The introduction of the service seems to have been prompted by the government’s commitment to improve support available for victims and witnesses following release of statistics that 25% of collapsed prosecutions were as a result of witnesses or victims reluctant to give evidence.

Anyone with experience of working with individuals in the current witness protection scheme can only welcome the idea that standardising knowledge, skills and awareness within the law enforcement community is a good thing.  However, the proposal is at risk of paying lip service to the problem of witness protection without really considering the implications of a nationally co-ordinated regime. 

Quite apart from the acceptance that the criminal justice system is letting witnesses and victims down by contributing to a culture where those accused of offences are able to intimate or harass those who may be required to testify there are some really serious questions that need to be asked about how the new service will operate.

The most recurring theme in the context of witness protection issues is the allocation of resources.  Following the inquest into the murders of John and Joan Stirland in 2010, the Deputy Coroner, Karen Monaghan QC was critical of the emphasis placed by officers on resources in that case (amongst other things).  Many individuals go to the police with critically important evidence or intelligence to offer and are immediately promised protection but at this vital time no consideration is given to the financial consequences for those who may have to enter the scheme.  The difficulties in such circumstances were exemplified in a case in the Court of Appeal last year opaquely named An Informer v A Chief Constable [2012] EWCA Civ 197.  In this case the Court of Appeal concluded the extent of the Police Service’s duty of care was limited to the provision of protective security (physical safety and well-being) and not pure financial losses incurred as a consequence of having to go into the witness protection scheme.  The case was unusual on its facts; the claimant beginning life as a covert human intelligence source but later becoming a suspect and then being forced to enter into the scheme because his identity was compromised but participation in criminality did not appear to be a determinative feature of the court’s ruling.  The position therefore in English law presently is that an individual going into the witness protection scheme and who suffers financial losses as a consequence will be unable to recoup these losses from the police even if they were negligent and responsible for compromising the individual’s role as a source.  This fact is likely to have a chilling effect on most individuals providing information to the police where there is a risk they may need subsequent protection.

Overwhelmingly, the announcement in December has all the hallmarks of an afterthought rather than an informative strategic decision.  There is nothing about the National Crime Agency having responsibility for witness protection in their plan published on the organisation’s inception in June 2011 and it does not appear as part of the Agency’s self-styled “vision”.  It is also of concern that even in the present climate many police forces do not have a dedicated witness protection unit and in some cases units that did exist have been dissolved as a result of cutbacks.  This highlights a number of unassailable facts.  Firstly, expertise is short on the ground and it is not clear how or under what circumstances it would be imported into the National Crime Agency’s armoury.  Secondly, even if the agency was able to acquire and develop the necessary expertise it is difficult to envisage how this would be rolled out at a regional level, particularly given the high level of confidentiality that has to exist to manage a witness protection effectively. 

In a climate where resources allocated to the police are a diminishing commodity and training budgets are being slashed, it is difficult to see where the funding will exist to roll out the level of training that is required for officers to understand their legal duties in this area effectively and apply them practicably.  This was another concern of Karen Monaghan in the Stirland case and there is no evidence on the ground that the system has changed since she published her judgment two years ago.

There is a related concern. Over the last few years there has been a troubling and increasing trend.  The number of homicides committed where the victims had prior contact with the police is steadily increasing.  This is counter-intuitive for individuals who have a strong professional commitment to the preservation of protection of life and reveals that many lack the training to understand their legal obligations in this area and to know how to apply them practicably in their daily professional lives.  It is a trend that cannot be reconciled with the aspirations of a protected persons service and both will suffer in public confidence terms unless there is a serious attempt to address the wider problem of witness intimidation and how and what it means to run an effective witness protection scheme.  The announcement of the Protected Persons Service is a step in the right direction but one which is vulnerable of also representing a profound missed opportunity.

Footprintmatters2u feature in BBC Wales News Item

Please take a look, here’s the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20948541

Electrical Recycling Wales

A factory is defined as any premise within which one or more persons are employed in any process for or incidental to the making of any articles; the altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning or washing or the breaking up or demolition of any article, or the adapting for sale of any articles provided, the work is carried on by anyway of trade or for the purpose of gain and subject to the further provision that the employer of the person or persons working in the premises has the right of access or control over the premises.

Based on the definition of a factory, any manufacturing company, where the making of articles (products) take place, an automobile garage where articles (vehicles) are repaired or a carpentry workshop where articles (items) are altered, ornamented and finished, or a supermarket/ shopping mall, or offices wherein articles (items, products, services) are adapted for sales, or offered by way of trade or for the purpose of gain with  the employer having control or right of access over the premises, a duty of care is owed by the employer to the employees and also the employees owe a duty of care to the employer to work safe, not harming themselves and others around them, having being trained on the safe way of carrying out their jobs. 

 Footprintmatters2u offers FREE electrical recycling service.

Electrical recycling company Footprintmatters2u is offering a FREE post Christmas recycling service, just bring your unwanted items to our unit at 4E Mariner Way, Felnex Industrial Estate, Newport, NP19 4PQ.

If you have updated, upgraded or just bought new electrical items this Christmas, then we want your old not working, redundant units. We could even offer a FREE collection service in Newport or Cardiff (conditions will apply to item size), please call us for more details, 01633 294000.

 DATA PROTECTION

Are you concerned about disposing of, giving away or selling your unwanted laptop of PC because of the private data on its hard drive…??? Footprintmatters2u has the secure answer. We also offer a secure hard disc data erasing service, that securely wipes off ALL your data to UK and USA Government specification…this is available as a walk in service at our premises (address as above). There is a small nominal  fee of £5.00 per drive which covers our licensing and certification to perform this service under our ADISA accreditation. This will then enable you to sell, give away, or safely recycle your old laptop or PC. This helps us all become more sustainable by re-using and re-selling our old equipment.

Electrical Recycling and Disposal

WAKE. UP!

Kids.

They grow up so fast!

Like to know how fast?

A 24-year-old drives his kid brother to a girl’s twelfth birthday.

The party’s in the well-heeled Melbourne suburb of Brighton.

When the man returns to collect his brother several hours later, he sees pre-teens (i.e. children) staggering round the front yard, vomiting profusely on the hydrangeas.

His young brother gets into the car.

When quizzed by his older sibling, the boy reports that it was the birthday girl’s parents who supplied the (copious) alcohol at this party.

The boy goes on to say that he used his mobile phone to photograph 12-year-old guests having oral and penetrative sex at various concealed locations around the multi-million-dollar property.

Nor was he the sole happy snapper.

There’s every chance these images will end up online.

And stay there.

Forever.

This tawdry tale illustrates three points I’ve been making for years:

• Parents holding events for young people are utterly failing to show any duty of care.
• One can only hope this sexual activity was consensual. Far too often it is not.
• Alcohol leads to violence, injury and death. How many more kids must be killed at these parties before stupid parents realise it’s unacceptable to just let it happen?

Happy New Year?

Not unless we change our tune!

:|

Naomi Oakley, Founder, Safe Partying Australia.

I disappeared.  I would like to say that I was studying for finals but in reality, I was procrastinating and snuggling with TPH who has, since first showing back up in my life, come to NY 4 times.  I’ve visited him once.  And that was last week when I was supposed to be doing a take home final.  My bad.

