Unnecessary Asbestos Exposure

What absolutely blows my mind is how companies, employers, building owners, manufacturers (or whoever is in charge) negligently, and sometimes knowingly, expose their employees to harmful circumstances and think they will get away with it. Nevermind the morality and humanity that's missing in those situations, they are going to get heavily fined and be responsible for employee sickness or even death. All that trouble just to "save" a few dollars.

Train properly with Asbestos Safety Training from Wumbus Corporation!

Illinois Demolition Workers Say They Were Misled About Asbestos Dangers

Four Illinois demolition workers filed a lawsuit August 13 claiming the companies that hired them to dismantle a structure misled them about asbestos dangers, exposing them to risks for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related cancers.

Mesothelioma lawyers who have handled similar cases say this is a frequent foundation for asbestos lawsuits: workers exposed to the cancer-causing material after employers, building owners, or manufacturers assured them, erroneously or negligently, that no asbestos was present.

The suit, brought in Madison County Circuit Court, alleges that the defendants, Alter Trading Corp., Environmental Consultants, Midwest Asbestos Abatement Corporation (doing business as Midwest Service Group), Envirotech, and Talbert Industrial Commercial Services, had inspected the premises prior to the demolition work and promised workers that the structures had been cleared of all asbestos.

But that assessment was wrong, according to the men, all employees of Premier Demolition. They also contend that asbestos remained at the site in Quincy, causing the workers to become exposed to high levels of asbestos in the air.

Asbestos, long linked to diseases including lung cancer and mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of the protective lining covering many internal organs, is a particular concern in demolition and renovation work. If the material is disturbed, asbestos fibers can be released into the air and easily inhaled by workers and anyone else nearby.

Once inhaled, the plaintiffs’ complaint notes, asbestos fibers “then become lodged in the lung tissues [where] asbestos has been known to cause cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, pleural plaques, and other very serious health conditions in humans.”

The plaintiffs claim that their exposure to asbestos while demolishing the Quincy structure caused them to fear contracting such diseases, which can materialize years or even decades later.

Once diagnosed, a mesothelioma patient’s prognosis is usually grim. Researchers have yet to discover a cure or even a long-term treatment, though mesothelioma lawyers have fared better, often obtaining large jury awards and settlements against those who knew, or should have known, of asbestos dangers but failed to protect others.

In their 10-count complaint, the plaintiffs allege negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied warranty, battery, strict liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and negligent misrepresentation against the defendants. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants:

• Failed to take the appropriate measures to locate asbestos and asbestos-containing products at the site;

• Failed to ensure that all asbestos products had been removed from the building;

• Failed to ensure that the workers hired to abate asbestos at the site were licensed;

• Failed to take appropriate measures, such as wetting building surfaces, to minimize the amount of asbestos fibers that might become airborne.

The plaintiffs seek a judgment of more than $400,000, as well as compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages for mental and emotional distress, costs, and other relief that the court deems just.

Reposted from JusticeNewsFlash

A Day at the National Safety Council Congress and Expo

Yesterday, I walked up and down the many many aisles of the National Safety Council Congress and Expo at the San Diego Convention Center, browsing the seemingly endless amount of safety products and services. It took me six HOURS to get through the large expo floor and at the end of the day, I was EXHAUSTED.

I did learn a lot about new training products as well as new safety products. Training consisted of everything from face to face (using instructors), DVDs, interactive games and 3D videos. Amazing to see the amount of creativity that has been put into workplace safety training, which, I'll admit, can be pretty dry at times. I played an interactive-type trivia game from C3 Softworks, that can be combined with safety training videos, and it actually kept my attention. I didn't get to see the 3D video, but heard about it through the grapevine.

As for new safety products, the expo floor was inundated with fall protection, hearing protection, other PPE, among many many other products. A few things that caught my attention were SafEscape oxygen hoods from C Y Holding Company, Ltd. which allow for 60 minutes of breathable oxygen in a closed system hood, in which the oxygen is created and sustained through a chemical reaction. A oxygen system, made by the same company, was used in the recent Chilean mine collapse situation. Another interesting product was an alternative to steel toes for boots, a toecap by SH Composites Ltd, made of high strength, yet lightweight thermoplastic composite, which is nonmagnetic and thicker than steel and aluminum.

Although Wumbus Corporation wasn't an exhibitor, they have attention-grabbing safety training on a variety of workplace hazards and topics. Check it out!

Safety or Discrimination?

After being laid off from his previous mining job at LTV Steel Mining Co., James Edstrom applied for a job at Hibbing Taconite, another mining company. In his first year at LTV, Edstrom had a near-miss accident, but in the 8 years after that, he had no subsequent accidents. Edstrom was deaf in one ear and had no hearing in the other. When his wife inquired for a sign-language interpreter at his interview, Hibbing canceled the interview. Hibbing felt as if Edstrom's hearing disability would be a safety hazard to other workers, in addition to being a danger to Edstrom himself. Edstrom filed a lawsuit under the American Disability Act (ADA). Read the article below to see the outcome of the trial.

