Environmental Disease - Essay Example

Environmental Disease Name: Institution: Instructor: Date: Many occupations as experienced by workers are prone to health hazards and accidents that occur during work hours and actually need to be minimized. Considering masons as workers in a company, we notice that they are exposed to many health hazards that need some attention. Masonry as it is known is an occupation where the workers are to deal with a lot of construction tools and materials, which are all dangerous to the human body (Anderson, 2000). Masonry involves the use of sand, which may contain dust. It requires use of cement, which has also its accompanied dust. It involves the use of some metals, which by their nature can be very disastrous to the human body (Commission, 1998). It may also involve the use of chemicals, which may be the deadliest of the dangers mentioned above. Masonry is an all-round job and requires that the workers be equipped with appropriate protective gear to help counter the effect of the toxins they are exposed to. Dust is the most dangerous in all of the named toxic substances. It is followed by radiations, toxic gases, toxic metals and finally bacteria and other microorganisms. There are many toxic substances that a mason on duty can be exposed to and cause him adverse health conditions. Dust, as one of these substances, is very harmful and can affect an individual badly (D'Mello, 1991). Dust when inhaled remains in the lungs where it causes irritation. Exposure to toxic dusts can lead to chronic lung disorders like lung cancer, silicosis, asbestosis and bronchitis (Commission, 1998). Fibrotic dusts are able to penetrate into the alveolar region of the lung and damage these cells causing scarring or fibrosis. Dust samples may include asbestos, silica and crystalline (Hinkel, 2008). Asbestos can only be identified by use of a microscope and contains a bundle of fibbers that can become airborne when distributed. Asbestosis is found in naval shipyard workers (Organization., W. H., & Programme., U. N. 1990). When a person inhales the dust, the fibbers are trapped in the lungs (Commission, 1998). The body tries to dissolve the fibbers by producing an acid. Due to the chemical resistance, the acid does so little in destroying the fibber instead it corrodes the surrounding tissues (Macauley, Bowes & Palmer, 1992). Mesothelioma is cancer associated with the pleura. It attacks the lining of the lungs and chest cavity. Exposure to radiations, infections like syphilis or German measles and drugs with other chemicals causes adverse effects to the human body (Jones, 1991). Radiations can cause death of body cells and can even cause death of an unborn foetus in an expectant mother. They are able to affect and destroy any tissues within their reach (Commission, 1998). Chemical exposures are generally very toxic and any person is to stay alert to avoid any contact with chemicals. Chemicals can cause corrosion of body tissues and even cause paralysis on body parts that come into contact with it. Metals also form part of the toxic substances that are very destructive when in contact as a destructive agent. Some of these metals include lead and arsenic (Commission, 1998). Arsenic can be found at the bottom of arsenic rich rivers and is toxic when taken through drinking water. It causes diarrhoea, vomiting, oesophageal, and abdominal pains. Acute poisoning may be treated with Chelation therapy (Commission, 1998). Chronic arsenic causes cancer of the skin, lungs, bladder and kidney and other skin changes such as pigmentation and thickening (D'Mello, 1991). Lead on the other side, occurs naturally in the air and can become airborne naturally through volcanic eruptions, sea spray and bush fires. Much exposure to lead causes pain in the muscles, pain in the joints, anaemia headache and high blood pressure. Lead is very toxic and need to be voided. Chemical contaminants and gases are also part of the toxic substances that a mason is likely to come across when on duty. Most chemicals and gases get into the human body through absorption on the skin (Commission, 1998). Some gases can be able to cause a reduction of the oxygen concentration in the human body and this can lead to death if not controlled in time. Such gases are like carbon dioxide. Chlorine as a gas is also very harmful and can have severe effects to the human body (D'Mello, 1991). It causes irritation in the eyes, respiratory tract and the lungs, corrosion of teeth and burns to the skin from liquid exposure (Kirsten & Karch, 2012). Carbon tetrachloride is a dangerous regent used for bleaching and when absorbed into the human body causes damage to the liver or renal system and persistent headache (Weiner, 2003). Apart from the above health risks, tetanus is a bacterium caused infection and occurs when bacteria enters an open wound (Cranor, 1997). The bacteria may be caused from dirty nails, cutting tools, animal bites and wood splinters. It causes fever, stiffness of muscles, sweating and stiffness in the neck. Botulism is caused by bacteria found in the soil and causes difficulty in speech respiration and double vision. To help reduce these health risks for the masonry workers the following measure are to be used. To start with, the surrounding in which the work is done from needs to be kept clean always (Substances, 1990). This calls for the administration to organize cleaners who will be cleaning the areas of work from time to time (Commission, 1998). This will help reduce cases of dust and will help reduce possible habitats of bacteria and other disease causing agents. The cleaning exercise should always be done with a strong disinfectant that will destroy any cases of microorganism that might be forming (Cranor, 1997). The workers should be enlightened and told the importance of washing hands before eating and after handling dirty work. Food taken by the masons should be prepared with keenness for cleanliness and it should be preserved in a good manner that cannot influence bacterial growth (D'Mello, 1991). To help reduce physical accidents, each employer should be given protective gear to use before one resumes duty (D'Mello, 1991). Workers working with reagents need to have gloves on to prevent the reagents contact with the hands. The face and nose should also be covered appropriately to reduce chances of splashes into the eyes. Nose area protection will also prevent inhalation of toxic gases and dust. The head is supposed to be covered with a helmet to prevent any metal from hitting the head of a worker. Every worker is supposed to be issued with a lab coat to prevent reagents and acidic substances from getting into contact with the skin. Exposure based on monitoring can be described in two approaches (D'Mello, 1991). The first approach explicitly weights the measured particulate matter concentrations according to anrandom estimate of the population of employees exposed to that concentration. In such a case, the population as attributed to each measurement as obtained from a worker is to be defined as that working within a small of radius of the station (Cranor, 1997). An average concentration for a worker is then calculated across all the measurement groups, weighted by population. When such an approach is implemented for the