In the last 19 hours, I have slept for 11 of them.  And I could totally go back to sleep again now.  The exhaustion is overwhelming and all consuming.  Going out until 5 AM on Thursday didn’t help either.  All in all, I’m glad to be at my parents’ place in the burbs.  I’ve been thinking a lot about duties.  In Corporations, you learn about fiduciary duties: duty of loyalty, duty of care and duty of good faith.  While I’m still a little shaky on good faith – which my test will probably show – I do know that you don’t owe everyone a fiduciary duty, only your stockholders and occasionally, if you’re going bankrupt, then probably your creditors.  So why am I talking about this if I’m done with finals… It’s because I often wonder what the world would be like if we applied rule of law to everyday life.  Like if meeting of the minds was required for any agreement.  Or holding cheating on a spouse to a strict liability standard versus negligence or intentional tort.

So, if fiduciary duties existed not just for corporations and trusts but for everyone, who would we owe a duty to?  Our family and friends clearly but what about neighbors?  Or your doorman?  Or a stranger on the street?  What kind of care is due to them?  How much should you be putting other people before yourself?  Obvi not everyone can be Mother Theresa but at what point do we say, no relationship, no duty.  Negligence is not floating in the air.  I really struggle with this question.  The rabbi I take a course with calls it the “I and they” and “we” dichotomy.  I’ll leave you to ponder.

If your waste gets “Fly Tipped”, its you who will be fined. Its your responsibility to check that the person removing waste from your home or business has the correct Environment Agency licences to do so. Fly tipping costs everyone in the end, because councils will continually increase their rates to cover the ever increasing costs of dealing with the expense of fly tipped waste.

There are some exceptionally good recycling schemes and companies who will call and collect certain wastes, including us here at Footprintmatters2u, who will recycling anything electrical.

Recycling Matters 2 U

Leaving items such as TV’s or Fridges outside your home in the hope “someone will take it” encourages illegal street collectors as they will only strip off anything of value and invariably fly tip the remaining carcass.

Environment Agency and Council Inspectors regularly set up covert surveillance in Fly Tipping hotspots, in an attempt to catch those responsible, but if we all took just a little more time and effort, these costly exercise’s could be a thing of the past.

Remember….your waste is your responsibility, full stop. DONT BE A FOOL….STICK TO THE RULE

More info can be found on the Fly Tipping Action Wales Website

WASTE AND RECYCLING

This decision examines the different legal decisions involving lawsuits between participants in Indiana and other states.

The plaintiff and the defendant were racing in a triathlon. Both agreed to abide by the rules of USA Triathlon, and both signed releases. While in the bicycle portion

of the race, the defendant cut in front of the plaintiff causing a collision. The defendant was disqualified for violating the USA Triathlon rule concerning endangerment.

No cyclist shall endanger himself or another participant. Any cyclist who intentionally presents a danger to any participant or who, in the judgment of the Head Referee, appears to present a danger to any participants shall be disqualified.

The referee stated the defendant’s conduct was not intentional, “rather, he was disqualified for violating the rule “because, by moving over, an accident occurred.” As you can seem the rule, and its interpretation are subject wide interpretation and would lead to more arguments (lawsuits) after that.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence and for acting intentionally, recklessly and willfully causing her injuries. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims. The trial court granted the motion on the negligence claim and denied the motion on the second claim, the international acts.

In some jurisdictions, you can appeal motions for summary judgment that do not finish the case in its entirety. Here the plaintiff appealed the decision. Whether or not you can appeal the decision is dependent on the state rules of civil and appellate procedure.

Summary of the case

The Indian appellate court did a thorough analysis of the legal issues after determining this was an issue of first impression in Indiana. An issue of first impression is one where the court has not ruled on this particular legal issue before.

The issue was what was the standard of care owed by co-participants in a sporting event. The standard for a school sporting event was negligence. The court stated that the standard was negligence, low, because of the duty the school personnel had to exercise reasonable care over the students.

The court then looked at other decisions for the duty between co-participants. The court found three states, Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin where the duty was negligence. The court found California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Texas had adopted a “reckless or intentional conduct” or a “willful and wanton or intentional misconduct” standard of care. This is a much higher standard of care than the negligence standard.

The court found the higher standard of care was established because participants assume the risk of the activity, to stop mass litigation that would arise every time a foul occurs, and not to limit the sport because of the fear of liability.

The Indiana court determined that participants in sports activities:

…assume the inherent and foreseeable dangers of the activity and cannot recover for injury unless it can be established that the other participant either intentionally caused injury or engaged in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.

The court granted the summary judgment as to the first count, the negligence claim and sent the second claim back to the lower court to determine if the plaintiff could prove that the action of the defendant was intentional, reckless and willful when he rode his bike. The court sent it back with this statement.

…the trial court must determine whether Kyle’s [defendant] action was an inherent or reasonably foreseeable part of the sport, such that Rebecca [plaintiff] assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law. In our view, it is reasonably foreseeable that a competitor in a cycling race may attempt to cut in front of co-participants in an effort to advance position. Thus, if Rebecca is unable to develop the facts beyond those presented at this juncture, we would conclude that Kyle’s action was an inherent risk in the event that Rebecca assumed as a matter of law, thereby precluding recovery.

That is a very specific statement as to how the lower court must examine the facts in the case.

The appellate court also made another statement that is very important in this day and age.

As is generally the case, the release form that Rebecca signed does not relieve Kyle from liability as co-participants are not listed among the specific entities or individuals released from liability ac-cording to the plain language of the document.

The court looked at the release to determine if the release stopped the suit even though that was not argued by the parties.

So Now What?

It’s OK to play touch football, softball and have fun in Indiana.

At the same time, the court pointed out the fact that if the release had included the term co-participants in the release, the lawsuit might have started because the defendant would have been protected.

Here just one additional word in the release might have stopped a lawsuit.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Copyright 2012 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law

Email: blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer, Triathlon, USA Triathlon, Cycling, Co-participant, Duty of Care,

WordPress Tags: Indiana,participants,events,Triathlon,Mark,Moser,LEXIS,decision,decisions,lawsuits,plaintiff,defendant,Both,bicycle,collision,participant,danger,judgment,Head,Referee,accident,interpretation,arguments,negligence,injuries,jurisdictions,Here,Whether,procedure,Summary,Indian,analysis,event,personnel,students,Arizona,Nevada,Wisconsin,California,Connecticut,Illinois,Kentucky,Louisiana,Massachusetts,Michigan,Missouri,Nebraska,Jersey,Mexico,York,Ohio,Texas,misconduct,litigation,dangers,injury,action,bike,statement,Kyle,Rebecca,competitor,effort,Thus,juncture,recovery,entities,individuals,football,fact,lawsuit,Leave,FaceBook,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,Email,RecreationLaw,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camp,Camps,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Lawyer,Paddlesports,Recreational,Line,RecreationalLawyer,FitnessLawyer,RecLawyer,ChallengeCourseLawyer,RopesCourseLawyer,ZipLineLawyer,RockClimbingLawyer,AdventureTravelLawyer,OutsideLawyer,Care,cyclist,appellate

Footprintmatters2

►

Electrical Recycling & Hazardous Waste Disposal

This itself is perfectly logical: if you owe a duty of care to others (all nations owe a duty of care to others) and your acts or omissions cause damage (and emitting greenhouse gases certainly according to current science does this) and the damage suffered is foreseeable (you you warm up the oceans the thermal expansion of water is certainly foreseeable) then you should compensate those to whom you owe a duty of care. That is the common law of England (in a rather abbreviate nutshell) the law of the United States and the law of most nations when it comes to domestic tort, but not when it comes to international law.

Nations, particularly those with low lying coasts or those in areas where the climate change will cause or has caused weather to become more extreme, have a strong case for being compensated. However, now is not the time to argue it. Now is the time when nations of the world should be concentrating all their resources into significantly reducing emissions and working for a cleaner world.

If people are rushing towards destruction it is more important to stop the rush than it is to argue about the loss that you have suffered as a result of the rush to destruction or the losses that you will suffer as a result of the continued rush to destruction.

From 3rd December 2012 it is an Offence to buy scrap metal for cash. The act is designed to give full traceability to all metal transfer transactions and deter metal theft.

Here is the Home Office Guidance of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 – The Offence of Buying Scrap Metal for Cash:

The Office of Fair Trading has received a complaint that four multi-national companies could be breaching strict anti-cartel rules through its involvement with the ‘Recolight’ programme.

The four companies, Sylvania, GE, Osman and Philips, were last week named in a House of Commons’ debate that revealed growing concerns about the UK’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) compliance scheme.

Labour MP Kate Green described how the “cartel” was jeopardising the future of independent recycling companies and placing local jobs at risk.

She used her Commons’ question to accuse the four companies of an “apparent abuse of the electrical equipment recycling market” that violates UK competition law.

She added the four multinationals “appear to be seeking to subvert the effect of the forthcoming recast waste electrical and electronic equipment directive by operating a cartel in relation to the recycling of waste electrical equipment, which is putting the viability of independent recycling companies and local jobs, including in my constituency, at risk.”

Following advice from the Leader of the House Andrew Lansley, the issue has now been referred to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation.

Full story can be found here: http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/news/national-news/123819-calls-for-recycling-industrycartel-probe-after-oft-complaint.html

Check out www.footprintmatters2u.co.uk for fluorescent tube and lamp recycling

Fluorescent Tube Recycling

It’s made me think about how valuable work experience is at all ages, let alone those entering the world of work for the first time.  There are lots of arguments for and against work experience.  Those against offer arguments such as unpaid labour, irrelevance to target careers, the candidates are fobbed off with the worst jobs or it’s too labour intensive.

Let’s take these points one at a time.  However, I stress that this can be applied to ALL people looking to gain work experience, regardless of their age, status or circumstances.

Unpaid Labour

Often, yes it is unpaid – but shouldn’t it be seen as an investment in your future?  How many people object to “try before you buy” deals in the supermarket or online?  Exactly! I know this may sound controversial, if you’re on work experience the likelihood is that you don’t yet have the skills the employer is looking for.  You are a risk to them, but you may have the right attitude or the aptitude that makes them accept that risk and invest in your future. So why wouldn’t you take that chance?

Irrelevance to Target Career

We hear a lot about this.  “Why should I do retail work experience when I want to be a vet?” The world of work is all about transferable skills.  What is relevant in one job could be equally as relevant in another.  It’s one of the main reasons we advocate profiling.  For instance, a good administrator likes processes and order – so does a good forklift driver – for different reason, such as health and safety.  Work experience is also about getting into the right frame of mind.  The routine of when to get up; the working in a team and not letting your colleagues down; forming relationships with people who aren’t family or friends, but may spend more time with you than any of these groups. There’s no such thing as irrelevance – all experience adds up, even if it is experience of being there on time every day.

The Menial Stuff

Again this is often about risk.  The work experience provider is taking a risk by “employing” someone with no or little relevant experience.  So it’s small footsteps first.  The initial tasks are often low risk; however they can also be the foundation steps to the company’s process.  It’s often at this level that you see the roots of the organisation, why paperwork is filed that way, why the shop floor has to be clean and tidy.  And everyone should be prepared to make tea for everyone else. Someone who understands the company from grass roots up is invaluable to an employer.  It also helps you gain the respect of your work colleagues.

Too Labour Intensive

Hmmmm……..I have to be careful here.  It is labour intensive.  Especially to small companies who don’t have dedicated staff for these types of projects.  But what will happen if we don’t invest in people’s work futures?  If you were to recruit a new member of staff, you’d invest in their training, wouldn’t you?  Work experience is about populating our community with work ready, willing to work adults who ARE our future.  They are the people who will shape our economic climate, fund our hospitals, our retirement homes, education for our grandchildren and great grandchildren.  Why wouldn’t we invest in this?

What’s in it for Wote St Employment Bureau?  We feel strongly about work experience because to survive as a business we need work ready adults who are genuinely willing to work for the money that is offered.  None of us are paid what we are “worth”.  But by working together, supporting and nurturing each other we can make Basingstoke a community to be proud of.

We feel passionately that temporary work is a great way to gain PAID work experience.  It can break that cycle of no experience/no job.  It can repair the CV gaps; rehabilitate offenders; show parental work returners that they ARE valued members of society; help the disabled into rewarding work.  All in all it can change lives, instil a sense of self-worth and smash glass ceilings on an individual’s ability to pay their own way. Not to mention giving young people the first step on the working ladder.

The conference, which focuses on lone worker safety, provides essential information to delegates to improve the personal safety of lone workers and help reduce the risk of workplace violence.

As Europe’s premier personal safety service, Skyguard will be exhibiting our extensive range of exclusive solutions, including the MySOS. In addition to the popular dedicated personal alarm, we will also be demonstrating our all-new ‘Skyguard for Smartphone’ solution – a downloadable application for Android, BlackBerry and Windows Mobile phones.

We’ll be on hand to answer any questions you may have about our service and explain how we can help protect lone working professionals and fulfil employer’s Duty of Care.

Delegates can also expect the following benefits from attending the conference.

• Gain enhanced awareness of lone worker safety risks.
• Learn how to balance meeting your duty of care with providing an effective service to the public.
• Understand how technology e.g. lone worker protection devices, lone worker tracking or personal alarms can help to improve lone worker safety.
• Gain a better knowledge of nature, causes and good responses to aggressive behaviour or conflict.
• Discover how to help lone workers cope with the aftermath of an assault.
• Benefit from the in depth knowledge of some of the countries lone worker and personal safety experts… they would love to answer the potential questions you might have.

The event takes place at Olympia’s Conference Centre in London on the 27^th November. You can find out more about the event from Lone Worker Safety 2012’s website.

The first recommendation that most will look forward is the latest workplace bullying definition. The committee suggests:

“repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety”.

This is no great shake from most of the previous definitions but illustrates further the isolation of Victoria from nationally harmonised work health and safety laws as WorkSafe Victoria’s preferred definition is

“… persistent and repeated negative behaviour directed at an employee that creates a risk to health and safety.”

Regardless of which definition is “better”, Victoria will be further out-of-sync.

The Committee also recommends the Government

“develop a national advisory service that provides practical and operational advice on what does and does not constitute workplace bullying..”