Company didn’t hire deaf man because of safety: Was it discrimination?

by Fred Hosier

A deaf man applied to a mining company for a job. It didn’t hire him, and the man filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Who won?

James Edstrom has a severe hearing impairment. Without a hearing aid, he can’t hear anything. He wears one in his left ear which allows him to hear sounds and some words. Edstrom doesn’t wear a hearing aid in his right ear because even with one, he can’t hear anything on that side.

He’d worked for nine years for LTV Steel Mining Co. During his first year at LTV, he was involved in a near-miss. Another employee operating a crane didn’t see Edstrom and almost collided with him. Edstrom was moved from working inside the mill to outside in the mining pit. He didn’t have any other incidents at LTV. He lost his job when the company closed.

LTV had accommodated Edstrom’s hearing limitation by allowing him to communicate through writing and hand signals.

Edstrom applied for five entry-level positions at Hibbing Taconite, another mining company. Three of the positions were in a plant and two were outdoors in a mining pit.

Hibbing scheduled an interview with Edstrom. His wife called the company to request a sign-language interpreter at the interview.

When Hibbing realized Edstrom was hearing impaired, it canceled the interview.

Edstrom filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Soon after the charge was filed, Edstrom had an interview with Hibbing.

At the interview, Edstrom said it would be unsafe for him to work in the plants. Hibbing didn’t ask how it could accommodate Edstrom’s hearing impairment other than inquiring how LTV had handled it.

The company’s interview team decided he couldn’t be hired.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit on Edstrom’s behalf.

Could he do the job safely with accommodations?

The question in Edstrom’s case came down to whether a reasonable accommodation would allow him to communicate at the job and not affect safety.

Hibbing asked the court to throw out the case.

The court refused to throw out the case, saying there was a genuine issue as to whether Edstrom could be reasonably accommodated for the mine pit positions at Hibbing since he had performed similar jobs at LTV. It also said it was better to leave the question to a jury.

At trial, Hibbing claimed that Edstrom admitted if he’d been hired he would have posted a threat to the safety of other workers.

A requirement that a person “not pose a direct threat to the health of safety of other individuals in the work place” is an acceptable legal defense to a charge of disability discrimination.

The jury deliberated less than two hours before finding that Hibbing didn’t discriminate against Edstrom.

Reposted from SafetyNewsAlert.

Another OSHA Citing for Chemical Exposure

OSHA doesn't joke around about hazardous workplace situations or violating health and safety regulations. Recently, OSHA has been cracking down on companies who knowingly violate OSHA regulations, putting their workers at risk for injury and even death. This specific violation was due to worker exposure to harmful chemicals, 1 willful violation and 12 other serious workplace safety violations.

Violations = $43,150*
Employee exposure to methylene chloride
Failure to:
-Provide emergency exits (free of obstruction and unlocked)
-Provide personal protective equipment
-Assess personal protective equipment
-Monitor for methylene chloride
-Conduct medical evaluations for respirators
-Provide eyewash
-Train employees on how to use fire extinguishers
-Establish a regulated area for employees exposed to methylene chloride
-Implement effective engineering controls
-Failure to properly record injuries and illnesses
-Provide a written respirator and hazard communications program
-Maintain required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical at the facility
-Ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals was properly identified and labeled

*Wouldn't a safety training program be cheaper? From Wumbus Corporation, yes!

US Labor Department's OSHA cites New Jersey clothing manufacturer
$43,150 for exposing workers to chemical and other workplace hazards

CAMDEN, N.J. - The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Miskeen Originals LLC for workplace safety and health violations, including employee exposure to methylene chloride. Proposed penalties total $43,150. Miskeen Originals LLC is a clothing manufacturer with 12 employees at the Camden location.

OSHA initiated an inspection after receiving an employee complaint alleging workplace safety and health hazards. As a result of the inspection, Miskeen was cited for one willful violation with a penalty of $28,000, 12 serious violations with a $15,150 penalty, and seven other-than-serious violations, which carry no penalty.

"Employees exposed to methylene chloride are at increased risk of developing cancer; adverse effects on the heart, central nervous system and liver; and skin or eye irritation," said Paula Dixon-Roderick, director of OSHA's area office in Marlton, N.J. "These hazards need to be corrected immediately to protect the safety and health of workers at the plant."

The willful violation was due to the company's failure to provide emergency exits free of obstruction and unlocked. A willful violation is one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employees' safety and health.

The serious violations include employee overexposure to methylene, failing to provide personal protective equipment, conduct a personal protective equipment assessment, evaluate respiratory hazards, properly monitor for methylene chloride, conduct medical evaluations for respirators, provide eyewash, train employees on how to use fire extinguishers, establish a regulated area for employees exposed to methylene chloride and implement effective engineering controls. An OSHA violation is serious if death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard an employer knew or should have known exists.

