Mechanisation, vibration and the Indian workforce

Asian-Pacific NewsletterON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Volume 13, number 2, July 2006

Noise and vibration

30

Volume 13, number 2, July 2006Noise and vibration

Published by theFinnish Institute of Occupational HealthTopeliuksenkatu 41 a AFI-00250 Helsinki, Finland

Guest Editor-in-ChiefSuvi Lehtinen

Guest EditorInkeri Haataja

Linguistic EditorSheryl Hinkkanen

Layout of the cover pagesTuula Solasaari-Pekki

The Editorial Board is listed (as of22 May 2006) on the back page.

This publication enjoys copyright underProtocol 2 of the Universal CopyrightConvention. Nevertheless, short excerpts ofthe articles may be reproduced withoutauthorization, on condition that the sourceis indicated. For rights of reproduction ortranslation, application should be made tothe Finnish Institute of OccupationalHealth, Office of Information and Interna-tional Affairs, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, FI-00250 Helsinki, Finland.

The electronic version of the Asian-Pacific Newsletter on Occupational Healthand Safety on the Internet can be accessedat the following address:http://www.occuphealth.fi/Asian-PacificNewsletter

The issue 3/2006 of the Asian-Pacific News-letter deals with ergonomics.

Photograph on the cover page:© International Labour Organisation/

J. Maillard

Printed publication:ISSN 1237-0843On-line publication:ISSN 1458-5944

© Finnish Institute of OccupationalHealth, 2006

Asian-PacificNewsletter onOccupationalHealth and Safety

Contents

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contribu-tions rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsementby the International Labour Office, the World Health Organization or the FinnishInstitute of Occupational Health of the opinios expressed in them.

Editorial 31Jukka Starck

Noise-induced hearing loss and compliance with 33the hearing conservation programme in MalaysiaNoor Hassim Ismail, Anza Elias

Communication and noise 35Erkko Airo

Mechanization, vibration and the Indian workforce 38B. B. Mandal, A. K. Srivastava

Way of building safety culture at workplaces for 41Vietnamese workersLe Van Trinh

ICOH2006: 43Centennial celebrations, scientific new knowledgeand much exchange of practical informationSuvi Lehtinen

ICOH2006: Observations on the ICOH sessions 45dealing with noiseJukka Starck

Bhopal revisited – the tragedy of lessons ignored 46Annie Rice

The Bhopal disaster 1984 – working conditions 48and the role of the trade unionsIngrid Eckerman

The Global Network of WHO Collaborating 50Centres in Occupational Health:Work Plan 2006–2010 approvedSuvi Lehtinen

Congresses 51

31 Asian-Pacific Newslett on Occup Health and Safety 2006;13:31–32

n Europe, around 50 million subjects areexposed to hazardous levels of environmen-tal noise, with a risk of noise-induced hear-

ing loss (NIHL) and tinnitus. The economicallosses are also substantial, and can be dividedinto direct and indirect costs. Direct costs arerelatively easy to estimate and mainly consistof the medical examinations, compensationsdue to occupational diseases and hearing pro-tectors. Indirect costs on the other hand aremuch more difficult to estimate. Nevertheless,it is quite clear that noise affects production,causing quality problems and absences fromwork. Hearing handicaps cause social isolationat work and in family life and increase unem-ployment. It is estimated that indirect costs areat least 10 times higher than direct costs. Inmany countries NIHL remains one of the lead-ing health-related problems.

In addition, approximately double thisnumber of workers is exposed to disturbingnoise, decreasing productivity and causing com-munication difficulties.

In the European community, protectionagainst noise is controlled by Frame Directive 86/188/EEC and by a new individual noise Directive2003/10/EC. The new directive fixes the daily noise exposure levels and peak sound pressures forexposure limit values and exposure action values:a) Exposure limit values: L

EX,8h=87 dB(A) and P

peak=200 Pa, respectively

b) Upper exposure action values: LEX,8h

=85 dB(A) and Ppeak

= 140 Pa, respectivelyc) Lower action values: L

EX,8h=80 dB(A) and P

peak=112 Pa, respectively.

When applying the exposure limit values, the determination of the worker’s effective exposuremust take account of the attenuation provided by the individual hearing protectors (HPDs) wornby the worker. Exposure action values on the other hand do not take account of the effect of anysuch protection.

In risk assessment, the following factors must be included: a) exposure to impulse noise,b) combined effects from the interactions between noise and ototoxic substances and betweennoise and vibrations, c) any effects on the health and safety of workers belonging to particularlysensitive groups. When the noise exposure level exceeds the lower exposure action values, the employermust make HPDs available to workers and in the case that the noise exposure level matches orexceeds the upper action values, HPDs must be used. HPDs shall be selected to eliminate the riskto hearing loss or at least to reduce the risk to a minimum. However, the Directive does not definethe contents of the actions needed nor how the actions should be organized.

The new noise Directive has to be harmonized with the national legislation by 2006 at the latest.Its implementation into practice will be a challenge for research institutes, administrative organiza-tions and their national and European co-operation. A tool for workplaces and occupational healthcentres for this purpose could be a database that includes all environmental and health-related factorsthat may be involved in the development of NIHL. The creation of such a database requires a greatdeal of validated data on the effects of various risk factors both separately and in combination witheach other. At present much more research and knowledge is needed on factors behind NIHL. Inorder to get epidemiologically reliable study material, research institutes are now networking.

Challenges forNoise Control Programmes

I

32Asian-Pacific Newslett on Occup Health and Safety 2006;13:31–32

As shown above, the level, type and duration of exposure, including any exposure to impulsenoise, have to be included in risk assessment. In addition, the employer must pay special attentionto the availability of hearing protectors with adequate attenuation characteristics and also considerthe risks caused by the use of HPDs. The last requirement is included in the noise Directive eventhough there are only few studies completed to quantify the increased risk for accidents in noisyenvironments. Some evidence however, does exist. Among shipyard workers the risk of noise andhearing loss together accounted for 43% of the injuries according to a case-control study. Hearingloss greater than 20 decibels, and noise exposure greater than 83 decibels were found to be safetyhazards. In Finland some fatal accidents have been reported among railroad workers wearing radioequipped HPDs whose confused senses have not warned of an approaching train.

As a summary on the tasks and challenges of risk assessment we may conclude the following:1. The main responses due to exposure to noise are NIHL and also increased risk of accidents.2. In dose evaluations we must consider exposure to ototoxic chemicals and vibration in addition

to the noise level and its physical characteristics.3. In order to identify workers with special sensitivity to noise, we have to evaluate blood pressure,

serum cholesterol, smoking habits and use of ototoxic drugs. The presence of these risk factorssimultaneously may explain increased sensitivity to NIHL.

4. In the case that occupational health care personnel has good cause to suspect a risk of NIHL, allexposure evaluations and risk assessments have to be re-evaluated. This will require fast reactionson the part of health care professionals.The number of parameters is too numerous to have a simple comprehensive model for risk

assessment purposes. Some trials already exist that provide a data base to collect the relevant data,such as, for instance NoiseScan. Its present version 4.0 can be used to encourage workplaces to takeon technical controlling measures as it shows the effect of reduced noise exposure levels on thedevelopment of hearing loss.

Noise control and the continuous development of a better sound environment is a leading prin-ciple in the European safety strategy. This means that demands for controlling measures for hearingprotection purposes are only the first target that should be enhanced to meet the requirements forgood communication and a comfortable environment at workplaces. These topics are sure to receivemore attention in future research programmes.

Jukka StarckSenior AdviserWork Environment DevelopmentFinnish Institute of Occupational Health

[email protected]


IntroductionNoise is one of the more widely and fre-quently experienced problems of theindustrial work environment. Occupa-tional noise problems occur in manyindustries; for example, the textile, metaland chemical industries. These prob-lems occur as consequences of develop-ment and industrialization. Noise-in-duced hearing loss usually progressesunnoticed until it begins to interferewith communication, posing a serioussafety hazard and a decrease in the qual-ity of life.

Studies in MalaysiaIn Malaysia, noise exposure in the work-place is legislated under the Factoriesand Machinery Act (Noise Exposure)Regulations 1989, and the Occupation-al and Safety Health Act 1994. Theseregulations make it mandatory to meas-ure, assess and control noise levels andworkers’ exposure to noise. The permis-

sible exposure level for continuous ex-posure during an eight-hour workingday is 90 dB(A); for impulse noise it is140 dB(A) and the action level is 85dB(A). (1)

There are various studies on occu-pational hearing loss in Malaysia. Theresults of the Hearing ImpairmentSurvey in Local Industries, which in-volved 45,974 workers sampled from302 factories in 1990, confirmed that26.9% of industrial employees had ahearing threshold at 3000 Hz to 6000Hz that was higher than normal, and21.9% of workers already had detect-able hearing impairment. Only 51.2%of workers had normal hearing. Thissurvey revealed that all industrial sec-tors had confirmed risks of permanenthearing damage. The textile industrywas found to have the highest risk(60% of workers), followed by thebasic metal industry, the chemicalproducts industry, the beverage indus-

try, and the nonmetallic mineral prod-uct industry (2).

Noor Hassim and Rampal foundthat quarry workers were exposed 2.0to 7.0 times the permissible dose (per-missible dose = 1.0 per day) (3). Maisa-rah and Said (4) studied the prevalenceof hearing loss and the use of hearingprotection devices among factoryworkers exposed to noise. There were542 subjects, 442 of them were ex-posed to a noise level of ≥ 90 dB where-as 82 subjects were working in quietareas. All workers who were exposedto noise were given hearing protectiondevices. The study revealed that thehearing loss among workers who wereexposed to noise was 83% and that ofthe unexposed group was 31.7%. Theresearchers also found that only 4.1%of the workers wore the hearing pro-tective devices all the time at work,64% never wore them and the remain-ing only wore them once.

