Hierarchy of Controls Cringeworthy Cutting

Hierarchy of Controls

Cringeworthy Cutting

In the first case, Mike is shown cutting a piece of wood with a saw that he draws towards him. What is interesting about this clip is that the workers do not at first tell him about the hazards of knot or "processors" in the wood. These are hard edges or protrusions that could cause the sword to jump or jerk suddenly, potentially injuring the worker.

The fact that the workers choose to only let Mike in on this hazard after he started working is an administrative hazard. Those who have knowledge of the risks should advise workers or professionals beforehand, so that the risk can be mitigated right away. Workers should also be thoroughly trained before engaging in the hazardous work. Mike has clearly not received any training at all, as the information is disseminated to him only after he begins to work.

An engineering hazard is the cutter that Mike is using. There are no safety measures built into the equipment. The fact that one worker implies that he had been injured before implies that the equipment is inherently dangerous to use. The combination of the knots in the wood and the simple but dangerous design of the saw itself creates a significant risk of injury for the workers, and especially for a person who is inexperienced, as Mike is.

Finally, the risk factor that is probably easiest to control, especially in Mike's case, is personal protection. Neither the workers themselves nor Mike have received any personal protective gear. Mike is only wearing a t-shirt and jeans; his usual outfit for his Dirty Jobs ventures. This creates a significant hazard of injury, not only for Mike, but also for workers entering the profession for the first time, as well as for the more experienced workers, as they indicated with the story about the injury.

In all three cases, it is possible to create protective measures for Mike, where the risk of injury would be less severe.

The administrative hazard, for example, can be mitigated by informing Mike of the hazard before he starts working. While this does not constitute formal training, being informed also means being empowered to protect oneself properly. Before he started working, Mike should therefore have been informed about issues such as processors and knots, how to identify these, and what to do when one is encountered.

The engineering hazard is a more expensive and complicated hazard to control, and is probably not viable in Mike's case. According to the clip, it is apparent that the open saw is the standard equipment used by workers to perform the job assigned. Hence, if the engineering hazard were to be controlled, either a new method of work or a less hazardous type of saw would need to be implemented. This process can be both expensive and time consuming, although it would create greater safety for the workers.

In terms of personal protection equipment, the advantages of this is both that workers would be protected in an immediate material sense and that the measure can be implemented without incurring excessive costs in terms of time and finances. In Mike's case, he could simply have received some form of protective clothing to protect his skin from being sliced by the clearly very sharp saw he was using.

The most immediate hazard protection is, therefore, immediate information dissemination regarding the work method and risks involved. Secondarily, protective clothing could be provided. The most effective risk mitigation method would involve a combination of these two. Mike should be empowered with full knowledge of the risks before he begins work. He should also receive a protective shirt, belt, or other piece of equipment to protect his vulnerable skin against a blade that could jump or jerk and cut him.

Case 2: A Truckload of Crap

The clip shows mike opening a hatch to load cricket dung onto a truck. There are two basic hazards here: there is a low edge at the bottom of the equipment with which Mike is to work. Furthermore, the dung that falls from the hatch is of such a fine nature that it can easily enter the eyes, nose and mouth of the person working with it.

On the engineering level, the low equipment creates a hazard for head injuries. When Mike climbs onto the truck, the worker warns him to mind his head, which he does just in time to prevent hurting himself.

On the administrative level, Mike is not warned beforehand that the falling dung would create a fine dust that might enter his eyes, nose, and mouth. He is therefore highly exposed to the risk of taking in the hazardous substances in the dung, because he is not focused upon protecting himself from this by turning away or covering his nose and mouth while the dung is dumped onto the truck.

On the personal protection level, Mike receives no protective clothing against the hazards he faces. His head and face are exposed to injury and chemical hazard, although the worker supervising him implies that there is no real chemical hazard when dung particles enters the nose or mouth.

To mitigate these hazards, there are possibilities to mitigate the risks on all three levels. As seen above, the engineering mitigation method is most likely to alos be the most expensive, although it provides the greatest protection in the long-term. Equipment can be modified to create a less serious risk of head injury, for example. The ergonomic design of the equipment that dumps the cricket dung onto the truck, for example, is not favorable to prevent head injuries. Instead, equipment should be engineered in such a way that an adult can stand upright without the risk of head injury. As for the dung particles, equipment should be engineered in such way that a worker is not exposed to falling dung and dust when opening the hatch. This can be done by means of either a longer pole to open the hatch, or by automizing the process, so that the hatch is mechanically opened from a protected location. The main disadvantage of these engineering methods is expense. The main advantage is greater protection than the other mitigation practices.