"This publication provides an historical overview of research undertaken by the U.S. federal government over the last 100 years to improve the health and safety of our nation's miners. Federal research efforts began with the establishment of the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM, or the Bureau) in 1910. They have continued over the past century, even after the Bureau's closure in 1996. It is hoped that this publication will give the reader an appreciation for the work of mining health and safety researchers over the past century, and of the miners served by this research. Although not a comprehensive history, this report highlights the key organizational changes made within the Bureau and the federal government that affected mining safety and health research. Some mention is also made of Bureau research not directly related to mining health and safety. Note that the work classified as safety and health research has varied over the last century. For example, before 1970 the Bureau separated mining research and safety and health research. At that time, mining research included ground control and methane drainage because they had direct implications for mine safety. Explosives research was also reported separately from health and safety, even though permissible explosives research was obviously related to safety. Therefore, where budget figures from the Bureau are mentioned in this report, it is often not possible to separate safety and health research from other types of research. This history is generally chronological, with a few exceptions. Because of their prominence and direct links to Bureau research, most of the Public Health Service mining studies completed before 1970, when NIOSH was established, will be discussed in a single section, even though the work spanned many decades. Likewise, for convenience, the brief histories of the Bureau's mining research centers are located in one section." - NIOSHTIC-2 ; 1. Introduction -- 2. The Beginning: 1910-1925 -- 3. Hard Times and Maturation: 1925-1969 -- 4. Public Health Service Mining Studies -- 5. Expansion and Change: 1969-1996 -- 6. Consolidation and New Beginning: 1996-2010 -- 7. Conclusion: Lessons Learned -- 8. References -- Appendix A: Joseph A. Holmes Biography -- Appendix B: Directors of USBM and NIOSH ; by John A. Breslin. ; "February 2010." ; Also available via the World Wide Web. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 80-83).
Occupational safety and health (OSH) is a core element of the ILO's Decent Work Agenda. Despite hazardous working conditions in agriculture, unfortunately, OSH issues in agriculture are frequently ignored. This volume's contributions from Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nicaragua, and Pakistan as well as from various disciplines highlight: - the prevalent patriarchal norms and practices which expose women to more health risks; - the lack of training and education which leave smallholders and farm workers frequently unaware of the health hazards involved in handling machinery and pesticides; - the lack of protective gear and access to health services among smallholders; - the undermining of OSH standards by the competitive pressures of global supply chains on their participants; - the restriction of certifications' impact mostly to higher hygiene standards.
The aim of the article was to discuss the issues of legal regulation of health and safety in Ukraine. The aim of the research was achieved with the help of general and special methods of scientific knowledge. It was concluded that in the conditions of martial law, the legislative approach to the adoption of new laws, amendments and additions to existing laws should be carried out in accordance with international legal standards, concerning the provision of adequate guarantees for persons exercising the right to work. The analysis of the content of normative legal acts and draft laws led to the development of relevant proposals in connection with the fact that the concept of the profile of the law should reflect a holistic approach to occupational safety and health, with emphasis on measures to prevent occupational accidents; improvement of working conditions (increasing the employer's liability for violations of legislation in the specified area, imposing on employees the duty to take care of their own safety and the health of others, etc.).
"The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) is a partnership program to promote innovative research and improve workplace practices. Unveiled in 1996, NORA is a framework for guiding occupational safety and health research throughout the nation. NORA stakeholders collaborate to identify critical workplace issues in industry sectors. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) convened a number of these partners to develop the National Services Agenda which includes safety and health goals for Primary and Secondary Education. Groups such as school employees, school boards, professional organizations, and government agencies can build partnerships to implement these goals and help ensure that schools are safe for all employees as well as students."- NIOSHTIC-2 ; "December 2009." ; At head of title: "Services Sector: Occupational Safety and Health Priorities for the Second Decade of NORA." ; "The NORA Services Sector Council developed strategic goals for Education and Schools to address priority workplace safety and health issues. The Council will ensure progress and track accomplishments through 2016. The current priorities were established specifically for Public and Private Education at the Primary and Secondary levels. Partnerships are needed to achieve these goals so that work-related injury, illness, and death among school-based workers is reduced.:"- p. [2] ; Also available via the World Wide Web.
