Workers' understanding of chemical risks: electroplating case study

BACKGROUND: There is limited research concerning how small companies in particular, respond to health and safety messages. AIMS: To understand individuals' knowledge and beliefs about chemical risks and to compare these with those of experts. METHODS: The use of chromic acid in particular, and also other chemicals associated with chrome plating were studied. All chromium plating firms were based in the West Midlands. The methodology involved initial face to face interviews (n = 21) with chromium platers, structured questionnaires (n = 84) to test the prevalence of beliefs identified in the interviews, an expert questionnaire, and a workshop to discuss findings. The responses of platers were compared with those of occupational health and safety experts. RESULTS: Although chromium platers appeared to understand the short term adverse effects of the chemicals to which they are exposed, their understanding of long term, or chronic effects appeared to be incomplete. They had good knowledge of acute effects based primarily on experience. Platers were aware of the hazardous nature of the chemicals with which they work, but did not draw distinction between the terms "hazards" and "risks". They had difficulties articulating the effects of the chemicals and how exposure might occur; although it is inappropriate to equate this with lack of knowledge. A significant minority of platers displayed deficiencies in understanding key technical terms used in Safety Data Sheets. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a method which can be used to gain some understanding of workers' knowledge and beliefs about risks that they are exposed to in the workplace. The study also identifies gaps between the platers' knowledge and beliefs and those of experts. New risk information needs to be designed which addresses the information needs of platers using language that they understand.

Social and scientific issues in the acceptibility of radiation risks

Ionising radiation hazards are perhaps the most documented and regulated occupational and environmental hazard. In the radiological protection field a single expert advisory organisation has had an unusually large influence on the international standard setting process. This is the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Two common, and opposing views, exist over the formulation of protection recommendations by the ICRP. The first, and most widely accepted, is that its recommendations are scientifically determined. The second view, is that its recommendations are politically or socially determined. Neither of these analyses adequately accounts for the complex process in which protection recommendations are formulated. A third view, provided by studies of the origins of scientific controversy, suggests that both science and social factors are important in the assessment and limitation of risk. The aim of this thesis is not simply to examine the origin of controversy. Issues of equal, if not more, importance are the resolution of controversy, the formation of consensus and the maintenance of expert authority and influence. These issues form the central focus of this thesis. The aim is to assess the process through which the ICRP formulates its radiological protection recommendations and comment on the extent that these are influenced by the affiliations of its members. This thesis concludes that the ICRP's recommendations have been shaped by a complex relationship of scientific and social considerations, in which a socio-technical commitment to nuclear energy has played a key role. The Commission has responded to new scientific data by making complex changes to its philosophy and methods of describing risk. Where reductions in numerical limits have been applied they have been accompanied by practical measures designed to limit the impact of the change and provide continuity with the old limits and flexibility in the application of the new recommendations.