Out Loud Blog

In his newest post, guest blogger and Future Leader in EHS Jason Townsell discusses the hierarchy of controls.

I am often asked what I do for a living. Because the field of health and safety management is mostly unknown to those not within the industry, I have developed a simple and appropriate response: I am in hazard control, which may also be referred to as risk management.

There are typically three hazard control methods that managers may implement: engineering controls, administrative controls and the provision of personal protective equipment. Each of these is effective, but there is a hierarchical approach to their use.

Hierarchy of Controls

The hierarchy of controls is a system that lists the controls in descending order from the most effective to the least. This very important tool provides a listing of the available options for hazard control and also provides the best option for protection.

In the workplace, the best option for hazard control is the utilization of engineering controls. Engineering controls effectively remove or minimize hazards, thus eliminating or reducing the exposure to employees. Well-designed engineering controls can be highly effective in protecting workers and are typically independent of worker interaction, which reduces the potential of malfunction due to improper use.

The initial cost of engineering controls can be higher than the cost of administrative controls or personal protective equipment, which may make them the least used method of control. Over the long term, however, operating costs are frequently lower once the controls are put into place; in addition, maintenance is typically in low demand.

Administrative controls and PPE (in this order) fall lower on the hierarchy as they provide less protection than engineering controls. They both involve the worker adhering to set policies (i.e. following an injury and illness prevention program and/or appropriately wearing PPE) and other types of controls such as worker rotation and medical screening. Administrative controls minimize worker exposure through the provision of policies, procedures and training, but they do not eliminate hazards.

Like administrative controls, the use of PPE does not eliminate hazards but rather attempts to protect workers from the impact of hazardous exposure. Safety experts refer to the use of PPE as the last resort for worker protection. There are several concerns with this approach. First, PPE cannot guarantee employee safety as hazard forces are not completely predictable. Second, for PPE to do its job, it must be worn correctly and under the appropriate circumstances – and there is no guarantee that this will take place (it often does not). Finally, PPE takes a great deal of maintenance and inspection, both of which can be neglected.

Effective Hazard Control

Engineering controls are by far the most effective control available and thus should be the most frequently used. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as hazard control is often addressed by managers taking the path of least resistance (which in business often is the cheapest and easiest path). This usually consists of reminding employees to wear their PPE or by requiring them to read the safety manual and attend required safety training. While these are effective, they do not control the hazard but rather the employee. Hazard control must be concerned with controlling hazards.

Tran Huynh, a student pursuing a Ph.D. in industrial hygiene at the University of Minnesota, was selected as a runner-up in the 2010 Future Leaders in EHS program. This scholarship program was created to support and encourage EHS students as they lead the way in keeping tomorrow’s workers safe. The judging panel recognized Huynh based on her research experience, her excellent grades and references and her dedication to protecting workers from health and safety risks. She shares a guest blog below.

NIOSH ERC Funding Crisis: A Student’s Perspective

by Tran Huynh

I recently learned from my program director at the University of Minnesota about President Obama’s FY 2012 budget proposal for the Department of Human Health and Services. The proposal suggests a 17 percent cut in the NIOSH budget, which includes the elimination of federal funding of $24.3 million for the 17 Education and Resource Centers (ERC) across the United States.

These university-based ERCs support graduate degree programs and research training for students in the occupational health and safety field. In addition, these centers also offer continuing education for occupational health practitioners so that they are equipped with the latest information to improve worker health and safety.

As a trainee under the ERC, I am very concerned about the future of these centers. If the funding is eliminated, this will significantly and negatively impact the number of future students entering the field, as well as the quality of training and education that future students will receive.

Recruitment Challenges

Compared to other public health graduate degree programs, occupational health is not a popular degree among students. Because the field is highly specialized and field-based, job opportunities in health departments are very limited. OSHA and MSHA are the two main government agencies that deal with occupational health issues, but these agencies often face budget cuts and can only hire a limited number of inspectors. That leaves the private sector as the primary source of employment for occupational health professionals.