"Major technological advances in the last few years have increased our knowledge of the role that genetics has in occupational diseases and our understanding of genetic components and the interaction between genetics and environmental factors. The use of genetic information, along with all of the other factors that contribute to occupational morbidity and mortality, will play an increasing role in preventing occupational disease. However, the use of genetic information in occupational safety and health research and practice presents both promise and concerns [McCanlies et al. 2003; Kelada et al. 2003; Henry et al. 2002; Christiani et al. 2001; Schulte et al. 1999]. Use of genetic information raises medical, ethical, legal and social issues [Clayton 2003; Ward et al., 2002; McCunney 2002; Christiani et al 2001; Rothstein 2000a; Schulte et al. 1999; Lemmens 1997; Barrett et al. 1997, Van Damme et al. 1995; Gochfeld 1998; Omenn 1982]. The purpose of this report is to bring together the diverse literature and opinions on genetics in the workplace, to highlight important issues, and to provide some considerations for current and future practice. Occupational safety and health professionals and practitioners may have particular interest in this report as the understanding of gene-environment interactions at the mechanistic and population levels may result in improved prevention and control strategies. This report is divided into topic areas for ease of reading. Specifically, the role of genetic information in occupational disease is discussed in Chapter 2, followed in Chapter 3 by a presentation of how genetics is incorporated into occupational health research. Health records as a source of genetic information are discussed in Chapter 4. The report continues in Chapter 5 with a focus on genetic monitoring, followed in Chapter 6 by a theoretical discussion of genetic screening. The final chapter presents an overview of the most important aspects of this report, which are the ethical, social, and legal implications of genetics in the workplace. In addition, ethical issues specific to health records and genetic testing are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6, respectively. To assist our audience in finding additional sources of information or more in-depth discussion of the issues surrounding genetic information, a list of web sites is provided at the conclusion of this document. Role of Genetic Information in Occupational Disease: The role of genetic information in occupational disease is being explored. The framework for considering genetics in the exposure to disease paradigm arose from a National Academy of Sciences review on biomarkers [NRC 1987]. Biomarkers are measurements using biological tissues that give information about exposure, effect of exposure, or susceptibility. Evaluation of genetic damage can provide information about exposure or effect of exposure. However, the presence of a specific genetic biomarker will not itself result in an occupational disease; exposure to a workplace hazard is necessary. The presence of a disease risk biomarker in the absence of exposure may be innocuous. The study of biomarkers of genetic susceptibility in the context of workplace exposures can provide information about gene-environment interactions. One major emphasis of genetic research in occupational disease has been in the area of response variability. Extensive variability in the human response to workplace exposures has been observed. Genes can have multiple variations known as polymorphisms, which may contribute to some of this variability [Grassman et al. 1998]. Research has been conducted over the last approximately 30 years to identify the role of genetic polymorphisms in a wide range of occupational and environmental diseases, particularly those involving occupational carcinogens [Hornig 1988; Berg 1979]. The risk of biological effects or diseases attributable to an occupational exposure can be decreased, unchanged, or increased among individuals with certain genetic polymorphisms. Incorporating Genetics into Occupational Health Research: The main influence on genetic research with respect to occupational health is the large number of technological advances in molecular biology. Because of these new techniques, it is now feasible to evaluate the relationship of disease with individual genes and their variants or even with the whole genome. These technologies promise to set the stage for new discoveries in understanding mechanisms and the preclinical changes that might serve as early warnings of disease or increased risk [NRC 2007]. " ; (Cont'd) "They also present difficult challenges in terms of handling large data sets, understanding the normal range, standardizing technologies for comparison and interpretation, and communicating results [King and Sinha 2001; Wittes and Friedman 1999]. As our understanding of the role of specific genes and their variants increases, genetic tests are being developed to look at specific genotypes. One critical issue in genetics is the validity of such genetic tests. Much contemporary genetic research involves the collection of biological specimens (usually DNA in white blood cells) that are then tested either for changes (damage) to genetic material or for genetic polymorphisms. These genetic tests, while useful in occupational health research, are not ready for clinical use; in other words, they are not validated for clinical interpretation. Validation is a process by which a test's performance is measured both in the laboratory and in populations, resulting in the evaluation of the clinical utility or the risks and benefits of the test. Until clinically validated, the information from such tests may be meaningless with regard to an individual's health or risk. In contrast, genetic tests may be validated for assessing exposure or effect modification in research even if they have no clinical utility. Health Records: A Source of Genetic Information: Genetic tests are not the only source of genetic information in the workplace. Genetic information is kept in workers' personnel and workplace health records [Rothenberg et al. 1997]. This information is in the family history of diseases with known strong genetic etiologies as well as in the results of physical examinations