An Innovative Neglected Invisible Hazard Identification (NIHI) at Workplaces; the Case of Athletics Hall Boroujen-Iran
In order to achieve safe conditions at workplace should correctly understand the concept of Hazard. In the hazard conceptual and common definition this means that dangerous event or situation that may lead to an emergency or disaster. It could also be a biological, chemical, or physical agent in (or a property of) an environment that may have an adverse health effect, or may cause injury or loss. As such, a hazard is a potential and not an actual possibility. Nowadays all industrial managers try to achieve higher levels of safety knowledge and move to have a safer workplace (so most of the industrials and engineers are familiar with the concept of hazard even though this knowledge is not quite perfect). But the volume of definitions and guidelines make this motion be stopped and caused confusion the management. Moreover in order to achieve a safer industry it is needed to know hazard better and use of more suitable methods to evaluate hazard and risk assessment in order to cover all bad condition in work place, activity and so on, and finally eliminate them to have safer industry. Then we need a more comprehensive look to define these concepts. In this study, we define new concept of hazard as visible and invisible hazard with more comprehensive look on-site Athletics Hall Boroujen in west Iran. We could innovatively, identify this group of hazard that means Neglected-Invisible Hazard (NIH) due to more focus on visible hazard.
Lutzker J R, Whitaker D J. Whitaker, the expanding role of behavior analysis and support - Current status and future directions. Behavior Modification; 2005, 29(3): 575-594.
Goh Y M, Love P, Dekker S. Editorial for special issue- Systems thinking in workplace safety and health, Accident Analysis and Prevention Journal; 2014. 68, 1–4.
Swartz G. Job hazard analysis. Professional Safety; 2002. 47(11): p. 27.
Coster M N, Hankin R K S. Risk assessment of antagonistic hazards, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries; 2003. 16, 545–550.
IPCS. Risk assessment terminology. Part 1: IPCS/OECD key generic terms used in chemical hazard/risk assessment. Part 2: IPCS glossary of key exposure assessment terminology; 2004. Geneva.
IPCS. Principles for modeling dose–response for the risk assessment of chemicals. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 239; 2009, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/ 2009/9789241572392_eng.pdf.
Safety C C C f O H a. Hazard and risk [Electronic version]; 2009.
Standards Australia Institution (S.A.I.). Risk management Sydney: Standards Australia; 2004.
Safety C f C P. GUIDELINES FOR HAZARD EVALUATION PROCEDURES, ed. T. Edition; 2008, New York: A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
Awodele O, Popoola T D, Ogbudu B S, Akinyede A, Coker H A B, Akintonwa A. Occupational Hazards and Safety Measures Amongst the Paint Factory Workers in Lagos, Nigeria, Safety and Health at Work 5 ; 2014,106 - 111.
Safety C f C P. A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO HAZARD IDENTIFICATION For Operations and Maintenance Workers; 2010, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Baybutt P. A critique of the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries; 2015. 33, 52-58.
Flaus J M. Risk Analysis, ed. J.-P. Bourrières. Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2013.
Hyatt N. Guidelines for Process Hazards Analysis, Hazards Identification & Risk Analysis, ed. 1st.; 2004, CRC press.
Cefic. The European Chemical Industry Council, Risk and hazard - How they differ. August 2003.
Safety C f C P. Guidelines for Auditing Process Safety Management Systems; 2006, ed. S. Edition. New York: A JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.
Rose T, Harshbarger D. Improving occupational safety in a bedding manufacturing plant: A case study in management problem solving. Evaluation and Program Planning; 1991, 14(4): 365-368.