This is sorely needed and will relieve State OHS regulators of the pressure and the resources. No timeline is mentioned but it is likely that the Federal Government will move to establish such a service quickly, as the recommendation is not surprising.

However, the opposition political mantra for any government initiative is how it will be funded. Some of the recommendations feature Safe Work Australia but an earlier iteration of this body suffered severe financial cuts under a previous conservative government. Some of these recommendations call for long-term efforts which will not be achievable without similar long-term and sustainable financing. Federal budgets should be carefully scrutinised to identify any hint of lip-service in this area.

Importantly the Committee recommends urgent progress on the stalled workplace bullying code of practice. However, it recommends promotion of this Code through “all jurisdictions”. Will Victoria stick to its own independent strategy on workplace bullying?

The Federal Government has received little or no support from the Victorian conservative government of Premier Ted Baillieu. On the issue of the national advisory service, given Baillieu continues to highlight Victoria’s difficult financial straits, it will be difficult for the Premier to justify the double-handling of bullying enquiries by WorkSafe Victoria when a “free” service is available nationally.

All inquiries call for further research and this report is no different. The inquiry heard repeatedly that the extent of workplace bullying in Australia was understated. The collation of data on workplace bullying cannot rely primarily on workers compensation data as many bullying issues never involve this option. Any data collection will need to examine absenteeism and other personnel data. Given that so many workers eliminate the bullying experience by changing employment, resignations and worker mobility should be examined, if possible.

The Committee recommends a

“voluntary national accreditation system stakeholders, a voluntary national accreditation system to recognise and award employers who achieve best practice and meet defined standards of psychosocial health and safety.”

This is the recommendation most likely to not occur. It is difficult to see how it can be achieved because assessment will be so complex, and the expected benefit of such a system is curious. Would it not be possible to incorporate workplace bullying metrics in the existing determinations of “employers of choice”?

To some extent this recommendation is supported by another about “instituting annual employer awards” that recognise workplace psychosocial health and safety, but many States already have such awards.

Oddly the Committee recommends

“… a national accredited training program for all work health and safety inspectors that equips inspectors to identify and address instances of workplace bullying.” [emphasis added]

Clearly they believe that a targeted workplace bullying unit of specialised inspectors is not the answer. This recommendation will provide regulators with resource options but it may show that the Committee does not appreciate the complexity and difficulty of investigating workplace bullying claims.

SafetyAtWorkBlog has had little time to assess much more than the list of recommendations but the report looks like a defining report on workplace bullying in Australia. How the Federal Government reacts through, particularly, Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten will be the important next step as Federal Parliament is in its last sitting week for 2012. For any urgent action on the national draft workplace bullying code, a response is required from the Government soon.

Significantly the Coalition (opposition) members of the Committee have issued a dissenting report. For bipartisan support on workplace bullying initiatives,Minister Shorten will need to maneuvre carefully. Shorten’s responses to this report will be fascinating and, hopefully, significant.

SafetyAtWorkBlog will be posting articles on this report over the next week or so.

Kevin Jones

“a present glaring example of a despot stripped bare…”

Earlier this year, in April, Sloan said harmonisation was dead so one could say she is flogging a dead horse. Some parts of her November article (only available online via subscription) do not seem to be supported by evidence and her terminology occasionally indicates a lack of understanding of occupational health and safety matters.

Sloan rehashes some of the April 2012 article including the image of crying public servants but gives prominence to the inconvenience to some companies under the Comcare scheme. Several years ago some national companies opted out of State-based OHS and workers’ compensation schemes in order to join the only national safety scheme that was available at the time. Part of the reason for this move was that it provided national coverage for national businesses. Some complained because Comcare was seen as having a much smaller enforcement team and that the OHS laws were, somehow, less than in many of the States. This option was provided under a Conservative Government to assist business. The same government instigated the OHS harmonisation process.

Many of those companies that moved to Comcare have had that option revoked as part of OHS harmonisation on the understanding that any advantages gained by being in Comcare will now be matched by the harmonised safety regime. “Come back to the State schemes, which are now virtually national, and all will be forgiven.” But the harmonisation is not a national scheme as Victoria is refusing to play and Western Australia is still thinking about it. Contrary to Judith Sloan’s article, Tasmania is implementing the new laws from 1 January 2013.

Harmonisation – Good or Bad?

Sloan is correct that the companies left “hanging” in Comcare are not being helped by the government to transition to a Plan B, because there does not seem to be much of a Plan B.

Sloan supports part of her argument by paraphrasing

“…the outgoing chairman of the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council, Paul McClintock, made the point that unless Victoria is part of the national laws, then there is not much point to harmonisation.

“My strong judgment is that the new system, without Victoria, will cost us more than we would gain,” McClintock argued.” [link added]

She fails to source the quote and SafetyAtWorkBlog is yet to find any origin for the paraphrasing. If Sloan is working from the recent article by Sid Maher in The Australian , McClintock seemed to be critical of the Council of Australian Government process and Federal-State arrangements, and not specifically OHS harmonisation.

McClintock’s 19 November 2012 speech (not yet available online), the basis for part of Maher’s article, makes no mention of Victoria’s OHS stance and, in fact, seems to support earlier calls from the then-Victorian Premier John Brumby for the establishment of a “mature federalism”, one that McClintock describes as

“…a genuine change of culture with good faith and good will as its cornerstone.”

McClintock’s comments in Sloan’s article reflect an earlier speech that was much more general and mentioned Victoria along with Western Australia and New South Wales. He said to the Australian Institute of Company Directors in April 2012:

“….several states have implemented the model legislation and regulations and we applaud their considerable efforts. However, we’ve seen Western Australia hold to its position that there are four areas of the model bill that it may not adopt. Victoria has said that while it supports the principle of harmonisation, it is assessing the costs and benefits to see whether implementation is in Victoria’s interests. In New South Wales the model legislation has been passed but a variation has been inserted by that state‘s upper house permitting union prosecution. This combination of variations means we may not to achieve the objectives and potential benefits of this reform. In fact I argue that they may lead the reform to do more harm than good.” [emphasis added]

Details of the argument have never really appeared.

It is disappointing that McClintock, and Sloan, continue to rely on dubious Victorian costings when a counter argument can be mounted by the more robust South Australian Work Health and Safety costings. Perhaps this contrast simply reflects that Victoria’s costings were produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers for a conservative Liberal government and South Australia’s were by Deloittes for a Labor government, and that people choose evidence that fits their own world view.

Sloan’s Assessment of Work Health and Safety Act

Sloan’s article attacks the WHS Act:

“My assessment is that the flaws in the model WHS Act are so grave as to warrant rejection or amendment by the states and territories. It simply fails to deliver on the pledge of low-cost, effective regulation of workplace health and safety. It has some bizarre bits, including 4000 rules dictating precisely what equipment can be used and how facilities are to be built. Some are embarrassingly self-evident, like the rule that stairwells shall be lit by “natural or artificial illumination”. In many ways, the act is the antithesis of establishing a non-prescriptive duty of care for employers to provide safe and healthy working environments, an approach that is regarded as best practice.”

Currently only one State has rejected the WHS laws outright and that is Victoria. The repercussions of this stance on WorkSafe Victoria’s enforcement strategies and the management of safety by Victorian businesses will become evident in 2013 once the reality of isolationism settles.