and common laboratory tests. This type of information is reported routinely by workers or obtained by employers from workers' job applications, health questionnaires, health and life insurance applications, physicals, and workers' compensation proceedings [Anderlik and Rothstein 2001]. The line between what is and is not genetic information in health records is unclear. States have enacted legislation with widely varying definitions of what constitutes genetic information from an employee's health record. Questions concerning confidentiality, privacy and security remain as the handling of health records may be influenced by various federal and state regulations. Genetic Monitoring and Occupational Research and Health Practice: Genetic information can be a scientific tool to understand mechanisms and pathways in laboratory research and as independent or dependent variables in population research studies of workers. In occupational safety and health practice, genetic tests may be used in a variety of ways. As in other areas of health science, genetic information may be used in the differential diagnosis of disease, allowing clinicians to consider or exclude various diagnoses. Monitoring for the effects of exposure on genetic material, such as chromosomes, genes, and constituent deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), has been used to evaluate risks and potential health problems for more than 50 years, particularly those from ionizing radiation [Mendelsohn 1995; Langlois et al. 1987; Berg 1979]. Such monitoring is not unlike monitoring for metals in blood, solvents in breath, or dusts in lungs and presents less ethical concern than assessing heritable effects [Schulte and DeBord 2000]. Tests for genetic damage have been advocated as a way to prioritize exposed individuals for more thorough medical monitoring [Albertini 2001]. Genetic monitoring highlights the confusion that exists between individual and group risk assessment. Unlike other monitoring methods, the risks linked to cytogenetic changes are interpretable only for a group, not for an individual [Schulte 2007; Murray 1983; Lappe 1983]. Currently, no U.S. regulations exist that mandate genetic monitoring. Questions arise whether genetic monitoring indicates a potential health problem, an existing health problem, or compensable damage. More research is needed to understand the science before the individual's risk of disease can be interpreted from genetic monitoring results. However, genetic monitoring to determine exposure may be useful for the occupational health practitioner Theoretical Use of Genetic Screening and Occupational Health Practice: Genetic monitoring may have some application in occupational health practice, but perhaps the most controversial use of genetic information would be in making decisions about employment opportunities and health and life insurance coverage [Schill 2000; Bingham 1998; Van Damme et al. 1995; Murray 1983; Lappe 1983]. This would occur primarily as a result of genetic screening, in which a job (and insurance) applicant or a current worker might be asked to undergo genetic testing to determine if he or she has a certain genotype. However, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment [U.S. Congress 2008]. Genetic screening which was not strictly prohibited by the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is now prohibited. Under ADA an employer may not make medical inquiries about an applicant until a conditional offer has been extended. Once the offer has been tendered, an employer could have obtained medical, including genetic, information about a job applicant. ADA did not prohibit obtaining genetic information or genetic screening, nor did it prohibit an employer from requesting genetic testing once an applicant has been hired provided the testing is job related. and can be used for the purposes of job placement after a conditional job offer is made. Most criteria for genetic screening programs indicate that participation should be voluntary, with informed consent in place. Genetic screening for these purposes cannot be supported at this time because of the current lack of linkage of causation of a given genetic polymorphism with a given occupational disease and its implications with regard to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act of 1970) that the workplace be safe for all workers [OSHA 1980b]. Accurate genetic screening information may eventually be useful to workers considering employment options. Obtaining this information for the worker would become appropriate only after the screening tests have been validated regarding risk. Various ethical arguments have been advanced in the discussion of genetic screening, and a broad range of implications of genetic testing has been discussed in the literature and in this document, including the oversight of genetic testing laboratories. The Ethical, Social, and Legal Implications of Genetics in the Workplace: A concern about the use of genetic information in occupational safety and health is that the emphasis in maintaining a safe and healthful workplace could shift from controlling the environment to excluding the vulnerable worker. This would be counter to the spirit and the letter of the OSH Act of 1970 [OSHA 1980b]. Actions that attempt to depart from providing safe and healthful workplaces for all should not be supported. Nevertheless, understanding the role of genetic factors in occupational morbidity, mortality, and injury is important and could lead to further prevention and control efforts. However, occupational safety and health decision-makers, researchers, and practitioners may find that genetic factors do not contribute substantially to some occupational diseases. Environmental risk factors will probably always be more important for developing strategies for prevention and intervention in occupational disease and ultimately for the reduction of morbidity and mortality. The challenge is to identify and apply genetic information in ways that will improve occupational safety and health for workers. The use of genetic information in occupational safety and health research requires careful attention because of the real or perceived opportunities for the misuse of genetic information. Society in general and