|
|
adsense sidebar
|
|
|
|
|
The Hazards of the Workplace
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written by George
|
|
Saturday, 23 February 2008 |
|
Ergonomics is an important contribution toward understanding how the physical aspects of work can be improved, thus improving both output and morale. The introduction of VDTs has opened new ergonomic concerns, but certainly all workers can benefit from relatively simple, inexpensive changes such as adjustable seat heights, reduced noise levels, good storage and filing space, access to daylight, and adequate lighting. Only a management able to listen to what staff members are saying will be able to take the steps necessary to solve both its own and staff problems.
Office Air Pollution
After a few hours, my head starts to get fuzzy, my eyes become irritated and
feel puffy and I get a headache. From then until lunch I can't really focus on my work: I just want to put my head down and go to sleep. It gets better after I go out for lunch, but it starts again later in the afternoon. It's gotten so that I have to schedule my important work for certain hours because I can't count on having a clear head in this place for all of the working hours.
These symptoms probably sound familiar to many of us who work in sealed, energy efficient, "sick" office buildings around the country It can be very difficult to pin down a single specific cause. In all probability, the symptoms arise from a combination of many different contaminants.
Carbon monoxide from the exhaust fumes of cars in a garage below the building, circulating through the ventilation system, might be one source. Formaldehyde, a common ingredient in particle board products and insulation materials or vapors from plastics might be leaching into the air from office partitions, rugs, or furniture. Ozone from the copying machine just outside the office door could also be the culprit, along with secondhand smoke, fungi, and bacteria from a less-than-spotless ventilation system. The permutations and possibilities are daunting.
Up to 200 chemicals have been found in air tested in homes and the list may be longer for many office environments.
According to Dr. Robert Arndt and Larry Chapman of the University of Wisconsin in their report "Potential Office Hazards and Controls" for the Office of Technology Assessment, the drive to reduce energy costs through better insulation and sealed environments has compounded the problem. Outside air added to internal ventilation systems must be cooled or heated to match interior temperatures; as a result, many buildings have reduced their fresh air intake. Arndt and Chapman make the point that "ventilation specifications and design do not guarantee adequate dilution or removal of contaminants during actual system operation in specific buildings or particular building areas.'/ There is virtually no way of enforcing the ventilation standards in practice. Buildings may be sealed to cut energy costs, vents closed, new wall partitions installed.
In many buildings the chances of contaminants building up and being recirculated throughout the system are high, causing the telltale symptoms of fatigue, headaches, dizziness, sore throats, and upper respiratory irritations. Some contaminants, like formaldehyde and certain solvents, are carcinogenic. Ozone from copiers and other electrical equipment may have genetic effects. Legionnaire's Disease is a fatal example of what bacteria thriving in air conditioning units can do. The cumulative and synergistic effects of these irritants and contaminants could be both enormous and costly in terms of health and lost productivity, particularly since, as Arndt and Chapman point out, most Americans spend between 80 and 90 percent of their time indoors.
One of the major obstacles to improving the situation is that not enough is known, particularly about the long-term effects of poor indoor air quality. Sealed buildings, an outgrowth of the energy crunch, are a relatively new phenomenon. Most complaints about air quality have been recorded in surveys, not in formal scientific studies, and consequently are only "anecdotal." Much of the evidence that exists on airborne contaminants comes from studies carried out in controlled environments, which affects its validity with regard to office work. And finally, while there are some standards regulating the level of contaminants such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and formaldehyde in the air, these are based on acceptable industrial exposures in workers dealing directly with them in the manufacturing process. As one NIOSH authority has pointed out, they were not designed to insure optimum comfort, a far from reassuring thought for both office and factory workers.
In their report to OTA, Arndt and Chapman stress the need for more research, particularly in light of the effect poor air quality has on general well-being and its potential to act as a source of stress. Better ventilation is one obvious solution to the problem. But while there are no figures on the economic impact of reduced worker efficiency due to indoor air pollution, there are utility bills which prove it is expensive to add fresh, outside air to systems, the simplest if not cheapest solution. Substituting different products and processes for those with offending ingredients also can help. Venting improvements around photocopiers and other office machines also can make a big difference, as can the establishment of nosmoking areas.
Passive smoking may be more than just a nuisance. James Repace of the EPIC has been quoted as saying that passive smoking is responsible for up to 5,000 lung cancer deaths per year. A Japanese study found that nonsmoking wives of smokers had four times the expected risk of developing lung cancer. "Acute exposures to smoke-filled rooms have reduced the effort tolerance of patients with angina pectoris; chronic exposure to smoke- polluted air has apparently caused respiratory disease in young children and lung cancer in adults, while placental transfer of tobacco products has led smoking mothers to bear premature, underweight infants with continuing abnormalities of growth and development," writes researcher Roy J. Shephard.
According to the American Lung Association, employers who permit smoking in work areas are opening themselves to legal action by nonsmoking workers. "An employer's liability actually increases by permitting workplace smoking," the association notes. "In every state except Louisiana the employer is subject to civil action under the common- law duty to provide a work environment reasonably free of recognized hazards and to protect the employee from avoidable perils. In addition, the National Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires reasonable accommodation for nonsmokers who qualify as handicapped when exposed to second hand smoke.
There may very well be a law or ordinance in your area which protects your rights as a non-smoker: 35 states have laws that limit smoking, but only nine refer to smoking at work (Minnesota, Utah, Nebraska, Connecticut, Alaska, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and California). Local town and county ordinances may be a better form of protection.
Many people hesitate to invoke their legal rights or otherwise cause a stir with smoking co-workers. Understandably, they feel that it is the employer who should mediate the situation. While it can be difficult for someone who is addicted to cigarettes to refrain from smoking at his or her desk throughout the workday, the designation of smoking areas by management and a clear management position on the issue can help defuse any personal tension. The National Lung Association publishes two guides to help employers develop smoking policies. It also conducts stopsmoking programs at work; employees and managers should contact the organization for help on this issue.
Office buildings are generally low in negative ions. VDTs generate large amounts of positive ions, thus disrupting the already delicate atmospheric balance. Such symptoms as depression and fatigue have been observed in people living in certain areas of the world with positive ion concentrations. Winds like the Santa Ana, Mistral, and Sirocco have acquired bad reputations because of the disease and emotional disturbances that seem to follow them. At the time these winds blow, there are massive build-ups in the amount of positive ions in the air. Some of the symptoms are similar to those mentioned in "sick- building" complaints.
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 23 February 2008 )
|
|
|
|
|
Featured articleNo featured article avalaible
|
|
