jueves, 29 de agosto de 2013
jueves, 21 de marzo de 2013
Safety Workplace
Article #4
The 2011
numbers are in: Bureau of Labor Statistics report on workplace injuries and
illnesses
October 30, 2012 by Dr. Scott Harris Leave a Comment
The 2011 numbers are in…and many of them don’t look much different from 2010. Some highlights from the Bureau of Labor Statistics newly released 2011 report on non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses: State and local government case rates remained unchanged from 2010, and are still well above private industry. Private industry employers reported nearly 3 million workplace injuries and illnesses for an incidence rate of 3.5 per 100 workers, unchanged from 2010. More than half of the cases reported were serious enough to result in days away from work, job transfer or restriction, for a DART rate of 1.8 per 100 workers, unchanged from 2010. Healthcare showed a decline in case rates for hospitals and nursing/residential care, though both are still around double the national average. Case rates remained highest among mid-size private industry establishments employing 50-249 workers. Compared with the 2011 national average rate of 3.8 per 100 workers, the highest total case rates (illness and injury combined) came from: 1. Fire protection (local government) – 13.5 2. Nursing and residential care facilities (state government) – 13.1 3. Steel foundries (except investment) (private industry) – 12.7 4. Ice manufacturing (private industry) – 11.9 5. Skiing facilities (private industry) – 11.5 Compared with the 2011 national average rate of 1.9 per 100 workers, the highest DART rates came from: 1. Ice manufacturing (private industry) – 9.0 (way up from 4.4 in 2010) 2. Fire protection (local government) – 8.6 3. Steel foundries (except investment) (private industry) – 7.8 4. Nursing and residential care (state government) – 7.4 5. Nursing and residential care (local government) (private industry) – 7.1 The highest rates for illnesses (average 20.6 per 10,000 employees) were in: 1. Light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing (private industry) – 306.1 2. Animal (except poultry) slaughtering (private industry) – 273.3 3. Automobile manufacturing (private manufacturing) – 233.6 4. Copper foundries (except die-casting) (private industry) – 165.0 5. Fire protection (local government) – 157.4
Keep in mind that “illnesses” also include musculoskeletal disorders (repetitive motion) such as carpal tunnel
syndrome.
As always, these numbers come from an annual survey BLS sends to 85,000 to 100,000 establishments.
Regardless of whether everyone reported accurately, these rates represent our best look at lagging indicators
of safety success. So, yes, it’s good news that rates are mostly steady or down, but the economic losses are
still running somewhere around $250 billion per year.
We will be digging through the numbers and providing more details on specific industry sectors in future
posts.
–
UL gives workforce health and safety professionals more of the tools they need to proactively address risks,
reduce costs and keep people safe, healthy and on the job.
Written by Dr. Scott Harris
Dr. Scott Harris, an Occupational Health & Risk Management Consultant with UL, is an advisory member of
the ASSE Healthcare Practice Specialty and a course director at the UNC – Chapel Hill Occupational Safety
and Health Education and Research Center. His experience spans more than 30 years of environmental, health
and safety management in federal and state government, consulting, general industry and university
instruction. Scott is a former Federal On-Scene Coordinator with the U.S. EPA who led response efforts at
Shuttle Columbia and water search and rescue operations in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He holds
a PhD in Environmental Science, with a specialization in Disaster and Emergency Management, from
Oklahoma State University and degrees in Public Health (MSPH) and Geology (B.S.) from Western
Kentucky University.
You may also like -
Safety for temporary employees: whose job is it?
