I can sate that the vaseline myth was old when I trained back in the 80's, it was a quick fix used by the RN when caught short, at least that was its intent, in attack there wasn't much time. to take a beard off. That business got debunked in the late 80's and by early 90's clean shaven with RPE was in along with research.

I've actually spoken directly to individuals involved.

May be of interest as it's around lack of policy on RPE and wearing of beards with respirators and the old myth of Vaseline.
Pest control business fined $250K after workers poisoned
https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/12/09/pest-control-business-fined-250k-after-workers-poisoned/

Hi Ian
For time frame non is set down but good practice is to make sure it is well fitting (ie doesn't rub against the skin), have a 15 min break every 4 hrs from wearing a mask and think about using a moisturiser. This adds a protective layer that can reduce the dryness that comes from wearing a mask and no make-up as that clogs the skin pores and can cause flare ups. If using a cloth mask then avoid synthetics if posible, as these can iritate the skin, and go for cotton alsso watch you hydration as often people are dehyrdated when they come to work which means their skin could already be dry and more suitable to becoming itchy. As Steffan said above replace when they become to hard to breathe through an dif using washable ones then launder daily.
There are diiffernt styles of mask out there so always worth trying different typoes and styles to find best one.

Remember those days from my time as a rat catcher in RAF. This was an old solution which didnt really work well, so nowadyas its an air fed or clean shave if negative opressure. Latest one doing the rounds is that you get a good fit if you put on a beard net before putting on a respirator or use egg white! Other problem with vaseline is that it degrades the seals/rubber and you need to reapply it regularly throughout a day wearing RPE, plus greasy hands. So better clean shaven, mine came off yesterday as back to wearing disposable respirators tomorrow for a few hours

If the glasses are fogging up then the mask isn't fitted correctly, it's an indictaion that the seal is not working. Hence the reason that you need to be clean shaven to wear disopoble or reusbale negative pressure respirators. It also may be the design your wearing is not suited for your face shape that's why there are different designs, fit testing from a reputable provider will show this up.

Hi Steve

It all depends on what type of gas detector they have as all are not created equal, that is, does it monitor for what they want, it's not uncommon to see gas detectors which do not detect the gas of interest being used on sites, often asscoiated with a lack of training in these devices.
As for gases, it would all depend on what has been in it so could be anything. Normally I would use a multigas plus PID when going into new areas and don't know what gases or vapours I could be facing.

Hi Riki

Work related cancers fit into all 3 categories, chemical, physical and biological agents. As Keith said it all depends on the source/hazard eg benzene would be a chemical agent, radiation a physical agent and so on. There is no way to fit them under one category

Hi Brendon

It does happen, seen it on a few occuances especially where the pits are not vented. Nothing worse than watching a cloud of exhaust fumes roll towards you in a pit (monitoring at the time back in the 80's) . Ideally the pit should be vented and the exhaust arise from just starting and stopping the motors and will sink to the lowest place.

Hi Peter
it all depends on how people are defining H&S. As an occupational hygienist on the H side of H&S it is far more than 5% technical. We should be arguing that H&S should always be 100% about the people and their short and long term health. The skill sets we each use will be a mix of technical and people ones and that will change on a job by job basis, but the bottom line is it is always about the people.

It can be woorth pointing out that nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%.

Thanks Peter, FAMANZ is seperate but has a number of us hygienists involved in getting it up and running

Thanks Michael

It never will be one of those

HI Brook

There can be a number of issues including what Peter mentioned. As someone in the profession I have attended many H&S talks in which I switch off, often because it is so generic that we've all heard it before and the presentors are talking down to the audience.

When working with people it is important to actually engage them and gain their trust, when this is done you will find that many of these older ones actually understand what you are trying to do and often then help you out by suggesting things that will improve the situation, giving good examples etc and will take on board what you tell them.

