rajan mr asked:


The most appropriate means of access to temporary workplaces at a height are ladders. The type of ladder selected varies depending upon the frequency of passage, the height to be negotiated and the duration of use. Proper safety measures are very much essential while using ladders at industrial workplaces. In the use of a conventional ladder, whether it is a step ladder or is adapted to be placed at an angle against a surface, the user typically ascends and descends the ladder by grasping upper rungs or sides of the ladder with the hands while moving the feet from step-to-step on lower rungs or steps of the ladder. If such a ladder is placed against a surface at too steep an angle, it is not uncommon for the center of gravity to be such that the ladder is quite unstable, and capable of tipping over backwards under the weight of the person using the ladder. In addition, the rungs or steps of the ladder do not provide a convenient handrail or handgrip; and, at least for some people, the lack of any surrounding side supports leads to a sense of insecurity.

The risk of falling from ladders can be minimized at workplaces by the usage of proper safety ladders. There should be provision for a retractable safety handle along with the ladder. Ladders must be so positioned as to ensure their stability during use. They must be used in such a way that a secure handhold and secure support are available to workers at all times. In particular, if a load has to be carried by hand on a ladder, it must not preclude the maintenance of a safe handhold. It is desirable to provide a safety ladder which provides an improved center of gravity over the ladder constructions of the prior art, and which utilizes handrails as the weight-bearing portion of the ladder. Only safe ladders, secured against slipping and tipping, in good condition and suitable for usage in the current objective should be allowed at industrial workplaces.

The risks and difficulties in storage related to conventional ladders have led to the invention of the new age foldable ladders and mobile safety steps. In a foldable step ladder the step section is interconnected or hinged near the top, with a fold-out extension to form a substantially triangular support; so that the ladder can be used as a free-standing ladder. Mobile safety steps or sometimes called the mobile ladder is an example of improved ladder construction technology. These are manufactured with the primary objective of safety and an added objective of minimizing storage problems. Mobile safety steps are lightweight, durable, space-saving and compliant with industry regulations.

Mobile safety steps are available from 2 feet to 10 feet tall, in spring action, lever break, push and foot lock variants. Mobile warehouse safety steps are an essential piece of equipment when picking goods from levels over 2m. So, gone are the days of using those step and rung ladders, mobile ladders are much more safe and portable in all terms. The only thing to be kept in mind is that these portable ladders must rest on a stable, strong, suitably-sized, immobile footing so that the rungs remain horizontal. Suspended ladders must be attached in a secure manner and, with the exception of rope ladders, so that they cannot be displaced and so that swinging is prevented. Mobile safety steps have become an integral part of the category of safety equipments that can prevent potential hazards at workplaces.



Carlos

Kris asked:


I took a different interpretation on the fire as a symbol. I found that when Ralph first gained power the fire was started as his first rule of business. But as he lost power and control of the boys, the fire was smaller and smaller. The fire went out when Jack and the hunters disobeyed him and thus diminishing his control. When Jack gained power he also obtained fire. At the end when the fire is spreading, it’s obvious that there is a total lack of control.

My problem is, I need quotes for my essay, anyone have any that can support it?
*I lost my book, but I assure you with almost any quotes on gaining or losing fire I could shape this.

Gene

Chicago Fire asked:


Mapp is back from his injury on August 25, but hasn’t appeared in a game since. The Fire are hot, knocking out top seeded DC United, but now face bitter rival New England. Do you think it is a good idea or not to give Mapp significant playing time?
Please explain your reasoning.

Leonard

rd211 asked:


I had a small kitchen fire earlier this evening (a grease fire). As a result, there is some smoke damage and soot on the tile of the wall behind the gas range. What is an easy way for me to clean this off? I don’t want (or need) to call a professional fire restorer, because the damaged area is about 1 foot square total. Is there a commercial cleaning solution I can buy at a hardware store?

Jared

kwasie a asked:


Do u die when u get burnt by fire?