Musculoskeletal disorders increase to 33% of all workplace injuries Lost-time employee injuries cost healthcare billions
Article # 5
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2011 there were just over 2.8 million temporary workers in the U.S. — about 2.3 percent of the workforce that year. ―Temps‖ are classified by BLS under Temporary Help Services (NAICS 56132). Temp Services recorded 2011 Total and DART rates of 1.9 and 0.9, respectively. Compared to private industry average rates of 3.5 and 1.8, that makes temp services look pretty safe, right? The problem is that those injury rates don’t tell the right story, and part of the reason is that we don’t really know where all of the injuries and illnesses are ending up, if they get recorded at all. Just this week we saw an OSHA news release regarding the death of a temporary worker in Jacksonville, FL on his first day at the job. Sadly that’s an all too common event, as discarding temporary workers into ―non-employee‖ status is a favorite ruse of many employers, particularly for ignoring injuries to temps. Responsibility for recording injuries to temporary workers has been long-examined and clearly settled, at least on paper: 29 CFR 1904.31 requires recording of injuries on the 300 Log for all employees including ―recordable injuries and illnesses that occur to employees who are not on your payroll if you supervise these employees on a day-to-day basis‖ (emphasis added). Who is the temp actually working for while at your site? In most cases, the ―host‖ employer is paying the service that provided the workers, so he/she draws a check from the temp service, not the worksite. Many employers mistakenly (or conveniently) conclude that since the temp is technically being paid by someone else, the temp works for someone else or is a contractor. For OSHA purposes, not so. An ―employee‖ is not defined by OSHA based on who pays them. What matters is whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. Some criteria OSHA uses to determine that relationship: The nature and degree of control the hiring party asserts over the manner in which the work is done; The degree of skill and independent judgment the temporary worker is expected to apply; The extent to which the services provided are an integral part of the employer’s business; The right of the employer to assign new tasks to the worker; and Control over when and how long the work is performed So if you have temporary workers in the plant and you are telling them how, when and where to do their job and the work they do is integral to your business, under OSHA they are your employees. And if they get hurt or need training, PPE, hearing exams, medical surveillance or air monitoring, they must receive the same treatment as your ―real‖ employees. No keeping two sets of 300 Logs (one for us and one for temps). No providing PPE for us and charging ―them‖ for it or making them provide their own. No telling the temp service to keep its own 300 Log. No telling temps that they cannot have MSDS information nor get copies of air sampling results. Over the years I’ve seen all of this and much worse.
Training may be the most commonly violated requirement of all. Every OSHA standard that requires training requires the training BEFORE an employee is exposed to the hazard (think HazCom, LOTO, PPE and others). The problem for temporary workers is the often short-notice and transient nature of many of the jobs. Finding a temp with his/her HAZWOPER Awareness, HazCom, PPE, Forklift Operator and hearing conservation training all in place and documented is certainly a logistical challenge, especially for the very reduced wage that many employers are seeking to pay. However, it does not change the requirement for all of this and more to be in place before workers are exposed to workplace hazards. In fact, the OSHA citations for that temporary worker fatality in Florida included two willful violations for failing to ―develop, document and utilize‖ LOTO procedures and failing to train temporary workers on required procedures before beginning work. This issue is not limited to traditional manufacturing sites. Anywhere that OSHA applies, so does this conversation. An email I received from a healthcare facility illustrates the point: ―I need help finding where OSHA (or other regulatory body) says that we need to do initial evaluation on our non-employees that get sharps injuries. Specifically, the residents that work/rotate, the nursing students, the non-employed docs that are here (especially surgeons) etc. Can anyone put their finger on it?‖ The question the writer should have been asking is whether these ―non-employees‖ are really non-employees In fact, they are almost certainly employees under the relationship test. Even the nursing students. One test of being a student and not an employee is whether the host providing the training derives ―immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees or students, and on occasion his operations may actually be impeded.‖ Does anyone think that nursing students are providing no advantage to the host facility and are not on occasion impeding the operation (as do all trainees and students in the workplace vs. the classroom)? The good news is that realizing that most or all of these people are employees makes the bloodborne pathogens question easy: yes, report their needlestick injuries on the needlestick log and evaluate them for disease exposure. Would you really not do that by pretending they don’t work there?? – UL’s workplace safety solutions help protect the well-being of your workers, ensure organizational compliance and drive business results. Written by Dr. Scott Harris Dr. Scott Harris, an Occupational Health & Risk Management Consultant with UL, is an advisory member of the ASSE Healthcare Practice Specialty and a course director at the UNC – Chapel Hill Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center. His experience spans more than 30 years of environmental, health and safety management in federal and state government, consulting, general industry and university instruction. Scott is a former Federal On-Scene Coordinator with the U.S. EPA who led response efforts at Shuttle Columbia and water search and rescue operations in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He holds a PhD in Environmental Science, with a specialization in Disaster and Emergency Management, from Oklahoma State University and degrees in Public Health (MSPH) and Geology (B.S.) from Western Kentucky University.
Safety for
temporary employees: whose job is it?
