1 - HISTORY OF SAFETY AND HEALTH OF WORK 1.

1 - Historical Background Even before

the advent of public health history, which occurred in 1854 - through research
epediomológica Snow, who discovered in the pit of the Broad Street outbreak of c
holera epidemic that threatened London - had already suggested the idea of what
would be the Occupational Health, identified in British Acts of Parliament aimed
at protecting workers' health. In the period 1760 to 1830, occurred the advent
of the Industrial Revolution in England, which gave great impetus to the industr
y as we know it today. The Industrial Revolution completely transformed the work
ing relationship since that time there was practically only the figure of the cr
aftsman, who produced their products individually or with a few aides and exchan
ged their products by others, usually in a public market. Of domestic machines a
nd craft were set up to complex machines that require large capital investments
to its acquisition and considerable manpower for its operation, who was recruite
d without discrimination between men and women, children and old people. The rur
al exodus took place soon and the relations between capital and labor also began
using reinvidicatórios labor movements. Pressed, the Parliament adopted in 1802
, "Health Law and Morals of Apprentices," which established a limit of 12 hours
of work per day, prohibited night work and introduced measures of hygiene in fac
tories. The length of this Act does not, he forced the British Parliament to set
up in 1833, "the Factories Act, which established the inspection of factories,
established a minimum age of 9 years to work, prohibited night work for persons
under 18 years and limited the workday to 12 hours daily and 69 hours per week.
It was created in 1897, the province Factory as an organ of the British Ministry
of Labour, with the goal of periodic health examinations in workers, and propos
e to study diseases, especially in small factories or deprived of medical servic
es itself. Meanwhile, in other European countries and the United States adopts a
progressive legislation to protect the health of the worker. In 1919, is founde
d in Geneva, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in order to study, dev
elop, disseminate and recommend ways of working relations, with Brazil one of it
s founders and signatories (we will see some data on Brazil). 1.2 - Occupational
Health concept is understood by the Occupational Health section of the Public H
ealth that aims at health and safety of work environment and worker health. The
realization of this goal involves a team of professionals that includes occupati
onal physician, the ergonomist, the safety manager's job, toxicologists, nurses,
psychologists, and of course the Technical Work Safety, as well as other profes
sionals medium level or higher.
In 1957, the Joint Committee of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) the
World Health Organization (WHO) meeting in Geneva, established the following goa
ls for Occupational Health and established its scope of operation: 1 - To promot
e and maintain the highest degree of physical well-being, mental and social work
ers in all occupations, 2 - Prevent all damage caused to the health of workers b
y the conditions of their work; 3 - Protecting workers in their work, from risks
arising from the presence of agents harmful to health; 4 - Loading and keep the
worker in a role that suits to their physiological and psychological aptitudes,
5 - Adapting work to man and each man to his work. 1.3 - Concept of Health The
World Health Organization (WHO) established the concept of health as: "A state o
f complete physical, mental and social, not merely the absence of disease." Anot
her concept, based on ecological perspective, states that health is a state of d
ynamic equilibrium between the individual and their environment, believes that t
he disease would occur from rupture of the same dynamic equilibrium. We should e
stablish some distinctions that affect the health of the worker so that we can b
est work these concepts, as follows below: Working Conditions: • • • • Physical
Environment: temperature, noise, vibration, etc.. Environmental Chemistry: vapor
s, fumes, toxic, etc.. Biological Environment. Conditions of Health and Safety.
Organization of Work: • • • • • • Division of Labor Task Content System Hierarch
ical Methods of Command Relations Branch Issues Responsibilities, etc..
So for us to establish a complete quality of life for workers, ie€that he has "H
ealth", we must tackle all the problems of working conditions and work organizat
ion.
We also examine the concept of health in another way, observing the three concep
ts in relation to disease: the sick, which is the installation of a pathological
process, the feeling sick, that is the perception of the disease itself, and th
e power get sick, or the ability to obtain treatment of work. Frequently among w
orkers, especially lower income, the person may "be patient" but "can not get si
ck," for lack of resources or the fact that this will affect the gain, the sourc
e of income, Consequently, undertakes to continue working. Thus, socioeconomic s
tatus, creating a "defensive ideology," interferes with the perception of the di
sease itself, denying it (denial mechanism) as possible, and the concept of "hol
d on until the last moment or limit the ability to keep working ". In many cases
, medical care is sought only after long delays. Health is, without doubt, essen
tial for the growth of the economy and even more relevant to its increase. The q
ualitative leap presupposes the development of human resources, acquiring new te
chnologies and their own creativity, which can only happen in a context of healt
hy subjects. It is impossible to think in Japan, the United States or Germany, d
eveloped countries, with their sick or malnourished. 1.4 - HISTORY OF OCCUPATION
AL SAFETY BRAZIL In Brazil, although there are some factors preceding the public
ation of the Sanitary Code of the State of São Paulo, 1918, in practice, it is t
he first national legislation on occupational accidents, of 1919, with the begin
ning of some concern of public authorities in relation to issues of safety and o
ccupational health. Earlier this century, in those states where industrializatio
n initiative - Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro - the situation of the work environm
ent was horrible, occurring accidents and occupational diseases of all kinds, W.