workers in particular have concerns that discrimination and lack of opportunity will result from the inappropriate use of genetic information [MacDonald and Williams-Jones 2002; Maltby 2000]. While only sparse or anecdotal information supports this contention, a wide range of workers, legislators, scientists, and public health researchers have concern that such discrimination could occur. Thus, GINA and other regulations were passed to prevent the potential misuse and abuse of genetic information in the workplace. Examples of safeguards include rules and practices for maintaining privacy and confidentiality, prohibition of discrimination, and support of a worker's right of self-determination (autonomy) with regard to genetic information. Many of these safeguards have been built into biomedical research in general, and occupational safety and health research in particular, through guidance given in the Nuremberg Code [1949], the Belmont Report [1979], and the Common Rule (45 CFR. 46) [DHHS 2005; CFR 2007], as well as in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) reports [1999], the ADA [1990], Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) [1996] and GINA in 2008 [U.S. Congress 2008]. ADA and HIPAA provided some safeguards against the potential misuse of genetic information in the workplace before GINA was signed and in 2000, Executive Order 13145 was signed that prohibits discrimination in federal employment based on genetic information [65 Fed. Reg. 6877 (2000)]. In summary, the use of genetic information in the workplace has the potential to affect every worker in the United States. This NIOSH document provides information on the scientific, legal, and ethical issues with regard to the use of genetics in occupational safety and health research and practice." - NIOSHTIC-2 ; Introduction -- The Role of genetic information in occupational disease -- Incorporating genetics into occupational health -- Research -- Health records: a source of genetic information -- Genetic monitoring: occuptional research and practice -- The Theoretical use of genetic screening and occupational health practice. -- The Ethical, social, and legal implications of genetics in the workplace ; "November 2009." ; Also available via the World Wide Web. as an Acrobat .pdf file (1.62 MB, 151 p.). ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 81-114) and index.
The increasing proportion of women in the workforce raises a range of gender-related questions about the different effects of work-related risks on men and women. Few studies have characterized gender differences across occupations and industries, although at this time, the gender sensitive approach is starting to acquire relevance in the field of human preventive medicine. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work has encouraged a policy of gender equality in all European member states. Italy has adopted European provisions with new specific legislation that integrates the previous laws and introduces the gender differences into the workplace. Despite the fact that gender equal legislation opportunities have been enacted in Italy, their application is delayed by some difficulties. This review examines some of these critical aspects.
Question: Are Public policies that contemplate intrasectorality capable of producing better results for society, public health and safety? Design: Descriptive study with data analysis from September 2014 to December 2015. Participants: Civil and Military Police of São Paulo State (western region of São Paulo City). Intervention: Analysis of criminal indicators of public health interest in the western region of São Paulo City during the period of applicability of intrasectorality as public health and safety policy. Outcome measures: analysis of the management model and record of reports interesting to public health. The first analysis was carried out in 3 police districts, later spreading to the entire western region of São Paulo City. Qualitative variables were based on the International Code of Diseases (ICD). The quantitative results obtained were extracted from the Criminal Intelligence System. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with a significance level of 95%. The software used was the bioestat 5.0 for windows. Results: There was a reduction of 4% to 44% in criminal indicators of public health interest. Conclusion: Intrasectorality was able to improve public health outcomes when used as public policy in police institutions, reducing the impact of violence on public health.
This code of practice is intended to raise awareness of the hazards and risks associated with agriculture and promote their effective management and control; to help prevent occupational accidents and diseases and improve the working environment in practice; to encourage governments, employers, workers and other stakeholders to cooperate to prevent accidents and diseases; and to promote more positive attitudes and behaviour towards occupational safety and health in agriculture throughout the sector.
Emergency personnel, like all workers, carry out their duties within an environment composed of a set of discrete elements. First, there is the emergency itself. Whether a forest fire in France, a tornado in the American Midwest, or a mining disaster in Russia, the emergency imposes certain exigencies upon the responders. Second, a social structure exists with specific social units, rules, and forms of association. An emergency response, therefore, takes place within a context of prescribed behaviors, expectations, and value judgments that are sometimes in conflict with each other. Third, there is a technology that must be understood in order to accomplish group goals. If the technology itself is implicated in the emergency, the entire emergency environment may be impacted. Clearly, a breakdown in any of these elements could result in worker injury and might heighten responder stress. This paper discusses how emergency workers not only get injured but may come to experience burn‐out, post‐traumatic stress syndrome, or impaired work and family relationships, even though their normal work setting (the emergency) is expected to be 'abnormal'. The authors suggest areas in each of the three environmental elements that deserve further inquiry.