February 15, 2013 by Dr. Scott Harris 2 Comments
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2011 there were just over 2.8 million temporary workers in the U.S. — about 2.3 percent of the workforce that year. ―Temps‖ are classified by BLS under Temporary Help Services (NAICS 56132). Temp Services recorded 2011 Total and DART rates of 1.9 and 0.9, respectively. Compared to private industry average rates of 3.5 and 1.8, that makes temp services look pretty safe, right? The problem is that those injury rates don’t tell the right story, and part of the reason is that we don’t really know where all of the injuries and illnesses are ending up, if they get recorded at all. Just this week we saw an OSHA news release regarding the death of a temporary worker in Jacksonville, FL on his first day at the job. Sadly that’s an all too common event, as discarding temporary workers into ―non-employee‖ status is a favorite ruse of many employers, particularly for ignoring injuries to temps. Responsibility for recording injuries to temporary workers has been long-examined and clearly settled, at least on paper: 29 CFR 1904.31 requires recording of injuries on the 300 Log for all employees including ―recordable injuries and illnesses that occur to employees who are not on your payroll if you supervise these employees on a day-to-day basis‖ (emphasis added). Who is the temp actually working for while at your site? In most cases, the ―host‖ employer is paying the service that provided the workers, so he/she draws a check from the temp service, not the worksite. Many employers mistakenly (or conveniently) conclude that since the temp is technically being paid by someone else, the temp works for someone else or is a contractor. For OSHA purposes, not so. An ―employee‖ is not defined by OSHA based on who pays them. What matters is whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. Some criteria OSHA uses to determine that relationship: The nature and degree of control the hiring party asserts over the manner in which the work is done; The degree of skill and independent judgment the temporary worker is expected to apply; The extent to which the services provided are an integral part of the employer’s business; The right of the employer to assign new tasks to the worker; and Control over when and how long the work is performed So if you have temporary workers in the plant and you are telling them how, when and where to do their job and the work they do is integral to your business, under OSHA they are your employees. And if they get hurt or need training, PPE, hearing exams, medical surveillance or air monitoring, they must receive the same treatment as your ―real‖ employees. No keeping two sets of 300 Logs (one for us and one for temps). No providing PPE for us and charging ―them‖ for it or making them provide their own. No telling the temp service to keep its own 300 Log. No telling temps that they cannot have MSDS information nor get copies of air sampling results. Over the years I’ve seen all of this and much worse.
Training may be the most commonly violated requirement of all. Every OSHA standard that requires training requires the training BEFORE an employee is exposed to the hazard (think HazCom, LOTO, PPE and others). The problem for temporary workers is the often short-notice and transient nature of many of the jobs. Finding a temp with his/her HAZWOPER Awareness, HazCom, PPE, Forklift Operator and hearing conservation training all in place and documented is certainly a logistical challenge, especially for the very reduced wage that many employers are seeking to pay. However, it does not change the requirement for all of this and more to be in place before workers are exposed to workplace hazards. In fact, the OSHA citations for that temporary worker fatality in Florida included two willful violations for failing to ―develop, document and utilize‖ LOTO procedures and failing to train temporary workers on required procedures before beginning work. This issue is not limited to traditional manufacturing sites. Anywhere that OSHA applies, so does this conversation. An email I received from a healthcare facility illustrates the point: ―I need help finding where OSHA (or other regulatory body) says that we need to do initial evaluation on our non-employees that get sharps injuries. Specifically, the residents that work/rotate, the nursing students, the non-employed docs that are here (especially surgeons) etc. Can anyone put their finger on it?‖ The question the writer should have been asking is whether these ―non-employees‖ are really non-employees In fact, they are almost certainly employees under the relationship test. Even the nursing students. One test of being a student and not an employee is whether the host providing the training derives ―immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees or students, and on occasion his operations may actually be impeded.‖ Does anyone think that nursing students are providing no advantage to the host facility and are not on occasion impeding the operation (as do all trainees and students in the workplace vs. the classroom)? The good news is that realizing that most or all of these people are employees makes the bloodborne pathogens question easy: yes, report their needlestick injuries on the needlestick log and evaluate them for disease exposure. Would you really not do that by pretending they don’t work there?? – UL’s workplace safety solutions help protect the well-being of your workers, ensure organizational compliance and drive business results. Written by Dr. Scott Harris Dr. Scott Harris, an Occupational Health & Risk Management Consultant with UL, is an advisory member of the ASSE Healthcare Practice Specialty and a course director at the UNC – Chapel Hill Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center. His experience spans more than 30 years of environmental, health and safety management in federal and state government, consulting, general industry and university instruction. Scott is a former Federal On-Scene Coordinator with the U.S. EPA who led response efforts at Shuttle Columbia and water search and rescue operations in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He holds a PhD in Environmental Science, with a specialization in Disaster and Emergency Management, from Oklahoma State University and degrees in Public Health (MSPH) and Geology (B.S.) from Western Kentucky University.