So it is always worth looking back at how you present, is it talk at the audience or is it engagement, the former is a switch off. I always have a chat with the older ones in a workplace and listen to them, it is always amazing what they know and see and it shifts the power base. By that I mean I learn from them and they see that they know more than myself on a number of areas around their job so it takes away the inspector mentality with a clipboard who is examing you and finding fault, or laying down the law, to one where it is just two people swapping information on an issue.
So I always adjust my talks presnatations to fit the auidence and engage them not just get info over on H&S.
So best ones I've been to enagage the audience and a good presenator will also adapt their talk/session to appeal to the audience in th eroom at the time. Watch their faces an dif they are disinterested change tack to bring them back.
On the workfloor take time to chat with individuals about what they do and if needed work alongside them for a while to experince what they go through. From my discussions on the workfloor many workers admit they don't enage with the H&S teams or events as the H&S are seen as living in an ivory tower who don't know what they actaully do.
So like Mark says engage them, talk to them, experince what they go through an dtreat them as indivudual human beings and not just a statisic to collect.

HI Jackie

Agree, but remember this is only gidnace towards good practice not a must do. If you can prove that an alteernatiive works as well then it can be used. This is the meaning of good practice and not best, ie situation and technolgy are always adavncing and we can't expect worksafe to updatinig their guidelines every week, so it falls to us to do our checks in the background to make sure that we have teh information to show that an altewrnative can be used and wrok successfully.

Cheers

HI Jackie
Type 'M's' are foer silica as well as 'H' type ones. These are only recently onto market so not all WorkSafe info wil be up to date. To play safe always check with the manuafacturer (quick email) if it will be suitbale for what you want. I had a recent chat around type M's with Switerland and they came back with the info I needed to make a decsion on it.

HI Michael
A number of questions arise on this one. The first is what do you mean by excellant air quality results. By that I mean were they static samples or personal (big difference) and did the people carrying them out apply stats to see what you actual risks were. If the air quality is excellant them the staff shouldn't have to wear RPE in any form. Yoou haven't mentioned what the suspected substance is or in what form and if you have engineeriing controls. These all will have an implication on your investigation into this.
So I would sugggest that you start by looking at the results and reports you have obtained on the air quality. Are they relaible and has statistical analysis been used to assess risks (you can be below the WES on one day but exceed it the next, stats help determione that risk) , were the controls tested and reported on along with the conditions at the time. All this will help determine if it is the workplace exposure. You would also need to look at what that employee does outside of work as that has been known to have an influence on thses type of cases.

There are other thing sthat have to be considewred in this type of case so I would suggets that you need to get somone in who can help you out and set your mind at rest as to whether it is work related or not. And if so what you can do to improve things.

Hi Robert

There a number of papers on this subject that you can access from the web iwth levels being found in soem between 1 - 2 mg/m3. A lot comes down to the type of tree being cut and even the type of chain selected, how it is filed as to what exposure level can be found. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/12/464/htm is one such paper. You can find a lot more peer reviewed papaers on the system

Did one job where painters were as high as kites in the paint mixing area. This was because the vetilation system had been put in at floor level due to the mistaken belief that vapours, being heavier than air, went down so avoid the breathing zone. Monitoring and smoke tests showed that there was a large build up of solvent vapours in the air an dthat the air movemnet at head height was non-existant, except when someone moved. We called in a ventlation engeineer and together we modified and upgraded the system to such an extent that the follow up monitoring showed eveything was well under control and staff no longer had to wear respirators in the area. It was a team effort (as is often the case) to resolve this one involving the workers, mangement, ventolation engineer and myself.

Yet again unfortunate incidents resulting in deaths that were avoidable if people just did a basic risk assessment or used a control banding system (freely available) that takes a few minutes. These systems are devices created by specialists for SME's as a simple tool to help them out with basic risk assessment for working with solvents and other hazardous chemicals just basic information from an SDS. It also provides guidance on controls needed from simple (opening a window) to complex depending on the risk evaluation. So the tools are out there that may have helped prevent these happening. The questions is how do we get people to use them.