Dean, in his book "The industrialization of São Paulo 1880 - 1945" stated that
"the working conditions were very harsh, many structures that housed the machine
s were not originally intended for that purpose - besides the poorly lit and poo
rly ventilated and did not have sanitary facilities. The machines were piled nex
t to each other, and their belts and gears spun without any protection. Accident
s were frequent, because workers, tired, working on Sundays, were fined for lazi
ness or for mistakes, if they were adults, or separated, if they were children.
" In 1923, this made the Province of Industrial Hygiene and Professional with th
e National Department of Health, the Ministry of Interior and Justice. In 1934,
introduced the Health and Safety Inspectorate of Labour in the National Departme
nt of Labour, Ministry of Labour, Industry and Commerce. That same year, the gov
ernment of Getulio Vargas promulgates the Second Law of Occupational Accidents a
nd ten years later, still in government Vargas appears the third Act One year ea
rlier, the labor laws are enshrined in the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws ), w
ith all Chapter V dedicated to Health and Safety at Work.
Despite Brazil being a signatory to the ILO, only by Ordinance 3227 is that 1972
came Obey Recommendation 112 of 1959 that Organization. It became, then, the ex
istence of mandatory Security Services and Occupational Medicine in enterprises,
according to the number of employees and the level of risk that fit. Still, aro
und 85% of workers were excluded from these mandatory services. Micro, small and
medium businesses do not fall into this legislation and are currently the major
employer of these companies. Another alarming fact is that the risks and unsani
tary conditions that these workers are exposed are much greater than the higher-
sized company. In larger companies, the financial and economic conditions allow
for greater investment in modern machines and processes with some assurance of s
afety and hygiene, not occurring in small businesses. Some studies suggest that
the risk in small industrial enterprises (100 employees) is 3.77 times that of l
arge companies (more than 500 employees) or 1.96 times that of medium businesses
(101-500 employees). The industries of the branch of mechanics, electrical and
electro-technical are responsible for higher rates of accidents, followed by ind
ustries linked to the branch of food products. Nationally, the construction indu
stry accounts for 25% of accidents,€including the most serious and lethal. Regar
ding the statistics of occupational accidents, the Brazilians are few reliable d
ata for various reasons, then enumerated some factors that hinder a more detaile
d analysis of accident statistics: a) Huge amount of accidents occurring or unre
gistered sub b records ) A lot of workers who have no formal contract. c) system
of official statistics is not reliable due to other factors within the bureaucr
acy. In 1972, it was created, PVNT - National Valuation of Labor, according to t
he alarming number of accidents in the country. The existing legislation was pub
lished on December 22, 1977 and received the number 6514. It amends chapter V of
title II of the consolidation of labor laws. Under that law, has been downloade
d 28 Regulatory Standards, Ordinance 3214, to June 8, 1978, the then Minister Ar
naldo Prieto.
Below the 28 Regulatory Standards (Ordinance of 3214 8/jun/1978)
NR 01 NR 02 NR 03 NR 04 NR 05 NR 06 NR 07 NR 08 NR 09 NR 10 NR 11 NR 12 NR 13 NR
14 NR 15 NR 16 NR 17 NR 18 NR 19 NR 20 NR 21 NR 22 NR 23 NR 24 NR 25 NR 26 NR N
R 27 28 GENERAL PROVISIONS PREVIEW EMBARGO or prohibition SESMT CIPA EPI EDIFICA
ÇÕES MEDICAL EXAMINATION FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS IN ELECTRICITY SERVI
CES TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING, STORAGE AND HANDLING OF MATERIALS. MACHINERY AND E
QUIPMENT. BOILERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS. OVENS Unhealthy activities and operation
s ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS OF RISKY ERGONOMICS WORKS CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION A
ND REPAIRS. FLAMMABLE LIQUID FUELS AND EXPLOSIVES. Work in the open UNDERGROUND
WORK. FIRE PROTECTION HEALTH CONDITIONS. INDUSTRIAL WASTE SAFETY SIGNS RECORD OF
TECHNICAL WORK SAFETY ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
REGISTERED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS - PERIOD 1970 - 1993 Official Static
YEAR 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Number of Employees Insured 7,234,0
22 7,553,472 8,148,987 10,956,956 11,537,024 12,996,796 14,945,489 16,589,605 16
,638,799 17,637,127 18,686,355 19,188,356 19,476,362 19,671,128 19,673,915 20,10
6,390 21,568,660 22,320,750 23,045,901 23,678,607 22,755,875 22,792,858 22,803,0
65 22,722. TOTAL = 008 Number of incidents reported 1,220,111 1,330,525 1,504,72
3 1,632,696 1,796,761 1,916,187 1,743,825 1,614,750 1,551,501 1,444,627 1,464,21
1 1,270,465 1,178,471 1,003,115 961,575 1,077,861 1,207,859 1,137,124 992,737 88
8,373 693,572 629,918 532,515 412,293 29,135,763 Registered Deaths 2,232 2,587 2
,854 3,173 3,883 4,001 3,900 4,445 4,342 4,673 4,824 4,808 4,496 4,214 4,501 4,3
84 4,578 5,738 4,616 4,554 5,355 4,464 3,634 3,110 99,373
Besides the numbers of accidents described in the previous page, we have the fol