Noise-induced hearing loss and compliance withthe hearing conservation programme in Malaysia

Elements ComplianceYes Non (%) n (%)

1. Safety and Health Policy 164 (98.2) 3 (1.8)

2. Personal Monitoring 127 (76.0) 40 (24.0)

3. Provision of hearing protection devices 155 (92.8) 12 (7.2)

4. Training and Education Programme 130 (77.8) 37 (12.2)- Training at least twice a year 104 (80.0) 26 (20.0)- Education about the effects of noise 118 (90.8) 12 (9.2)- Education about the importance of HPD and correct techniques 122 (93.8) 8 (6.2)

5. Audiometry tests 124 (74.3) 43 (25.7)- Free from noise for 14 hours before test 104 (83.9) 20 (16.1)- Test of new workers at high risk workplaces 59 (47.60 65 (52.4)- Scheduled audiometry 80 (64.5) 44 (35.50- Assessment and treatment for NIHL 78 (62.9) 46 (37.1)- Repeat test for TSTS 52 (41.9) 72 (58.1)- Education on the importance of HPD to those with TSTS 88 (71.0) 36 (29.0)

6. Noise control 102 (61.1) 65 (38.9)- Engineering control and reduction of the duration of exposure 55 (53.9) 48 (46.6)- Engineering control only 39 (38.2)- Reduction of the duration of exposure only 8 (7.8)

7. Record keeping 114 (68.4) 53 (31.7)- Having a person in charge 111 (97.4) 3 (2.6)- Keep records 5 years after employees stop working 109 (95.6) 5 (94.4)

HPD – Hearing protection device; NIHL – Noise induced hearing loss; TSTS – Temporary standard threshold shift

Table 1. Compliance with elements of the hearing conservation programme

Noor Hassim Ismail, Anza Elias, Malaysia

34

OwnershipComply Partially comply(n=69) (n=98)

6* 5* 4* 3* 2* 1*(n=35) (n=15) (n=22) (n=11) (n=11) (n=4)

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Europe 7 (58.3) 1 (8.3) 2 (16.6) 1 (8.3) 1 (8.3)- -(n=12)

America 8 (80.0) 1 (10.0) - 1 (10.0) - - -(n=10)

Australia 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 1(33.3) - - - -(n=3)

Malaysia 36 (35.5) 22 (21.6) 10 (25.0) 14 (13.7) 7 (6.9) 9 (8.8) 4 (4.4)(n=102)

Asia+ 17 (42.5) 10 (25.0) 2 (5.0) 6 (15.0) 3 (7.5) 2 (5.0) -(n=40)

Indonesia - 1 (50.0) - - - 1 (50.0) -(n=2)India 1 (100) - - - - - -(n=1)Japan 9 (39.1) 7 (30.4) 1 (4.3) 4 (17.4) 2 (8.7) - -(n=23)Korea 3 (50.0) 1 (16.7) 1 (16.7) 1 (16.7) - - -(n=6)Lebanon 1 (100) - - - - - -(n=1)Singapore 3 (75.0) - - - - - -(n=4)Taiwan - - - - 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 1(33.3)

* Elements of the hearing conservation programme, + Excluding Malaysia

Table 2. Relationship between compliance to hearing protection programme and status of ownership

Asian-Pacific Newslett on Occup Health and Safety 2006;13:33–34

Compliance with thehearing conservationprogramme in MalaysiaThe objective of the hearing conserva-tion programme is to protect workersand to prevent any hearing loss due toexposure to noise at workplace. All in-dustries in Malaysia where workers areexposed to a noise level at or above 85dB(A) for 8 hours should be includedunder the hearing conservation pro-gramme. The elements of the hearingconservation programme under thenoise regulations (1) are as follows:a. Policy on the hearing conservation

programmeb. Noise surveyc. Noise controld. Education and traininge. Audiometry testingf. Provision of hearing protective de-

vicesg. Record keeping on all the above ac-

tivities.A cross-sectional study by Nor Sale-

ha (5) involving 167 industrial enter-prises was conducted to determine theindustries’ compliance with the hearingconservation programme and the asso-

ciation between compliance and theprevalence of hearing impairment andstandard threshold shift. It was foundthat 42.3% of these industrial enterpris-es complied with the programme. Thepercentage of compliance with safetyand health policy was the highest(98.2%), followed by the provision ofhearing protection devices. The lowestcompliance percentage was for noisecontrol (61.7%). (Table 1)

There were significant associations(p < 0.05) between compliance and to-tal workers, status of ownership, andhaving an officer in charge of the com-pany’s hearing conservation pro-gramme. Table 2 shows the relationshipbetween compliance with the hearingprotection programme and the status ofownership of the industrial enterprises.

SummaryNoise is one the hazards faced by work-ers. Even though noise has been shownto occur in the workplace, there are stepsthat the authorities and parties respon-sible can take to mitigate its impact. Thelevel of compliance with the hearingconservation programme among em-

ployers in local industrial enterprises isstill not up to the standard of compa-nies in European countries. Small andmedium-sized enterprises are less com-pliant with the Programme than biggercompanies. This is a very importantpiece of information and should spurthe enforcement agency to react.

References

1. Malaysian Government. Factories and MachineryRegulations (Noise exposure) 1989. In Factories andMachinery Act 1967 & Regulations 1989;349–63.Kuala Lumpur: ILBS.

2. Department of Occupational Safety and Health ofMalaysia (Previously named Factories and Machin-ery Department) Report, Ministry of Labour Ma-laysia 1991.

3. Noor Hassim I, Rampal KG. Noise at quarry. Pro-ceeding on 2nd workshop IRPA 1991–1992, UKM:1993;703–6.

4. Maisara SZ, Said H. The noise exposed factory work-ers: the prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss andtheir use of hearing protection devices. The MedicalJournal of Malaysia 1993;48(3):280–92.

5. Nor Saleha IT. Compliance on hearing conservationprotection programme in industries in Negeri Sem-bilan. Masters thesis 2004. National University ofMalaysia, 2004.

Dr. Noor Hassim IsmailDr. Anza Elias, Department ofCommunity Health, UKMKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected]


IntroductionThe tasks and nature of work havechanged during the last century in manyways. One of these ongoing changes hasbeen the growing significance of speechcommunication at work. During the20th century the amount of purelyphysical work reduced, while theamount and importance of informationwork grew. (1) The increasing amountof speech communication, speaking,and its importance at work has raisednew concerns that occupational hygi-enists and health care professionals needto address.

Workplace acoustics and employers’actions on noise reduction have not al-ways developed at the same pace as theimportance of verbal communication:need to speak and need to hear speechin less than ideal conditions is commonat workplaces. In some professions thisdevelopment seems to have led to agrowing number of voice disorders,while in other cases modern communi-cation equipment has been taken intouse. Communication technology hassolved some problems, but there arequestions related to these devices thatrequire answers.

In addition to changing traditionalwork environments, the development ofinformation and communication tech-nology has created new kinds of acous-tical environments where the commu-nication sound itself is the source ofdisturbance or even noise exposure. Forexample, thousands of people in Fin-land and millions worldwide work incall-centres and open-plan offices, andcellular phones are used at work andoutside work – most of us are exposedto communication and entertainment,or media noise, in most places and at allages.

Speech intensive work inlow noise environmentTeachers’ work in schools and day carecentres is communication intensive –even so that one’s voice can be charac-terized as his or her most important tool.

The majority of the day care centreteachers speak 30–50% of their work-ing time, and more than 40% of thattime with raised or loud voice (2). Sim-ilar findings have been made in othereducational professions (3–5).

In the typical sense of the word, daycare centres and schools are not noisyworkplaces. The measured noise expo-sure levels of day care centre teachershave been moderate, around 75 dB, andthe risk of hearing loss is therefore notsubstantial (2, 6). Nevertheless, the re-ported sound levels from 65 to 80 dBare high, when considered as back-ground noise levels for speech commu-nication (2, 7). Speaking, as well asspeech reception, is disturbed in suchconditions.

Noise and excessive reverberation arein the top three of the perceived prob-lems in the work environment amongthe day care centre teachers. Back-ground noise and reverberation are notanalogous, but they are related. Improv-

ing the room acoustics or reducing thereverberation by adding absorption willalso lower the background noise level.The optimal amount of absorptionmaterial in a classroom equals the ceil-ing area, and it should be placed onmore than one surface of the room. It ispossible to achieve measurable and sub-jectively perceivable improvements withacoustical treatment: reduced reverber-ation and, according to the user com-ments, rooms where speaking is easierthan before. (2, 8)

Even though long speaking time andhigh speech level – which in turn is re-lated to background noise and pooracoustics – seem to be significant riskfactors of vocal disorders, it is impor-tant to notice that they are not the onlycauses, and the improvement of speak-ing environment by technical measuresis not enough. Vocal hygiene educationand speech therapy have also been foundto improve the voice quality and to re-duce the frequency of vocal symptoms(9–12).

Communication and noiseErkko Airo, Finland

Figure 1. Change in the relative amount of physical work and communication intensiveinformation work during the 20th century.


Communication in noisyenvironmentsSometimes speech communication isnecessary in workplaces where highbackground noise seriously degrades thespeech recognition or causes noise ex-posure. Achieving required communi-cation quality and appropriate hearingprotection at the same time is the mainchallenge in such conditions. Varioustechnical solutions are available: hear-ing protectors with communicationscapability, intercom systems with insertearphones or headphones, and all theseas wired and wireless versions. Findingthe right solution may be as simple aschoosing a suitable hearing protector,but usually several factors are to be con-sidered: the nature of work, noise typeand level at the workplace, user mobil-ity and comfort, as well as integrationwith possibly existing hearing protec-tion or communication system need tobe taken into account.

The simple solution case could be,for example, an industrial workplacewhere the verbal communication isneeded but it is not an integral part ofthe work, and those communicating areclose to each other. European standardEN 458 includes a guideline on appro-priate hearing protection level (Table 2).A protected ear canal sound level ofgreater than 85 dB leads to risk of hear-ing loss, and a level of less than 70 dBleads to a sense of isolation and barscommunication. The majority of noiseexposures in industry are less than 95dB, which means that, according to thegiven recommendation, the most effec-tive hearing protectors are too effectivein most cases. This situation is calledoverprotection, and addressing theproblem, a few manufacturers have in-troduced hearing protection productsdesigned to allow some high frequencysound through, which provides less at-tenuation and more natural sound per-ception, as well as ease of communica-tion. These hearing protectors typicallyprovide effective noise reduction of 15–20 dB, which is sufficient for mostworkplace noise environments.

