do I have muppet written on my forehead?

[drpeterwardle]

The bajr poll already shows that H&S is a major concern. 12 people have witnessed a major injury. Even if the 12 people out of 35 who have voted witnessed the same major incident then this equates to .25% as an accident rate in they witnessed the same accident. If these incidents are all different then the rate is 3% - ten times that of the construction industry.

Statistically - the results are at best a pilot study designed to see if the topic is worth investigating.

One person noted that they witnessed all types of accients including a fatality. I am assumming that this people voted in error.

Peter

[Post-Med Potterer]

I am not - as troll suggests - trying to belittle injuries, accidents or fatalities by 'reducing' them to statistics, simply trying to get things in perspective. I agree that not all employed in the construction industry are on site (but then not all archaeologists are on site either - one major contributor to injuries in archaeology in my experience is moving things around in stores without appropriate manual handling training or aids).

Thanks for putting the poll up, I am not sure if it will help but at least we might get a measure of what is happening.

I agree with troll and others that the categories are rather broad and sweeping, but it was meant as a suggestion not a hard and fast rule. Perhaps as more information comes in then we can have more refinement. And yes, statistics are open to abuse, but - as 1man1desk points out - it is a start in being able to judge if things have improved or not.

I think we can all take on board the invisible man's point that the usefulness of a risk assessment is dependent on the amount of thought that went into it, it should never be a blind carbon-copy of the previous one.

[Tim]

Just to add a personal note as someone who was handicapped after a site accident (19 months on crutches, 3 and half years rebuilding my left leg and relearning to walk, and permanent 24/7 pain after a Sudeck reaction-Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome)
there were 2 other accidents on this site that required long term (several weeks lay offs etc) and one that required 2 sessions of reconstructive surgery)on a flooded site the project Officer refused to close down and forced us to work on here in Switzerland.

If you think your unit or project manager doesn't enact H+S law shop them it's your right and duty. It's better than being a cripple.

Little Tim

[1man1desk]

In the poll on H&S incidents, so far, 12 people have voted for 'all of the above' on a list that includes fatalities.

Have 12 archaeologists in Britain really witnessed a fatality on an archaeological site in the last year? I haven't heard of any.


1man1desk

[troll]

Greetings.Although the poll was a clear indication of the seriousness with which this thread was taken, I really don`t feel that it`s the way to go. Quite apart from it`s statistical downfalls-I also feel, that it would not be wise to compare collated data with those of the construction industry. Quite how an industry-wide census could be undertaken is a bit of an unknown. The important issue for me is one of communication. Assessing trends based on fatalities seems a bit ham-fisted to me and, has the nasty habit of ignoring the near-misses that seem to be ubiquitous. From what I am hearing from the boylies and girlies the length and breadth of the country is, that risk assessments are rarer than finding a tardis in context. On some occasions when for example, large quantities of flaking asbestos are uncovered, the teams are simply told that it will be dealt with and are issued with simple paper dust masks.By all accounts, the team worked next to the stuff for nearly a week-HS is simply side-stepped. It will continue to be side-stepped until we`re all willing to talk about it. I`m still of the opinion that the field staff should expect to at least see (and preferably, sign) a new risk assessment for every site they set foot on. There is no good reason why field staff should not have on-site access to written HS materials like the newly completed managers handbook. I feel that HS on sites in general would be greatly enhanced if courses were made available not just to a token member of staff but, to field-workers. As it stands, field-workers have to rely on someone else to prepare an assessment and design mitigative strategy.It`s often been said that HS starts with the individual-then lets train some individuals, in the office, and the field staff.I`m not talking about a day`s course where we all have tea and watch videos about ladders, I mean the real deal. If we are to have any impact on the standards of HS in commercial archaeology (don`t get me started with the academic lot) we need dedicated staff in the same way as we do first aiders. First aiders-God bless em`, are for when the mitigation fails. Have a safety-type on site too.Prevention is the key and I just don`t see that level of commitment on even the most basic of HS on some sites. According to some of my colleagues out there in circuit-land, field staff give up discussing HS after a few years of being ignored. Not a healthy environment.

[troll]

A colleague of mine related a conversation with her supervisor t`other day....large amounts of asbestos was uncovered on site last week. The supervisor issued the digging team with white paper dust masks and said " if we get it removed properly, it will put us back two weeks...". So, yet another example of a moron expecting the digging team to take serious risks with their health-just to maintain the unit`s profit margin. How much more of this filth will be allowed to occupy positions of responsibility before someone finally takes this issue seriously? What makes archaeologists think that they can operate above the law without recompense? I get stories like this and worse on an almost daily basis from the boylies and girlies in the trenches....time to seperate reality from statistics?

[EarlySlav]

They should have KICKED that super off site!!! One for the BAJR to track down if we could. Do we want that person working on any site and trying to KILL people.

[troll]

I fear that this super is but one of many, many.......

[1man1desk]

One way to add an extra control to prevent this kind of dangerous practice is to build good H&S into specs/contracts. Units often pay more attention to contract clauses (because if they don't comply they might not get paid) than they do to the law or good practice guidelines.

I do this on a regular basis when commissioning work for clients. That way, if the unit won't ensure good safety practice on site, I can tell them they will be in breach of contract. There have been occasions when I have had to threaten to sack the unit off site if they did not buck their ideas up on H&S.

1man1desk

[troll]

would be nice to see your practise implemented as a universal-if augmented by archaeologists qualified in HS= one enormous step forwards! It has been said before that specs could be the key to everything and indeed, so they bloody well should! Units will get away with murder unless the specs are clear and patently unambiguous.