lowing approximate situation in Brazil in terms of injuries due to accidents. (T
his figure unfortunately does not reflect reality because they are only the data
information to the competent organs). 4300 DEATHS / YEAR 500 000 FINGERS / YEAR
To make an analogy, we have also: ⇒ 14 years of war in Vietnam resulted in 43,0
00 deaths ⇒ 10 years of work accidents in Brazil = 50,000 deaths 12 DEATHS / DAY
1370 FINGERS / DAY
Some Public Bodies Bound Labor Safety and Hygiene • • • • • • • • MTb - Ministry
of Labour CRT - Coordinator of Labor Relations (formerly DRT - Regional Labor)
Department of Health Municipal Code (Works) Fire Department Cetesb Fundacentro -
Fundação Jorge Duprat Figueiredo IRB - Reinsurance Institute of Brazil
1.5 - HISTORY OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY IN THE UNITED STATES Safety Attitudes about
de1900 During the last half of the 19th century, American industry grew very qu
ickly. The introduction of steam power and other technical advances have transfo
rmed the world of work. As a result of the industrial revolution, the production
moved from small companies employing a few skilled craftsmen to large factories
and plants. Although the change to the system of mass production techniques gre
atly broaden industrial production, the emerging industrial sectors did little t
o protect their employees against accidents or health risks. The following comme
nt is typical of how most of the industry people felt about the accident, around
1900. "Prevention of Accidents? I doubt very much! I am superintendent of this
factory for over 15 years, and one thing I know: 95% of accidents result from ca
relessness. Can not stop this kind of thing. Some men are doomed to be killed, n
o matter what they try to do for them. It is part of human nature,€I think. No,
I think we do all that is possible. But in our kind of work there is always a lo
t of accidents. " In those days, companies did very little on prevention of acci
dents because managers and employees believed that there was not much they could
do. Most industrial accidents considered as byproducts unfortunate, but inevita
ble, the work itself. Manufacture steel, coal mining, railroads operate, manufac
ture glass and chemicals - and many other industrial activities were naturally r
egarded as dangerous occupations. Injuries, which physically disabled, and the f
atalities were accepted as facts of industrial life. It is very easy to look bac
k now and see how these attitudes blinded managers, supervisors and employees of
the seriousness of the problem of an industrial accident, blocking any real eff
ort to prevent accidents.
Accident Prevention by 1900 What did the companies, if they did something to pre
vent accidents at that time? Frankly, very few companies were doing something. T
he industrial sector of coal mining was an exception where they began the traini
ng organized first aid and accident prevention as a result of disasters in the m
ines that kill and maim many workers. It is important to understand how they wer
e working conditions before they would start the movement of security in the Uni
ted States to assess what has been achieved in recent times. So let us see quick
ly what the companies did not. Most companies had neither organized nor safety p
rogram and security staff working full time in those days. Only here and there w
as someone with responsibility for security by working part time. It was felt th
at security was a matter of luck, not a part of someone's work. Working conditio
ns were extremely dangerous by today's standards. The moving parts of machinery
were rarely protected. The electrical conductors were commonly exposed to accide
ntal contact. The lighting was dark and often minimal. Toxic gases and vapors we
re common byproducts of industrial operations. Ventilation against heat and humi
dity did not exist. The workspaces were dangerously congested. Maintaining clean
liness of the plant in general, negligent. Without any sanitary hygienic conditi
on. Tools and equipment were used to break down. All of these hazardous conditio
ns were common and accepted as normal. There was little or no emphasis on safety
training at work. "Keep your eyes and ears open if you do not want to die. Obse
rve and do what Harry does. " That was both safety instruction that most new emp
loyees received. Everyone assumed that was the responsibility of the employee to
find out how to work safely. When receiving instructions, they often dealt with
as ready to work, and not how to do it safely. The companies did not have regul
ations and safety standards, nor was the distribution of literature on the subje
ct. It never occurred to supervisors make "security conferences." Moreover, many
industrial workers were immigrants who barely understood English. Personal prot
ective equipment such as shoes, helmets and safety glasses did not exist or were
not commonly used around 1900. Companies not distribute any type of protective
equipment, unless it was absolutely essential to the completion of work. Modern
techniques of accident prevention, such as job safety analysis, inspection, and
analysis of workplace safety, inspection, and analysis of cause of accident, did
not exist. The accidents were rarely investigated in any organized way. Most co
mpanies had no idea the number of accidents with serious injuries occurring in a
given year, and saw no reason to collect such data.