If more attenuation is actually need-ed, or higher level of speech recogni-tion and long distance communicationrequired, communications radio hear-ing protectors that can be used as pairsor as groups, and full-scale intercomsystems may be applicable solutions.

Radio and television broadcast pro-duction work is an example of a com-plex combination of communicationneeds and high level noise. In a recentstudy, the noise exposure of the produc-tion personnel and the communicationsand hearing protection devices they usewere evaluated (13).

The production teams and theirtechnical staff are exposed to a widerange of noise levels during live produc-tions like concerts and sports events.While the average noise exposure levelsare around 80–85 dB, the equivalentsound level at some work positions dur-ing an event may be as high as 100 dB.An intercom system is used for com-munication, and their work perform-ance is highly dependent on the systemand its functionality. The communica-tions headsets are usually either head-phones or modified hearing protectors(earmuffs). Communication volumelevel is user adjustable and electroniclevel limiters are not typically in use.Therefore, the communication is a po-tential source of additional exposure.

The effect of the communication onthe noise exposure was studied by meas-

uring the actual sound pressure level atthe entrance of the ear using a meas-urement method called Microphone InReal Ear, or MIRE technique (ISO11904–1:2003). In this case the meas-ured sound level is a combination of theexternal sound level attenuated by theheadset and the communication sound.

The measured in-ear communica-tion volume levels against ambient noiselevel for both types of headsets areshown in figure 2 and table 3. The earcanal sound pressure levels, and calcu-lated noise exposure levels, were typi-cally higher when earphones were usedthan in case of earmuffs–even when theoutside sound levels were approximate-ly equal. Logically, earmuffs were usedmore often in events with high noiselevels, and headphones were rarely usedwhen the external noise level was above90 dB. The average daily noise expo-sure levels of both types of headset wereless than 85 dB, but there were exceed-ing values among both earmuff andheadphone users: the noise exposure lev-el of two earmuff users and seven head-phone users (total n=48) were above thelimit.

Table 1. Prevalence of functional and organic voice disorders among day care centrepersonnel (n=262).

Type of voice disorder Prevalence (%)

Functional 21Organic 29 - laryngitis 19 - nodules 6 - minor changes 10

Table 2. Appropriate hearing protector attenuation according to EN458.

Sound level inside Protector attenuation levelhearing protector (dB)

> 85 Insufficient80–85 Acceptable75–80 Optimal70–75 Acceptable

<70 Overprotection

Headset LEP,d,MIRE

range LEP,d,ext

nearmuff 73 53–92 85 29headphone 81 64–96 83 19all 76 53–96 84 48

Table 3. Communications headset type and average daily personal sound expo-sure levels calculated from ambient noise level (L

EP,d,ext) and communication sound

level (LEP,d,MIRE

).


In this case the choice of headsettype was made at the beginning of eachwork session. While it seems that, atmost times the experienced profession-als were able to choose the right kind ofheadset, the number of too high soundexposure levels among headphone us-ers indicates that misjudgements werealso made. Thus, non-attenuating head-sets should only be used in definitelyquiet work environments, and if such apossibility to select the protection levelis necessary, proper information abouteach work situation’s noise level mustbe made available.

Effective communications hearingprotectors provide enough attenuationto ensure sufficient margin for properspeech recognition in presence of highnoise levels. Approved communicationshearing protectors also have an electron-ic level limiter to keep the noise expo-sure from communication signal at ac-ceptable level. In the most extreme noiseconditions double protection may benecessary, which will typically requirecustom solutions, as products with com-munications capabilities may not bereadily available. Another case wherecustom solutions are probably neededis integration of new communicationsdevices, existing intercom systems andhearing protection.

Modern work–new kind ofexposure

Call centres are modern workplaceswith special challenges related to roomacoustics and extensive use of commu-nication devices. In a way, they are acombination of the previous examples:work is communication intensive andheadphones are used for communica-tion. The environmental noise level isusually low, the main source of ambi-ent background noise being distractingspeech from other desks or worksta-tions.

Call centre operators have been re-ported to suffer from several ailmentsand problems: acoustical fatigue, hyper-acusis (collapsed tolerance to soundstimuli), tinnitus, vocal disorders,acoustic shock symptoms due to highlevel transient signals, and, at times highnoise exposure (14–18). The prevalenceof the problems and their inter-relationsare yet not confirmed, and further re-search is necessary.

References

1. Ruben RJ. Redefining the survival of the fittest: com-munication disorders in the 21st century. Laryngo-scope, 2000;110:241–5.

2. Sala E, Airo E, Olkinuora P, Simberg S, Ström U,Laine A, Pentti J, and Suonpää J. Vocal loading amongday care center teachers. Log Phon Vocol2002;27:21–8.

3. Buekers R, Biernes E, Kingma H, Marres EHMA.Vocal load as measured by the voice accumulator.Folia Phoniatr Logop 1995;47:252–61.

4. Ohlsson A-C, Brink o, Löfqvist A. A voice accumu-lator – validation and application. J Speech Hear Res1989;32:451–7.

5. Masuda T, Ikeda Y, Manako H, Komiyama S. Anal-ysis of vocal abuse: fluctuations in phonation timeand intensity in 4 groups of speakers. Acta Otolaryn-gol 1993;113:547–52.

6. Sala E, Laine A, Airo E, Olkinuora P. Päiväkotienääniergonomiaselvitys: päiväkotien kasvatushenkilöi-den äänihäiriöt ja niiden työperäiset taustatekijät.Turun yliopistollinen keskussairaala, 2000; Turku.

7. Truchon-Gagnon C, Hetu R. Noise in day-care cent-ers for children. J Noise Control Eng 1988;30:57–64.

8. Pekkarinen E, Viljanen V. Acoustic conditions forspeech communication classrooms. Scand Audiol1991;20:257–63.

9. Carding PN, Irmgarde A, Docherty GJ. A study ofthe effectiveness of voice therapy in the treatment of45 patients with nonorganic dysphonia. J Voice1999;13:72–104.

10. Chan RWK. Does the voice improve with vocal hy-giene education? A study of some instrumental voicemeasures in a group of kindergarten teachers. J Voice1994;8:279–91.

11. MacKenzie K, Millar A, Wilson JA, Sellars C, DearyIJ. Is voice therapy an effective treatment for dys-phonia? A randomised controlled trial. Br Med J2001;323:658–61.

12. Roy N, Gray S, Simon M, Dove H, Corbin-LewisK, Stemple JC. An evaluation of the effects of twotreatment approaches for teachers with voice disor-ders: a prospective randomized clinical trial. J SpeechLang Hear Res 2001;44:286–96.

13. Airo E, Olkinuora P, Toppila E, Järvinen A, Savo-lainen A. Noise Exposure of Broadcast ProductionPersonnel. Papers of the BNAM 2004 CD-ROM,Acoustical Society of Finland, Helsinki 2004. (Alsoavailable at: http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/asf/bnam04/webprosari/papers/o42.pdf )

14. Chiusano SV, Lees PSJ, Breysse PN. An OccupationalNoise Exposure Assessment for Headset-WearingCommunication Workers. Applied Occupational &Environmental Hygiene 1995;10:476–81.

15. Dajani H, Kunov H, Seshagiri B. Real-time Methodfor the measurement of noise exposure from com-munication headsets. Applied Acoustics1996;49:209–24.

16. Darlington P. Noise Dose and Acoustic Shock fromHeadsets, paper presented at the AES 114th Con-vention, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2003. (http://www.appledynamics.com/White%20Papers/15.6.2005)

17. Hinke K, Braske K. Tinnitus og pludselig uventetimpulsstøj hos telefonister på et telecenter. 50 Nor-diska Arbetsmiljömötet 30 augusti – 1 september2004, Reykjavik, Island.

18. Health and Safety Executive. Noise – Acoustic Shock,ht tp : / /www.hse .gov.uk/noi se /acoust ic .htm(16.6.2005)

Erkko AiroFinnish Institute of OccupationalHealthHelsinki, Finland


Figure 2. Relation of ambient sound pressure level (LAeq) and ear canal sound levelinside the headset of communications headphones (red) earmuff (green) users.


Economy andmechanizationThe overall growth index of industrialproduction in India during April–Oc-tober 2005 was 8.4 percent (1). Thedriving forces behind this are the avail-ability of technology and an opening ofglobal markets. Despite the buoyancyin the economy, the Indian workforceremains in a stage of transition fromnon-mechanized to highly mechanizedjob requirements. The current mecha-nization is not accompanied by prac-tices and legislations required for safeusage of machines. All possible effectson the health of workers need to be vis-ualized for a programme to be sustain-able. The current article aims to focus

on the impact of occupational vibrationon health of workers in relation tomechanization.

Health hazards of vibrationin the Indian contextThe human response to vibration de-pends on the part of the body that isexposed. There are two broad types ofvibration to which workers are exposed:1. Vibration transmitted to the wholebody (whole-body vibration) througha supporting surface, for example, thefeet of a standing person on a vibratingplatform or the buttocks of a seatedoperator of a vehicle. Worldwide, dis-orders of the back, especially low backpain, have been causally linked towhole-body vibration (2). An increasein the number of highly mechanizedindustries therefore poses a threat to thehealth of workers.

