Radioactive Fallout and Fieldwork (Worldwide)

[Dinosaur]

Actually a very good point, I've been staggered in the past by the inability of most diggers to recognise dodgy substances on site, things like blue asbestos or phenol (thats the reddish fluid that collects in the bottom of your trench overnight when digging in old gasworks - time to run away!) are not, after all, hard to ID....or doesn't everyone have A levels in Physics and Chemistry (back in the 'good old days' when you were still allowed to play with lethal sunstances at school)? Good one for a BAJR guide? :face-huh:

[troll]

Agreed. Perhaps alongside a BAJR guide, we could lobby the Diggers Forum to table a motion that would place pre-excavation ground-testing squarely within IfA regs? I`m surprised that this has not been assessed before and am convinced of it`s legal standing. I certainly have reams of examples where ground-borne threats (chemical/pesticide/asbestos/UXB) were either ignored or poorly considered in the pre-excavation phases and also during field interventions.

[P Prentice]

should all be covered in the risk assessment and if you have reason to question your safety then call the HSE pronto

[GnomeKing]

covered in the risk assessment...hmm...sometimes words are just that.

[Dinosaur]

Risk assessments can only reasonably cover known or suspected hazards, it's surprising how many ostensibly 'green-field' sites have nasties buried on them, in fact there can't be many sites that don't contain some sort of hazardous substance (or offices for that matter - eg toner). I've worked in any number of fields where bits of blue asbestos have turned up for instance, if we declared it all (those with the experience/training to recognise the stuff anyway) then most sites would be shut down and we'd all be out of a job...most 'hazardous' substances (eg all types of asbestos) are actually pretty benign when mixed with soil and damp (its only hazardous when occurring as dust and inhaled), but the regs don't have enough sense to acknowledge that - as an eg, did a job years back (in less H&S conscious times) where we'd noticed that the mini-digger bucket was getting very clean and shiny, and eventually figured out that the glass vials we'd been digging through occasionally were full of concentrated sulphuric acid (bit of school chemistry at play) - since the stuff was reacting immediately with its surroundings and neutralising itself not really a hazard (apart from the broken glass), but declaring it would have made us all suddenly unemployed

- anyone know what the state of play is with declaring bits of roofing asbestos (which turns up everywhere), spun-asbestos pipe etc?

[P Prentice]

yep its reasonable to expect a bit of asbestos in a green field and it is reasonable to expect some nasty chemicals on an industrial brownfield. it is therefore reasonable for a groundworker to have safety systems in place to cover such eventualities
if it is not covered in a risk assessment and anybody is injured, or can prove it retrospectively, then the persons/company/university/unit resonsible can be prosecuted
if you have reason to question yours or your colleagues safety - call the HSE and get shoddy operators closed down

[Dinosaur]

And have all your archaeology removed as 'contaminated ground'......:face-stir:

[Jack]

Depends on the employer.

On a recent pipeline job we had four run-ins with farmers and health and safety.

1) Some diggers got sprayed by a sub-contracted farm worker. He claimed he didn't see them, even though the pipeline spread was visible for miles away and the diggers were wearing hi-vis and we'd been working there for ages and the farmer who sub-contracted them knew we were there.
The sprayer backed right up to and over the spoil heap then turned on his sprayers before starting driving.
The chemical wasn't poisonous but was an irritant. Diggers were rushed to hospital to be checked out and were ok, but had to go home and change.

The construction client did eventually do something to stop this happening again, but it took ages largely due to the farmers being obstinate and unhelpful.

2) Later several vehicles started spraying huge clouds of dust over another field we were working on. The dust clouds were driven on the wind over several fields. When asked what they were spraying, a farm-worker replied (rather shortly) its ok, its not a chemical - its burnt chicken shit.!

3) Later working areas and our cabins were splattered with manure as muck-spreaders drove right up to the edge of the working area.

Soon after this, the farmers further down the pipeline were more concencious and stopped spraying enough distance from the pipeline spread as to limit the risk.

The point is the construction client did do something and did (eventually) reduce the risk. But I feel sorry for the poor farm workers working with these risks with no protection at all. You just need to look at the HSE guidelines for farmers site to get an idea of the problem. Many farmers seem to think that health and safety of their workers isn't important.

'Whats wrong wiv yer? It wont do yer any harm. I've been workin wiv this stuff all my life.'

Phrases like 'farmers lung' and stats on farmers deaths tell another story.

Oh.....but to get to the asbestos.......in one field the farmer dumped building rubble over a couple of our sites one night.....the rubble contained asbestos tile. When confronted, the farmer admitted doing it saying its my land I can do what I want to it.'

The construction client arranged for the removal of the rubble from the pipeline spread with proper PPE and procedures, piling it up outside of our working area, and the farmer eventually sent some trucks and a digger to take it away (I dread to think where to though!).

Again...good client.........bad farmer.:face-stir:

Glad I don't work on a farm!

[Dinosaur]

yep its reasonable to expect a bit of asbestos in a green field and it is reasonable to expect some nasty chemicals on an industrial brownfield.

FYI actually the acid was in a university college flowerbed (in what has been an ornamental garden since pre-1850), doubtless some bit of 1920s unfinished homework? - but supporting the general thrust of my arguement that anything can turn up anywhere so you can't plan/make risk assessments for it

[P Prentice]

FYI actually the acid was in a university college flowerbed (in what has been an ornamental garden since pre-1850), doubtless some bit of 1920s unfinished homework? - but supporting the general thrust of my arguement that anything can turn up anywhere so you can't plan/make risk assessments for it

but you can have safety systems