The companies had no legal obligation to help employees or their families when a
n employee was injured or killed at work. There was no law of Injury at the time
. Employees who are injured could sue the employer, but few could afford a legal
action, and your chances of winning it were minimal. In short, very little was
done to prevent industrial accidents in that time. Due in part to the attitudes
and beliefs prevalent in part because there were no penalties or costly legal re
asons that forced companies to become interested in the prevention of accidents.
€The Pittsburgh Survey - The Facts of Death How severe is the problem of industr
ial accidents back in 1900? How many employees died or were maimed each year?
Nobody knew at the time. No agency was collecting statistics to show the serious
ness of accidents. Then in 1906, a study was undertaken that made history and ha
s begun to shed light on the problem. More than any other single event, this stu
dy led to the birth of the movement of industrial safety in the United States. T
his research could document the terrible loss of limbs and human lives that occu
rred daily in American industry. The study established the first general awarene
ss about the dimensions of the problem and prompted an indignant public to deman
d reforms. This pivotal study known as "The Pittsburgh Survey." This research wa
s sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation. A research team was contracted to st
udy the seriousness of accidents and assess the need for state laws. The study l
asted one year, from July 1906 to June 1907. The investigators visited factories
, coal mines, railroad yards and factories in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In
terviewed directors of companies, plant managers, supervisors and workers. Studi
ed the records of hospitals, private doctors and coroners of the county. Survey
Results The findings of the Survey of Pittsburgh was a great shock to all affect
ed persons. A dramatic map called "The Timing of Death of Allegheny County," was
removed from the final report of the survey. The calendar shows how many people
died every day due to industrial accidents in Allegheny County. Each cross repr
esented an accidental death. Could be observed that there were few days in the c
alendar that were not marked at least for a cross, and that most of the days sho
wed two, three or even more fatalities. During the study period of twelve months
, there were 526 deaths from industrial accidents in Allegheny County.
The pattern of injuries was also shocking. The final report read: "Annually, the
District of Pittsburgh cut its power plants, factories, mines and railroad yard
s, 45 men with one leg, 100 stranded lame they need to walk with crutches or can
es, 45 men with arms bent and useless; 30 men missing an arm, 20 men with one ha
nd only, 60 with loss of half of the hand, 70 with one eye - and so on, over 500
human beings physically ruined. " The statistics told only part of the story. T
he report also described the mental and physical suffering resulting from those
accidents and called attention to the misery that the victim's family had to end
ure. The report included recommendations for change. The Pittsburgh Survey drama
tized the seriousness of the problem of industrial accidents, and concluded, nee
ded to do something! Movement begins The Security Survey of Pittsburgh kicked of
f the ball. Similar studies in other states have produced the same results. Inva
riably, they revealed an extremely large loss of limbs and lives, and nothing wa
s done to improve the situation. As the facts became more widely disseminated, e
ducators and labor leaders began to speak in favor of reforms. The state legisla
tors were pressured to take a stand by banning the most striking risk sectors: i
ndustrial and mining. The public opinion demanded corrective action. Laws of the
Federal Government The federal government supported the pro-security early on.
In 1908, a year after the end of the Pittsburgh Survey, Congress passed the firs
t law of Industrial Accidents. The compensation specified in the law had been ne
gligible, but the principle of indemnity set off by accident. For the first time
in the United States, employees and their families were guaranteed some means o
f compensation for disabling or fatal injuries. Two years later, in 1910, founde
d the Bureau of Mines of the United States. One of its main goals was to reduce
accidents in the mining industry. In 1913, the organization of the Bureau of Lab
or Statistics (Bureau of Labor Statistics) to collect, tabulate and disseminate
facts about health problems and industrial accidents. At about the same time, th
e National Bureau of Standards (National Bureau of Standards) began to establish
safety standards for equipment and industrial materials. All these events took
place in six years that followed the survey of Pittsburgh. Many states followed
suit Many states also responded to new concerns. In 1911,€Wisconsim adopted the
first state law effective on Accidents at Work. In 1915, more than half the stat
es had similar laws. Today, all states provide some sort of compensation for Acc
eding at work. These laws vary from state to state, but all give compensation to
injured employees, regardless of the discovery of the guilty. Previously, any e
mployee seriously injured was sent home until he recovered, but not received by
the inactive days.
From these laws of Industrial Accidents, the pro-security increased. As companie
s have been forced to compensate their employees for accidents at work, soon rea
lized that would cost less to take measures to prevent accidents than pay the da
mages and claims for disability. Therefore, the cost factor has become a powerfu
l incentive for accident prevention activities. 1.6 - MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF A TECH
NICAL SECURITY WORK IN AN INDUSTRY METALURGICA
The activities of professional Technical Security Working vary from company to c
ompany depending on such factors as: the type of business (mechanical, chemical,
services, etc.), company size, location of facilities, and etc. .. .; We will f
ollow a job description of a large metallurgical company, which must be analyzed
as an example only and not as a fixed rule to follow. 1. Technically assist the
Supervisors / Teachers for Work Safety and Industrial Hygiene, as well as provi
de support for implementation of the Health and Safety Policy of the company. 2.