Can in Questions
Questions with can - grammaer exercise
|
|
Complete
these sentences.
|
|
you a moment, please? (to wait)
|
|
Mr Robber 10 pounds? (to change)
|
|
Susan ? (to swim)
|
|
they the guitar? (to play)
|
|
Tom his homework? (to do)
|
|
he this afternoom? (to come)
|
|
you the window, please? (to open)
|
|
we this out? (to work)
|
|
Negative Statements with can
Complete
the sentences. Use 'can' and the infinitive listen.
can - can't, present simple negative - English grammar
|
You can contract the negative: can + not = can't
(normal use)
|
|
|
Complete
the sentences. Use 'can' and the infinitive listen.
|
|
|
I the
piano.
|
|
|
You the
piano.
|
|
|
He the
piano.
|
|
|
She the
piano.
|
|
|
We the
piano.
|
|
|
You the
piano.
|
|
|
They the
piano.
|
Safety Workplace IV
Article #4
For a safer
workforce, use leading indicators to avoid lagging
October 29, 2012 by Langdon Dement Leave a Comment
Preliminary results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show work-related fatal injuries decreased from 4,690 in 2010 to 4,609 in 2011, while private industry employers reported nearly 3 million workplace injuries and illnesses for an incidence rate of 3.5 per 100 workers, unchanged from 2010. Although the numbers are trending in the right direction, there is still much room to grow and create an environment of total worker safety. As safety and health professionals, we strive for zero injuries and illnesses. This isn’t an easy task, but it should be our main objective. As a tool, lagging indicators have limitations. In the past, many EHS professionals looked at lagging indicators (i.e., past injury and illness rates) to manage future rates of injuries and illnesses. Now we are finally seeing a shift to the use of leading indicators in place of or in combination with lagging indicators. Future indicators give us a better chance of preventing injuries and illnesses. Leading indicators measure proactive efforts that can uncover weak spots in the system before they become larger complications. Where lagging indicators look at the demonstrated failure of a specific characteristic, leading indicators look to guide and create safer actions that will influence future performance. This is a key component to creating a safer workforce. Leading indicators allow you to: Observe, record and act on near-misses Use job hazard analyses to quantify risk Head off problems before they occur Create more meaningful inspections and audits, Become a safer employer/employee A culture that promotes safety and health first and foremost should be implemented from the top down. Every employee must feel accountable for safety and understand that is not just something for the “safety guy” to worry about or exclusively the employer’s responsibility. In this culture, everyone considers safety as a priority, and they follow-through because it’s the right thing to do, not just because they have to comply. Next, the employee/employer should review observations. These are your clues. It could be a near-miss (someone almost got hit by a forklift) or simply an unsafe behavior (someone not wearing safety glasses in a required area). Where are they losing employees to incidents? What types of injuries and illnesses are being accrued? Are many near-misses occurring? Questions like these are important when looking back at observations, because they are your best indicators of accidents that almost happened. Understanding and eliminating those is how you target the real threats and lower risk. Another way to create a safer work force is by providing proper safety training. It’s important to educate employees about potential safety hazards and teach them proper work techniques. At the end of the day, it
shouldn’t be about trying to get as much done as possible, but about getting as much done in the safest way possible. Most importantly, the message has to flow through the organization. A proper safety culture will make the greatest difference in a facility. Employees emulate managers who are truly devoted to having the best possible safety and health program. – UL gives safety professionals more of the tools they need to proactively address risks, reduce costs and keep people safe, healthy and on the job. Written by Langdon Dement Langdon Dement, AEP, GSP, is a Safety & Health Specialist with UL, focusing on industrial hygiene, patient handling ergonomics and Job Hazard Analysis. He holds a degree in Occupational Safety and Health (M.S.) from Murray State University and a degree in Biology from Harding University (B.S
Safety Workplace III
Article #3
Safety
perspectives: past, present, future
November 2, 2012 by Jonathan Jacobi Leave a Comment
This morning’s coffee came with a warning that the contents might be hot. I have seen this warning a thousand times, but it still makes me think just how different the world was when I was growing up: Seatbelts were considered uncomfortable and unnecessary; adults who wanted to wear them had to dig for them under the seats. In cars, kids rode anywhere they wanted, including on top of the rear window shelf or rolling around in the back of the family station wagon. School playgrounds were erected on asphalt and metal slides burned legs on hot summer days. There were no warning labels on hot drinks. Yet, somehow my generation survived. Fast forward to today: Airbags and anti-lock brakes are now standard features. Drivers can be cited if they are caught not wearing their seatbelts. Rubberized mulch is now the playground surface of choice. Playground equipment has been re-engineered to include kid-friendly plastic parts. Last, but not least, hot coffee comes with a warning label. Given these developments, I cannot help but wonder: Are ’Boomers and Gen Xers “tougher” and more able to navigate risk using street smarts gained through survival in inherently risky surroundings? Or are ’Boomers and Gen Xers more at risk because they have formed cavalier attitudes