The Federal Government’s ideal for harmonisation was that each State and Territory take on the model WHS Act and regulations as written but there was always the provision for each State to amend those laws to meet their particular circumstances. Variation was always allowed for, just discouraged.

Sloan states there was a government “pledge” for WHS laws to be low-cost and effective. Firstly, the effectiveness of any law, particularly laws that are aimed at preventing harm, cannot be judged prior to their introduction. Effectiveness may be evident at the first anniversary or, even better, the scheduled review timetables in the original laws and reiterated or revised in the States that have signed up, such as South Australia. South Australian MP John Darley was adamant on a strong and regular review process in his amendments.

On the alleged pledge for low-cost laws, this was not the regulatory intention of the harmonisation process. Prime Minister Gillard stated in August 2009 to the 15th World Congress International Industrial Relations Association that OHS reform would generate productivity benefits, a different aim to what Sloan saw as a pledge.

“…for the first time ever, after a 25-year wait, Australian businesses and workers are close to having a uniform national occupational health and safety laws. A massive step forward in achieving a seamless national economy that Australia needs to release lasting and much-needed productivity improvements.”

In that same speech she seemed to be in sync with Brumby and McClintock

“Australians should now move beyond a focus on law changes to a new focus on cultural change in the workplace. We need to build partnerships between management and workers and their unions that operate for the benefit of all.”

Through the harmonisation process new WHS laws have the potential to lower business costs dramatically, particularly in multi-State businesses, by eliminating duplication. Laws rarely save money in themselves but if followed and applied there is a high chance that costs are outweighed by savings.

The true measure of the new WHS laws will not be in reduced fatality rates, premium rates or LTIFRs. It will appear as part of productivity increases, and this is part of the reason that the safety profession and industry needs to be actively engaged in the current productivity debate. The WHS laws will always be seen as a failed experiment if traditional measurement parameters are applied. In three years time, the opposition politicians will be given a free chance to complain if the WHS laws are gauged against fatality rates and other lag indicators but by being assessed through the contribution to productivity increases, the justification for the WHS reforms will be clearer.

Reflecting the thoughts of Gillard, Brumby, McClintock and, increasingly, Australia’s safety and HR professionals, the success of the WHS laws will be seen, also, in a changed corporate culture towards safety.

Sloan’s misunderstanding of WHS laws is probably most on show when she describes the model WHS Act as

“.. the antithesis of establishing a non-prescriptive duty of care for employers to provide safe and healthy working environments…”

Prescriptive OHS legislation died in Australia many years ago. For instance, Plant Regulations changed to self-regulation in the 1990s on the basis that owners and operators of equipment were better placed to assess the worthiness and safety of plant than were a handful of boiler and pressure vessels inspectors or scaffolding inspectors sourced from the regulatory agency.

The introduction of “reasonable practicability” also removed prescriptive controls by allowing economic factors to be included in the risk assessment and safety management processes.

During the WHS debate, it is well worth remembering the thoughts of the Chairman of the Productivity Commission from 2003 quoted by Chris Maxwell QC, in his 2004 review of the Victorian OHS Act. The Chairman “referred, in an address to the Small Business Coalition in March 2003, to the “characteristics of ‘good’ regulation”:

“To be ‘good’, regulation must not only bring net benefits to society, it must also:

• be the most effective way of addressing an identified problem; and
• impose the least possible burden on those regulated and on the broader community.”

He then identified five “design features” that regulation would need to exhibit to meet those tests:

(a) it should not be unduly prescriptive;

(b) it should be clear and concise;

(c) it should be consistent;

(d) it must be enforceable;

(e) it must be administered by accountable bodies in a fair and consistent manner, and be monitored and periodically reviewed to ensure that it continues to achieve its aims.” (pages 73 & 74)

Errors and Omissions

It has to be assumed that Sloan is critical of WHS laws rather than the Act, specifically, in her article for there is no mention of stairs in the model Work Health and Safety Act (June 2011 version) nor in the model Work Health and Safety Regulations (2011).

It is also difficult to locate the “4000 rules” that

“dictat[e] precisely what equipment can be used and how facilities are to be built.”

Sloan could just as easily complain about the cost of following Australian Standards for the influence of these standards or “rules” are far more onerous and, arguably in some areas, dreadfully outdated.

In a 2003 working paper, Elizabeth Bluff and Neil Gunningham addressed the matter of prescriptive/specification OHS standards. They wrote, with emphasis added:

“There are however, disadvantages to the use of specification standards across the board. Some specification standards, to be effective, must be detailed to cover different aspects of hazard management, and even then, may be incapable of preventing many work injuries and diseases. Such an approach tends to result in a mass of detailed law, difficult to comprehend and keep up to date. At the same time, specification standards may fail to address behaviour or dangers involving significant risks, because the form of regulation is focused on particular problems, and can result in unspecified problems being overlooked. Moreover, because such standards are prescriptive they do not allow duty holders to seek least cost solutions and may be less cost-effective in many of circumstances. They may, for example, require too much investment in circumstances where the costs of regulation exceeds the benefits. Similarly, they inhibit innovation and do not encourage best practice.” (page 8)

Sloan should not have applied criticism of the whole raft of OHS laws, regulations, Codes and Standards to the target of her article, the “model WHS Act”.

It would appear that Sloan admires the work of Ken Phillips of the Independent Contractors Association, an outspoken critic of the WHS laws and harmonisation who now describes the WHS laws coming to South Australia as “sensible“.

Judith Sloan is the economics editor for The Australian newspaper and an influential voice in Australian politics. It is reasonable to say that her analysis of business costs is stronger than her understanding of the Work Health and Safety laws and, particularly, their application.

Kevin Jones

The ICO has now published the long awaited guidance notes for the disposal of data bearing equipment. The guidance aimed at business, helps address the continued problems of data security and possible data breaches.

Footprintmatters2u is a certified member of ADISA, who played a crucial role in advising the ICO what procedures need to be considered before moving sensitive data.

Please get in touch with us for help and assistance should you have concerns on how to handle and protect your valuable data.

http://www.footprintmatters2u.co.uk or telephone, 01633 294000

Here are the guidance notes for download:

ICO Asset Disposal Guidance Notes – Nov 2012

Data Protection Act

http://poisoningandlegalaction.com.au

http://indiegogo.com/poisoned-people

http://murraythompsongraphics.x90x.net

http://www.causes.com/poisonedpeople

http://www.change.org/profiles/poisoned-people

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-human-right-to-no-pesticide-poisoning

WordPress URL:http://poisonedpeople1.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/human-health-environmental-animal-impacts-of-pesticides-in-general-organophosphates-in-particular-including-roundup-2

Essay also available at: http://poisoningandlegalaction.com.au/human-health-and-pesticides.htm & http://poisoningandlegalaction.com.au/reports/human-health-and-pesticides.htm

1.0 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS

1.1 Pesticides Affect Health & Behavior
Pesticides promote the classic symptom of abdominal pain in children (Dr. B. Grabau, 2005, pers. comm.), or, “non-specific abdominal gastric pain” (Dr. B. Grabau, 2005, Private Medical Report). This means that many aches and pains children get may not simply just be “normal”.