Assist in accident investigations and through them, and propose actions and rec
ommendations to avoid recurrence of accidents. 3. Assist in establishing standar
ds and procedures for Safety and Occupational Hygiene. 4. Disclose the changes a
nd / or enacted in Brazilian legislation concerning Occupational Safety and Indu
strial Hygiene. 5. Develop and disseminate statistics on workplace safety. 6. As
sist in the choice of PPE used or to be used, ensure efficiency, quality and com
fort as well as assist in developing new suppliers. 7. Advise the CIPA. 8. Coord
inate the activities of the Fire Brigade. 9. Assist in environmental assessments
. 10. Assist Supervisors / Masters in Safety Meetings. 11. Run and / or assist i
n inspections of Security. 12. Run's lectures Security Integration. 13. Monitori
ng and counseling services company contracted for Safety and Industrial Hygiene.
14. Conduct specific training in the area of Safety and Industrial Hygiene.
2 - DEFINITION OF AN ACCIDENT AT WORK What is an accident? Everyone should under
stand clearly what is an accident. Previously, we considered that an accident wa
s a mistake that resulted in injury, but that definition, in fact, was incomplet
e. Some accidents may actually cause injuries, but accidents also damage tools,
machinery, raw materials, buildings, etc ..., and some accidents have little or
no obvious consequence. According to the legal definition (Law No. 6367 of 19.10
.1976): Accidents at work is one that occurs through the exercise of work, the c
ompany's service, causing injury or functional disorder that causes death, loss,
or reduction, permanent or temporary capacity for work. Let's analyze the meani
ng of the definition into parts: Exercise of Labor Service Company For a disease
or injury is considered an accident at work there must be a link between the ou
tcome and the work, ie that the result (in the case injury or disease) originate
d in the work and depending on the service performed, for example, if you watch
a football match and suffer some kind of accident inside the stadium, we can not
consider that it was a work accident. But if you work in stage and suffer the s
ame kind of accident, then there will be an accident at work and you will be cov
ered by employment laws in force in the country. Bodily Injury Bodily Injury mus
t be understood as any type of anatomical damage in the body, for example, break
a leg, cut hand, loss of a limb, etc ...
We understand how disturbance Functional Perturbation Functional injury function
ing of any organ or sense of human beings, such as a mental disorder due to a st
rong blow to the skull, poor organ function (lung, etc. ...), the aspiration or
ingestion of elements harmful to health using the desktop. Occupational Diseases
Occupational illness were matched to the work accident,€whether typical or atyp
ical diseases causing disability when they work. Diseases Working Typical Diseas
es Labour Typical or occupational diseases are caused by physical, chemical, or
biological agents belonging to certain functions, since they are related by the
Ministry of Social Welfare and Assistance (Article 2, # 1, I, of Law 6367 ). Exa
mples: lead poisoning (lead poisoning) Silicosis (silica workers). Diseases Labo
ur Labour Atypical Atypical Diseases are those that are not on the relationship
established by the Ministry of Social Security, they result from special conditi
ons under which work is performed and it relates directly. Preventionist the poi
nt of view, we can define, in a more broad and general, the work accident as "an
y unplanned event that causes physical harm to employees or damage to equipment
or machinery." With a more modern view, we could define the work accident, the p
oint of view preventionist as: Accident is an unplanned and unwanted event that
could result in injury, damage to health, damage the product, equipment or facil
ities, or other financial losses for the company. You may notice in this setting
, some changes to the definitions above. For example, in the past, we defined as
personal accident of an unexpected occurrence - usually involving contact betwe
en an employee and an object or substance exposure condition - which interrupted
the work. The effort of health and safety today must be much broader. For examp
le, accidents are not always unexpected. If we are aware that there is a potenti
al accident and not treated, can not be surprised if the accident happens, the a
ccident could be avoided. However, accidents do not always involve "contact" bet
ween a person and an object, and accidents do not always paralyze the work. Many
exposures to occupational diseases are only known by the victim later. Many acc
idents are potentially serious accidents frustrated, without the slightest conse
quence in terms of damage or personal injury. Nevertheless they are accidents.
Using our new definition of accident requires a more holistic approach to accide
nt prevention and occupational health. Today, the accident prevention effort mus
t identify and correct dangerous behaviors that lead to accidents, rather than e
mphasizing the courage of the types of injuries and types of accidents. The Mean
ing of Accident Frustrated The severity of injury from accidents is largely a ma
tter of luck. The person who fell from a ladder could leave without injury or co
uld die. The causes, however, could be the same in both cases. In the prevention
of future losses or injuries, it is important to study the causes, not conseque
nces. So what we learned from accidents without injuries is as valuable as what
we learned from accidents with serious injuries. It is also equally important to
not only have a functioning system to collect and analyze data on accidents as
frustrated to have a system to investigate the incidents with serious injuries.