Most small, mid-size and even large mining and manufacturing companies usually employ a bare minimum number of health professionals for compliance purposes. Unlike opportunities for graduates with an engineering or business degree, in the private sector, occupational health job prospects are limited to these highly specialized, skilled professionals because they are usually perceived as extra cost. So when it comes to cost reduction, health and safety unfortunately are among the first lines to be affected.

The lack of awareness of the profession, coupled with the limited job opportunities at health departments and in the private sector, makes recruitment of students into the field very challenging. Thus, besides promotional materials and effort, training grants are an important incentive to recruit students to take at least a few introductory classes to explore the profession.

Currently, even with the existing training grants, the number of students enrolled in the program is very small compared to other public health programs such as epidemiology and biostatistics that don’t offer such incentive. I am afraid without the financial incentive at the beginning, the number of students entering the profession will quickly dwindle, resulting in shortages of occupational health professionals to adequately protect the growing work force.

A Rewarding Path

Even though job opportunities seem limited, once students get to work, occupational health and safety can be a very rewarding career path. That is why the majority of graduates remain in the field. The challenge is to get them interested in the first place.

Elimination of the ERCs will affect the quality of training and education of students and practitioners. Like any other field, research and the dissemination of research results in order to improve practices is essential to protect workers’ health. New technology such as nanotechnology will bring new hazards that need careful evaluation to balance economic benefits and the public health.

These centers are not only an essential funding source for researchers-in-training and research projects that help to advance the occupational health field (besides NIOSH projects), but they also provide a channel to disseminate the latest information to practitioners through continuing education programs. Without the centers, we will not be able to attract qualified students and support research projects pertinent to the field.

ERC: Investing in the Future

According to NIOSH statistics, these ERCs supply approximately 75 percent of the occupational health and safety professionals responsible for protecting the health of the work force. These highly skilled professionals are undoubtedly one of the greatest returns expected from investment in these ERCs.

I would also like to point to a less obvious benefit resulting from investing money in trainees: the contribution of ex-trainees to help current students and to enrich the programs. For example, since I have started in the industrial hygiene program, I have seen a handful of ex-trainees, now very successful professionals, come back to volunteer their time and expertise as guest speakers, serve on advisory board for the center and reach out to current students so they can get a head-start on their career path. The fruit that current students receive is a result of the seed the ERC planted years ago. Because these ex-trainees at one time received assistance in their career, they are more motivated to help the next generations. These people are inspiring examples for current students like me who would like to continue this tradition of giving back.

I understand that in times of budgetary crisis, it is necessary to make sacrifices for the good of the country. If it means that the ERC will have smaller operating budget and current students, like me, will no long receive stipend for training or only have partial tuition coverage, I am OK with that. However, total elimination of the ERC will be catastrophic to future students, the future of occupational health and safety field and subsequently to our work force.

While it may seem that occupational health field is not so crucial right now because of the economic downturn, when our economy recoveries in a few years, more people will enter the work force and more occupational health professionals will be needed to protect our workers.

I sincerely ask that our elected officials consider a temporary reduction of funding for ERC during this crisis rather than complete elimination. When our economy recovers, it may cost more to rebuild the program so that our work force has an adequate supply of occupational health and safety professionals.

To learn more about the Education and Resource Centers and how to help save them, please visit: http://clients.criticalimpact.com/vm.cfm?i=daca62e0a8f27b99&jid=7ce958c35b7b0f98.

In his newest post, guest blogger and Future Leader in EHS Jason Townsell discusses a preventable workplace tragedy and why all workers’ lives are irreplaceable.

On Feb. 8, a Southern California man in his early 30s was working to locate a sewer line when the 8-foot-deep by 2-foot-wide trench caved in and buried him in soil up to his shoulders. This 10-year construction veteran was pronounced dead at the scene. The rescue effort had become a recovery effort.

The soil, which weighed up to 150 pounds per cubic foot, likely buried this laborer in such a way to lead to a fast death. However, this is little consolation for such a tragic, preventable event.

If this were a report of a young man dying on the front lines of war defending his country, one might see some sense in his untimely death. Delivering this heartbreaking news to a mother or wife when the deceased loved one died for a greater cause carries a banner of purpose. But construction work isn’t a cause worth dying for.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction fatalities declined by 16 percent from 2008 to 2009 (from 726 fatalities in 2008 to 607 in 2009). If that same percentage reflected a revenue increase or unemployment decrease, it would be positive. But when we are speaking of occupational fatalities, I find these totals to be unacceptable. I find the loss of even one life unacceptable.