toward safety due to these childhood influences? i.e., “We did not need these protections then so why do we need them now?” I also wonder about more recent generations who have not faced the same unmitigated risks my generation faced when growing up. Does this affect how they view risk? Experience tells us that management systems play a role in shaping safety attitudes and culture. One would presume that generational differences also play a role. Given generational differences present in today’s workplace, it becomes increasingly important to leverage all the unique experiences, perspectives and attitudes each generation brings to the table. We accomplish this by making an effort to solicit input from all generational segments. – UL gives safety professionals more of the tools they need to proactively address risks, reduce costs and keep people safe, healthy and on the job. Written by Jonathan Jacobi Jonathan Jacobi is an Environment, Health and Safety Advisor with UL, specializing in workplace health and safety. He is a Certified Safety Professional (CSP), a Construction Health and Safety Technician (CHST) and
an OSHA Authorized Outreach Trainer with more than 20 years of safety leadership experience in the construction, automotive, paper, nuclear and semiconductor industries. You may also like - OSHA’s newest compliance officers – your employees For a safer workforce, use leading indicators to avoid lagging ASSE SAFETY 2012 observations
Safety Work Place II
Article #2
Simplifying fall protection rescue
While working as a senior training specialist with Capital Safety, I’ve observed a wide range of capability and proficiency at many worksites. While some companies have respectable fall protection programs, others need more guidance. I often find a better understanding is necessary in two critical areas: 1) emerging equipment technologies; and 2) elevated rescue. New regulations and increased regulatory focus make residential construction, in particular, one of the more challenged industries when it comes to these critical areas. In a Nov. 13 webinar with UL, I will discuss fall protection and rescue challenges related to the: impact of recent updates to ANSI/ASSE Z359 fall protection codes importance of ANSI/ASSE conformant rescue systems pros and cons of reliance on offsite rescue services training and equipment needed to facilitate rescue using onsite personnel safe use of site equipment (e.g., aerial lifts) to support rescue activities emerging equipment technologies with emphasis on residential construction challenges role of the fall protection “competent person” typical components of a fall protection rescue plan: assisted self-rescue, including suspension trauma safety straps and ladders self-rescue in which workers can climb or pull themselves to safety mechanical lifts rescue pick-off equipment (which is almost never used) Rescue and fall protection, in general, don’t have to be as difficult as they sound. Training and access to the right equipment go a long way toward making things easier. Tune into the upcoming webinar to learn more about these important issues. Written by Jim Hutter Jim has been a training specialist for over ten years. He has authored nearly 100 articles on fall protection and confined space, ranging from establishing a complete safety culture to starting a simple program. Jim has issued over 7,000 training certificates through the Capital Safety Training Institute, assisting safety professionals in meeting the requirements set forth by ANSI and OSHA. You may also like -
Fall protection: competent person training
Isaac & Katrina
Needlestick & sharps risks require constant vigilance
Simplifying fall protection rescue
November 7, 2012 by Jim Hutter
Leave a Comment
While working as a senior training specialist with Capital Safety, I’ve observed a wide range of capability and proficiency at many worksites. While some companies have respectable fall protection programs, others need more guidance. I often find a better understanding is necessary in two critical areas: 1) emerging equipment technologies; and 2) elevated rescue. New regulations and increased regulatory focus make residential construction, in particular, one of the more challenged industries when it comes to these critical areas. In a Nov. 13 webinar with UL, I will discuss fall protection and rescue challenges related to the: impact of recent updates to ANSI/ASSE Z359 fall protection codes importance of ANSI/ASSE conformant rescue systems pros and cons of reliance on offsite rescue services training and equipment needed to facilitate rescue using onsite personnel safe use of site equipment (e.g., aerial lifts) to support rescue activities emerging equipment technologies with emphasis on residential construction challenges role of the fall protection “competent person” typical components of a fall protection rescue plan: assisted self-rescue, including suspension trauma safety straps and ladders self-rescue in which workers can climb or pull themselves to safety mechanical lifts rescue pick-off equipment (which is almost never used) Rescue and fall protection, in general, don’t have to be as difficult as they sound. Training and access to the right equipment go a long way toward making things easier. Tune into the upcoming webinar to learn more about these important issues. Written by Jim Hutter Jim has been a training specialist for over ten years. He has authored nearly 100 articles on fall protection and confined space, ranging from establishing a complete safety culture to starting a simple program. Jim has issued over 7,000 training certificates through the Capital Safety Training Institute, assisting safety professionals in meeting the requirements set forth by ANSI and OSHA. You may also like -
Fall protection: competent person training
Isaac & Katrina
Needlestick & sharps risks require constant vigilance
Improve your listening Skills II
Watch the video again.