To this end, a number of means. The following diagram illustrates the relationsh
ip between accidents and no injuries:
Serious Injury .............................. Without an Injury Severity Without
Injuries Accidents ................ 29 ............... 300 ....... 700 000 Dang
erous Behaviors
1 29 300 700 000
PYRAMID OF ACCIDENTS The security professionals have known for a long time this
pyramid and the correlation between dangerous behavior and types of injuries. In
fact the last decades of 60 and 70, several companies have used their knowledge
of these ratios to identify activities for the prevention of accidents.
Using effectively the activities of health and safety to eliminate the causes of
injuries are not serious both they and the serious injuries were reduced gradua
lly in these locations. A. Investigation of Accident Without Injuries are a numb
er of ways to collect and study data from accidents without injuries. Two of the
most common are the research with no injuries and the use of a tool known as a
technique for remembering the incident. B. Sampling Behavior A more comprehensiv
e approach to accident prevention is to turn the pyramid upside down and focus a
ttention on dangerous behavior. Rather than wait for accidents to occur or light
, or wait for reports on "near misses" is much more productive to do a routine s
ampling of employee behavior at work. As shown in the diagram, there are thousan
ds of dangerous behavior occurring every day, each hour,€and any of them may bec
ome the point of explosion to close shave without getting hurt. There are many s
ystems available to study behaviors. One of the best is the sampling Security. I
ts use can help any plant to collect basic data needed to improve accident preve
ntion. 3 - CAUSES OF ACCIDENTS AT WORK For years, security professionals based t
heir efforts on a dual axiom, stating that: (1) accidents are caused, and (2) ac
cidents can be prevented by reducing these causes. From the '60s, when companies
began to introduce some kind of safety program, these two concepts have provide
d much of the basis for efforts to prevent accidents. Previously, security progr
ams were based on a definition open about causes of accidents, including everyth
ing and anything related to the employee or her environment that contributed to
the accident. These causes could include the actions of fellow employees and sup
ervisors or inertia or management. Although such ideas still provide a basic poi
nt of departure for safety, the nature of the industrial workplace has changed p
rofoundly in recent years. Sophisticated machines replaced muscle strength, elim
inated paperwork computers, lasers and other automatic equipment and changed the
nature of work. New products and new processing techniques have introduced new
concerns about radiation, toxic chemicals, noise and other hazardous conditions.
Ergonomics, the study of how the workplace can be designed to fit the physical
needs and safety of the employee, was recognized. Introduced to new techniques o
f security analysis system to identify hazards in the workplace, through install
ation of equipment, construction of buildings and sophisticated systems in advan
ce. Today, we see the working environment in increasingly large. By environment
we mean not only the physical environment but also the mechanisms we use to
monitor conditions of safety and health. This includes the management system tha
t indicates who is responsible and who has an obligation to what actions, what p
rocedures are working to discover and correct hazards, and what training is need
ed to make sure each employee knows to do the work assigned to it under safe con
ditions. The current environment also includes the climate or culture of the org
anization, management and supervisors are convinced or not the subject of securi
ty is a high priority, whether or not employees believe that management is reall
y committed to safety, if management and employees correctly perceive their need
s for safety and health; whether or not employees receive regular communications
about security if supervisors receive or not an evaluation of their performance
in safety and health, or whether other mechanisms exist to demonstrate the comm
itment of company with safety and occupational health. Causes of Accidents - The
Model of Human Failure Many of the behavioral aspects of health and safety prog
ram listed here were developed by Dan Petersen, a consultant in industrial safet
y. The cause and effect diagram Petersen, presented at the next page suggests th
at all accidents are caused by: (a) a management system failure, (2) human error
, or some combination of these two basic conditions. In the following pages we w
ill examine in more detail the Model of Human Failure Petersen. Model Cause (Pet
ersen Diagram - Simplified)
PETERSEN DIAGRAM NO FAULT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM LOSS OR INJURY CAUSED BY ACCIDENT OR
Is INCIDENT DECISION TO ERR HUMAN ERROR TRAPS
EXCESS WORK
Petersen's model suggests that any injury or other loss in the area of health an
d safety for the company is the end result of an accident or incident. Working f
rom left to right across the graph we can see that the casualty is caused either
(1) by a failure of management systems, and (2) by human error, or some combina
tion of both. Fault Management Systems
The elements included in a failure of the systems relate to many of the followin
g questions that security professionals do every day: • • • • • • • • • • • • Th
e management has a policy statement on health and safety? Who is responsible and
to what degree? Who has the authority to do what? Who is responsible for health
and safety? How? Because these people are measured in terms of performance? Wha
t systems are used in inspections to check what went wrong? As new employees are
selected? As guidance is given to new employees? Receive sufficient training? W
hat are the standard operating procedures? What standards are used? How are reco
gnized, evaluated, and eliminated or controlled the risk of health and safety? •
What records are used and how are they maintained? • What is the medical progra
m? Because people make mistakes (human error) Dan Pertersen classifies dangerous
behaviors into three categories he said that human error comes from: wrong deci
sion (to work in unsafe conditions) Under certain conditions, it seems logical t
o prefer the employee unsafe action. The reasons for this decision could include
: • Pressure from colleagues, productivity requirements management, boredom, lac
k of interest, or many others. • A mindset that will give people a reason to aci
dentar.Isto unconscious tendency is called an accident. • Belief that it can not
suffer accidents.