This represents a significant problem with regard to herbicide and pesticide use in that mild to moderate pesticide poisoning symptoms can be easily misdiagnosed as stomach-flu, bronchitis or asthma (Reeves, Schafer, Hallward & Katten 1999:17).

“Even severe pesticide poisoning in infants has been misdiagnosed as aneurysm, head trauma, diabetic acidosis, severe bacterial gastroenteritis, pneumonia and whooping cough” (Reeves, Schafer, Hallward & Katten 1999:17, citing Solomon & Mott 1998; Zweinerd & Ginsburg 1988).

Further, pesticide poisoning impacts on the mind. It can lead to aggressive behaviour and delinquency in teens (Hatherill, 1999; Tvedten, 1999, 2002:2). We should here consider pesticides’ contribution to road rage and other attacks, along with the influence of pollution in general on, particularly urban societies.

1.2 Pesticides Are Deadly & Deforming
“Hundreds of thousands of people are dying around the world each year from the effects of the use, or misuse, of pesticides” (Konradsen, et al., 2003).

And when death is avoided, we still find crippling impacts in the form of cancer, foetal death, miscarriages, and premature births (NCAP, 1999:3; Bonn, 2005; Cox, 2004).” In fact, pesticides are strongly linked to birth defects (Montague, 2001).

1.3 Rising Rates Of Disease
“Doctors at a weekend conference in Winnipeg say there is a disturbing trend when it comes to the rising rate of certain cancers. They say pesticides are to blame for the increase – especially in childhood cancers” (Sinclair & Pressinger, no date, citing Winnipeg CBC News – June 7, 2004).

“Exposure to herbicides (weed killers) before the age of one is linked to a more than four-fold increase in childhood asthma” (BeyondPesticides.org 2008, citing Boise, et al. 2004).

However, cancer and asthma is not enough for this blighted form of chemical technology: “Pesticide exposures seem to give rise to Parkinson’s (REHN #635) – a horrible degenerative disease of the nervous system. Pesticide exposures diminish children’s memory, physical stamina, coordination, and [the] ability to carry out simple tasks like drawing a stick figure of a human being. (See REHN #648.) Pesticide exposures seem to make children more aggressive. Pesticide exposures seem to contribute to the epidemic of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that has swept through U.S. children in recent years (See REHN #678.)” (Montague 2001). See: http://poisonedpeople1.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/what-the-hell-are-we-doing.jpg for an image depicting the toxics our children are exposed to.

1.4 Pesticide, Agriculture, Glyphosate & Human Disease/Neurobehavioral Deficits
A “study showed there was approximately [a] 2-fold greater risk of having a
stillbirth if the mother lived within 1 mile from an agricultural area which used
organophosphate – pyrethroid – carbamate – or chlorinated pesticides” (Sinclair & Pressinger, no date, citing Bell, et al., 2001).

And, further, in terms of organophosphates: Glyphosate… is a non-selective, systematic herbicide. This organophosphate compound is the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup (Royal Society of Chemistry 2009).

“Many organophosphates are also associated with irritation of the skin and upper respiratory tract… There have been reports of deficits in memory and abstraction on test batteries and subclinical decreases in vibrotactile sensitivity in
workers recovering from organophosphate poisoning… Among workers who apply organophosphates but have not suffered poisoning episodes, some studies have shown similar types of subclinical neurobehavioural deficits and subclinical electroencephalographic abnormalities…” (O’Malley 1997).

Further, Glyphosate can have high acute inhalation toxicity (extoxnet.orst.edu 1996), can cause diarrhoea, shortness of breath, vomiting and weakness (pesticideinfo.org 2010), and has teratogenic (monster-making) effects in animals (Paganelli et.al. 2010).

“Two separate studies in Sweden have linked exposure to Glyphosate to Hairy Cell Leukemia and Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. These types of cancers were extremely rare, however Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the Western world. It has risen by 73% in the USA since 1973. Another study has found a higher incidence of Parkinson disease amongst farmers who used herbicides, including glyphosate” (Leu, 2007 citing Cox, 1998; Lehmann & Pengue, 2000; Nordstrom, et al., 1998; Hardell & Eriksson, 1999).

“Various epidemiological studies have demonstrated that individuals exposed to a single large toxic dose, or to small subclinical doses, of organophosphorus compounds have developed a chronic neurotoxicity that persists for years after exposure and is distinct from both cholinergic and OPIDN effects… Our review of the literature indicated that these studies describe a nervous system disorder induced by organophosphorous compounds which involves neuronal degeneration and subsequent neurological, neurobehavioral, and neuropsychological consequences” (Abou-Donia, 2003).

“OPs can persist in the environment for long periods of time. Indeed, OPs are detected in soils years after application… conditions can occur in soil where OPs are preserved and transferred to humans through food. A review of the literature shows that OPs are highly toxic and that human exposure is undesirable. Evidence suggests that OPs are mutagenic and teratogenic and that a large number of modern-day diseases of the nervous and immune system of mammals can be linked to these pesticides. These include BSE (mad cows disease), CJD, Gulf War syndrome, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, arguing for a thorough examination of the environmental fate and toxicology of OPs as well as their use” (Ragnarsdottir 2000).

Further still: “The possibility that organophosphorus (OP) compounds contribute to motor neuron disease (MND) is supported by association of paraoxonase 1 polymorphisms with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and the occurrence of MND in OP compound-induced delayed neuropathy (OPIDN), in which neuropathy target esterase (NTE) is inhibited by organophosphorylation” (Rainier, et. al., 2008).

“Other studies show that glyphosate and commercial herbicides containing glyphosate cause a range of cell mutations and damage to cell DNA. These types of changes are usually regarded as precursors to cancer and birth defects” (Leu, 2007; my emphasis).

Roundup causes genetic mutations in cell tests (NCAP, 2000:2, citing Vigfusson & Vyse, 1980; Kale et al., 1995; Rank et al., 1993) and is linked to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (Cox, 2004; Vachani, 2007), miscarriages and Attention Deficit Disorder (Cox, 2004).

Roundup contains surfactants that are acutely toxic to humans and animals, even potentially causing death in humans (Cox, 1993:4, citing Sawada, et al., 1988; and Talbot, 1991).

It is “a known carcinogen, neurotoxin, irritant, and has been found to kill human embryonic cells, and can cause kidney and liver damage” (BeyondPesticides.org 2012).

“Now the Lymphoma Foundation of America has pulled together and summarized in a 49-page booklet all the available studies of the relationship between lymphoma and pesticides… Of the 99 human studies, 75 indicate a connection between exposure to pesticides and lymphomas… The Lymphoma Foundation’s booklet lists 12 ways that most of us are routinely exposed to pesticides in our daily lives even if we use no pesticides in our homes: routine spraying of apartments, condos, offices (and the associated lawns), public buildings and public spaces (parks, green spaces alongside highways, power line rights of way), and in motels, hotels, and restaurants…” (Montague, 2001).
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL & ANIMAL-DISEASE IMPACTS

2.1 Pesticide Spray Drift Waste & Damage
“Glyphosate spray drift from both ground and aerial applications has been measured from 400 to 800 meters from the target site… Drift that is one thousand times less than the usual application rates has been shown to damage surrounding vegetation, including the killing of wild plants. This is an important reason why it should not be used in national parks and environmentally sensitive areas for weed control” (Leu 2007).