Life Lessons

We must begin to view each of these fatalities as a face with a family rather than a statistic to be found on a Web site and improved upon for the sake of lower insurance premiums. This construction laborer was left working alone (it is still unclear if there was any form of cave-in protection in the trench) in an 8-foot deep trench while the remainder of his crew worked at another location. This lack of oversight demonstrates that some companies still don’t get it.

“It” is simple – life is important and the work is dangerous. Does that fact that it is dangerous mean it cannot or should not be done? Absolutely not. Rather, it means that those in charge must begin to match their mitigation measures with the level of danger inherent with the work.

The work will not get less dangerous. In fact, the argument could be made that with the sheer size and speed in which construction projects are evolving, the work may get even more dangerous. To counter this we must get better, and view each fatality as one too many.

Life is Precious

I realize it every time I walk in my front door and am greeted by my children, or when I watch the sun set on a lazy West Coast summer day: Life is precious and I wouldn’t trade it for the world. There is nothing like it. It is irreplaceable, incomparable and incomprehensibly beautiful.

It is only when this message – that life’s priceless beauty belongs to all – is truly absorbed by top levels of management will America’s employees be protected. When everyone pitches in to make American workers go home, occupational fatalities will become the exception rather than the rule.

Jason Townsell, a student working toward a bachelor’s of science in occupational health and safety at Columbia Southern University, was recently named the first Future Leader in EHS. He received a $5,000 scholarship and access to PureSafety’s safety and health software and information solutions. The judges selected Townsell based on his work and life experience, community outreach efforts, academic performance, his interest in teaching and mentoring EHS students and more. Townsell is a contributing blogger for EHS Today.

In his newest blog post, guest blogger and Future Leader in EHS Jason Townsell shares his thoughts on successful EHS implementation, including decision-making skills, practicing EHS procedures, valuing safety and empowering employees. Townsell stresses that both EHS leaders and employees “can choose to make safety happen.” Here’s how:

Daily Decisions

Experience has taught me that our desired outcomes are little more than a series of decisions, some for the betterment of our situation and some to the detriment. This concept is true of worker safety and health as daily decisions made by individual workers (and those who work in the vicinity) may be of life-or-death importance.

One of my goals is to persuade workers to grasp the importance of their decisions. I encourage them to choose to be safe, as I believe that a worker can make that choice and subsequently act on it to make it happen.

There is great power in all decisions. When employees understand this, change is ready to arrive.

Perfect Practice

When I was in high school, my football coach did away with the traditional statement “practice makes perfect” and replaced it with “perfect practice makes perfect.” This is a concept that can transfer to the safety world as well.

While most EHS professionals (myself included) would agree that a perfect health and safety record is nearly impossible, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep reaching for it. Remind your employees daily that when health and safety procedures are followed to the letter, the chance of attaining perfection is much higher.

Valuing EHS

Roy Disney once said, “It’s not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are.” This powerful statement provides the formula for getting one’s work force to make the right decisions every day.

People will not adhere to what they don’t value. As such, EHS professionals must do all that is possible to increase the value of the EHS program for workers. This may be done several ways, including: reaching out to employees and addressing how EHS affects them personally; highlighting the positive effects of EHS values; debunking myths about the additional time and cost required to implement safe actions; and empowering employees to take part in the EHS effort.

Employee Empowerment

Empowering employees is one of the most important aspects of successful safety and health management. It gives workers power over their safety and also makes them a part of the greater EHS effort. This provides the all-important employee buy-in to the safety program.

I believe that safety works best when employees are empowered to be a part of the EHS program and its implementation. An empowered employee is much more likely to value a safety program than an employee who feels the information is simply dictated or commanded from above.

Assigning front-line managers with the task of overseeing the safety of his or her employees and making employees an integral part of a company’s safety committee produces a sense of camaraderie. In these cases, workers want to create an environment of cohesion and compliance.

These pointers represent just a few thoughts I had today regarding successful EHS implementation. Contemplation always brings new ideas. Try it today – consider how you can have a definite impact on the safety of those around you.

Jason Townsell, a student working toward a bachelor’s of science in occupational health and safety at Columbia Southern University, was recently named the first Future Leader in EHS. He received a $5,000 scholarship and access to PureSafety’s safety and health software and information solutions. The judges selected Townsell based on his work and life experience, community outreach efforts, academic performance, his interest in teaching and mentoring EHS students and more. Townsell is a contributing blogger for EHS Today.

The following Super Bowl ad features a first date, a car and some fancy — but potentially dangerous — technology. Take a look:

“When the good news just can’t wait?” I would argue that yes, it can wait if the “good news” entails a distracted driver getting into an accident because he was accessing his Facebook feed.

Drivers are already distracted by cell phones and texting and who knows what else – having access to Facebook at the touch of your rearview mirror is not going to keep our roads safe.

What’s worse is that this type of in-car feature masquerades as being a safer option. Rather than taking your eyes off the road to check your Facebook status on your phone (can you hear me screaming right now?) you can “safely” continue driving as your car happily reads Facebook updates to you.

When I wrote the feature article Why We Need to Hang Up On Our Distracted Driving Addiction, I read various studies and spoke to one of the leaders in distracted driving research, Dr. David Strayer at the University of Utah. I learned that our brains operate differently when we are engaged in a phone call (and it doesn’t matter one bit whether your hand is at your ear or on the wheel). That undoubtedly has to go for listening to Facebook status updates, too. How can you fully keep your attention on the road when part of your mind is occupied by listening to what your friends think of your vacation photos or what snarky comment your ex-spouse left on your wall?

In the past, I held cell phone conversations while driving – until I was honest with myself and realized that it detracted from my focus on the road. Unfortunately, too many people are convinced that they can handle it just fine, or they might think that because they never got into an accident while using a cell phone, then they’re in the clear.

But as Strayer said during our interview, “You don’t instantly crash on the road while talking on the cell phone. And you don’t instantly crash when you’re drunk, either … In the long run, if you do it enough, you’re going to put yourself at risk.”

I’ve addressed distracted driving on this blog before and I likely will again. It’s a serious issue that affects all of us – and it will only get worse with new technological “advances” like the ones featured in the ad.

What People Are Saying

I gave the commercial’s YouTube comments a quick read to see what the average Super Bowl ad viewer thought of this type of technology. This is by no means a comprehensive review – a person can only take so many YouTube comments – but here’s a taste. (Note: I cleaned up some of the punctuation.)

The Safety Failure award goes to the person who wrote, “Or you could just go to Facebook on your phone like a normal person.” Is there any sense in hoping this person was being sarcastic about reading Facebook feeds while driving? Thankfully, another commenter responded, “You could also get in a life-ending car accident while looking at your phone.”

Others didn’t take safety into consideration but thought that such a feature was annoying, silly or senseless: “Facebook’s annoying enough as it is. I don’t need to know about it when I’m not even at my computer.”

Finally, some people were on board with my concerns. Their comments ranged from “seems dangerously distracting” to “horrid” to “So now road rage meets news feed malaise. This will result in death.”

Another person stressed that “We don’t need more safety features, we need less entertainment features.”

I hope everyone made it home safe and sound from Super Bowl celebrations. Remember, when you’re behind the wheel, put down the phone. And for goodness’ sake, don’t let your car talk you into an accident.

As job seekers face a discouraging economy and job market, the last thing they need to worry about is how their physical appearance might influence their prospects. But according to a recent study, this might be a real concern – only not in the ways you might expect.

According to economic researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) in Israel, attractive men might have a better chance of garnering interest from potential employers while attractive women might have less of a chance of getting a foot in the door.

Researchers sent 5,312 resumes in pairs to 2,656 advertised job openings in Israel. In each pair, one resume was sent without a picture while the second, otherwise almost identical resume contained a picture of either an attractive male/female or a plain-looking male/female. Overall, the response rate to resumes was 14.5 percent.