Traps Traps, or human errors caused by the system, are also a primary reason for
people to make mistakes. In this case, we talk mostly about human factors. One
of these traps is the mismatch. The employee may be forced to unsafe acts becaus
e the work situation is incompatible with their physical or the condition you ex
pect. The second trap is the layout of the workplace, certain layouts lead to hu
man error. For example, the premises of a new workshop employees were required t
o overstretching certain muscles in the process of moving material. In this case
, poorly designed workplace employees turned into a trap. Overloading The overlo
ad can be physical, physiological or psychological. To cope with the overload as
the cause of accidents, we must examine the capacity, workload and current moti
vational state or condition of the individual. Capacity concerns to physical abi
lities, physiological and psychological person's current state of mind, and the
current level of knowledge and skills of the individual for the job in question.
The ability of individual may be temporarily reduced by the use of drugs, alcoh
ol, stress, fatigue, etc.. Load refers to the task and what is needed to accompl
ish it. Loads also relates to the amount of processing that the person should do
, work environment, number of worries, stress and other pressures, and total lif
e situation and private person. State or condition refers to the level of motiva
tion, attitude, attention and biorhythmic situation of the person. The Principle
of Multiple Causes Most accidents have more than one cause. Our common tendency
to simplify, often leads us to mistakenly identify a single cause. In fact ther
e is almost always a number of causes as a result causing the accident. The idea
of multiple causes states that many factors combine to cause accidents to happe
n. We will examine a common accident in terms of multiple causes. An employee fe
ll from a defective ladder • • • • Why is not defective ladder was discovered du
ring routine inspections? Why is the supervisor allowed the use? If the injured
employee knew that the ladder was defective, why did you use? The employee has b
een properly trained?
• The employee has been reminded about the practices of security? • The ladder w
as properly marked with safety warnings? • The supervisor reviewed the work befo
rehand? Answers to these and other questions could lead to the following types o
f corrections: • • • • inspection procedure Better Training Better Definition be
st work responsibilities better advance planning of work by supervisors
As in any accident, if we are to prevent repetition, we need to find and remove
the underlying causes. Cite only the unsafe act of "climbing a ladder defective"
and an unsafe condition that we call "faulty Ladder" will not help much. When w
e look exclusively act and condition, we are dealing with symptoms and not cause
s. Often, the causes are rooted in the management system. These causes may arise
from policies and procedures, supervision and its effectiveness, training, etc.
.€Rooted causes are those which, if corrected, would have permanent effect on re
sults. Causes are rooted weaknesses that could affect not only the accident unde
r investigation, but also many other accidents and operational problems in the f
uture. Causes employees to risk as has been suggested, employees may act in unsa
fe conditions because they know the safest way to do it or, sometimes, because t
hey prefer to deliberately unsafe behavior. Decide to adopt unsafe behavior beca
use some other factor has higher priority than his concern for his own safety. I
n these cases, unsafe behavior makes sense for them at the moment. Here are some
reasons for this attitude. 1. Aware of the danger Often employees act in a dang
erous manner because they simply do not recognize the danger. 2. Lack of informa
tion Sometimes, employees act dangerously because they know not how to perform c
ertain work, or do not know how to avoid a known risk of the work. We can not ex
pect a new employee properly clean spills acid, if it has not received proper in
structions.
3. The skill level of skills and information are not the same. Many skills requi
re the use of hands, eyes, and certain muscles in a coordinated manner to achiev
e the desired result. Few have natural ability and coordination to drive a car o
r winch to achieve a golf ball on the first shot. Neither the majority of people
can operate a crane, a locomotive or any other heavy industrial equipment witho
ut a considerable amount of training and experience. 4. If the time constraint m
eans insurance is more time consuming than the insecure, many employees will pre
fer the shortest path, gaining time. The greater the time advantage offered by u
nsafe behavior, the greater the temptation to take the risk and adopt it. 5. The
easiest way Where safe behavior require more effort or physical application, we
can anticipate that some employees prefer the easiest way. The higher the tax,
the greater the temptation. 6. Preventing discomfort when safe behavior involve
some physical discomfort (such as use of personal protective equipment) will giv
e some preference to the more comfortable alternative. 7. Reason attention Some
people prefer face risks of life just to gain the approval of the group or to at
tract the attention of colleagues. 8. Some employees resent resentment and react
to supervision. These people, sometimes, they follow a dangerous behavior to ex
press their independence or to retaliate, supervision by injustice, real or imag
inary. 9. Disability Employees can be induced to risky behaviors due to intoxica
tion, hangovers, drugs, fatigue, minor injuries or other physical disability.
