ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3795, 14 August 1936, Page 9

ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN

HAZARDS IN INDUSTRY. As the proverb says, "Accidents will happen,” and, as man’s state of civilisation broadens, so too does his chance of being the victim of some mishap. Further, this civilisation increases not only his chance of injury cf the type that may be called mech-anical-such as motor accidents—but it introduces, also, additional risks arising from particular types of occupation. Hence one becomes aware of what are known as occupational hazards, and even diseases. These latter have been recognised in the past. The terms miner’s phthisis, painter’s colic, housemaid’s knee, and even smoker’s throat, are not new and the list might be extended, but it would be short in comparison with the list which would le needed to sum up adequately the dangers inherent in present day conditions. It is a well known historical fact that in earlier days, factory conditions were appalling. In the pottery industry, for example, one occupation was known to limit the operative life of the workman to about two years. The factory system was, as one writer observed, a logical outcome of the system of slavery. The last century has seen not only an enormous extension in Hie scope and magnitude of the field of purely mechanical activities, but the rise also, of two practically new fields of work, the electrical and the chemical, and the addition of these necessarily extends the possibility of mishap. PECULIAR NATURE OF WORK. It might reasonably be thought that the making of chemicals would be a particularly fruitful source of danger to those engaged in the work—the word chemical carries behind it the idea of something poisonous, or corrosive or generally dangerous. Also, the nature of the work is peculiar. The engineer relies on the permanence and stability of the materials he uses, the chemist depends on the exact converse in behaviour. The chemist has to change one set of materials into another, also devise the method of change and control it. Practice has often outrun knowledge of the factors operative in a chemical process, and the knowledge has then been acquired at a high cost. The making of explosives is, perhaps, the most obvious example of the dangers latent in the manufacture of chemicals, and of the need for full knowledge. Gunpowder has been used for about 700 years, pre-dating modern science by about 500 years. Our modern high explosives date from about the 1840’s, thus in this case knowledge had a good chance of keeping ahead of practice, but still many disastrous explosions have been recorded. Thus we find that the explosibility of picric acid was a chance discovery; it was in use as a dye, and a consignment of it wrecked a dye factory. The dye industry is another phase of chemical industry to which are attached certain specific dangers. Obviously dyes themselves are inocuous in their ordinary usage, but a finished dye represents simply a final link in a chain of chemicals, which are technically known as "intermediates,” many of which are poisonous and irritant. Further, their preparation starts from highly inflammable coal tar oils, and demands the use of materials such as concentrated nitric and sulphuric acids. The manufacture and use of compressed gases is another industry to which are attached certain specific risks. ACCIDENT RATE. It might be expected, therefore, that the chemical industry in general would show a heavy accident rate in comparison with other industries. Accidents in industry may be gauged in two ways—by frequency and by severity, the working time lost due to accidents, each reckoned on the basis of a given number of working hours. As a matter of fact, the chemical industry as a whole does not show a high rate on either of the above counts. Taking figures for 14 industries, mines and quarries head the list on both counts, and taking the figure for this section of industry as 100 per cent. Chemicals occupies the eleventh place on the “frequency” list with 15 per cent frequency, and third on the “severity” list with 37 per cent. (The figures are from some English statistics for 1935.) The figures show the preponderance of severity over frequency, and this is just what one would expect, or, at least, hope for. We cannot expect to alter the nature of a chemical. Chlorine always will be chlorine, just as “boys will be boys,” but we can at least do much to direct and control its propensities. The inference to be drawn from the figures is obvious; the industry is known to be replete with dangers, but is well provided with safeguards. The manufacture of chemicals, as is the case in other industries, tends to accumulate under the control of big undertakings, and in one respect at least, this is a social advantage. A big company is better able than a small one to deal with the general question of risks. It can maintain a special staff to supervise and study the question, also to educate the workers to appreciate the dangers, and how to prevent accidents; further, it is in a better position to insist on the observance of precautionary measures.

, WELFARE INTEREST. It is by the use of such welfare schemes that the chemical industry is enabled to maintain a high position as a safe and healthy industry. It may be animadverted that it pays the employer to inaugurate such schemes, but it must be realised that the public also is a gainer, for, as one authority says, “Neither the cost of the products nor the output of the works has suffered. ... It Is to be expected that intelligent, enlightened live works personnel pulling their weight in a team will give improvement not in one direction only, but spread over the whole field of activity.” It is not an exaggeration to say that the interest in the welfare of the employee bids likely to be one of the best contributions which industry makes to our civilisation.

DIGNITY OF LABOUR V. DOLE. A teacher in our local public schools, known for his personal Interest in the boys of the school, was recently surrounded by a group of lads whom he did not know personally. Addressing one of them, he said, “Who are you, and who is your dad, and what does he do?” These questions were answered promptly, as he addressed each one in turn, until only one boy had not been questioned. He had learned that one’s father was a merchant, another’s a clerk, etc. He turned to address the last boy, but did not have to put the questions, for quickly and proudly the lad spoke up and said: “My name is Johnnie Smith, and my father’s name is Sam Smith, and he’s working right here in this building for President Roosevelt!” His father was employed on an FERA clean-up job for the school adi ministration.