“Unlike Anglo-Saxon countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K, it isn’t taboo in Israel to embed a headshot of oneself in the top corner of one’s job resume,” explained BGU economics researcher and lecturer Dr. Bradley Ruffle. “Rather, the choice to include a photograph on one’s job resume is left to the candidate with the result that some do, while others don’t. This fact makes Israel an opportune location to explore the effect of a picture and its attractiveness, or lack thereof, on the likelihood of being invited for a job interview.”

The resumes of “attractive” males received a 19.9 percent response rate, nearly 50 percent higher than the13.7 percent response rate for “plain” males and more than twice the 9.2 percent response rate of no-picture males. Ze’ev Shtudiner, co-researcher and Ph.D. candidate, said that an attractive male therefore would need to send an average of five resumes in order to obtain a response, while a plain-looking male needs to send 11 for a response.

Women: Omit that Photo

Among women, however, the BGU study indicates that, contrary to popular belief, “attractive” women are called back for a position less often than “plain women,” as well as women who had no picture on their resume.

“Among female candidates, no-picture females have the highest response rate, 22 percent higher than plain females and 30 percent higher than attractive females. Our findings on penalization of attractive women contradict current psychology and organizational behavior literature on beauty that associate attractiveness, male and female alike, with almost every conceivable positive trait and disposition,” the authors explained.

As a result, attractive and plain women alike are better off omitting their photograph from a resume since it decreases their chances of a callback by 20 to 30 percent.

The number of attractive women that were subjected to discrimination varied on who was hiring them, the research shows. When employment agencies received resumes for positions, attractive female candidates were no worse off than plain candidates and penalized only modestly compared to no-picture females.

However, when the corporation at which the candidate might work recruited directly, attractive females received a response rate of about half that of plain and no-picture women. This is likely due to the high number of women in human resources staffing positions, the researchers suggest.

In fact, they go so far as to say that the women who screen the candidates (in this study, the screening person was female in 96 percent of the cases and typically was young and single) nix the attractive female candidates because of a “jealous response.” In short, the young women workers don’t want competition in the workplace from other attractive women.

I’m not sure I’m convinced on this last point. Certainly, more research is necessary to flesh out this “jealousy” hypothesis. In the meantime, perhaps we should all be grateful that it’s not standard practice to include a photo with a resume here in the United States. At the least, this research might make you rethink your Facebook photo or other images available online. You know what they say: A picture is worth a thousand job callbacks. Or something.

Jason Townsell, a student working toward a bachelor’s of science in occupational health and safety at Columbia Southern University, was recently named the first Future Leader in EHS. He received a $5,000 scholarship and access to PureSafety’s safety and health software and information solutions. The judges selected Townsell based on his work and life experience, community outreach efforts, academic performance, his interest in teaching and mentoring EHS students and more. Townsell is a contributing blogger for EHS Today.

As an EHS professional, I find myself subconsciously observing and critiquing the health and safety culture of the places that I visit. From the bamboo scaffolds in Manila, to the open-toed sandals of construction workers in Nairobi, to the personnel riding headache balls in Puerto Vallarta, my travels have exposed me to the varying safety challenges facing EHS managers around the world.

Through these experiences, I have realized that the challenge among Kenyan, Filipino, Mexican, American and, frankly, all industrial EHS managers is uniform in nature. Rather than changing specific activities, this challenge is to change the attitudes, prejudices and behavior toward safety and environmental compliance among industrial workers. I have dubbed this the Million Dollar Challenge, as the individual who is able to solve such a concern stands to not only save millions of dollars in claims, insurance costs and lost wages but stands to improve the life and opportunities (both personally and professionally) of industrial workers a million fold.

Doing the Right Thing

Although these countries maintain their own environmental health and safety jurisdictional bodies, each varies in its enforcement and training campaigns. This inevitably produces varying attitudes regarding the importance of EHS-related values at the workplace. This, however, is the problem: attitudes toward safety can no longer be based upon Big Brother enforcing “overbearing regulations.” Rather, they must be based upon care for oneself and neighbor. This attitude must come not from a fear of authority but rather a place inside each of us that desires to do the right thing.

