Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:29:43.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recognition and Use of Sentinel Markers in Preventing Industrial Disasters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Elihu D. Richter ,
Pamela V. Deutsch  and
Jacov Adler
Elihu D. Richter
Affiliation:
Program for Disaster Prevention and Management, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Hebrew University—Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
Pamela V. Deutsch*
Affiliation:
Program for Disaster Prevention and Management, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Hebrew University—Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
Jacov Adler
Affiliation:
Program for Disaster Prevention and Management, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Hebrew University—Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel
*
Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University—Hadassah Medical School, PO Box 1172, Jerusalem, Israel 91010-1172
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Workers, managers, occupational health and safety inspectors, and the general community can be trained to detect and promote action by the use of sentinel markers for detecting industrial disasters. A sentinel marker is a pre-disaster warning sign of impending failure in prevention. Administration sentinel markers are: weak occupational health and safety programs; lack of spontaneous access to top management; failure to accept responsibility for sub-contractors; absence of written disaster plans and drills for emergency response in the factory and in the adjacent community; non-investigation of prodromal leaks, exposures, spills, or injuries; punishment of “trouble-some” individuals (“whistleblowers”) reporting prodromal events; non-use or misuse of data on illness, injury, and absenteeism; and sub-optimal work conditions and supervision of shift workers. Information sentinel markers are: absence of worker and community right-to-know programs; non-use of data on earlier mishaps from similar technologies; and failure to provide toxicologic data to hospitals in the pre-disaster phase. Technological sentinel markers include the absence of fail-safe controls, interlocks, and automated alarm systems driven by real-time monitoring. Transportation sentinel markers include sub-optimal vehicle standards, alcohol and drug abuse, and fatigue in drivers. Preventive programs based on identification of all sentinel markers by workers and others outside a narrow spectrum of specialists are suggested to be more effective than are selective actions based on risk assessment analysis.

Keywords

chemical spillshazardous materialsindustrial disastersnuclear radiationright-to-knowsentinel markers
Type
Administrator
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 389 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Baxter, PJ: Major chemical disasters. Br Med J 1991;302:61–62.Google Scholar
2. Wackerle, JF: Disaster planning and response. N Eng J Med 1991;324;815–821.Google Scholar
3. Gressel, MG, Gideon, JA: An overview of process hazard evaluation techniques. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1991;52:158–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Tait, K: The workplace exposure assessment expert system (WORKSPERT). Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1992;53:84–98.Google Scholar
5. Everest, L: Beyond the poison cloud: Union Carbide's Bhopal Massacre. Chicago: Banner Press, 1986.Google Scholar
6. Rinsky, RA, Smith, AB, Hornung, T, et al. : Benzene and leukemia. N Eng J Med 1987;316:1044–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Falk, H: Industrial-Chemical Disasters: Medical care, public health and epidemiology in the acute phase. In: Bourdeau, P, Green, G (eds): Methods for Assessing and Reducing Injury From Chemical Accidents. Chicago: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 1989, pp 105–114.Google Scholar
8. Landesman, LY: Improving medical preparedness for chemical accidents: An inter-organizational resource review. Intl J of Mass Emerg and Disasters 1898;7:152–166.Google Scholar
9. NY State Office of the Attorney General: Saving Victims of Toxic Chemical Accidents: The Need for Better Medical Preparedness. NY, 1989. (unpublished)Google Scholar
10. Thanabalasingham, T, Beckett, MW, Murray, V: Report of a chemical incident from ethyldichlorosilane. Br Med J 1991;302:101–102.Google Scholar
