Very good post Mark. I agree about the EH40 exposure limits and in that connection make one comment, one of the biggest H&S mistakes I see on site is working to the EH40 exposure limits - and in one sense it's understandable as it's an HSE publication, but companies should be setting their own benchmark limits relative to EH40 - the standard benchmark is 10% of the WEL - that's what should be aimed for. The EH40 limits are a declaration of the levels of exposure that have not been known to cause health issues. It is not a declaration of a safe level so it's not there to hide behind. As time goes on and more information is fed back from the medical world, these limits will only reduce. Companies should establish their own benchmarks and in the case of RCS, this will be 0.01 mg/m³. What do you think?
I agree that a hard and fast limit is a starting point. But my belief is that we need greater policing. Big sites tend to have dust suppression and monitoring. But there are countless smaller sites that are currently allowed to fly under the radar.
Very good post Mark. I agree about the EH40 exposure limits and in that connection make one comment, one of the biggest H&S mistakes I see on site is working to the EH40 exposure limits - and in one sense it's understandable as it's an HSE publication, but companies should be setting their own benchmark limits relative to EH40 - the standard benchmark is 10% of the WEL - that's what should be aimed for. The EH40 limits are a declaration of the levels of exposure that have not been known to cause health issues. It is not a declaration of a safe level so it's not there to hide behind. As time goes on and more information is fed back from the medical world, these limits will only reduce. Companies should establish their own benchmarks and in the case of RCS, this will be 0.01 mg/m³. What do you think?
I agree that a hard and fast limit is a starting point. But my belief is that we need greater policing. Big sites tend to have dust suppression and monitoring. But there are countless smaller sites that are currently allowed to fly under the radar.
Yes, true.