The National Institute of Miners’Health, Nagpur, conducted vibrationsurveys in various mines of the coun-

try. It was found that in opencast mines,operators of heavy earth-moving ma-chineries were at greater health risk fromexposure to vibration. Regular work-related back ache is more commonamong tractor-driving farmers (40%)than non-tractor-driving farmers(18%), reported a study conducted onfarmers in north India (3). In the agri-cultural sector, use of tractors and pow-er tillers is increasing. Similarly, in thetransportation industry, an estimated1.2 million trucks (4) (9 tons capacity)are in use across the country, coveringnearly 0.1 million kilometers. In mostof the cases, these truck drivers are reg-ularly exposed to whole-body vibrationfor more than eight hours a day in thecourse of their work.2. Vibration applied to a part of thebody is known as segmental vibration.When vibration is applied to the hand,it is termed hand-arm vibration. Anexample is jackhammer operators inmines. Hand-arm vibration is work-re-

Mechanization, vibration andthe Indian workforce

B. B. Mandal,A. K. Srivastava, India


lated exposure to vibration that mainlyaffects people who regularly use pneu-matic, electric, hydraulic or gasoline-powered hand tools. Hand-arm vibra-tion exposure may lead to an irreversi-ble condition of the fingers and handscalled hand-arm vibration syndrome, asyndrome that involves a combinationof vascular and sensori-neural damage.While finger blanching is a result ofdecreased blood flow, losses in touchperception and dexterity are also com-monplace due to nerve damage (5).

The clinical presentation of hand-arm vibration hazard is not yet wellelicited in the Indian context, and theprevalence of hand-arm vibration syn-drome in India is hardly documented.The classical hand-arm vibration orvibration-induced white finger is notcommon because of the tropical cli-mate. However, Dasgupta & Harrison(6) studied 66 drillers, and 35 blastersas control subjects, from limestonemines in India. They reported a sig-nificantly higher prevalence of tingling,numbness, paraesthesiae (18.2%), painin fingers, wrists, arms, etc. (31.7%),stiffness of the hand (13.6%) and hy-perhydrosis (48.5%) among drillers ascompared to control subjects. Theprevalence of ulnar neuropathy andsoft tissue wasting in hands was alsosignificantly higher among the drillers.They concluded that complaints ofneurological symptoms were signifi-cantly more prevalent among drillersthan in a matched group of controlsnot exposed to hand-arm vibration.

Extent of problemIndia’s labour force reached 375 millionin 2002 (7). With an expansion rate oftwo percent per annum, the employ-ment figure in 2006 is estimated to be400 million. Since 14% of the totalemployment is in industry (8), the in-dustrial workforce in India is nowaround 56 million. Table 1 depicts thecommon sources of vibration in differ-ent industries of India.

The actual, total number of subjectsexposed to occupational vibration di-rectly varies with the degree and extentof mechanization in the industry.Records of two mechanized mines wereexamined to determine the percentageof the mining population regularly ex-posed to occupational vibration. Ac-cording to the unpublished results ofthis examination, an average of 18–20%

employees was found to be exposed tovibration at work (9).

Approximately 10 million subjectsworking in all the industries are at riskfrom hand-arm or whole-body vibra-tion, assuming that 20% of the work-force is occupationally exposed to vibra-tion. Extended shift duration of 10hours or more is common in unorgan-ized and private sectors of industry, andposes a geometrically increasing risk.

Contributing factorsOld equipments vibrate more. Propermaintenance may help up to a certainperiod, but the equipment should bereplaced thereafter. If the machine in useis not ergonomically designed to atten-uate harmful vibration, it is not safe.Mining and the transportation indus-try largely depend on old equipments,and the process of replacement is veryslow.

Industry Type of vibration Common source of vibration

Agriculture Whole body Tractors, back-hoes

Construction Whole body Heavy equipment vehicles, e.g. bull-dozers, graders, excavators

Hand-arm Pneumatic tools, jackhammers, jack-leg,stoppers, vibrating concrete breakers

Electrical Hand-arm Hilte guns, drills, saws

Foundries Hand-arm Air compressed grinders, discs, rotaries,jitter-bugs

Iron and steel Hand-arm Impact wrenches, grinders

Machine tool Hand-arm Impact wrenches, grinders

Mining Whole body Jumbo drills, dumpers, dozers, shovels,back-hoes

Hand-arm Rock drills, grinders

Riveters Hand-arm Rivet guns, impact wrenches

Transport Whole body Buses, trains, helicopters, jeeps, trucks,Hand-arm motorcycles, motorboats

Table 1. Sources of vibration in industry

Dumper vibration measurement


Lack of awareness has added to thecomplexity of the problem. While ad-verse physical conditions such as poorventilation, respiratory particulate mat-ters, poor illumination, noise, extremetemperatures, humidity and radiationare areas of common concern, occupa-tional vibration has received little atten-tion in developing countries. The au-thors scanned 63 articles published be-tween 2003 and 2006 in the IndianJournal of Occupational and Environ-mental Medicine, a leading journal inthe field of occupational health. No ar-ticle/research paper on occupational vi-bration had been published during thisperiod.

Monitoring of equipment-inducedvibration is hardly implemented in in-dustry. Moreover, Indian legislationdoes not provide specific guidelines forevaluation and monitoring of vibrationat the workplace. The process of gener-ating awareness needs to be initiatedthrough mandatory provisions. The reg-ulatory authorities in industry andmines should emphasize the control ofvibration-related hazards.

Impact of the problemThe direct impact of workplace vibra-tion is not easily ascertained for all ofindustry. Further, it is difficult to quan-tify owing to the uncertain dose-effectrelationship. Vibration exposure, how-ever, has been causally linked to in-creased backache, joint pain, and fatigue

among exposed workers. Musculoskel-etal disorders were found to be predom-inant (38.7%) in an estimate (10) ofoccupational diseases in India. It can berationally presumed that a large part ofthis is because of exposure to vibration.This also increases the rate of absentee-ism and the cost of treating muscu-loskeletal disorders, and it results in poorproductivity. The affected worker mayeven lose his job because of increasingdisability that is generally considered tobe of non-occupational origin.

ActionThere is an urgent need to1. Study the problem and determine

its magnitude2. Identify areas of concern3. Formulate specific rules regarding

monitoring and adoption of preven-tive measures. The safe limits pre-scribed by ISO (11, 12) may beadopted

4. Increase awareness of vibration haz-ard and its ill effects on healthamong both workers and manage-ment.These steps will result in a healthier

and more productive workforce through1. Decreased burden of sickness2. Increased productivity3. Savings through reduced costs for

medical treatment4. Decrease in sickness absenteeism5. Improved employer-employee rela-

tionships through health care.

AcknowledgementsThe authors are thankful to Mrs. ShilpaV. Ingole of this Institute for providinglibrary and information services.

References1. http: / / indiabudget .nic . in/es2005-06/

chapt2006/chap71.pdf2. Bovenzi M, Hulshof CTJ. An updated review

of epidemiologic studies on the relationshipbetween exposure to whole-body vibrationand low back pain (1986–1997). Int ArchOccup Environ Health 1999;72:351–65.

3. Kumar A, Varghese M, Mohan D, MahajanP, Gulati P, Kale S. Effect of whole-body vi-bration on the low back. A study of tractor-driving farmers in north India. Spine 1999Dec 1;24(23):2506–15.

4. Transport corporation of India limited: http://www.tcil.com/transport.asp

5. Cliff Wolcott. Bad Vibrations: Hand-Arm Vi-bration Exposure and HAVS Prevention –http://www.occupationalhazards.com/safety_zones.

6. Dasgupta AK, Harrison J. Effects of vibrationon the hand-arm system of miners in India.Occup Med 1996;46(1):71–8.

7. Report of the committee on India vision 2020.Planning commission, Govt. of India. Decem-ber 2002. p. 35.

8. Internet resource: Distribution of workforce.Regional Strategy on occupational health andsafety in SEAR countries. WHO RegionalOffice for South East Asia, World HealthHouse, New Delhi (2006). p. 8

9. Mandal BB, Srivastava AK. Risk from vibra-tion in Indian mines. Indian Journal of occu-pational and environmental medicine. Indi-an Association of Occupational Health. (Sub-mitted for publication)

10. Global burden of diseases and injuries due tooccupational factors. Discussion paper. Officeof Global & Integrated EnvironmentalHealth. NW 1996.

11. IS0 2631–1:1997. Mechanical vibration andshock – Evaluation of human exposure towhole-body vibration – Part 1: General re-quirements. Switzerland: International Organ-ization for Standardization, 1997.

12. IS0 5349:1986. Mechanical Vibration –Guidelines for the Measurement and the As-sessment of Human Exposure to Hand Trans-mitted Vibration. Switzerland: InternationalOrganization for Standardization, 1986.

Corresponding author:Dr. A. K. Srivastava, DirectorE-mail: [email protected]

B. B. Mandal, Senior ResearchOfficerE-mail: [email protected]

National Institute of Miners’HealthJNARDDC Campus, AmaravatiRoadP.O. WadiNagpur - 440 023, India

Bulldozer – common source of harmful vibration


o achieve development, peoplealways create and adjust theirwork environment to make it

more comfortable, thereby increasingthe quality of life. Achieving a balancebetween economic development, socialprogress and environmental protectionis a global concern in order to realizesustainable development. This fact re-quires the implementation and devel-opment of socio-economic policies ac-companied with corporate social re-sponsibility (CSR). The Vietnamesepeople also recognize this.

CSR is not understood merely in re-lation to legislation and culture, but alsoin relation to issues affecting the life andworking activities of employees who areexposed day after day; the influencingfactors include workshop arrangementsand production lines with their machin-ery and equipment. These ensure bothproductivity and the safety and healthof employees, as well as environmentalprotection.

Enterprises are implementing CSRthrough the building and application ofa code of conduct (COC) based on theVietnamese legislation: labour laws, thelaw on trade union, the law on publichealth, the law on environmental pro-tection, etc. International conventionsratified by the Government of Vietnamare also taken into account. The imple-mentation of these COCs shows thecommitment of enterprises to econom-ic sustainable development by increas-ing the living standards of employees,their families and the community atlarge. Thus, the human factor is veryimportant in the occupational safetyand health efforts of enterprises.

Former UN Secretary General Javi-er Pérez de Cuéllar has said: “Of course,development means change but changedoes not create the separation; it cre-ates the specific characteristics of socie-ty and individual. First of all, develop-ment must bring the better life whichis accepted by the community. And Iam sure that this definition of develop-ment will be promoted by the culture”.Sustainable development is develop-ment covering various areas, includingthe economic, cultural, environmentaland technological sectors. These areasin turn are affected by humans and theirculture. In other words, culture is a cov-

ering factor determining sustainabledevelopment. However, the target ofdevelopment is human beings and bet-tering their life; therefore human beingsplay a very important role in develop-ment. Man and his culture in produc-tion and life in general is the basic tar-get of sustainable development.

