need full respirator masks.
Simple advice on finding sites that are pigeon infested - leave asap. Tell client that you will have to charge extra for doing the job with full PPE, then suggest a commercial cleaning company (as Dr PW suggested)!
see...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais2.pdf
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
In a sense this is the problem we face - the document suggested by achingknees does not mention the specific hazard.
My info from the manufacturer was that a full respirator with an independent oxygen supply was unneccessary and a mask with suitable filter would be sufficient. (I dont mean those disposable 30p jobs).
In the case of pigeons I found a lot of general comments about pigeons being a problems but not enough info about the specifics.
For example birds under stress will shed more of the organism; similarly causing pigeons in large number to flock causes a traffic hazard. Although in fact no explanation was given.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
The problems of Health and Safety and pigeons.....A few years back I was a union safety rep and we had a problem with pigeons getting into a warehouse used for storing archaeological finds. The problem wasn't just the pigeon droppings (which were cleared when the pigeons were removed) but also the pigeon mites, which lacking a source of pigeon, moved onto a human host. If I remember correctly, one of the archaeologists infected developed some kind of brain infection as a result of being bitten by the pigeon mites and was quite ill for some time.
I believe that the potential problems with pigeon mites are closely related to the diseases that can be contracted through contact with ticks, such as Lymes disease. I personally think that tick and mite contact is a far greater risk to archaeologists than problems with pigeons, but I have only once in 20 years seen a UK archaeological risk assessment that mentions the possibility (well done Norfolk Archaeological Unit!!), although it seems to be a commonly accepted risk elsewhere in Europe and the US.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
specific hazard is inhaling micro-organism Chlamydia Psittaci that can cause Psittacosis aka Ornothosis aka parrot disease aka pigeon fanciers' lung. While the risks of this are low the hazards are very high hence getting high scores on RAs. It has become more of an archaeological issue due to the rise in building recording and the apparent rise in the populations of pigeons aka rats with wings.
Peter your mask spec is correct. DISPOSABLE filters in a respirator. Best advice you already gave - pay somebody to clear up the sh*t.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Fantastic! Now we`re cooking.Many, many thanks to all for your input and links.Makes me wonder why HS is`nt an integral component of undergrad degree courses? Whilst I don`t want to belittle the issue of pidgeon related risk, the main corpus of work carried out seems to be in the field in either urban or rural contexts.In a rural theatre, what pesticides has the landowner/farmer used? I have worked on rural sites where the farmer has been spraying this crap up/downwind from the excavations whilst we worked. The longevity of chemical sprays in soils? In an urban context, the question of chemical contamination in all its forms needs to be looked at seriously. I have also had far too many close calls with unexploded ordnance too in varying forms. This is rarely thought about in RAs. Galaxsea- many, many thanks for your input. Are CDM regs available on line yet? Is there a site that outlines the employers responsibilities with regards on-site facilities (hand-washing/hot water/toilets/drying rooms/rest rooms/sun cream/provision of ppe? As archaeologists, if we knew what the law said, we would`nt be consistantly putting ourselves at risk for someone elses profit.Mr Hosty-I think this calls for something a bit more considerable than a bullet point guide. How much longer should archaeologists put up with sh*te facilities and negligable mitigation whilst Bob the builder is provided with all the kit the law says we are ALL entitled to? Lets do this........Game on.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
There seem to be a lot of threads all covering the same topic here. However, some basic principles:
1. Any client company that commissions work on a site that may be contaminated is responsible for assessing that risk properly and making it safe before sending anyone onto site. They also have to inform any contractors before they go on site.
2. Any contractor company that suspects contamination may be present is responsible for confirming it one way or another before going on site, and putting safe working methods/PPE etc in place. If they know before tender stage, they can build it into their price. If they find out afterwards, they are entitled to charge extra.
3. If the contamination is discovered after arriving on site, the contracting company is responsible for removing their staff until the risk has been assessed. Legally/contractually, any financial risk associated with this would have to be borne by the client.
4. Any member of site staff who suspects contamination may be present is responsible for reporting it. By not doing so, they endanger not only themselves but also their fellow-workers.
5. Anyone (including staff) that does not fulfil those responsibilities may open themselves to prosecution or litigation.
1man1desk
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Now this I like. Whilst not wishing to complicate matters by bleeding one thread into another, the points offered by 1man1desk are hugely welcome but, when translated onto the very ground for which they are intended, field staff do not (almost ubiquitously)work in an environment where pro-active HS cultures are welcome. For HS legislation/procedures to be even remotely effective, field staff need to be confident that in demanding what is right, they don`t end their careers. On the contrary, Unit managers are the ones who should be in fear of losing their jobs. How do we protect the rights of field staff when units can easily replace workers overnight?.[?]
