18th September 2005, 12:05 PM
Rather curators Dr Wardle-not consultants. When curators write specs, HS could quite easily be included. After all, if field work is carried out in their areas of responsibility, does a curator not have a duty of care to ensure that appropriate HS mitigation is put in place? HS could be a consideration when Units apply for listing as "available contractors" in a given catchment area. It`s not enough for units to provide flash jackets and hard hats and then assume that they have adequately discharged their HS obligations. One of my most detested practises....after ticking boxes on over simplistic risk assessments relating to slips/trips and falls etc, field archaeologists work every day in ground that has either, a long history as an industrial site or- a rural agricultural setting where no-one (with a duty of care) has bothered to have chemical testing carried out to identify risk in terms of ground contamination. Heavy metals (not Ozzy Osborne) pesticides, hydrocarbons etc pose a real risk to those slopping around in them every day...this of course has a bearing upon those working in urban/industrial contexts on a daily basis but-equally, rural sites where pesticides including DDT/Paraquat type residues linger. Those of you out there with responsibility for project HS-who among you regularly commission chemical analyses of ground contamination PRIOR to field work?[?] Our recent poll that has suggested that some have witnessed fatalities is either a slip of the pen or a deliberate vote to wake us all up to the potential or, some may say, inevitability of just such an eventuality (God forbid) if things are allowed to continue the way they have. Consistant exposure to chemical contamination will take lives over time-providing for a skewed assessment relating to potential fatalities in the short term...