2.2 Glyphosate Environmental Toxicity
Glyphosate [Roundup] is persistent (NCAP, 2000:2, citing US EPA, 1993-2) and may last up to 3 years (NCAP, 2000:2, citing Torstensson et al., 1989), while its metabolite, AMPA [aminomethylphosphonic acid], may persist even longer, “with a half life in soil between 119 and 958 days” (Buffin & Jewell, 2001, citing WHO, 1994).

Glyphosate is toxic to fish, aquatic organisms, soil life (including earthworms, mycorrhizal fungi, nitrogen-fixing bacteria, micro-organisms and arthropods), plants (through disease susceptibility), and beneficial insect species (Leu, 2007; van der Werf, 1996). As well, “Glyphosate is also harmful to the environment, particularly aquatic life and water quality and has been linked to intersex frogs, and is lethal to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment” (BeyondPesticides.org 2012).

“Studies show a reduction in the species that build humus, thus [glyphosate] contributes to the decline in soil organic matter” (Leu 2007).

2.3 Roundup Leading The Way Into An Era Of Animal/Plant Pandemics & Herbicide-Resistant Weeds
Roundup has been heavily implicated in thyroid, liver and pancreatic tumours in test animals (Cox, 1993:4, citing Dykstra & Ghali, 1991). Roundup is also now shockingly linked to Mad Cow’s Disease (Rotella 2003), and to an increase in plant diseases (gmwatch.org 2010).

As if these issues were not problem enough: “Leading weed scientists are urgently appealing to Australia’s farmers to switch to an integrated weed management (IWM) system as the country records its third glyphosate-resistant weed” (ScienceAlert 2008, citing CRC For Australian Weed Management 2003). Our convenient herbicide “magic bullets” have turned back on us!

“The current massive reliance on glyphosate, which has been promoted by the rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybeans and cotton, is a key factor in this epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds. A report released in November of 2009, for instance, found that since the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops, they have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. (1996-2008)”.

“In Southern states, horseweed, ryegrass and pigweed are a concern for soybean farmers, while horseweed and volunteer Roundup Ready soybeans have become problem weeds for Mississippi rice. In Australia, weed scientists have now documented cases of glyphosate resistance in rigid ryegrass across large areas and are encountering it in other weed species in different parts of the world” (BeyondPesticides.org 2012).
3.0 CONCLUSION

Pesticides in general and organophosphates and Roundup in particular are unqualified slate-wipers of normal life processes in soil, in plants and in humans and, as such, represent a chemically-mediated EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT. We are all being poisoned slowly into oblivion. See: http://indiegogo.com/poisoned-people for my particular intersection with pesticides and its impact on my and my son’s lives.

Murray Thompson (BAppSci Environmental Health 1998, Hons I Social Ecology 1999, University of Western Sydney) (http://poisoningandlegalaction.com.au; http://murraythompsongraphics.x90x.net; poisonedpeople@gmail.com)
4.0 REFERENCES

Abou-Donia, Mohamed B., 2003, ‘Organophosphorus Ester-Induced Chronic Neurotoxicity’, Archives of Environmental Health, August 2003 [Vol. 58 (No. 8); [50] endnote reference is: Jamal 1997], Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Bell, et.al (Bell, E.M., Hertz-Picciotto, I., & Beaumont, J.J., Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland) 2001 [Online], ‘Fetal Deaths Linked to Living Close to Agricultural Pesticide Use During Weeks 3-8 of Pregnancy’, http://www.chem-tox.com.pesticides (original source: Epidemiology, 12(2), March 2001); accessed: 16 July 2008.

BeyondPesticides.org 2008, FACTS AND FIGURES CHILDREN, PESTICIDES, AND SCHOOL,
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/schools/sepa/SEPA_fact&figures.htm; accessed: 18 July 2008.

BeyondPesticides.org 2012 [Online], “Increasing Documented Cases of Glyphosate Resistance Discussed by Scientists”, Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog; Source: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=3034, accessed: 21 Sept. 2012.

Boise, P., et al., 2004, ‘GreenCare for Children. Measuring Environmental Hazards in the Childcare Industry: Pesticides, Lead, and Indoor Air Quality’, Community Environmental Council. 2004.

Bonn, D. (Dorothy) 2005 [Online], ‘Roundup Revelation: Weed Killer Adjuvants May Boost Toxicity’, http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-6/ss.html; accessed: 14 Sept. 2009.

Buffin, D.(David) & Jewel, T. (Topsy), 2001, Health and environmental impacts of glyphosate: The implications of increased use of glyphosate in association with genetically modified crops; the Pesticide Action Network UK.

Cox, C. 1993, ‘Biotechnology and Agricultural Pesticide Use: An Interaction Between Genes and Poisons’, Journal of Pesticide Reform, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Fall), NCAP, PO Box 1393, Eugene, OR 97440, USA.

Cox, C. 1998, JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM, Fall 1998, Vol.18, No. 3.; Updated 01-02, Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides, Eugene, Oregon.

Cox, C. 2004 [Online], ‘Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate’, Journal Of Pesticide Reform/ Winter 2004, Vol. 24, No. 4, Northwest Coalition For Alternatives To Pesticides/NCAP, P.O. Box 1393, Eugene, Oregon 97440 USA / (541)344-5044 / http://www.pesticide.org; accessed: 2005.

CRC For Australian Weed Management 2003, Search: glyphosate?resistant weed; http://www.weedscrc.org.au/index_flash.html; accessed: 20 Sept. 2008.

Dykstra, W. & Ghali, G.Z. 1991, ‘Second peer review of glyphosate. Memo to R. Taylor and L. Rossi’, US EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Health Effects Division, Washington, D.C.

extoxnet.orst.edu 1996 [Online], “EXTOXNET | Extension Toxicology Network | Pesticide Information Profiles | Glyphosate”; Source: http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/glyphosa.htm, accessed: 21 Sept. 2012.

gmwatch.org 2010 [Online], “Brazil battles spread of “mad soy disease”"; Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12554-brazil-battles-spread-of-qmad-soy-diseaseq, accessed: 21 Sept. 2012.

Hardell L. & Eriksson M. 1999, ‘A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and exposure to Pesticides’, CANCER Vol.85, No. 6 (March 15, 1999).

Hatherill, J.R. (Dr.) 1999 [Online], ARE TODAY’S TEENS MORE TOXIC?, Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill; Jun 15, 1999; pg. 19; and http://www.veg.ca/lifelines/sepoc99/teens.htm; accessed: 2006.

Kale, et al., 1995, ‘Mutagenicity testing of nine herbicides and pesticides currently used in agriculture’, Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 25:148-153.

Lehmann V. & Pengue W. 2000, ‘Herbicide Tolerant Soybean: Just another step in a technology treadmill?’, Biotechnology and Development Monitor. September 2000.

Leu, A. 2007, ‘Monsanto’s Toxic Herbicide Glyphosate: A Review of its Health and Environmental Effects’, Organic Consumers Association, http://www.organicconsumers.org/, accessed: July 17, 2008.

NCAP (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides) Landscaping To Reduce Herbicide Use’ 97440 USA.