The working life of an individuallasts about 30 years. This is his/her mostimportant time; therefore working con-ditions have an important effect on theindividual’s quality of life and person-ality. Many factors in the working con-ditions can affect the health and safetyof employees, such as arrangement of

Way of buildingsafety culture at workplaces

for Vietnamese workersLe Van Trinh, Vietnam

Figure 1. The factors affecting the employee

T


equipment, machinery, the pace ofwork, its intensity and other facilitiesrelated to production. Adjustment ofthese factors to make them reasonableand safe and to ensure the safety andhealth of employees is called Occupa-tional Safety and Health (OSH).

Recently, the GDP in Vietnam hasgrown by about 8% annually and thecountry’s economy is considered to bethe most stable in the world. This suc-cess has been accomplished through thegood policy of the Vietnamese Com-munist Party and the Government, apolicy where OSH is considered to beone of the most important tasks for en-suring sustainable development. Ow-ing to this, in the past few years OSHhas obtained certain achievements.Most enterprises have an OSH com-mittee; this is often chaired by the vicedirector, with the president of the tradeunion as the vice chairman of the com-mittee. This committee is responsiblefor OSH at the enterprise.

The number of enterprises, mainlynon-State owned enterprises, is increas-ing rapidly. In December 2005 therewere 180,000 small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs) throughout coun-try. Many of them were not implement-ing OSH well: employees did not havetraining, or if they did, their trainingwas insufficient. In consequence, inju-ries and occupational diseases have beenincreasing.

Statistics of the Ministry of Labour,Invalid and Social Affair (MOLISA)show that during the first six monthsof 2006, there were 24,000 occupation-al accidents causing 2,800 deaths. Ac-cording to the Ministry of Health(MOH), in 2004 among 1,000,000employees whose health had beenchecked, almost 40% had diseases re-lated to the work environment; among60,000 employees diagnosed, 14% suf-fered from occupational diseases. Thereasons are many; one of them is em-ployees’ and employers’ low level ofawareness on OSH.

According to ILO statistics, 50% ofthe employees who had occupationalinjuries or who developed occupation-al diseases did so because of a lack ofOSH knowledge. The correspondingfigure in a study done by the NationalInstitute of Labour Protection (NILP)was 72%. Most of those interviewedsaid that they had no OSH training;they did not know how to identify haz-

ards and how to protect themselves. Thestudy also showed that 70% of the em-ployees are satisfied with their presentworking conditions even though they arenot in good condition, especially in en-terprises producing building materials,such as cement, tiles, bricks, etc. We alsofound that most of the workers are farm-ers who have only a primary school ed-ucation. They are ready to accept anyjob, provided they can earn money.

Vietnam is now facing a great chal-lenge in protecting the health and life ofthe working population. The first in theseries of tasks to solve is to raise aware-ness of and responsibility for OSHamong employers and employees. Thetrade union as well as other socio-polit-ical organizations should have the re-sponsibility to guide the employees inorder to ensure OSH in a comprehen-sive way: “Safety culture at the work-place”.

The Vietnam Trade Union, throughthe National Institute of Labour Protec-tion, has risen to the challenge, not onlyby giving training and education but alsoby launching action initiatives and build-ing the mode of safety culture for em-ployees. The action initiatives have hadslogans such as “Be creative and initiate,raise productivity and the quality ofproducts” and “Clean village, betterfields”. The most effective and famoushas been the action initiative: “Green,clean, and beautiful ensure OSH”,which was launched by the trade unionin 1996 and has now become very pop-ular. This action initiative not only mo-bilizes employees to participate in im-proving working conditions but alsomotivates employers positively to partic-ipate in comparison with each other inorder to improve OSH in their enter-prises.

At present, the NILP is implement-ing several projects in order to create abetter way to work for the good of em-ployees’ health and safety. The aim is toraise employees’ awareness and respon-sibility as concerns OSH and to enhancethe effectiveness of the action initiative“Green, clean, and beautiful ensureOSH”. The projects, which concentrateespecially on workplaces, have three tar-get actions:• To promote, mobilize and educate

employers and employees to partici-pate in the improvement of workingconditions. The goal is to have aworkplace without accidents and

occupational diseases (zero accidentcampaign)

• To raise the self-awareness of everyworker, thus creating safe workingpractices and making them habit

• To make the employees understandthat ensuring OSH also increasesproductivity and product quality,therefore bring them a life with “suf-ficient prosperity and good spirits”.After a short period of implementa-

tion in several industrial parks, someachievements have been seen. The em-ployees have adopted some good prac-tices in doing their jobs. However, thenext steps are more challenging, becausegood practices are not formed overnight.Vietnam is an agricultural country (pri-or to 1990, 70% population were farm-ers). During the past 15 years of eco-nomic restructuring, a million formeragricultural workers became workersemployed in factories and services. It isnot easy for them to change their hab-its, to work in a new way in industryand services.

The aim of our activity is to buildthe model of a worker whose knowledgeand action correspond with those ofworkers in industrialized countries. Toachieve this model, NILP implementsthe project on raising CSR, includingensuring OSH for employees and build-ing the model of “Safety culture at theworkplace”. The objective of the projectis to establish social behaviour on OSHand to integrate this into the conscious-ness and life style of every employer andindividual. These model workers shouldbe the examples for the new generationof workers and they should work in anew way that reflects the slogan “Safetyculture at the workplace”.

Dr. Le Van Trinh, ProfessorNILP DirectorNational Institute of LabourProtectionVietnam

[email protected]


he International Commission on Occupational Health,ICOH, celebrated its 100-year anniversary on 11–16June 2006 in Milan, Italy. The place of the current

Congress was the birthplace of the Commission a hundred yearsago.

The International Commission on Occupational Health wasfounded in 1906 after the opening of the Simplon tunnel be-tween France and Italy. During the construction of the tunnel,a high number of workers lost their lives due to occupationalinjuries but especially due to diseases caused by poor livingconditions in which they lived. A total of 10,000 lives werelost during the tunnel work.

T

Phot

os b

y Su

vi L

ehti

nen The occupational health and safety experts of the time de-

cided that this should never recur, and founded the Perma-nent Commission – International Association on OccupationalHealth, which preceded the current International Commis-sion on Occupational Health.

The Italian Organizers of the ICOH2006 Congress, Pro-fessor Vito Foa, Professor Pier-Alberto Bertazzi and ProfessorMarco Maroni, just to mention a few of the persons who con-tributed to the organization and arrangements of the Con-gress, did a great job, and the Congress was a huge success,which will certainly be remembered by all the participants.

Centennial SessionOn Tuesday 13 June, the actual birthday of ICOH, a Centen-nial Plenary was organized where several Awards were grant-ed. A total of three Centennial Awards were given, one to theClinica del Lavoro Institute which has been the home of ICOHfor the last century and will continue to be so in the future.Professor Pier-Alberto Bertazzi received this Award on behalfof the Institute. The other two Awards were granted to Profes-sor Sven Hernberg who has served as member of the ICOHBoard, two terms as Vice-President and two terms as Presi-

Dr. Shyam Pingle from India acted as chair of the Asian and LatinAmerican Session, which gathered a total of some 35 experts.

ICOH2006:Centennial celebrations, scientific

new knowledge and much exchangeof practical information


dent of ICOH, and to Professor JerryJeyaratnam who served twelve years asICOH Secretary-General from 1989 tothe year 2000.

Distinguished Awards were grantedto the previous Presidents of ICOH, toprevious presidents of ICOH Congress-es, as well as to Professor Moccaldi ofISPESL, which has been most generousin providing facilities and resources forthe ICOH Secretariat.

Also, a Centennial Declaration ofICOH was signed. (see www.icohweb.org)

Asian and Latin AmericanSession on OccupationalHealth and SafetyThe Asian and Latin American Sessionwas organized with the help of finan-cial support from the US National In-stitute for Occupational Safety andHealth. Professor Bonnie Rogers was thekey player in ensuring the funding. TheICOH Scientific Committee on Occu-pational Health and Development, whoorganized this Session, expresses itsheartfelt thanks to both the US NIOSHand Professor Rogers for the financialsupport without which the organizationof this Session would not have been pos-sible.

The Session was chaired by Dr.Shyam Pingle and contained six papers.

Dr. Patricia Canney reported onOSH programmes in Colombia espe-cially in response to challenges posed byglobalization. She said that it is impor-tant to have well-defined strategieswhere all stakeholders are key actors.Globalization brings about positive de-velopments but also threats particular-ly in countries where the infrastructuresfor education, health and technology areweakly developed.

Challenges posed by globalization toOSH were also discussed by ProfessorVeronica Herrera from Chile. She re-ported on the changes to which work-ers must adapt, brought about by glo-balization and new organizational cul-tures because of companies and indus-tries moving from one country to an-other.

Sustainable workplace improvementthrough training and benchmarking waspresented by Dr. Shrinivas Shanbhagfrom India. He emphasized the need fortrained experts in occupational healthand safety, while encouraging workplacelevel training in occupational health and

safety. He described the initiative of alarge private enterprise to train healthand safety change agents at enterpriselevel. The results have been promising.

The progress of participatory orient-ed training (PAOT) activities in Viet-nam was described by T. That Khai andpresented in his absence by Dr. Kazu-taka Kogi. The approach uses farmervolunteers as trainers who then help intraining good practices in occupationalhealth and safety to the farmers. Theaim of the PAOT is to support peoplein making changes, to encourage mul-tifaceted improvements, and to proceedin a step-by-step improvement of work-ing and living conditions.

Dr. Catharina Wesseling from Cos-ta Rica described the SALTRA experi-ence in Central America. She said thatthe whole programme consists of ele-

ments to support and enhance capacitybuilding in occupational safety andhealth. It is a long-term programme,university-based, intersectoral, multidis-ciplinary, and utilizes synergies withother regional OSH programmes.