10. Mental conditions Anger, frustration, boredom, worry, tension due to family
problems, all this can distract the employee and to intervene with his powers of
concentration to do the job safely. Examples of unsafe conditions rooted in beh
avior The following story illustrates the importance of discovering the reasons
or causes rooted in unsafe acts before deciding on corrective action. After a re
cord in the security area particularly mediocre group of professional drivers, t
he security department conducted a detailed study on the performance of the flee
t. It was found that the mechanical equipment was in order. The errors of the dr
ivers were obviously the problem. But what driver and what mistakes? Other tests
carried out showed that a large number of collisions was caused by the distance
interposed between the driver and his car in front. Experience indicated that t
he normal warnings about the Department of Homeland Security to maintain safe di
stance had little effect, not avoiding the frequency of accidents. He became the
n a deep study about the recent accidents and drivers involved - this study aime
d to find out why drivers are not played according to expectations - which showe
d surprising results. Evidence from the study indicated that a group of drivers
- one with the worst accident records - were simply not driving as well as they
did. These drivers had problems with mood and behavior had careless driving. The
remedy in this case was a program of more frequent contacts by supervisors and
positive feedback when the results improved. The second group of drivers were no
t convinced of the distance between your car and the car in front offered danger
. For these€was needed more training in defensive driving. The third group consi
sted of drivers with vision problems that hampered the accurate calculation of d
istances. To these were given eye examinations and corrective lenses. There was
still another group of hard-pressed drivers in time who thought it impossible to
attend the program required by the heads without driving at high speed. The rec
ords of this group improved so that the programs have been reworked more realist
ically. In the above situation, management has used four different corrective ac
tions to improve fleet performance in security, seeking rooted causes of unsafe
actions of drivers. 4. Unsafe acts and unsafe conditions Every accident is conce
rned, and not simply happen, that's why every time an accident occurs, however s
imple it may seem, we investigated and analyzed with the aim of finding causes a
nd, consequently, find the measures or recommendations necessary to avoid the re
currence of similar accidents.
Accidents occur for misconduct by the employee against the rules of safety or un
safe condition that exists in the workplace. We basically classify the cause of
an accident at work on two factors: ACT or unsafe condition. A third classificat
ion of causes of accidents that are the natural causes, accounting for 1-2% of a
ccidents. Natural causes are the factors of nature, such as volcano, earthquakes
, storms, etc., where technology has no control or forecasts more reliable. Unsa
fe acts and conditions are factors that, singly or in combination, cause workpla
ce accidents. Are thus the direct causes of accidents. Thus, one can understand
that preventing workplace accidents, in summary, is to correct unsafe conditions
existing in the workplace, not allowing others to be created and avoid the prac
tice of unsafe acts by individuals. Both conditions as unsafe acts stems from mo
re remote in indirect causes. These indirect factors, however, can be reduced or
eliminated in order to avoid the last links of the chain, acts and unsafe condi
tions, will facilitate the occurrence of accidents or at least that such occurre
nces will become increasingly rare. Surveys carried out by various bodies and in
stitutes showed that the proportion of causes of accidents is approximately:
Unsafe acts UNSAFE CONDITIONS
80% 20%
4.1 ATO INSECURE is the way people expose themselves, consciously or unconscious
ly, the risk of accidents. These are responsible for many acts of workplace acci
dents and are present in most cases where someone is injured. Note that in inves
tigations of accidents, some unsafe acts that stand out among those categorized
as frequent, although this most obviously varies from company to company. It is
noteworthy that an employee with no training or who does not know the risks inhe
rent in a particular activity should not be classified as unsafe act, but as an
unsafe condition.
Below are some examples of unsafe acts best known: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • S
tay together or under suspended loads. Using machines without license or permiss
ion. Lubricate, adjust and clean machine in motion. Disable safety devices. Use
of inappropriate clothing. Carrying or stacking insecurely. Trying to buy time E
xposing body parts, the moving parts of machinery or equipment. Print speeding.
Improvise or make improper use of the tool required task. Do not use PPE. Improp
er handling of chemicals. Smoking in prohibited place. Drugs or alcohol during t
he workday.
02.04 UNSAFE CONDITION Unsafe conditions in places of service are those who unde
rstand worker safety. Are faults, defects, irregularities and lack of technical
security devices that you put at risk the physical and / or human health and the
very security of premises and equipment. It should be borne in mind that these
should not be confused with the risks inherent in certain industrial operations.
For example, the electric current is a risk of the work involving electricity,
appliances or electrical installations, electricity can not be considered an uns
afe condition for being perigosa.Instalações poorly made or improvised, exposed
wires, etc.. Are unsafe , the power itself does not.€Below are some examples of
unsafe conditions more commonly known: • • • • • • • • • • • Lack of protection
in machinery and equipment machinery and tooling Deficiency Tickets dangerous el
ectrical installations inadequate or defective Lack of personal protective equip
ment Noise Level High protections inadequate or defective storage Poor / lack of
cleanliness inadequate lighting defects in buildings damaged floor
• Risk of fire or explosion