NCAP (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides) 2000, Unthinkable Risk: How Children Are Exposed and Harmed When Pesticides Are Used at School, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, PO Box 1393 Eugene, OR 97440-1393 USA (www.pesticide.org).

Montague, P. (National Writers Union) 2001, ‘#726 – Science, Precaution and Pesticides, 06-Jun-2001′, in http://www.rachel.org/en/node/5340; accessed: 16 July 2008.

Nordstrom M. et al, 1998, ‘Occupational exposures, animal exposure, and smoking as risk factors for hairy cell leukaemia evaluated in a casecontrol study’, BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER Vol. 77 (1998), pp. 2048-2052.

Paganelli, A. (Alejandra), Gnazzo, V. (Victoria), Acosta, H. (Helena), Lopez, S.L. (Silvia), & Carrasco, A.E. (Andres) [Laboratorio de Embriologia Molecular, CONICET-UBA, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Paraguay 2155, 3° piso (1121), Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina] 2010 [Online], “Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling” in Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (10), pp 1586–1595; DOI: 10.1021/tx1001749; Publication Date (Web): August 9, 2010; Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society; Source: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749, accessed: 21 Sept. 2012.

pesticideinfo.org 2010 [Online], “Glyphosate – Identification, toxicity, use, water pollution potential, ecological toxicity and regulatory information”; Source: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33138, accessed: 21 Sept. 2012.

Ragnarsdottir, K. Vala 2000, ‘Environmental fate and toxicology of organophosphate pesticides’, Journal of the Geological Society; July 2000; v. 157; no. 4; p. 859-876 © 2000 Geological Society of London.

Rainier, S., Bui, M., Mark, E., Thomas, D., Tokarz, D., Ming, L., Delaney, C., Richardson, R.J., Albers, J.W., Matsunam, N., Stevens, J., Coon, H., Leppert, M. & Fink, J.K. 2008, ‘Neuropathy Target Esterase Gene Mutations Cause Motor Neuron Disease’, The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 82, Issue 3, 780-785, 28 February 2008, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2007.12.018;
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00143-2; accessed: 26 June 2009.

Rank, et al. 1993, ‘Genotoxicity testing of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test’, Salmonella mutagenicity test and Allium anaphase-telophase test, Mutation Research 300:29-36.

Reeves, M., Schafer, K., Hallward, K. & Katten, A. 1999, Fields of Poison: California Farmworkers and Pesticides, Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, United Farm Workers of America and Californians for Pesticide Reform (Publishers).

Rotella, P. 2003 [Online], “Mark Purdey’s Organophosphate Model of Mad Cow Disease”; Source: http://madcow.pamrotella.com/, accessed: 21 Sept. 2012.

Royal Society of Chemistry 2009, ‘Soundbite molecules’, http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2005Mar/Soundbitemolecules.asp; accessed: 4th June 2009.

Sawada, Y.Y., et al 1988, ‘Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate’, Lancet, 1(8580):299.

ScienceAlert 2008, ‘Another pesticide resistant weed found’, in ScienceAlert: Australia & New Zealand, Tuesday, 26 August 2008,
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20082608?17859?2.html; accessed: 20 Sept. 2008.

Sinclair, W. (M.D.; Board Certified Immunology) & Pressinger, R. (M.Ed.) no date [Online], Home and Lawn Pesticides More Dangerous than Previously Believed, http://www.chem-tox.com.pesticides, accessed: 17 July 2008.

Solomon, G.M. & Mott, L.M. 1998, Trouble On The Farm: Growing Up With Pesticides In Agricultural Communities, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY, USA.

Talbot, A.R. 1991, ‘Acute poisoning with a glyphosate-surfactant herbicide (‘Roundup’): A review of 93 cases’, Human Exp. Toxicol. 10:1-8.

Tvedten, S.L. 1999, 2002, The Bug Stops Here, compiled from The Best Control II – Intelligent Pest Management, Copyright 1998 and 2002 by Stephen Tvedten.

US EPA 1993-2, ‘Science chapter for registration eligibility document for glyphosate’, EPA Ecological Effects Branch, Washington, DC (May 1).

Vachani, C. (RN, MSN, AOCN) 2007, OncoLink, Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania,
http://oncolink.org/types/article.cfm?C=10&s=36&ss=820&id =9539; accessed: 16 June 2008.

van der Werf, H.M.G. 1996, ‘Assessing the impact of pesticides on the environment’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 60 (1996) 81-96, Elsevier Science B.V.

Vigfusson, N.V., & Vyse, E.R. 1980, ‘The effect of the pesticides Dexon, Captan and Roundup on sister chromatid exchanges in human lymphocytes in vitro’, Mutation Research 79:53-57.

Zweiner, R. & Ginsburg, C. 1988, ‘Organophosphate and carbamate poisoning in infants and children’, Pediatrics 81:121-126.

This Essay is also located at: http://poisoningandlegalaction.com.au/human-health-and-pesticides.htm or http://poisoningandlegalaction.com.au/reports/human-health-and-pesticides.htm.

The past couple of years have seen changes to health and safety legislation with regards to lone workers. Companies and their directors can be prosecuted under the new Corporate Manslaughter Act as well as the recent introduction of the HSE’s Fee for Intervention – a cost recovery scheme making organisations liable for HSE-related costs for accident investigation, inspection and enforcement actions.

In the worst case scenario of a lone worker suffering injury or even death without having appropriate risk-reduction measures in place, it’s highly likely that their employers will face prosecution, leading to crippling costs, fines and a tarnishing of reputations.

Measures are in place to help mitigate risk. Solutions that are accredited to BS8484:2009 – the standard for lone worker device services, are designed to reduce any chance of corporate liability in the event of a life-threatening incident (as well as the main priority of ensuring staff are kept safe).

To answer the original question… yes and no.

With the increasing popularity of Smartphones, applications are available to enable workers to raise the alarm at the touch of a button – thus transforming their mobile into a fully-functioning personal alarm. Applications that link to a 24/7 alarm receiving centre, are GPS enabled and can be activated with a one-button press (overriding the key lock) can be accredited to BS8484 (It’s worth noting at this point that due to the IPhone’s design, it can never be BS8484 approved). If an employee is issued a smartphone with a BS8484 approved application, then it’s fair to say that your organisation is helping to fulfil their Duty of Care to their employee.

However, just by issuing a standard phone (or smartphone without a BS8484 app) is treading on dangerous ground. Without the approval of BS8484, organisations face the risk of not complying with current lone worker legislation.

For instance, is it enough to expect the lone worker to make a phone call to the emergency services, line manager or other contact if they find themselves in a hostile, dangerous or threatening situation? The time it takes to unlock the keypad, make the call and explain the situation (including their location) is far too long, especially when the user is potentially under extreme pressure or in distress. And what if an incident occurs in unsociable hours? With a BS8484 accredited solution, all the user needs to do is press one button. Their location and information will be conveyed automatically to operators at the alarm receiving centre. From there, the situation is promptly and calmly dealt with.

Whilst providing your employees with a BS8484 approved solution may not cover every contingency, it goes much further in preventing your business from succumbing to hefty legislative fines. It may be tempting to opt for the most basic method of protection, but for the sake of a few pounds a month, it’s our belief that it’s definitely worth having the extra safeguards in place.