Occupational health and safety inthe mining sector in China was preparedby Dr. Li Dehong and presented by Pro-fessor Hua Fu. He reported that thereare still many accidents in mines, andthis is one of the targets for improve-ments in occupational safety and healthin China. The main causes of the acci-dents are gas blasting and floods. Oneapproach could be to develop basic oc-cupational health services, a methodwhich has been piloted in China in sev-eral counties already.

All the presentations provoked live-ly discussion.

Professor Veronica Herrera and Dr. Patricia Canney exchange information.

Phot

o by

Suv

i L

ehti

nen


The theme of this 100-year jubilee con-ference was “Renewing a century ofcommitment to a healthy, safe and pro-ductive life”, thereby emphasizing itsdedication to responding to the chal-lenges of a new century. The theme wasreflected in many sessions and presen-tations, thus clearly spurring forwardaction to promote working conditions,risk assessment and improvement ofworkers’ health and wellbeing.

It was pointed out in several plena-ry sessions that noise poses one of themost severe threats to workers’ healtheven though definite progress has beenrealized, especially in industrializedcountries. Despite this, however, muchremains to be done in order to raise oc-cupational health and safety efforts tothe level required to ensure safety. Therole of networking and of internationalco-operation in all safety work wasstressed.

A good example was the special ses-sion organized on “Risk of hearing lossfrom noise and chemicals”.

The issue is very topical, as com-bined exposure to noise and ototoxicchemicals has to be taken into accountin the new European Noise Directive.More than 750 chemicals belong to thisgroup. The most important and mostcommonly used chemicals falling intothis group are styrene, toluene, xylene,N-hexane, carbon disulfide and theirmixtures.

A “NoiseChem” study on this topicwas carried out as a European projectin order to give practical guidelines thatcan be applied at places of work. Theinteractions between noise and chemi-cals were clearly established. It was alsodemonstrated that some other environ-mental and individual factors have atleast an additive, if not a potentiating,effect on hearing. Also emphasized wasthe role of impulse noise, which was sus-pected to be very hazardous togetherwith solvents.

To summarize this session, we canconclude that occupational exposure toorganic solvents is associated with an in-creased probability of developing hear-ing loss. It was also revealed that com-bined exposure to noise and organicsolvents is associated with a substantiallyhigher risk of hearing loss than isolatedexposure to either of these factors.Moreover, it was shown that there is arelationship between the concentrationof organic solvents and hearing thresh-old shifts, especially at high frequencies.

Based on the “NoiseChem” findings,we can also conclude that the currentnational occupational exposure limit(OEL) values for solvents do not ac-count for possible solvent ototoxicityand perhaps do not provide sufficientprotection for exposed populations. Inworking to solve the problem, we willneed a new global “NoiseChem” poli-cy. The content of such a policy pro-posal could be:• To acknowledge that hearing may be

affected by chemical exposure• To consider the ototoxicity of chem-

icals to be a hazard and the com-bined exposure of such chemicalswith noise to be a still greater haz-ard

• To review the guidelines on permis-sible levels for each agent in the pres-ence of the others, taking into ac-count that synergistic effects withincurrent limits may occur

• To stress the importance of hearingconservation in the case of exposureto any of the chemicals concerned

• To consider alternative protectionmeasures whenever possible.Moreover it was proposed that ex-

posure to pesticides and fumigants canalso pose a risk for hearing and that theeffects of chemicals on balance can bean early indication of neurotoxicity.

Jukka Starck

The aim is to publish at least thepapers concerning the Asian Region inthe forthcoming issues of the Asian-Pa-cific Newsletter in order to also allowthe exchange of information to thosewho were not in a position to attendthe ICOH Congress and the Asian andLatin American Session in particular.

ICOH issuesDr. Kazutaka Kogi was elected as Vice-President of ICOH. Professor Sin EngChia of Singapore was elected to theICOH Board. Professor Hua Fu ofChina, Ian Eddington of Australia, andProfessor Ken Takahashi of Japan con-tinue in the ICOH Board. The list ofthe members of the ICOH Board isavailable at http://www.icohweb.org/board.asp.

The next ICOH World Congresswill be organized on 22–27 March 2009in Cape Town, South Africa.

Suvi Lehtinen

ICOH2006:Observations on the ICOH sessionsdealing with noise

Phot

o by

Suv

i L

ehti

nen


“Those who cannot remember thepast are condemned to repeat it”George Santayana, Spanish philos-opher, 1863–1952

uring the early morning hoursof 3 December 1984 at least2,500 people were killed by the

release of a toxic cloud of methyl isocy-anate gas from a runaway chemical re-action at a Union Carbide plant in Bho-pal, India. This was the start of theworld’s worst chemical disaster. In themonths and years that followed thou-sands of local residents presented withmultiple symptoms and ill-health withdevastating consequences for their live-lihoods and future.

At the time, many people in devel-oped countries viewed the Bhopal trag-edy as an isolated event in a far awayland that resulted from conditions andfactors endemic to developing countries.Statements were made by governmentsand the chemical industry that such anaccident could not occur in the indus-trialized Western countries. Some evensuggested that accidents like Bhopalwere to be expected, the price that mustbe paid for technological development.

So it was that on 31 March 1985,four months after the accident, the In-ternational Confederation of Free TradeUnions and the International Federa-tion of Chemical, Energy and GeneralWorkers’ Unions, dispatched a mission1

to Bhopal. Its purpose was to study thecauses and effects of the gas leak and tomake recommendations to help preventsimilar accidents from occurring in In-dia or elsewhere in the world – in otherwords, to help prevent further Bhopals.

Our investigation and report (1)detailed a number of alarming weak-nesses in the safety of the Bhopal plant,beginning with the basic design of theprocess equipment. We determined thatthe Bhopal disaster was caused by acombination of factors, including thelong-term storage of MIC in the plant,the potentially undersized vent gasscrubber, the shutdown of the MIC re-frigeration units, the use of the backuptank to store contaminated MIC, thecompany’s failure to repair the flare tow-er, leaking valves, broken gauges, andcuts in manning levels, crew sizes, work-er training, and skilled supervision. Theaccident might have been prevented ifUnion Carbide Corporation (the par-ent company) had done more to followup its 1982 safety inspection, or if UCIL(the Indian subsidiary) or the govern-ment had heeded the complaints oftrade unions representing the Bhopalworkers. The mission concluded thatthe governments of India and the stateof Madhya Pradesh did not cause, andwere not directly responsible for the gasrelease. However, stronger occupation-al safety and environmental regulations

and stricter enforcement could havehelped prevent it.

The specific items which caused thetragedy and the specific way they cametogether on the night of the accidentmay have been unique, but the under-lying causes...• insufficient attention to safety in the

process design• dangerous and irresponsible operat-

ing procedures• inadequate maintenance• faulty equipment• cutbacks in staff• inadequate training• lack of management and govern-

ment response to safety complaints• the siting of potentially dangerous

plants in heavily populated areas• lack of information• lack of disaster planning... were not unique.

In the experience of the members ofthe mission, the factors which led to theBhopal disaster were common to manychemical manufacturing and other in-dustrial processes around the world. Theconditions were not the inevitable re-sult of technological progress, but dis-

Bhopal revisited– the tragedy of lessons ignored

Annie Rice, ILO

1 Members of the mission included a number who had considerable experience with the technical aspects of the process and the accident. The author was a member of the mission in 1985.

D

The Bhopal plant. In the foreground,tank 610 from which the MIC escapedafter water entered the tank. In its 20March 1985, report, Union CarbideCorporation speculated on thepossibility of sabotage. A much morecredible explanation for the water in-gress is faulty maintenance procedures,as explained to the trade mission toBhopal.Ph

oto

by t

he I

CFT

U/I

CE

F m

issi

on


crete and well-recognized problems thatcould have been prevented. The mis-sion drew many lessons from its inves-tigation, not least of which was that,unless better national and internation-al regulations were developed and strict-ly monitored by managers, trade unionsand governmental authorities, the nextdisaster would be only a matter of time.

As a result of the mission’s recom-mendations, a Resolution (2) wasadopted by the ILO’s International La-bour Conference in 1985. This calledon its tripartite constituents (govern-ments, employers’ and workers’ organ-izations) to take concerted action todevelop the legislation, policies, infra-structure and practical measures to im-prove the control of hazards related tothe production and use of hazardoussubstances.

This was followed by a practicalmanual (3) aimed at assisting countriesin establishing a well-defined and sys-tematic approach to major hazard con-trol. It was designed to deal with thesafety aspects of siting, planning, design,construction and operation of plants.It explains how to identify major haz-ard installations and describes the com-ponents of a major hazard control sys-tem, as well as planning for emergen-cies, both on-site and in the surround-ing community.

The Bhopal disaster certainlyprompted considerable progress in reg-ulations and administration at all levelsin its wake. The great tragedy remainsthat, although a new level of awarenesswas created about hazardous substanc-es and industrial risks, the lessons havein many instances been ignored. Theresult is a long string of major accidentsin both industrialized and developingcountries since.

Even before the ILO could bring outits Major Hazard Control Manual, forexample, the Chernobyl disaster hadclaimed many dead and over 300,000evacuated, the Herald of free Enterprisehad sunk in the English Channel withover 180 deaths. Many of the factors inthe accidents recall those in the Bhopaldisaster, and which were targeted in theILO Resolution – unsafe design, pooroperating practices, etc.

In the years that followed, furtherinternational guidance was developed,including an ILO Code of Practice (4)intended for all those who have respon-

sibility for the prevention of major in-dustrial accidents. This provides guid-ance for the setting up of an adminis-trative, legal and technical system for thecontrol of major hazard installations. Italso seeks to protect workers, the publicand the environment by preventingmajor accidents from occurring in thefirst place and minimizing the conse-quences of a major accident should oneoccur. In this respect it speaks to com-petent authorities, works managements,emergency services, government inspec-tors, as well as to employers’ and work-ers’ organizations.

In 1993, the International LabourConference adopted a Convention onthe Prevention of Major Industrial Ac-cidents, and an accompanying Recom-mendation (5). The main effect of thiswas to put the requirements detailed inthe previous documents in a succinctand binding form for the Member Stateswhich would ratify the Convention.Unfortunately, only 11 countries haveratified it. (Albania, Armenia, Belgium,Brazil, Colombia, Estonia, Lebanon,Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Sweden andZimbabwe. Asia and Pacific countriesare noticeable by their absence from thislist.)

