This new paper from Lachenmayer et al. at Colorado State University (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad82b2) found that environmental concentrations of benzene were between 18% to 89% attributable to an oil and gas well pad located nearby. Concentrations only reached a maximum of 0.8 parts per billion, much less than the 100 ppb recommended 8-hour exposure limit from NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) or the 3 ppb health guideline value (HGV) from the ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry).
Officially, this kind of exposure is ruled safe. However, we do not know much about the effects of combined exposures and benzene and other VOCs can contribute to ground level ozone and other potential secondary pollutants. Further, the nature of population-level exposures are such that if enough people are exposed, even at low levels, we continually increase the likelihood that some group will be negatively impacted. What mitigations have we not yet implemented and what would they cost?
9 October 2024
A proposed new regulation for the design of light passenger vehicles to better protect pedestrians (and cyclists and motorcyclists) is open for comment through November 18, 2024. The goal is to make some kinds of impacts between people and vehicles less likely to cause death or serious injury (those at less than 25 mph). Similar rules are already in place in Europe and Asia. Stylistic choices in more recent vehicle designs (like more blunt, vertical, and taller front ends) are partly to blame for the increases in pedestrian fatality rates in the US. The rule is expected to prevent 67 fatalities annually once implemented.
8 October 2024
OSHA’s proposed heat exposure standard is currently open for public comment at Regulations.gov, with about 7,300 comments received already. The text and background of the new standard is available in the Federal Register :: Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings. This new standard is anticipated to collectively cost $7.8 billion annually (the high value mostly stemming from how nearly all businesses could be impacted to some degree) and is expected to have $9.2 billion in annual monetized benefits (in reduced heat-related fatalities, $13.77 million per fatality, and non-fatal illnesses, $116,588 per injury).
5 October 2024
The sky is full of germs | Popular Science (popsci.com)
They found a lot of different species up there blowing around in the wind, but “We know a lot about how much of an undesired bacteria can be in our food or water before it makes us sick,” Gernand says. In contrast “we very rarely have that kind of information for inhaled pathogens,”
11 September 2024
24 January 2024
15 January 2024
14 November 2023
Organizations should know that being safe and mitigating risk is not contrary to meeting goals quickly or innovating, nor is it synonymous with being bureaucratic.
These are serious concerns reported here and hopefully SpaceX learns to see worker injuries as serious setbacks to schedules and major drains on human resources.
At SpaceX, worker injuries soar in Elon Musk’s rush to Mars (reuters.com)
10 November 2023
29 September 2023
Removing and not replacing local heat safety standards doesn’t reduce regulatory uncertainty, it just places new liability on individual businesses | New Texas law will get rid of water breaks for outdoor workers amid extreme heat – ABC News via https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-texas-law-nullify-local-ordinances-protecting-outdoor/story?id=100272286
Businesses must still comply with the “general duty clause” of the occupational safety and health act which requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. OSHA rule making is needed here. That will reduce regulatory uncertainty.
23 June 2023
6 May 2023
10 January 2023
Not sure that I get why normal labor market behavior would be considered “rage applying”. People go where they are most valued.
https://t.co/zCLFkREOI4
8 January 2023
I find these articles so frustrating… https://t.co/zg1PGcfilk
Yes, changing the time we get up by an hour (either way) out of pace with the sun has negative safety and health implications, but
- The sun’s position relative to the clock is different depending on latitude and your relative longitude within your timezone; every area is affected differently.
- The clock time by which we start work or school doesn’t have to be fixed. Every locality can change these as it makes sense.
So, let’s all do what is best for safety and health where we live, regardless of what the government says the time is.
6 November 2022
Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer reviewers: https://t.co/42tMZ4Nv4O
Peer review as it is intentioned is a good and necessary part of science, but it isn’t usually executed that way. Single-blind peer review (where reviewers know the authors, but the authors don’t know the reviewers) really needs to end. Double-blind peer review and open, post-publication peer review are better models.
15 October 2022
5 August 2022
3 June 2022
Here’s what I don’t really get: the question of what the clock says in relation to the sun and the question of what time schools and businesses open are completely separate. We need to sort of agree on Q1, but we can make local decisions on Q2.
People in Maine should perhaps have more daylight saving by shifting opening times more than people in Florida, but in either case it would be a shifting of local start times: changing school start time from 7:45 to 8:45 in winter, for example.
There are safely drawbacks to the changes, forward or backwards, and there are local weather and sunlight considerations to account for in deciding to change start times or not, but local jurisdictions can make those determinations. Just leave the clocks alone.
16 March 2022
29 November 2021
Risk compensation rarely erases all gains of new safety measures, but many keep assuming that it does, and we lose the trust of the public because of it.
https://t.co/T0rgzxTGqZ
8 November 2021