http://youtu.be/ssuiqtreiB
ghttp://youtu.be/ssuiqtreiBg
- What are minimal pairs and what makes them so difficult?
- What is recommended about:
- contractions?
- weak forms?
- phonetic links?
Improve Your Listening Skills I
Discuss in groups of three.
Answer the following questions then watch the video on improving your listening comprehension so as to change your personal situation:
- Is it hard to understand native speakers?
- Is it difficult to watch tv in English?
- Is it complicated to listen to the radio in English?
.jpg)
Improve your listening skills.
How well can you identify danger?
Identify some danger and comment on the way the problem has been solved.
http://youtu.be/a64y3Ih_s74http://youtu.be/a64y3Ih_s74
Are Cellphones not a safety device?
As you answer yourself this question, pay attention to each of the ten points argued about precautions we should consider while using a cellphone.
Read the article and in groups of three discuss your point of view towards the article.
Number and explain the points in which you
agree with and the ones in which you disagree and explain them to the group.
The Ten Precautions
of Cell Phone Use
Recommendations for cell phone use that
affects not just children but all users from theEnvironmental Health Trust:
Given the absence of definitive proof
in humans of the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields of cell phones,
we cannot speak about the necessity of preventative measures (as for tobacco or
asbestos). In anticipation of more definitive data covering prolonged periods
of observation, the existing data press us to share important prudent and
simple measures of precaution for cell phone users, as have been variously
suggested by several national and international reports.
These measures are also likely to be
important for people who are already suffering from cancer and who must avoid
any external influence that may contribute to disease progression.
1. Do not allow children to use a cell
phone except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the
most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to
electromagnetic fields.
2. While communicating using your cell
phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible. The
amplitude of the electromagnetic field is one fourth the strength at a distance
of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet. Whenever possible, use the
speaker-phone mode or a wireless Bluetooth headset, which has less than 1/100th
of the electromagnetic emission of a normal cell phone. Use of a headset
attachment may also reduce exposure.
3. Avoid using your cell phone in
places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone’s
electromagnetic fields.
4. Avoid carrying your cell phone on
your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under
the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it
on “flight” or “off-line” mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.
5. If you must carry your cell phone on
you, it is preferable that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the
back is positioned toward the outside of your body. Depending on the thickness
of the phone this may provide a minimal reduction of exposure.
6. Only use your cell
phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes as the
biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure. For longer
conversations, use a land line with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which
uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones.
7. Switch sides regularly while
communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting
your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This
limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the
duration of your exposure.
8. Avoid using your cell phone when the
signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this
automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to
connect to a new relay antenna.
9. When possible, communicate via text
messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the
proximity to the body.
10. Choose a device with the lowest SAR
possible (SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, which is a measure of the strength of
the magnetic field absorbed by the body). SAR ratings of contemporary phones by
different manufacturers are available by searching for “sar ratings cell
phones” on the internet.
CONCLUSION
The cell phone is a remarkable
invention and a breakthrough of great social importance. Our society will no
longer do without cell phones. None of the members on the expert committee has
stopped or intends to stop using cell telephones. This includes Dr. David
Servan-Schreiber, a 16 year survivor of brain cancer. However, we, the users,
must all take precautionary measures in view of recent scientific data on the
biological effects of cell phone use, especially those who already have cancer.