Whatever it is that is preventing gov-ernments from ratifying C174 is alsoallowing major industrial accidents tocontinue. To name but a few:• 1993, a major fire at the Kader In-

dustrial (Thailand) Co. toy factoryin Bagkok killed 188 workers, mostof them young women

• 2000, a series of explosions in a fire-works factory in Enschede, Nether-lands, left 22 dead and nearly a thou-sand injured

• 2000, a fire in a knitwear and gar-ment factory near the Bangladeshcapital of Dhaka claimed the livesof 48 workers. Just a few months lat-er, in August 2001, another fire in asimilar factory killed a further 24workers in Dhaka

• 2001, an ammonium nitrate explo-sion in a fertilizer factory in Tou-louse, France killed 31 people anddevastated the neighbourhood

• 2000–2006, disaster after disasterover recent years has left mining themost deadly industry in China. Ex-plosions routinely kill tens of work-ers each.The Bhopal disaster provided many

lessons. Many of the lessons have beentaken up by the international commu-nity and individual states. But still toomany are being ignored, as testified bythe continuing toll of accidents such asthose mentioned above. Perhaps the big-gest tragedy is when the lessons arelearned but ignored.

References

1. ICFTU/ICEF. The Trade Union Report onBhopal, Brussels/Geneva, 1985. Also availa-ble on: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/pro-tection/safework/chemsfty/bhopal/icftu.pdf

2. ILO Resolution concerning the Promotion ofMeasures against Risks and Accidents Arisingout of the Use of Dangerous Substances andProcesses in Industry. ILO Annual LabourConference 1985.

3. ILO, Major Hazard Control – A PracticalManual, Geneva, 1988.

4. ILO, Prevention of Major Industrial Acci-dents, Geneva, 1991.

5. ILO, C174 Prevention of Major IndustrialAccidents Convention, and R181 Preventionof Major Industrial Accidents Recommenda-tion, 1993.

Annie RiceSenior Specialist for OccupationalSafety and HealthILO-CEETMozsar utca 14H-1066 Budapest, Hungary



eliminated just a few days before thedisaster. On the night of the disaster,there were no trained engineers on thesite. The responsible production super-visor who was on duty had been trans-ferred from a Carbide battery plant onlyone month before.

Operators were examined by theplant doctor every six months; exami-nation included blood and urine tests.The employees were never told the re-sults of these examinations. The man-agement of Union Carbide India Ltd(UCIL) advised the workers to developresistance against toxic substances bydrinking six or seven glasses of milk aday and eating a high-protein diet offish and eggs.

Company policy forbade employeesto speak for the company without au-thorization, especially in emergency sit-uations.

The personnel management policyled to an exodus of skilled personnel tobetter and safer jobs.

Previous warningsIn 1976, the two trade unions reactedbecause of pollution within the plant.Letters were sent to the managers of theplant and the factory inspector as wellas to the Ministry of Labour of Mad-hya Pradesh. They never received anyanswers. In 1981, a worker was splashedwith phosgene. In panic he ripped offhis mask, thus inhaling a large amountof phosgene gas; he died 72 hours later.The managers blamed the worker forremoving his mask. The workers’ un-ion pointed out that it was the malfunc-tioning valve that led to the accident,and that the worker had not been pro-vided with a PVC overall.

In January 1982, there was a phos-gene leak, when 24 workers were ex-posed and had to be admitted to hospi-tal. None of the workers had been or-

BackgroundThe Bhopal Gas Leak, India 1984 is thelargest chemical industrial accident ever.520,000 persons were exposed to thegases, and 8,000 died during the firstweeks. 100,000 persons received perma-nent injuries. The catastrophe has be-come the symbol of negligence to hu-man beings on the part of transnation-al corporations. The direct cause of thegas leak in Bhopal was the large amountsof water that entered tank 610, contain-ing 43 tonnes of methyl isocyanate(MIC). A run-away reaction started,which was accelerated by contaminants,high temperatures and other factors.

There are still different opinions asto the cause of the Bhopal disaster andas to who was responsible. Accordingto the Union Carbide, it was sabotageby a disgruntled worker. However, anal-ysis of causes and consequences showthat irrespective of the direct cause ofthe leakage, there are only two partiesresponsible for the magnitude of the dis-aster: the Union Carbide Corporationand the Governments of India andMadhya Pradesh. The most importantfactors were plant design and economicpressure. The latter led to the deterio-ration not only of the safety systems butalso of the staff policy, which in its turncontributed to the occurrence of thedisaster. The governments not onlyfailed to implement occupational safe-ty regulations before the leakage, butalso failed to provide adequate medicaltreatment and rehabilitation afterwards.

Staffing policyTo be an operator at the MIC plant inthe beginning, one had to be either agraduate in science or to hold a diplomain engineering. Later, eight weeks oftraining was enough. Workers and oper-ators were given more responsibility thantheir training and competence equiped

them to cope with. In 1982, most of theoriginal MIC operators had resigned.Workers from other plants were askedto take MIC plant training. After only14 days of training in the MIC unit, theywere asked to take charge of a regularplant operator’s position independently.Secrecy issue hampered the workers’ ac-quisition of knowledge. The manualswere kept in the safe custody of the man-ager. The plant operating manual wasavailable only in English.

During the training period, techni-cians were treated as casual workers.After the training, they were only paidan hourly rate. A technician who accept-ed a job at the MIC plant got a paperabout receiving six months of training,but after five weeks he was asked to stopthe training and to take charge as a full-fledged plant operator. In the matter ofpromotions, individuals with little ex-perience but with unquestioning loyal-ty to the bosses were invariably selectedbefore others. A demand for extra safe-ty precautions led to warnings that ap-pointments could be terminated.

Contract workers without safetyequipment did dangerous work thatshould have been done by machines.Workers and operators were routinelyexposed to toxic chemicals such as MIC,carbon tetrachloride, trimethylamine,alpha-napthol and carbaryl dust. Theyseldom had the equipment recommend-ed in the manuals.

In 1983 and 1984 there were per-sonnel reductions in order to cut costs.Workers were encouraged to take earlyretirement, 300 temporary workers werelaid off, and another 150 permanentworkers were put in a pool to be as-signed to jobs as needed. The operatingshifts were cut from twelve to six andthe maintenance shifts from six to two.The positions of second-shift and third-shift maintenance supervisor had been

The Bhopal disaster 1984– working conditions and the role of the trade unions

Ingrid Eckerman, Sweden


dered to wear protective masks. Afterthis accident, the workers agitated forsafer working conditions. In February1982, an MIC leak affected 18 work-ers. In August 1982, a chemical engi-neer came into contact with liquidMIC, resulting in burns over 30 per-cent of his body. In October 1982, therewas a leak of MIC, methylcarbaryl chlo-ride, chloroform and hydrochloric acid.As an operator was opening a valve inan MIC pipeline, the joint linking it toseveral other pipes unexpectedly broke.In attempting to stop the leak, the MICsupervisor suffered intensive chemicalburns and two other workers were se-verely exposed to the gases. During1983 and 1984, leaks of the followingsubstances regularly took place in theMIC plant: MIC, chlorine, monometh-ylamine, phosgene, and carbon tetra-chloride, sometimes in combination.

The night of the disasterThose in charge of the MIC plant onthe evening of 2 December were notfamiliar with the factory’s complexmaintenance procedures, and they knewnothing about MIC or phosgene. Thesupervisor was convinced that therecould not be a leak as production hadbeen stopped.

The supervisor from the day shifthad left instructions on flushing thepipes leading from the MIC tanks tothe vent gas scrubber with water. Heforgot to mention the slip-binds thatshould have been placed at each end ofthe pipes. When the worker placed thestopcocks, he was not sure that theytightened completely, because of corro-sion and rust. He cut off the water. Thesupervisor told him to clean the filters.When the worker turned on the water,it came out only through three of thefour drain-cocks. He was told to keepthe water running, and that the nightshift would turn it off.

The workers maintain that entry ofwater through the plant’s piping systemduring the washing of lines was possi-ble because a slip-bind was not used,the downstream bleeder lines were par-tially clogged, many valves were leak-ing, and the tank was not pressurized.Carried with the water were iron rustfilings from corroding pipe walls, resi-due of the salt compounds that hadblocked the lines being washed, andother contaminants that speeded up thereaction.

The role of trade unionsAt the UCIL plant in Bhopal, the work-ers were organized in two competingtrade unions. The management tried touse the rivalry to its advantage in con-tract negotiation. Not until 1984 wasthe Union Carbide Karmachari Sanghrecognized.

The workers’ unions reacted as ear-ly as 1976, because of the pollutionwithin the plant (see above). After theleak in 1982, the trade union printed6,000 posters with warning texts thatwere distributed throughout the com-munity. The Hindu union leader wenton a hunger strike at the entrance tothe factory. The result was that all po-litical and trade union meetings insidethe factory were banned. One UC staffmember burnt the principal union’stent. In the ensuing scuffle, several peo-ple were injured. The two trade unionleaders were laid off. Meetings and pro-cessions were held throughout the city.As the UCIL staff regarded the plant as“one of the safest ships in the modernindustrial fleet”, the demonstrationswere considered to be a campaign byagitators wanting higher salaries andshorter working hours.

After this, the union changed its fo-cus from the potential danger to allworkers and the surrounding neigh-bourhood because of hazardous design,to the need to protect individual work-ers. The national trade unions did nottake any active part in the protests afterthe leakage of 1984. The trade unionleaders were not arrested together withother activists in the June 1985 mid-night scoop. It is said to be due to adeal, made with the police, that theunions would not take part in the dem-onstrations.

The Union Research Group in Bom-bay formed the Trade Union ReliefFund, to support the workers’ strugglefor alternative food production at theUCIL plant. In 1985, 400 peoplestormed into the plant to begin a sit-into protest over job losses. The occupa-tion of the plant did not end until De-cember 1985, when UCIL made a largecash settlement with the workers. How-ever, the campaign was criticized onvarious grounds.

