Analysis of the environmental impact on a stream: is only tannery to blame?

The contribution of wastewater from a tannery industry to the pollution of a stream was investigated. The main parameters studied were biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, chromium, dissolved oxygen, fecal and total conforms, nitrogen, oils and greases, pH, phosphorous, sulfides, suspended solids, turbidity, and volatile solids. Three sampling points were located: (I) at the discharge point of tannery wastewater, (2) 50 m upstream, and (3) 80 m downstream of discharge point. Also was investigated the pollution at the stream source.

Circuit board accident - organizational dimension hidden by prescribed safety

This study analyzes an accident in which two maintenance workers suffered severe burns while replacing a circuit breaker panel in a steel mill, following model of analysis and prevention of accidents (MAPA) developed with the objective of enlarging the perimeter of interventions and contributing to deconstruction of blame attribution practices. The study was based on materials produced by a health service team in an in-depth analysis of the accident. The analysis shows that decisions related to system modernization were taken without considering their implications in maintenance scheduling and creating conflicts of priorities and of interests between production and safety; and also reveals that the lack of a systemic perspective in safety management was its principal failure. To explain the accident as merely non-fulfillment of idealized formal safety rules feeds practices of blame attribution supported by alibi norms and inhibits possible prevention. In contrast, accident analyses undertaken in worker health surveillance services show potential to reveal origins of these events incubated in the history of the system ignored in practices guided by the traditional paradigm.

Climate Change and "historical responsibilities"

The historical responsibility of countries listed in the Annex I of the Convention on Climate Change has been used extensively as a justification for the lack of action of countries not included in Annex I to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We analyzed the contribution of non-Annex I countries to the CO2 emissions in the period 1850 - 2006 to assess their relative contribution to total CO2 emissions. In the period 1980 - 2006 non-Annex I countries represented 44% of the total but this contribution increased in the period 1990 - 2006 to 48%. If we extrapolate present trends to 2020 they will represent 56% in the period 1990 - 2020. The "historical responsibility" of Annex I countries is therefore decreasing. If we take 1990 as the starting year in which the Climate Convention recognized clearly that greenhouse gases are interfering dangerously with the climate system, it becomes very difficult to attribute "blame" and "guilt" to Annex I for their historical contributions. It becomes also quite clear the need of non-Annex I countries to engage with Annex I countries in the effort to reduce emissions. The Copenhagen Accord has no mention of "historical responsibilities".