In addition, manufacturers and service
providers must also assume responsibility. It is their responsibility to
provide appliances and equipment with the lowest possible risk and to
constantly evolve their technology in this direction. They should also
encourage consumers to use their devices in a way that is most compatible with
preserving their health.
In the early 1980’s, the owners of
asbestos mines were reduced to bankruptcy as a result of lawsuits brought by
the families of deceased exposed workers. A few years later, a key executive of
Johns Manville, the most prominent company, drew lessons from the years of
struggle of his industry against medical data and the scientists who were
drawing attention to the risks of asbestos. He concluded with regret that
greater warnings for the public, the establishment of more effective
precautions, and more extensive medical research "could have saved lives,
and probably also shareholders, the industry, and the benefits of its product.”
We call on the cell phone companies to
provide independent access to records of use so that appropriate studies can be
carried out.
That is what we wish for today's cell
phone industry. We do not need to ban this technology, but to adapt it – to
harness it – so that it never becomes a major cause of illness.
INTERNATIONAL EXPERT COMMITTEE
* Bernard Asselain, MD, Chief of the
Cancer Biostatistics Service, Curie Institute, Paris, France
* Franco Berrino, MD, Director of the
Department of Preventative and Predictive Medicine of the National Cancer
Institute, Milan, Italy
* Thierry Bouillet, MD Oncologist,
Director of the Radiation Institute, Avicenne University Hospital Center
Avicenne, Bobigny, France
* David Carpenter, MD, Director
Institute for Health and the Environment, University of Albany, former Dean,
School of Public Health
* Christian Chenal, MD, Emeritus
Professor of Oncology, University of Rennes 1, France and former director of
the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) team “Radiation,
Environment, Adaptation”
* Pr Jan Willem Coebergh, Oncologist,
Department of Public Health, University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
* Yvan Coscas, MD Oncologist, Chief of
the Department of Radiotherapy, Hôpital de Poissy St Germain, France
* Pr Jean-Marc Cosset, Honorary Chief
of Oncology/Radiotherapy of the Curie Institute, Paris, France
* Pr Devra Lee Davis, Director, Center
for Environmental Oncology of University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, USA
* Michel Hery, MD Oncologist, Chief of
the Department of Radiotherapy, Princess Grace Hospital Center, Monaco
* Pr Ronald Herberman, Director of the
University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, USA
* Pr Lucien Israël, Emeritus Professor
of Oncology, University of Paris XIII, Member of the Institut de France
* Pr N. van Larebeke, MD, PhD, Study
Centre for Carcinogenesis and Primary Prevention of Cancer, Ghent University,
Belgium
* Jacques Marilleau, SUPELEC PhD,
former physicist at the ‘Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique’ and at CNRS Orsay,
France
* Jean-Loup Mouysset, MD Oncologist,
Polyclinique Rambot-Provençale, Aix-en-Provence, France
* Philippe Presles, MD, President of
the Institut Moncey for Prevention and Health, Paris, France - Author of «
PREVENIR », Editions Robert Laffont, 2006
* Pr Henri Pujol, PhD Oncologist,
former President of the National Federation Cancer Centers, France
* Joël de Rosnay, PhD, Former Assistant
Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA,
Scientific writer
* Simone Saez, PhD, former Director of
the Cancer Biology unit of the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Lyon, France
* Annie Sasco, MD, Doctor of Public
Health, Medical epidemiologist, Director of the Epidemiology Team for Cancer
Prevention – INSERM, University Victor Segalen, Bordeaux 2, France
* David Servan-Schreiber, MD, PhD,
Doctor of Science, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh,
Author of “ANTICANCER – A New Way of Life”, Viking
* Patrick Souvet, MD, Cardiologist,
President of the Association Santé Environnement Provence, Aix-en-Provence,
France
* Pr Dan Wartenberg, Chief, Division of
Environmental Epidemiology, UMDNJ Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
* Jacques Vilcoq, MD, Oncologist,
Clinique Hartmann, Neuilly-sur-seine, France
Taken from:
http://www.seniorwomen.com/news/index.php/the-ten-precautions-of-cell-phoneINTRODUCING SOME GENERAL PRECAUTIONS
In order to prevent accidents, every single tool, instruments, devices, electrical appliances and even toys are required to present a list of precautins for their customers.
Here is a list of ten imagenes, it´s your job to write some posible precautions for their safety use.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)