Beverly

Deb Potter asked:


You may have read the book Good to Great, by Jim Collins. In his book he explains how many companies thought being good is… well, “good enough.” In these times of constant change and global competition, it is important to always look for improvement –especially when it comes to safety.

Who wants to settle for “good enough” safety? In most cases, good means the company is willing to settle for an injury. “Good enough” safety means setting safety goals based on lagging indicators. (An example is to reduce lost time injuries by 10%.) Great safety means setting a rigorous goal of zero injuries. According to Collins, you want to be rigorous and not ruthless when growing your company. This same concept should also apply to safety in the workplace.

Is Your Safety Process Rigorous or Just Plain Ruthless?

Ruthless safety could be characterized as a company that tends to punish employees by verbally beating them over the head with the safety manual for getting hurt on the job. Don’t read this wrong…every company must have a disciplinary policy to get the attention of employees who don’t understand the consequences of unsafe behavior. But to truly change behavior frontline leaders must always clearly identify the behavior required to prevent injuries. After all, the goal is “Nobody Gets Hurt.”

Rigorous safety could be characterized as clearly defined behaviors that workers are held accountable for that prevent known hazards from injuring them. If a worker continually proves that he or she has no intention of behaving safely, then disciplinary action must be taken. Rigorous safety means that leadership has the best interest of the employee at heart.

5 Factors for Rigorous Safety Leadership

Leading employees to behave safely on the job is not an easy task. During our 15 years of experience of consulting with top executives on workplace safety, we have had many leaders tell us that if they had known leading employees to behave safely on the job was so hard to do, they might have turned down the position of supervisor, foreman or lead. Yet, there is hope.

Leaders from the frontline can be effective by learning about dealing with these five human factors:

1. Expectations:

Unspoken, unrecognized expectations in the workplace can lead to job frustration, substandard safety performance, decreased job safety commitment and even high turnover. Understand that most employees expect to have a workplace free of hazards. Workers have varying expectations when it comes to factors such as autonomy, work/life balance, career opportunities, stability, structure, and teamwork. The key is to learn what expectations the individuals in your organization have and then work with them to meet or, in some cases, adjust those expectations.

2. Communication:

Being a superb safety communicator is difficult to accomplish. Think about the people to whom you communicate safety requirements on a daily basis. You will notice some are strong in certain communication skills, but weak in other skills. Learn everything you can about your communications style and how it affects others what impact do you have? If you don’t usually get a positive reaction from those around you, take a course in interpersonal skills.

3. Innovation:

Change, whether anticipated or unanticipated, can be difficult. To innovate, grow and improve a safety culture requires individuals who are able to see the big picture. Accept that change is a part of life and learn let go of the past and embrace and apply new techniques, technologies, and tools when appropriate.

4. Organization:

Safety innovation cannot be done without teams of people dedicated to hitting the goal: A Zero-Injury Workplace. Leaders must be able to organize a team and motivate it towards the goal. Imagine everyone leading each other to the goal of a zero-injury workplace.

5. Appreciation:

Great leaders accomplish great things. Great leaders appreciate the people who make things happen. Understanding how one reacts to certain situations as a leader is vital to being a successful leader.

Get Rigorous for a Bright Future

Becoming rigorous about safety is hard work, but it is rewarding. When a company and its leaders commit to improving their effectiveness with rigorous safety programs, employees are more motivated to behave safely so they can home to their families every day without injury. After all, no matter what level you are in the company, the goal is “Nobody Gets Hurt.” That’s a goal everyone can live with.



Constance

The_Quiet_Vampire_Cop asked:


Well on Saturday 2:00 AM, there was a fire in the building. I didn’t have access to a fire escape so I had to go through the stairs, which was full of smoke. I inhaled some, which irritated my throat and eyes. So I was just wondering if I inhaled enough to cause damage.