When the Bhopal Gas AffectedWomen’s Stationery Workers’ Unionmarched to Delhi in 1988 to fight fortheir rights, they got no support fromthe trade unions in Delhi.

Observers from two internationaltrade unions came to Bhopal after theleakage. This resulted in the report “TheTrade Union Report on Bhopal”, thatwas written “in response to our Indianaffiliates”.

Today, trade unions from across theworld express solidarity with the causeof Bhopal gas victims. A joint appealwas issued in 2003 by trade union rep-resentatives from over 25 countries.

CommentsDeficiencies in the management ofUCIL can be summarized as follows:• Lack of skilled operators because of

the staffing policy• Lowering of safety management be-

cause of staff reductions• Insufficient plant maintenance• Lack of emergency response plans.

The two main theories as to how thewater entered the tank are the sabotagetheory and the water washing theory.UC has pointed out contradictions inthe statements from the witnesses.

However, sabotage would have beenimprobable if• maintenance had been good• the safety systems had been working• the saboteur would have wanted to

save his own life and health.The local trade unions were the first

to react to the hazards at the Bhopalplant. We do not know whether theywere aware of the plans for closing downthe plant. It is likely that there wouldhave been forceful protests against therisks of unemployment, although froma public health and environmental per-spective, closing down the plant wouldhave been absolutely the best action.

Literature

Eckerman I. The Bhopal Saga – Causes and Consequenc-es of the World’s Largest Industrial Disaster. Hyderabad,India: Universities Press (Private) India Ltd, 2004.

Ingrid Eckerman, MD, MPHSwedish Doctors for theEnvironment (LfM)Statsrådsvägen 11SE-128 38 SkarpnäckStockholm, Sweden



he Global Network of WHOCollaborating Centres in Occu-pational Health held its seventh

meeting on 8–9 June 2006 in Stresa,Italy, immediately before the ICOHWorld Congress. The previous meetingsof the Network had been held in 1992in Moscow, in 1994 in Beijing, in 1997in Bogota, in 1999 in Helsinki, in 2001in Chiang Mai, and in 2003 in IguassuFalls. Of the 64 Collaborating Centres,a total of 45 were represented at thisparticular meeting. Professor MarcoMaroni and his co-workers did a greatjob in organizing the meeting.

Only two weeks after the Meeting avery sad message reached us: ProfessorMarco Maroni had suddenly passedaway. The international occupationalhealth community lost a dedicated andenthusiastic leader, and shares the griefof his family and colleagues.

Work Plan 2006–2010During 2001–2005, Network activitieswere carried out through fifteen TaskForces dealing with the topics of:1. Guidelines2. Intensive partnership in Africa3. Child labour/adolescent workers4. Elimination of silicosis5. Health care workers6. Health promotion7. Psychosocial factors at work8. Promotion of occupational safety

and health in small enterprises andin the informal sector

9. Prevention of musculoskeletal dis-orders

10. Preventive technology11. Training programmes and modules12. Internet resources and networks13. National profiles and indicators

14. Economic evaluation of interven-tions, and

15. Global burden of disease.The six Activity Areas that will serve

as the basis for work during the nextfive years are:1. Global situation analysis2. Evidence for action, and national

policies and action plans3. Practical approaches to identify and

reduce occupational risks4. Education, training, and technical

materials5. Development and expansion of oc-

cupational health services, and6. Communication and networking.

During the two days, all the 120people participating in the Networkmeeting discussed, modified and ap-proved the six Activity Area work plans,two topics at a time. The idea is thatthe projects carried out within the six

Activity Areas are regional, involve sev-eral Collaborating Centres and severalcountries, and produce practical toolsto improve working conditions andworkers’ health. Every participant hadthe possibility to select his/her own topicof participation as well as the projectproposal to which the institutions com-mitted themselves to contribute.

The work plan of the Network for2006–2010 is accessible at: http://www.who.int/occupational_health/net-work/2006compendium/en/index.html

Global Plan of Action onWorkers’ HealthThe Global Plan of Action was intro-duced by Dr. Maria Neira, Director ofthe Environment and Public HealthDivision at WHO Headquarters. Shereminded the participants of the factthat the target group of occupational

The Global Network ofWHO Collaborating Centres in

Occupational Health:Work Plan 2006–2010 approved

The contents of the six Activity Areas were carefully and thoroughly discussed in themeeting.

T

Phot

o by

Suv

i L

ehti

nen


health encompasses half of the world’spopulation. Poor working conditionsresult in a high number of occupation-al fatalities, accidents and injuries, aswell as occupational diseases. Over 2million deaths because of occupationalaccidents, injuries and diseases and 160million new cases of work-related dis-eases a year are the toll that is paid dueto poor working conditions. Among thechallenges she mentioned was thechanging world of work, which meansthat new exposures are introduced whilethe old ones still remain. The weak ca-pacity of the public system, inadequatefocus on occupational health, and so-cial inequities were also mentioned asmajor challenges for occupational healthand safety in the years to come. Address-ing the lack of competent occupationalhealth personnel was given as a prima-ry focal point in forthcoming activities.Migration, precarious work, and sectorsand occupations involving a high riskall call for special attention. In addition,Dr. Neira pointed out that children andelderly are among the most vulnerablegroups in need of special attention.

As principles for global action, Dr.Neira listed the following: All workershave the right to safe and decent work;the workplace can be used as a settingfor promoting health and safety; work-ers’ health requires a coordinated re-sponse; and workers’ health can be ad-dressed through non-health agendas aswell as through health agendas.

These global action principles all callfor our joint efforts.

Declaration on Workers’HealthA Declaration on Workers’ Health wascompiled in order to emphasize theimportance of occupational health andsafety on the agenda of WHO and allMember Countries. The Declarationwas signed by the Advisory Committeeof the Global Network of WHO Col-laborating Centres in OccupationalHealth. The institutions represented inthe Global Advisory Committee are: USNIOSH; the National Institute forWorking Life, Sweden; the Finnish In-stitute of Occupational Health; the In-stitute for Pesticide Safety and HealthRisk Prevention, Italy; the National In-

The Declaration ws signed by Dr. Max Lum (right), Mr. Kaj Elgstrand (signing), Dr.Eduardo Algranti, Professor Harri Vainio (far back), Professor Sin-Eng Chia, Dr. MaryRoss, and Professor Marco Maroni.

stitute of Occupational Health, SouthAfrica; the National University of Sin-gapore; and FUNDACENTRO, Brazil.

The Declaration is accessible at:http://www.who.int/occupational_health/Declarwh.pdf.

Suvi LehtinenFinnish Institute of OccupationalHealthTopeliuksenkatu 41 a AFI-00250 Helsinki, Finland

[email protected]

Phot

o by

Suv

i L

ehti

nen

ICOH 200929th International Congress onOccupational HealthCape Town, South Africa22–27 March 2009OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH: A BasicRight at Work – An Asset to Society

Contact: ICOH 2009 CongressP.O. Box 19063Tygerberg7505Cape Town, South AfricaFax:+27-21-933 2649E-mail: [email protected]://www.icoh2009.co.za

CongressesThe 26th UOEH andthe 7th IIES InternationalSymposiumKitakyushu, Japan5–7 October 2006Active Transference of the Knowledgeand Skils of Occupational Health andMedicineContact: Institute of IndustrialEcological Sciences, UOEH, JapanFax: +81-93-601 2667E-mail:[email protected] t t p : / / w w w . U O E H - I I E S -iSYMPO2006.jp

XVIII World Congress onSafety and Health at WorkSeoul, Korea29 June – 2 July 2008Safety and health at work:A societal responsibility

Contact:Korea Occupational Safety and HealthAgency,34-4, Gusan-dong, Bupyeong-guIncheonRepublic of KoreaFax: 82-32-512 8482E-mail: [email protected]

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Ruhul QuddusDeputy Chief (Medical)Department of Inspection for Factories andEstablishments4, Rajuk AvenueDhaka-1000BANGLADESH

Chimi DorjiLicencing/MonitoringIndustries DivisionMinistry of Trade and IndustryThimphuBHUTAN

LIU QiangDeputy Division ChiefBureau of Work SafetyState Economic and Trade Commission26 Xuanwumen Xi Da JieXuanwu DistrictBeijing 100053PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

LEUNG Chun-hoDeputy Chief Occupational Safety OfficerDevelopment UnitOccupational Safety and Health BranchLabour Department25/F, Western Harbour Centre181 Connaught Road WestHONG KONG

K. ChandramouliJoint SecretaryMinistry of LabourRoom No. 115Shram Shakti BhawanRafi MargNew Delhi-110001INDIA

Tsoggerel EnkhtaivanChief of Inspection AgencyMinistry of Health and Social WelfareLabour and Social Welfare Inspection AgencyNational ILO/CIS CentreUlaanbaatar 210648Baga Toirog 10MONGOLIA

Lee Hock SiangHead, International CollaborationOSH Specialist DepartmentOccupational Safety and Health DivisionMinistry of Manpower18 Havelock Road, # 03-02Singapore 059764SINGAPORE

John FoteliwaleDeputy Commissioner of Labour (Ag)Labour DivisionP.O. Box G26HoniaraSOLOMON ISLANDS

Nguyen An LuongDirectorNational Institute of Labour Protection1 Yet Kieu Str.HanoiVIETNAM

Jukka TakalaDirectorSafeWork, Global Programme on Safety,Health and the EnvironmentInternational Labour OfficeCH-1211 Geneva 22SWITZERLAND

Gerry Eijkemans, ScientistOccupational and EnvironmentalHealth ProgrammeWorld Health Organization20, Avenue AppiaCH-1211 Geneva 27SWITZERLAND

Jorma RantanenPresident of ICOHc/o Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthTopeliuksenkatu 41 a AFI-00250 HelsinkiFINLAND

Harri VainioDirector GeneralFinnish Institute of Occupational HealthTopeliuksenkatu 41 a AFI-00250 HelsinkiFINLAND

Editorial Boardas of 22 May 2006

Mechanisation, vibration and the Indian workforce

Documents

Transcript of Mechanisation, vibration and the Indian workforce