Some of the other-than-serious violations include failing to properly record injuries and illnesses, provide a written respirator and hazard communications program, maintain required material safety data sheets for each hazardous chemical at the facility, and failing to ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals was properly identified and labeled. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations to comply, meet with the OSHA area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Reposted from OSHA website.

Machine Guarding Accident, Man Takes Legal Action

PRLog (Press Release) – Sep 22, 2010 – An engineer has launched a legal action against his employers after an accident at work left his right hand severely damaged.

Gary Finnigan of Colchester was attempting to clear a blockage in an engineering machine whilst working for Amtek Aluminium Castings in November 2008.

While investigating a coolant leak, his right hand was severely crushed by a moving part in the machine, which he claims the company failed to inform him about.

47-year-old Gary lost his fingers and part of his thumb in the accident, and despite several reconstructive operations, his right hand is now “virtually useless”.

As a result of his injuries, Gary still suffers phantom pains and sensations from his missing fingers, and has severe difficulty carrying out everyday tasks.

According to a writ lodged at the High Court in London, it is alleged that Amtek were negligent in that they failed to warn Gary of the existence of a moving part in the machinery, and as such they failed to adequately train him to use the machine, and failed to take appropriate measures to protect him.

Gary is now suing Amtek for around £300,000 in a compensation claim for his injuries.

With the proper training, this accident could have been avoided. Comprehensive machine guarding safety training from Wumbus Corporation.

Women's Safety and Health Issues At Work

Women have been an integral part of the workforce since World War I, acting as a significant crutch to the workforce while many men were off fighting wars. The workforce has changed significantly in the last 50 years.

The percent of women in the workforce has increased from 34% in the 1950s to 60% today, while the percent of men in the workforce has actually decreased from 84% in the 1950s to 73% today.

Nowadays, women are pursuing their education and a career, putting off marriage and childbirth until later in life than women in the past. Additionally, more women are balancing their work life with being a mother.

Women face different workplace health challenges than men, partly because women and men have different jobs. Overall, women have more work-related cases of carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, respiratory disease, infectious and parasitic diseases and anxiety and stress disorders, compared to men. Other areas of concern are heavy workload demands, family balance issues and sexual harassment.


JOB AREAS

Agriculture - "In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 580,000 women were working in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. In agriculture alone, about 24% of farmers are women."¹

Construction - "In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 975,000 women were working in construction. NIOSH and its partners have done many studies to improve construction safety and health problems. Women working in construction may be concerned with musculoskeletal disorders, loud noise and hearing loss, fumes, and job stress."

Health Care - "In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated over 13 million women were working in health care and social assistance. In the U.S., 91% of the nurses and nursing aides are women.¹ Women working in health care may be worried about illnesses and injuries caused by long hours, shift changes, physical tasks, violence, and possible exposure to infectious diseases and hazardous chemicals."

Manufacturing - "Food, clothes, chemicals, furniture, oil and coal are just a few products processed by manufacturing workers. In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated over five million women were working in manufacturing - three million of these were production jobs. With the wide range of products processed, women working in manufacturing may be at risk for exposure to hazardous chemicals, physical demands, loud equipment, and long work hours."

Sales - "Women make up almost half of the workers in sales and management positions. In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 9.3 million women were working this industry. Women working in this industry may be concerned about work stress, workplace violence, musculoskeletal disorders, and long hours."

Services - "In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated over 29 million women were working in service jobs. This includes jobs such as finance, insurance, food service, education, entertainment, and public administration. In 2003, almost half of the job-related injuries and illnesses suffered by women happened in service jobs, yet only 20% of working women held these jobs.¹ Women working in service jobs may be concerned with musculoskeletal disorders, workplace violence and injuries from falls."

Transportation - "In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 1.7 million women were working in transportation, warehousing, and utilities, combined. Women working in transportation may be concerned about transportation accidents, injuries from falls, and respiratory illnesses."

Injuries and Illnesses
Bloodborne Diseases
Cancer
Ergonomics
Muscle and Bone Disorders
Heart Disease
Personal Protective Equipment (from lack of use)
Reproductive Health
Respiratory Disease
Serious Injury
Work Structure and Stress

Preventing the Risks and Hazards Associated with Winter Weather

Are You Prepared for the Upcoming Winter Months?



















Extra safety precautions are crucial for working in and around winter conditions. Hypothermia, slips and falls, risks from driving in bad weather and risks driving heavy equipment, such as snow plows, are all potential hazards that can be avoided with the proper attention and awareness.

Make sure that all of your employees are properly trained with the appropriate safety training for the situation!

Working Safely with Snow Plows and Other Snow Removal Vehicles

Working In Cold Weather

Driving Safely in the Hazards of Winter

Driving Safely in Winter Conditions

These winter safety training topics (and more!) are available from Wumbus Corporation!