structural indicators, could be adopted to define exposure in the exposure reduction approach (Commission, 1998). A better exposure monitoring is seen when exposure is viewed as an average annual mean concentration for a carefully specified sample of workers (Mongillo and Zierdt-Warshaw, 2000). The other approach is considered the most practical and simple to implement. A set of workers working per department would form a basis for more robust structural indicators. Its main aim is to link this measure to the population but without clear population weighting (O'Donnell, 2001). This is done using a monitoring station with the number of monitoring cites being linked to the population. The most appropriate of the two methods would be a fixed percent reduction to be applied to each group of members being observed. It will enable compliance checking to be straight forward, transparent and clear. Average concentrations across the network in the compliance period would be taken from the average across the same network in the base period to give the reduction actually achieved (Cranor, 1997). This ratio would be expressed as a percentage reduction. The different approaches are used to relate them in terms of efficiency, which relates to the ability to maximize health benefits across the population. It also looks forward to maximize the equality whereby the individuals most at risk through exposure to the highest concentrations that are protected to a uniform minimum state (Commission, 1998). The assessment deals with practical aspects of implementing the different approaches, including the important issue of monitoring compliance. Biological monitoring in this case will involve determination of the concentration of the chemical and the toxic inhalants in the body of the worker. It will involve testing the biological specimens of the workers like urine, blood, saliva and fecal matter (Lee, 2005). All the toxic substances that are a threat to the live of the workers will be sampled and a test carried out on each one of them against every individual worker (United States, 1989). The biological samples taken are to be labelled well and placed in a laboratory ready for testing. After testing, the laboratory technician or physician is to ascertain to which extend each of the workers is affected. The physician is to set a biological threshold limit value (Commission, 1998). This value should be the one beyond, which a workers health state is taken to be very bad. It is usually the limit beyond which the exposure cannot be tolerated (Madan, Williams & Plus, 2010). Those results that are beyond the biological threshold value are to be retested for clarity. Those that are affected the most are to be taken for medication and not allowed back to exposure to the toxic substances (Cranor, 1997). The working environment is to be checked for any faults and leakages that might be causing excessive exposure to the substances (Miller, Holness & Jersey, 1998). All areas are to be checked and cleanliness conducted. If no faults are noticed, the management is supposed to look for means by which they are to reduce the effect of the deadly substance at hand (Ness, 1994). Workplace health promotion is a combined effort of employees, employers and society to improve the health and wellbeing of individuals at work. It includes calling for forums for employees to suggest ways of improving work organization (Cranor, 1997). This makes them be part of the implementation hence becomes easier to run (Microlivestock, 1991). It also involves consulting the workers in improving their work environment. They need to give suggestions on how to improve their working environment. The management is also to enable flexible and favourable working hour or working from home (Commission, 1998). The management is also to ensure that the employees are having healthy eating while at work. They are supposed to organize forums where employees are taught on the importance and ways of healthy eating (Hee, 1993). The employees are also to be taught on the effects of tobacco. The managers are to be given advice on how to deal with stress issues. They are to get access to psychological consultancy for all employees. They are to provide biological checkups like blood sugar to maintain a good medical report of the employees. Control measures as carried out by the management before a worker is employed, includes all the tests and requirements that one needs to complete before he is considered for employment. It may include verifying that you have a reliable health condition depending on the type of work one is seeking to be employed. The employer also needs to verify if he has any injury or disability. It also includes verifying that the employee will be able to accomplish the set number of duties, which he will be allocated. The employee at such times will be required to provide appropriate referrals and recommendations from previous employers and medical officers. References Anderson, D. ( 2000). Human monitoring after environmental and occupational exposure to chemical and physical agents. Amsterdam : IOS Press . Commission, A.B. (1998). Individual monitoring for internal exposure of workers. Oxford: Pergamon Pr. Cranor, C. F. (1997). Regulating toxic substances . New York : Oxford : Oxford University Press. D'Mello, J. P. ( 1991). Toxic substances in crop plants. Cambridge : Royal Soc. of Chemistry. Hee, S. S. (1993). Biological monitoring. New York : John Wiley & Sons. Hinkel, D. F. (2008). Practical real estate law. Clifton Park: Delmar Learning. Jones, J. W. ( 1991). Preemployment honesty testing . New York: Quorum Books. Kirsten, W., & Karch, R. C. (2012). Global perspectives in workplace health promotion. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Lee, C. C. ( 2005). Environmental engineering dictionary. Lanham: Government Institutes. Macauley, M. K., Bowes, M. D., & Palmer, K. L. ( 1992). Using economic incentives to regulate toxic substances. Washington: Resources for the Future. Madan, I., Williams, S., & Plus., N. (2010). A review of pre-employment health screening of NHS staff. London : Stationery Office. Microlivestock. ( 1991). little-known small animals with a promising economic future. Washington: National Acad. Press. Miller, M. D., Holness, L. A., & Jersey., L. S. (1998). You and the law in New Jersey . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Mongillo, J., & Zierdt-Warshaw, L. (2000). Encyclopedia of environmental science. Phoenix (Arizona) : Oryx Press . Ness, S. A. (1994). Surface and dermal monitoring for toxic exposures. New York : John Wiley & Sons. O'Donnell, M. P. ( 2001). Health promotion in the workplace. Albany : Delmar Thomson Learning. Organization., W. H., & Programme., U. N. ( 1990). Exposure monitoring of lead and cadmium . Nairobi: World Health Organisation : United Nations Environment Programme. Substances., N. R. ( 1990). Tracking toxic substances at industrial facilities. Washington: National Academy Press. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations. Environment, E. a. ( 1989). What ever happened to the Toxic Substance Control Act. Washington: For sale by the Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office, U.S. Weiner, I. B. ( 2003). Handbook of psychology. Hoboken: Wiley. Read More