Mitchell

Samuel P. Whittle asked:


For those of you who have been entrusted with the task of selecting a safety instrumented system for use in your plant, often run into a perplexing question. Should I go for an integrated Safety Instrumented System, which will be totally different from my Distributed Control system (or DCS for short)? Or should I select one of the newer “integrated systems”, that comprise of both the Distributed Control System and a Safety Instrumented System in one package?

A Safety Instrumented System (or SIS) is a special kind of control system that is used for the safety critical parts of process plants, turbo machinery, boilers and other machinery or equipment that has to be controlled with a very high degree of reliability in order to run it safely, as well as bring it to a safe state if something goes wrong. Emergency Shutdown Systems (ESD for short), can be considered a subset of the SIS category of control systems.

On the other hand DCS (Distributed Control Systems) are those control systems that are used for normal control and monitoring operations of process plants, oil refineries, oil & gas production platforms, power plants and so on. The DCS is the main system that measures, monitors and controls various process parameters like flow, temperature, pressure and so on. In standards related literature, this system is also referred to as the BPCS (short for Basic Process Control System).

In the view of the standards bodies (like IEC and ISA), these two systems have to be completely separate, as these safety instrumented systems have to be dedicated to controlling only the safety critical parts of the plant .The ordinary DCS cannot be said to be robust, fail-safe and sure to operate the safety critical instruments at all times. This distinction between the DCS and SIS, led to separate markets for both types of systems with separate suppliers for both, initially. Thus companies like Triconex, HIMA, Pilz and ICS Triplex were the traditional vendors of these Safety Instrumented Systems, whereas the BPCS or DCS market belonged to the companies like Emerson, ABB, Honeywell, Yokogawa and Invensys.

This obviously, meant that now, if a plant had instruments and controls that were designated as safety critical, it necessarily required a separate SIS; the DCS would not do at all because of what the standards state. Thus now, one control room had two control systems, completely different as chalk and cheese. The SIS had separate power supply (or a UPS), separate panels, monitoring stations, separate programming software and of course totally separate hardware from the DCS. The same Instrument engineer who maintained the instruments and controls of this process plant, now had to be adept at both systems simultaneously. Plant modifications and changes were a pain as any change had to be implemented in both systems, with a lot of testing to ensure that the original interlocks and loops worked as designed to.

Making the two systems communicate with each other, also proved not so simple, since even after DCS vendors had come out with open systems, the Safety Instrumented System vendors were reluctant to migrate to such systems, due to the extensive proof testing required to ensure that the “open” systems were bug free.

Hence, most instrument engineers in these situations started wishing for a new deal, whereby both the SIS and the DCS could talk to each other seamlessly (even while remaining separate to conform to the standards) . Also, what if they could share a common engineering /programming platform as well? That would be the icing on the cake!

The DCS vendors sensed this mood of the users and many of them came out with “integrated” DCS/SIS systems, where the DCS and SIS controllers are different, but part of the same overall system. Some recent examples are Emerson’s Delta V with SIS and Siemens Safety Integrated system. These reportedly have become popular, due to the fact that most of these integrated systems have got third party (most commonly TUV) certificates for the SIS part, so users can have a worry free installation of these for safety critical applications. However, I have not yet seen any debate in the technical media, regarding this issue. Are these systems doing great, or are users now longing for the earlier separate DCS/SIS systems? I think we need some more time and more data, to arrive at any definitive conclusion. The advantages of an integrated DCS/SIS are obvious, as stated above. The disadvantages are somewhat less obvious. One disadvantage is that if the SIS portion is really easy to program, then there is a chance that unauthorized users (say a savvy DCS operator) might end up changing protected settings like interlock bypasses and setpoints, which is really dangerous. Plus the thought of having an SIS with a standard “open” OS like Windows, is rather uncomfortable, as the last thing one wants is a system freeze during an emergency.

Only time will tell, if the integrated SIS/DCS systems were a better choice than the stand-alone SIS, as then we would have enough data to have a balanced view.



Gilbert