While the answer to this precarious position can be expressed in a written program (as many companies feel is an adequate answer) or in a blog as I am currently doing, it is much more difficult in application. With the varying cultures and regulatory standards around the world, EHS compliance must be derived from a unified, non-nationality based culture of responsibility, accountability and behavior conducive to safe and environmentally conscious activities. These values are based more on psychology than regulatory recall, more upon ethics than bottom lines.

Transcending Compliance

So where do we begin? As with any movement, this change from compliance based upon regulations to compliance based upon a desire to conduct work in a responsible manner must be lead by progressive leaders with a desire to see more out their efforts than a generic safety program.

A partnership that encourages communication and feedback between leaders and associates must be implemented. Leadership can be simply summarized as influence. The modern-day EHS manager must desire to influence those he/she leads into appropriate behavior rather than simply mandating and administrating safe actions, as administration without leadership-inspired management is more of a dictatorship than a partnership. It is time for the leaders in the field of EHS to transcend the current expectation of minimal compliance and work for the establishment of a new standard, an ethical standard – a standard that strives to go beyond the status quo rather than just meeting it.

Jason Townsell, a student working toward a bachelor’s of science in occupational health and safety at Columbia Southern University, was recently named the first Future Leader in EHS. He received a $5,000 scholarship and access to PureSafety’s safety and health software and information solutions. The judges selected Townsell based on his work and life experience, community outreach efforts, academic performance, his interest in teaching and mentoring EHS students and more.

In this blog entry, Townsell outlines his approach to establishing a safety-conscious worksite.

The Basics of a Safe Construction Worksite

by Jason Townsell

An active construction site can be compared to a minefield, with many unforeseen potential tragedies laced throughout the terrain. I’ve observed construction workers doing things that make me ask myself, “What are they thinking?” or “Are they thinking about safety at all?” Unfortunately, many are not thinking about safety on the job, but rather production and production only.

While production is a vital consideration, the project’s safety consciousness must be intertwined with production. This is the essence of managing risk – accepting that risk is a part of our work, as well as taking the necessary steps to manage the exposure.

By its nature, construction work is dangerous. Rather than navigating a minefield, however, contractors and construction managers would be better served by taking comprehensive, proactive steps to neutralize the battleground by diffusing the mines.

Here is my approach to establishing a safety-conscious worksite:

1. Creating and promulgating a comprehensive site-specific health and safety plan: A project’s safety plan is the cornerstone of all things related to environmental health and safety at the worksite. Far too many companies have what I call a “canned” safety program that is either purchased readymade or downloaded from the Internet. Such a program is not specific to the functions or activities of the purchaser.

Another common concern with canned programs is that the purchaser rarely has any concept of what is in the program, thus leaving an under prepared and overexposed work force. Having a program that has been created by an individual or group of individuals intimately familiar with your company and projects will allow for a personalized program that is specific to your purpose and function. This also allows for an easier transfer of information from those who have created the program to those who will live out the program – your work force.

2. Conducting exhaustive worksite safety assessments: These intensive assessments act as the risk manager’s minesweeper by detecting, removing or neutralizing worksite hazards. These assessments not only eliminate hazards but also allow the assessor to become familiar with the habits and trends of the workers at the site; this vital information will further alleviate common missteps and mistakes that your work force is likely to make. These assessments will identify weak areas in the safety programs so proactive corrective action can be taken.

3. Pre-planning for safety: Any good construction estimator has mastered the art of preparing for unexpected construction costs including, but not limited to, specification changes, material availability changes and unforeseen conditions. However, some fail to plan for safety at the job. Basic tasks such as performing job hazard/safety analyses and performing routine worksite safety inspections is a foreign concept to many. Pre-planning for safety can head off many potential problems before they manifest themselves into actual problems; this allows for engineering controls (reducing or eliminating workplace hazards by engineering them out of the process) and work practice controls (minimizing and/or eliminating hazards through proactive safety minded actions) to be introduced to the worksite.

4. Mandating jobsite safety orientation training for all employees: Many studies have placed worker behavior as a significant contributor to worksite health and safety exposures and incidents; the value of safety training in employee behavior modification cannot be overstated. Jobsite safety orientations are an underused asset that risk managers keep hidden in their toolbox. Mandating safety orientations eliminates the ignorance defense among employees and heightens the overall safety awareness of your work force. Safety orientations also allow for two-way exchanges of information; this verbal communication encourages question and answer sessions and assures safety expectations are clearly communicated.

While these recommendations are basic and should not replace a thorough safety program at your worksite, implementing them can be the first step to establishing a safer work environment.

To learn more about Townsell and the Future Leaders in EHS program, please see the December 2010 feature, Future Leader in EHS: Jason Townsell.

Tran Huynh, a student pursuing a Ph.D. in industrial hygiene at the University of Minnesota, was selected as a runner-up in the 2010 Future Leaders in EHS program. This scholarship program was created to support and encourage EHS students as they lead the way in keeping tomorrow’s workers safe. The judging panel recognized Huynh based on her research experience, her excellent grades and references and her dedication to protecting workers from health and safety risks. Below, she shares a special guest blog post about her most recent research in the field.

Tales from the Taconite Mines

by Tran Huynh

My decision to enter the industrial hygiene profession has taken me to many interesting places, from secured animal research facilities to one of the largest taconite mines in North America.

Since September, I have been working on a research project assessing workers’ exposure taconite dusts under the guidance of my advisor. This exposure assessment project is a component of a larger Taconite Worker Lung Health Study that was funded by the state of Minnesota. As part of the study, University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health research teams are investigating the causes of a unique type of lung cancer called mesothelioma among taconite workers in the Mesabi Iron Range in the northeastern part of Minnesota.

My research partner and I are responsible for collecting personal and area air samples at the mines. These samples provide us with information about workers’ current exposure to asbestos and non-asbestos fibers, respirable dust and quartz silica and allow us to evaluate the adequacy of existing dust control measures to protect workers.

The exposure data will later be combined with data from other research teams including historical exposure data dating back in the 1980s, environmental exposure, mortality data, cancer incidence data and respiratory lung survey of workers and their spouses. Analysis of such comprehensive sets of data will help answer many questions, including: Is there a link between exposure to taconite dust and cancer or other health effects? If so, at what levels in occupational setting and in the community?

If evidence of disease is found at a level lower than current legal limit, then the policy needs to be re-evaluated in order to better protect workers in the mining industry.

An Engineering Marvel

The first few weeks at the mines were, to put it simply, overwhelming. The mining pit stretches hundreds of acres. The haul truck is the size of a 2-story house. The mining process and all the equipment – including rock crushers, rod mills, the dust collection system, mobile equipment and more – are an engineering marvel.

When we arrive at the mining plant to collect our samples, an escort helps us maneuver through the plant. Our escort teaches us about the extraction process, the various types of equipment used, sources of dust and health and safety measures. One time, we even had the opportunity to see a blast (from a safe distance, of course) at the pit, where we observed the blasting engineers coordinate with other mining staff via radio to ensure no one was near designated perimeter.

It has been such a privilege to be part of this project. I can’t imagine where I’ll end up next.

For more information about the study, visit http://taconiteworkers.umn.edu.

It’s dramatic. It’s exaggerated. It’s … Unstoppable.

No, I haven’t seen the movie Unstoppable, which is loosely based on a real-life close call when an unmanned runaway train in Ohio created a potentially life-threatening situation back in 2001. The train traveled nearly 70 miles at speeds approaching 50 mph before CSX Transportation Inc. employees were able to safely bring it to a stop.

In 2001, EHS Today reported on this runaway train incident. The nearly decade-old article has received quite a few hits since the movie Unstoppable was released Nov. 12 of this year. Again, I haven’t seen it (yet?) but the events have clearly been dramatized to a nearly unrecognizable extent, which is of course to be expected.

But it got me thinking: What other kinds of movies can be based off stories EHS Today has covered? Perhaps a dramatic re-enactment of a family of five struggling to eat healthily during the 6-hour car ride to Grandma’s? Or a documentary following Cirque du Soleil performers embarking on a new injury prevention program? How about a tension-filled drama surrounding OSHA’s top 10 violations?

I think I’m on to something. Hollywood, I’ll get in touch after the holidays.

Meanwhile, if you end up seeing Unstoppable – please, let us know how it is.