To help reduce these health risks for the masonry workers the following measure are to be used. To start with, the surrounding in which the work is done from needs to be kept clean always (Substances, 1990). This calls for the administration to organize cleaners who will be cleaning the areas of work from time to time (Commission, 1998). This will help reduce cases of dust and will help reduce possible habitats of bacteria and other disease causing agents. The cleaning exercise should always be done with a strong disinfectant that will destroy any cases of microorganism that might be forming (Cranor, 1997).

The workers should be enlightened and told the importance of washing hands before eating and after handling dirty work. Food taken by the masons should be prepared with keenness for cleanliness and it should be preserved in a good manner that cannot influence bacterial growth (D'Mello, 1991). To help reduce physical accidents, each employer should be given protective gear to use before one resumes duty (D'Mello, 1991). Workers working with reagents need to have gloves on to prevent the reagents contact with the hands.

The face and nose should also be covered appropriately to reduce chances of splashes into the eyes. Nose area protection will also prevent inhalation of toxic gases and dust. The head is supposed to be covered with a helmet to prevent any metal from hitting the head of a worker. Every worker is supposed to be issued with a lab coat to prevent reagents and acidic substances from getting into contact with the skin. Exposure based on monitoring can be described in two approaches (D'Mello, 1991).

The first approach explicitly weights the measured particulate matter concentrations according to anrandom estimate of the population of employees exposed to that concentration. In such a case, the population as attributed to each measurement as obtained from a worker is to be defined as that working within a small of radius of the station (Cranor, 1997). An average concentration for a worker is then calculated across all the measurement groups, weighted by population. When such an approach is implemented for the structural indicators, could be adopted to define exposure in the exposure reduction approach (Commission, 1998).

A better exposure monitoring is seen when exposure is viewed as an average annual mean concentration for a carefully specified sample of workers (Mongillo and Zierdt-Warshaw, 2000). The other approach is considered the most practical and simple to implement. A set of workers working per department would form a basis for more robust structural indicators. Its main aim is to link this measure to the population but without clear population weighting (O'Donnell, 2001). This is done using a monitoring station with the number of monitoring cites being linked to the population.

The most appropriate of the two methods would be a fixed percent reduction to be applied to each group of members being observed. It will enable compliance checking to be straight forward, transparent and clear. Average concentrations across the network in the compliance period would be taken from the average across the same network in the base period to give the reduction actually achieved (Cranor, 1997). This ratio would be expressed as a percentage reduction. The different approaches are used to relate them in terms of efficiency, which relates to the ability to maximize health benefits across the population.

It also looks forward to maximize the equality whereby the individuals most at risk through exposure to the highest concentrations that are protected to a uniform minimum state (Commission, 1998). The assessment deals with practical aspects of implementing the different approaches, including the important issue of monitoring compliance. Biological monitoring in this case will involve determination of the concentration of the chemical and the toxic inhalants in the body of the worker. It will involve testing the biological specimens of the workers like urine, blood, saliva and fecal matter (Lee, 2005).

Read More