11. Workplace Health Fund. Blueprint for Prevention: A Guide to Preventing Chemical Releases. Washington, DC: Workplace Health Fund, 1989, pp 36.Google Scholar
12. Bowonder, B, Kasperson, J, Kasperson, R: Avoiding future Bhopals. Environment 1985;27:6–13, 31–38.Google Scholar
13. Anon. Whistle award. Focus: International Federation of Chemical, Energy, and General Worker's Union: 3 June 1991.Google Scholar
14. Glazer, MP, Glazer, PM. The Whistle-blowers. New York: Basic Books, 1989.Google Scholar
15. Anon. Sub contracting: Other People's Death. Focus: International Federation of Chemical, Energy, and General Worker's Union: 2 June 1991.Google Scholar
16. Environmental Protection Agency. Why Accidents Occur: Insights from the the Accidental Release Information Program. Chemical Accident Prevention Bulletin. 17 July 1989.Google Scholar
17. Richter, ED, Jacobs, J. Work associated injuries and exposures in children: An epidemiologic review and recommendations for action. Collegium Ramazzini Newsletter 1988;6:32–67.Google Scholar
18. Mapes, G: Was it mere accident: The Chernobyl reactor exploded at 1:23 am. Wall Street Journ 11 April 1990;1.Google Scholar
19. Hawkes, M: The Worst Accident in the World: Chernobyl: The End of the Nuclear Dream. London: William Heineman Pan Books, 1986.Google Scholar
20. Teitelbaum, D: The Dixie Annex spill: An exercise in chemical disasters: 6 July 1987 (unpublished).Google Scholar
21. Brooks, SM, Weiss, MA, Bernstein, IL: Reactive airways dysfunction syndrome. J Occ Med 1985;27;473–476.Google Scholar
22. Andlauer, P. Shift work. In: ILO Encyclopedia on Occupational Safety and Health: Shift Work 3rd ed rev. Geneva: International Labour Organization, 1983,2023–2027.Google Scholar
23. EPA. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know. Tide III—Fact Sheet. Aug 1988.Google Scholar
24. Hay, A: Accidents in triohlorophenol plants: A need for realistic surveys to ascertain risks to health. In: WJ, Nicholson, JA, Moore (ed): Health Effects of Halogenated Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Ann of NY Acad Science 1979;320:321–329.Google Scholar
25. Ellis, HM: The Right to Know: Citizen Action for the Protection of the Environment. In: Proceedings of the 4th Intl Conference Israel Soc Ecology and Env Quality Sciences. Environmental Quality and Ecosystem Stability: 1VA-Environmental Quality. Jerusalem, 1989:651–659.Google Scholar
26. Delhi Science Forum. Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Looking Beyond. New Dehli: Dehli Science Forum, 1985.Google Scholar
27. Helms, J: Threat perceptions in acute chemical disasters. J Hazardous Materials 1981:4;321–329.Google Scholar
28. OSHA: Hazard Communication Standard 1910.1200 (HCS).Google Scholar
29. Richter, ED: Obligatory disclosure in occupational health: Obstacles, ambiguities and loopholes. J Health Politics, Policy and Law 1981;6:329–348.Google Scholar
30. Institution of Chemical Engineers. Preventing Major Chemical and Related Process Accidents. Brussels: European Federation of Chemical Engineering, 1988.Google Scholar
31. Kletz, TA: Cheaper, Safer Piants or Wealth and Safety at Work. Brussels: Inst of Chem Engineers, 1984.Google Scholar
32. Haddon, W: Options for the prevention of motor vehicle injury. Isr J Med Sciences 1989;18:45–88.Google Scholar
33. Preusser, DF, Stein, HS: Comparison of passenger vehicle and truck crash rates on toll roads J Institute of Transportation Engineers 1987;57:39–43.Google Scholar
34. Hricko, AR: Drivers of hazardous cargoes—legal aspects of a minimum age and increased physical requirements. Federation Insurance Counsel Quarterly. 1979;31:126–134.Google Scholar
35. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Twenty Years. Arlington, Va.: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1989, pp 45.Google Scholar
36. Ben-David, G: Proceedings international workshop on driver reaction times. Public Health Reviews. 1987;15:257–356.Google Scholar
37. Moure-Eraso, R, Luskin, J, Levenstein, C: Action Priorities to Minimize Incidents of Toxic Release of Petrochemical Products. In: Symposium on Prevention of Major Chemical Release Incidents. Washington, D.C.: Center for Emergency Response Planning, 1989.Google Scholar
38. Kornberg, JP: The workplace walk-thru, Volume I. Ann Arbor: Louis Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar