Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Eye injury prevention in industry. The identification of eye injury problems and the status of preventitive.. 1978

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1978_A6_7 S39.pdf
UBC_1978_A6_7 S39.pdf
UBC_1978_A6_7 S39.pdf [ 21.79MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0094430.json
JSON-LD: 1.0094430+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0094430.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0094430+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0094430+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0094430+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0094430.ris

Full Text

EYE INJURY PREVENTION IN INDUSTRY THE IDENTIFICATION OF EYE INJURY PROBLEMS AND THE STATUS OF PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS, A PLANNING STUDY by BRIAN THOMAS SCHMIDT O.D., University of Waterloo, 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (Health Services Planning) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Health Care and Epidemiology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1978 © Brian Thomas Schmidt, 1978 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Health Care.and Epidemiology . The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September ?R. 1Q7R - i i - ABSTRACT A study was undertaken to examine the major eye in jury problems in industry, to determine the hazards that caused them, and to develop meth- ods f o r improving i ndus t r i a l eye protect ion programs so as to reduce the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s . The study was conducted in Alberta through the Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s ion of A lberta Labour and the A lberta Workers' Compensation Board. A review of l i t e r a t u r e was performed to determine the status of eye protect ion programs, current epidemiological invest igat ions and modes of p rotect ion, and to search f o r h i s t o r i c a l , l e g i s l a t i v e and cost benef i t information. The project consisted of seven studies which were designed and ca r r i ed out independently but, together, would provide a wide perspective concern- ing eye protect ion i n industry. These studies were: a) A Review of W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e Data - which was concerned with a cumulative review of every eye in jury claim received by the Workers' Compensation Board over the years 1974, 1975 and 1976. This included a review of Dermanent d i s a b i l i t y c la ims, claims fo r l o s t work time and claims where only medical aid was required. b) A Review of Selected W.C.B. Personal Medical F i l e s - which was concerned with the deta i led review of eye in ju ry claims from f i f t e e n high eye in ju ry r i sk industry c lasses. Each medical f i l e was examined i n - d i v i d u a l l y , paying pa r t i c u l a r attent ion to prevention-oriented information. c) A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Of f i cer s - where th i r ty -one occupational health and safety o f f i c e r s ( inspection personnel) were given an in-depth interview to obtain t h e i r perceptions and i n - formed opinions on the nature of eye in ju ry hazards, compliance f ac to r s , and the status of eye protect ion programs in industry. d) A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel - where questionnaires were sent to over s i x hundred persons in A lber ta , i d e n t i - f i e d as being involved in the provis ion of occupational health and safety services in industry. This included phys ic ians, nurses, safety personnel, and persons in government.Questions were s im i l a r to those in Section c. e) A Review of the Minutes of Selected Jo int Work S i te Committees in A lberta - where the minutes of selected meetings concerning health and safety on the work s i t e between management, the worker, and government, were analyzed to determine the extent of the un so l i c i ted concern fo r eye in ju ry prevention in companies which were known to have incurred a large number of eye i n j u r i e s . f) A Review of Anecdotal Data - where several interviews were held with union and management reoresentatives to determine the concern and need for eye in jury prevention, and the development of eye protection pro- grams at a po l i cy level in industry. The comments and concerns of many other persons were also considered. g) A Review of Selected S i te V i s i t s to Industries in Alberta - where the researcher made s ix plant v i s i t s to better understand the con- d i t ions which lead to eye i n ju r i e s and the problems in implementing pre- ventive programs. I t was found that industr ies involved in the manufacture or use of metal products, chemicals or construction materials were at high r i s k . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , however, i t was determined that cer ta in occupational groups such as machinists, plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s , welders, and mech- anics were also at high eye in jury r i s k . I t was concluded that occupation- al c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and eye in jury hazards should be treated as a basis to eye in jury prevention. - iv - Injuries were found generally to occur most frequently among the young and inexperienced workers, while grinding and welding operations were found to be the most prevalent source of injury. Injuries occurred most often at certain times of the day, and there was some question of the effects of boredom and fatigue. It was found that there is a lack of knowledge and education con- cerning standards of eye protection and in the proper selection of the pro- tector for the hazard. The physical strength of the protector was minor, however, in comparison to the need for better protector design and f i t - ting of the device to the face of the worker. It was concluded that companies must be encouraged to develop eye protection pol icies as a basis to the provision of eye protection pro- grams. A plan was recommended for the improvement of eye protection programs in industry. This included the presentation of a comprehensive eye protection program formulated through a review of l i terature on the subject, and the elucidation of a system of occupational vision care in - volving the interaction of a l l groups concerned with eye injury prevention in industry. C.J.G. Mackenzie - V - TABLE OF CONTENTS -LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES xx ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . xxi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background to the Study 1 B. The Research Question 2 C. Definitions 2 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 A. A Historical Review of Eye Protection 4 B. A Review of Eye Hazards and Current Protection 4 C. The Epidemiology of Eye Injuries 10 D. A Review of Eye Protection Programs (Preventive) and Worker Compliance in the Use of Protection 16 E. Legislation 22 F. The Costs of Eye Injuries 22 G. Estimates of the Alberta Workforce by Occupation 24 3. PRESENTATION OF THE METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY 25 A. A Review of W.C.B. Statistical Master File Data 26 M. Methodology 27 R. Results 30 D. Discussion of the Results 103 B. A Review of Selected W.C.B. Personal Medical Files 120 M. Methodology 121 R. Results 125 D. Discussion of the Results 166 C. A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Officers 196 M. Methodology 197 R. Results 205 D. Discussion of the Results 219 D. A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel 221 M. Methodology 222 R. Results 227 D. Discussion of the Results 238 - v i - TABLE OF CONTENTS cont 'd E. A Review of the Minutes of Selected Jo int Work S i te Committees in Alberta 240 M. Methodology 241 R. Results 244 D. Discussion of the Results 244 F. A Review of Anecdotal Data 247 M. Methodology 248 R. Results 250 D. Discussion of the Results 250 G. A Review of Selected S i te V i s i t s to Industries in Alberta 252 M. Methodology 253 R. Results 254 D. Discussion of the Results 254 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION 255 A. Integration of the Results and Discussion of Studies 3.A. - 3.G. 255 B. Synthesis of Results and Discussions 257 C. Conclusions and Recommendations - A p p l i c a b i l i t y 265 5. PLANNING THE ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS 273 A. Planning Eye Protect ion Programs - the Organ- i za t i ona l Level 273 B. Planning Eye Protect ion Programs - the Pro- gram Implementation Level 277 C. A Time Frame fo r Implementation 279 6. CODA 282 A. The Study 282 B. The Ideal S i tuat ion 283 C. Future Research 284 LITERATURE CITED 285 APPENDIX 1 292 - v i i - LIST OF TABLES 2.A.1 History and Development of Safety Mater ia l s , Leg i s l a t ion and Standards Concerning the Protect ion of Eyes in Industry 5 2.B.1 L i s t i n g of Various C l a s s i f i c a t i on s of Industr ia l Hazards 6 2.B.2 Comprehensive C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Occupational Eye Hazards 8 2.B.3 Description of the Basic Types of Eye and Face Protect ion 9 2.C.1 The Incidence of Eye Injur ies in Prov inc ia l Workforces (1976) 11 2.C.2 Results of a National Survey on Eye Injur ies (1977) for Canada, A lberta and Selected Alberta Industr ies: 12 2.C.3 Review of the Reported Incidence of Lost Time Eye Injur ies in Relation to the Total Number of Industr ia l Accidents 15 2.C.4 Sources of Lost Work Time Eye Injur ies 17 2.C.5 Incidence of Lost Work Time Eye Injur ies in B r i t i s h Columbia, by Selected Occupation, f o r 1975 and 1976 18 2.D.1 L i te ra ture Review of Eye Protect ion Programs in Industry 19 2. E.1 A Review of Prov inc ia l Leg i s l a t ion Concerning Eye Protect ion in Industry 23 3. A.1 Total Number of Reported Eye Injur ies in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by Occurrence C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 31 3.A.2 Total Reported Eye Injur ies in Alberta by the Month of Injury (1974, 1975 and 1976) 33 3.A.3 Total Number and Rates of Reported Eye Injur ies in Alberta by Standard Industr ia l C l a s s i f i - cat ion (S.I.C. ,1971) fo r 1976, with Addi- t iona l Data fo r 1974 and 1975 34 - v i i i - 3.A.4 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lber ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Sex of Worker 37 3.A.5 Total Number of ReDorted Eye Injur ies in A lber ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Age of In- jured Worker 37 3.A.6 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lbe r ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Length of Time the Injured Worker has been Employed 39 3.A.7 Total Number and Incidence Rates of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lber ta , in 1976, by Occupational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n - inc luding Data fo r 1974 and 1975 40 3.A.8 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lber ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Length of S h i f t Worked by the Injured Worker 4 5 3.A.9 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in Alberta in 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Time of the Accident (on a 24 Hour Scale) 46 3.A.10 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lbe r ta , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident Occurred 48 3.A.11 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lbe r ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Severity Estimate of the Injury 49 3.A.12 Total Number of Reported Eye Injur ies in A lbe r ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Source of the Injury 50 3.A.13 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r ie s , in A lbe r ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Type of Accident Resulting in the Injury 52 3.A.14 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lbe r ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Nature of the Injury 53 3.A.15 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lber ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Nature of Injury, by the Severity Estimate 54 3.A.16 Total Number of Reported Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lber ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, according to whether F i r s t Aid was Rendered 56 - ix - 3.A.17 Total Number of Reported Eye In ju r ie s , i n A lbe r ta , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, according to whether a Language Problem was a Factor in Causing the Injury 56 3.A.18 L i s t i ng of Five D ig i t Standard Industr ia l Classes (S. I.C. s 1971) Selected f o r Detai led Eye In- jury Analysis (shown in the order in which they appear in Tables 3.A. 19 to 3.A.40) 59 3.A.19 Preliminary Information Concerning the D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injuries in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lberta, in 1976 64 3.A.20 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Age of the Injured Worker, in A lber ta , in 1976 65 3.A.21 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Occupation of the In- jured Worker, in A lber ta , in 1976 66 3.A.22 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Length of S h i f t Worked by the Injured Worker, in A lberta, in 1976 69 3.A.23 The D i s t r i bu t ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Time of Day the Accident Occurred, in A lber ta , in 1976.. 70 3.A.24 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident, in A lberta, in 1976.... 71 3.A.25 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies Occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk Indust r ia l Classes, according to the Source of the Injury, in A lber ta , in 1976 72 3.A.26 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye In ju r ie s , Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the TyDe of Accident, in A lber ta , in 1976 ', 74 3.A.27 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye In ju r ie s , occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Nature of the Injury, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 , 75 - X - 3.A.28 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #1 Eye Injur ies occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes according to whether F i r s t Aid was Provided, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 76 3.A.29 The D i s t r i bu t i on of Reported Sever ity #1 Eye Injur ies occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to whether a Language Problem was Involved in A lber ta , in 1976 77 3.A.30 Prel iminary Information Concerning the D i s t r i - bution of Reported Sever ity #2 Eye Injur ies in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 78 3.A.31 The D i s t r i bu t ion of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Classes, according to the Age of the Injured Worker, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 79 3.A.32 The D i s t r i bu t ion of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Occu- pation of the Injured Worker in A lber ta , in 1976 80 3.A.33 The D i s t r i bu t i on of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Length of S h i f t Worked by the Injured Worker, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 84 3.A.34 The D i s t r i bu t i on of Reported Sever ity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Time of Day the Accident occurred, in Alberta in 1976 85 3.A.35 The D i s t r i bu t i on of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk In- du s t r i a l Classes, according to the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 86 3.A.36 The D i s t r i bu t i on of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk In- dus t r i a l Classes, according to the Source of the Injury, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 87 3.A.37 The D i s t r i bu t ion of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk In- dus t r i a l Classes, according to the Type of A c c i - dent, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 89 - xi - 3.A.38 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to the Nature of the ' I n ju ry , in A lber ta , in 1976 90 3.A.39 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to whether F i r s t Aid was provided, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 91 3.A.40 The D i s t r ibut ion of Reported Severity #2 Eye In- j u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, according to whether a Language Problem was Involved, in A lber ta , in 1976 92 3.A.41 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Occurrence Class of the Industry in which the Accident Occurred 94 3.A.42 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i n g in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, according to the Month in which the Accident Occurred 94 3.A.43 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Industry Class in which the Injury Occurred 95 3.A.44 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Sex of the Injured Worker 95 3.A.45 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Age of the Injured Worker 97 3.A.46 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Occupation of the Injured Worker 97 3.A.47 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Length of Time the Injured Worker has Been Employed 98 3.A.48 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r ie s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Length of S h i f t Worked per day by the Injured Person 98 - x i i - .3.A.49 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked by the Injured Person Before the Accident 99 3.A.50 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r ie s , Re- su l t ing in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976 by the Source of the Injury 99 3.A.51 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Type of Accident 100 3.A.52 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Nature of the Injury 100 3.A.53 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to whether F i r s t Aid was Rendered at the Time of the Accident 102 3.A.54 Number of Reported Severity #3 Eye I n ju r i e s , Re- su l t i ng in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A lber ta , in 1976, accounting f o r a Language Problem 102 3.A.55 L i s t i n g of the 20 Industry Classes with the Highest Rates of Reported Eye I n ju r ie s , in A lbe r ta , in 1976. 105 3.A.56 L i s t i n g of the Industry Classes, in A lbe r ta , that have shown a Consistent Increase in the Number of Reported Eye Injur ies over the Years 1974, 1975 and 1976 (independent of Var iat ions in Workforce Size) 107 3.A.57 L i s t i n g of the Industry Classes, in A lbe r ta , that have shown a Consistent Decrease in the Number of Reported Eye Injur ies over the Years 1974, 1975 and 1976 (independent of Var iat ions in Workforce Size) 108 3.A.58 The Incidence of Eye Injur ies Reported to the W.C.B. in A lber ta , in 1976, by Selected Occupation 110 3.A.59 L i s t i n g of Eye Injury Sources that have become More Prevalent over the years 1974 to 1976, in A lberta 115 3.A.60 L i s t i n g of Eye Injury Sources that have Become Less Prevalent over the Years 1974 to 1976, in A lberta 115 - x i i i - 3.A.61 A Comparison of the Nature of Lost Time Eye Injur ies Reported in Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia, in 1976 116 3.A.62 L i s t i n g of the Times during the Worker's Sh i f t in which there were Peaks in the occurrence of a l l types of Eye I n ju r i e s , in A lbe r ta , in 1976, for each of the Selected High Eye Injury Risk In- dus t r i a l Classes 118 3.B.1 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye I n ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Industry Class in which the In- jured Person Worked 126 3.B.2 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Occurrence C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Industry 127 3.B.3 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye I n ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Month in which the Injury Occurred 128 3.B.4 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Sever ity #1 and Severity #2 Eye I n ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to whether the work performed at the time of the accident was fo r normal business purposes 129 3.B.5 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye I n ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to whether the work a c t i v i t y at the time of the eye in jury was a regular part of the person's work 129 3.B.6 D i s t r i bu t i on of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 by the Occupation of the Injured Worker 131 3.B.7 D i s t r i bu t ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Cause of the Injury 133 3.B.8 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Source of the Injury '. 135 - x i v - 3.B.9 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industry Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Nature of the Injury 137 3.B.10 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lber ta , in 1976, accor- ding to whether Eye Protection was worn at the Time of the Accident 139 3.B.11 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Inuuries, from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ial Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Eye involved in the Accident 140 3.B.12 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, in A lberta, in 1976, by the Im- plement used at the Time of the Injury 142 3.B.13 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ial Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to whether F i r s t Aid was Rendered at the time of the Accident » 144 3.B.14 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industry Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Length of Time a f te r the Accident that the Injury was Reported 145 3.B.15 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ial Classes, in A lberta, i n 1976, according to whom the Eye Injury was Reported 146 3.B.16 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In jur ies , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ial Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to where the Accident occurred on the Employer's Premises 148 3.B.17 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ial Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to whether the Injured Worker had pre- v ious ly incurred a s im i l a r type of In jury. . 149 3.B.18 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industry Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to a History of previous i n ju ry claims of any type and t he i r time of occurrence 151 - XV - 3.B.I9 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to the P o s s i b i l i t y of a Permanent D i s a b i l i t y in the Future . 152 3.B.20 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Seventy #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, in A lber ta , in 1976, according to the P o s s i b i l i t y of Concealment in the Claim 153 3.B.21 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, in A lber ta , in 1976, according to the P o s s i b i l i t y of the Involvement of a Language Problem in the Injury 153 3.B.22 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, in A lber ta , in 1976, according to the Phys ic ian ' s Estimate of the Length of Time the Injured Worker w i l l be Off Work 154 3.B.23 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Actual Time Lost by the Worker as a Result of the Eye In- jury 155 3.B.24 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes in A lber ta , i n 1976, by any Hospi- t a l i z a t i o n that occurred as a resu l t of the Eye Injury.. 157 3.B.25 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes in A lber ta , in 1976, according to the Costs of Hospital Services f o r Treating the Injur ies 158 3.B.26 D i s t r i bu t ion o f Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye In ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976, according to the Costs of Phys ic ians ' Services in Treating the Injur ies 160 3.B.27 D i s t r ibut ion of Selected Severity #1 and Severity #2 Eye Injur ies from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes in A lber ta , in 1976, by the Weekly Wage of the Injured Worker who incurred a Lost Work Time Injury. 162 - xvi - 3.B.28 L i s t i n g of Selected Serious or Unusual Events causing Eye I n ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976. 165 3.B.29 D i s t r ibut ion of the D i rect Costs of 584 Eye I n ju r i e s , selected through a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, in A lbe r ta , in 1976 171 3.B.30 Cross-tabulation of 15 High Eye Injury Risk In- dustry Classes with the Causes of Injury, fo r 586 Severity #1 I n ju r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 172 3.B.31 Cross-tabulation of 15 High Eye Injury Risk In- dustry Classes with the Causes of Injury, fo r 584 Severity #2 I n ju r i e s , Province of A lbe r ta , 1976 174 3.B.32 Cross-tabulation of the Occupation of the In- jured Worker with the Causes of Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, fo r 586 Severity #1 In- j u r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 175 3.B.33 Cross-tabulat ion of the Occupation of the In- jured Worker with the Causes of Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, for 584 Severity #2 In- j u r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 178 3.B.34 Cross-tabulat ion of the Cause of Injury by the Resulting Nature of Injury, from a Re- view of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, fo r 586 Severity #1 I n ju r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 180 3.B.35 Cross-tabulat ion of the Cause of Injury by the Resulting Nature of Injury, from a Re- view of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, fo r 584 Severity #2 I n ju r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 181 3.B.36 Cross-tabulat ion of the Implement used at the Time of the Injury by the Cause of the Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industry Classes fo r 586 Severity #1 I n ju r ie s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 183 - x v i i - 3.B.37 Cross-tabulat ion of the Implement used at the Time of the Injury by the Cause of the Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes for 584 Severity #2 I n ju r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976... 184 3.B.38 Cross-tabulation of Information regarding the Use of Eye Protection at the time of the Accident with the Cause of the Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, for 586 Severity #1 Eye I n ju r i e s , Province of A lbe r ta , 1976 185 3.B.39 Cross-tabulation of the Information regarding the Use of Eye Protect ion at the Time of the Accident with the cause of the Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, fo r 584 Severity #2 Eye I n ju r i e s , Province of A lber ta , 1976 187 3.B.40 Cross-tabulat ion of the Location of the Accident by the Implement used when the Injury Occurred, fo r 586 Severity #1 eye I n ju r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, Province of A lber ta , 1976 188 3.B.41 Cross-tabulat ion of the Location of the Accident by the Implement used when the Injury Occurred, fo r 584 Sever ity #2 Eye Injur ies,from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, Pro- vince of A lber ta , 1976 189 3.B.42 Cross-tabulat ion of the Occupation of the Injured Worker and the Magnitude of Lost Work Time due to Severity #2 I n ju r ie s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, (586) I n ju r ie s , in A lber ta , in 1976 190 3.B.43 D i s t r ibut ion of the Number of Work Days Lost per Worker Injury (Severity #2) for Selected Occu- pations from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industr ia l Classes, 586 I n ju r i e s , in A l - berta, in 1976 192 3.B.44 Cross-tabulat ion of the Magnitude of Lost Work Time due to Severity #2 Injur ies and the Cause of the Injury, from a Review of 15 High Eye Risk Industry Classes (586 I n j u r i e s ) , in A lber ta , in 1976 193 - x v i i i - 3.B.45 D i s t r ibut ion of the Number of Work Days Lost per Worker Injury (Severity #2) by the Cause of the Injury, from a review of 15 High Eye In- jury Risk Industr ia l Classes, 586 I n ju r i e s , in A lber ta , in 1976. . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 3.C.1 D i s t r i bu t ion of the Industries in A lberta where Hazards to the Eyes are most Prevalent 206 3.C.2 D i s t r ibut ion of the Hazards Leading to the Most Common Eye I n ju r i e s , in the Industries Noted in Table 3.C.1 207 3.C.3 D i s t r ibut ion of the Hazards which Lead to the Most Po ten t i a l l y Serious Eye I n ju r i e s , i n the Industries noted in Table 3.C.1 208 3.C.4 Responses to 11 Questions, on a Five Point L i k e r t Scale, concerning the Occurrence of Eye In- j u r i e s in Industry 209 3.C.5 Responses to 12 Questions, on a Five Point L i k e r t Scale, concerning Aspects of Worker Compliance in the Wearing of Eye Protect ion in Industry 212 3.C.6 Responses to 5 General Questions, on a Five Point L i ke r t Scale, Concerning Eye Protect ion in Industry 215 3.C.7 D i s t r i bu t ion of Responses Concerning the Adequacy of Eye Protect ion Programs in Industry 217 3.C.8 D i s t r ibut ion of Responses concerning the Presence of Ideal Eye Protection Proarams in A lberta Industry 218 3.D.1 D i s t r ibut ion of Respondents to a Survey on Eye Protection in Industry, Province of A lbe r ta , February 1978 228 3.D.2 D i s t r i bu t ion of Industries to which the Respondents to a Survey on Eye Protect ion are Employed or had t h e i r Previous Backgrounds, Province of A lber ta , February 1978 228 3.D.3 D i s t r ibut ion of Responses to the Question: Are the Number of Eye Injur ies Occurring in Industry a Serious Problem in your Opinion? 229 3.D.4 D i s t r ibut ion of Resoonses to the Question: What are the Most Frequent Causes of Eye I n ju r i e s ? . . . . 229 - x i x - 3-D.5. Responses to the Question: What are the Most Serious Causes of Eye I n j u r i e s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 3.D.6. Responses to the Question: How can the Injur ies from the Aforementioned Causes (noted in Tables 3.D.4 and 3.D.5) be prevented?.. 232 3.D.7. Responses to the Question: Why do so many Eye In jur ies occur even when Eye Protect ion i s worn? 233 3.D.8. Responses to the Question: Who should be Responsible for I n i t i a t i n g Eye Protect ion Programs? 235 3.D.9 Responses to the Question: Who should be Responsible for Maintaining Eye Protect ion Programs in Industry? 236 3.D.10 Responses to the Question: What are the Most Successful Methods/Approaches that should be used to Ensure that the Worker wears the Proper Eye Protect ion 237 3.E.1 L i s t i n g of Selected Companies in the Edmonton and Calgary areas, with a review of the Topic Areas, Concerning Eye Safety Discussed at t h e i r Jo in t Work Site"Committee Meetings, 1977-78... 245 3.E.2 L i s t i n g of the Major Topic Areas Discussed at Se- lected Jo int Work S i te Committee Meetings, 1977-78 246 - XX - LIST OF FIGURES 3.A.1 L i s t i n g of the Information (Variables) Used in the Study, Contained Within the W.C.B. Computer F i l e s , fo r Each Reported Injured Worker 28 3.A.2 Frequency D i s t r ibut ion of the Rate of Eye Injur ies f o r Industr ia l C l a s s i f i c a t i on s in Alberta (W.C.B. 1976) 58 3.A.3 The Corre lat ion Between the Rate of Eye Injur ies (per 100 man years) in Each Alberta W.C.B. Assessment Class and the Insurance Assessment ( in do l la r s ) Paid by Industries Within the Occurrence Classes 104 3.A.4 D i s t r ibut ion ( in percent) of the Reported Eye In- j u r i e s , in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Time of the Accident (on a 24 hour scale) (Alberta W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e s ) I l l 3.A.5 D i s t r ibut ion ( in percent) of the Reported Eye In- j u r i e s , in A lbe r ta , in 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident Occurred (Alberta W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e s ) 112 3.B.1 Review of W.C.B. Personal Medical F i l e s (Variables) 123 3.C.1 Inspectors Survey on Eye Injur ies and Eye Protection 199 3.D.1 Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel . . . . . . 224 3.E.1 Form fo r Recording Jo in t Work S i te Health and Safety Committee Minutes 242 3.F.1 Comments Wanted on Occupational Eye Injur ies - from the Alberta Labour Occupational Health and Safety B u l l e t i n , March 1978 251 5.A.1 The Occupational Vis ion Care System 274 - xx i - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study involved the e f fo r t s of many dedicated people. My thanks go to those people who contributed to th i s study by o f fe r ing t he i r knowledge and experienced perspectives in numerous conversations, interviews, surveys and questionnaires. I would l i k e to thank my committee members; Dr. Cort Mackenzie, Dr. Bob Orford, and Dr. Linton Kulak for t he i r assistance and valuable advice. I am most grateful to Dr. Henry Wyatt and the administrat ive s t a f f at the Department of Ophthalmology, Univers ity of A lbe r ta , for the i r support, and assistance in the administration of the research grant. I am appreciat ive of the assistance provided by Mr. Gerry Stocco and his computer s t a f f at Alberta Labour, and by Mr. Ken Coull of the W.C.B. who f a c i l i t a t e d the co l l e c t i on of the s t a t i s t i c a l data. I would l i k e to extend my most sincere appreciation to the s t a f f of the Medical Services Branch, Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s i on , Alberta Labour, for the i r patience in t ry ing times and unself i sh e f fo r t s in helping me to the conclusion of th i s study, - - and to Dr. Bob F i sh, my thanks for the encouragement and be l i e f in my work that made th i s experience possible. Foremost, I wish to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to Mrs. Jeannie Reimer. Her exceptional apt itude, and committment to her work as my research as s i s tant , provided the cornerstone of th i s study. My kindest thanks are extended to Mrs. Margaret Crombie for her inva lu- able assistance in the preparation of the f i n a l report. F i n a l l y , I wish to recognize the f inanc ia l assistance of the Occupat- ional Health and Safety Div is ion of Alberta Labour, and the Department of National Health and Welfare through a National Health Research Fellowship. It i s g ra t i f y i ng to bear the f r u i t s of cooperation, and the interest of others, to improve occupational health care in Canada. - 1 - CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A. Background to the Study Occupational eye protect ion i s a component of the to ta l occupational health and safety scheme. The eyes have always been considered the most essent ia l and important sensory organ and, hence, e spec ia l l y worthy of pro- tec t i on . The eye i s responsible f o r t ransmitt ing a majority of the sensory information that the brain receives and, therefore, i s essent ia l to the worker's performance and product i v i ty . Concern for the safety of the eyes seems to have developed in l i n e with general occupational health concerns. In Alberta in 1975, 11,966 (12.9%) of the 92,412 accidents reported to the Alberta Workers' Compen- sation Board d i r e c t l y involved the eyes. This was t h i r d only to the i n c i - dence of i n j u r i e s to the f ingers (18.6%) and back (14.9%). In 1976 the ab- solute number of i n j u r i e s rose to 12,405 out of a to ta l of 96,156 i n ju r i e s reported to the W.C.B. (12.9%). Although these s t a t i s t i c s in no way repre- sent a definable trend, i t i s evident from the absolute numbers of eye i n - jur ies reported in previous years (11,966 i n j u r i e s in 1975 and 11,053 in 1974) that the proportion of eye i n ju r i e s per working population i s c e r t a i n - ly not decreasing and may be on the upswing. In order to develop recommendations fo r act ion which w i l l reduce the incidence of eye i n ju r i e s in Alberta industry i t i s necessary to properly i den t i f y the problem, i t s cha rac te r i s t i c s and extent, and what i s being done cur rent l y , i f anything, to prevent eye i n ju r i e s in industry. This task i s not d i f f i c u l t in comparison with developing programs to e f f e c t i v e l y reduce the incidence of eye i n ju r i e s in industry. This planning phase i n - volves the human element where a l l part ies who would po ten t i a l l y be con- - 2 - cerned with the implementation of eye protection programs should be involved. B. The Research Question Where are the major eye in jury problems in industry and what are the major hazards that cause them? Using t h i s information, what are the most appropriate methods f o r developing and improving eye protect ion programs so as to reduce the incidence of eye i n ju r i e s ? The research i s divided into two major areas. The f i r s t i s an analy- s i s of reported cases of eye i n j u r i e s . The second is an analysis of i n f o r - mation gathered through personal interv iews, quest ionnaires, and anecdotes. The former area of inquiry i s necessary to es tab l i sh a research base while the l a t t e r i s f o r the purpose of gathering information and perceptions of the problem through human experiences. C. Def in i t ions Hours Worked Before the Accident - The dif ference between the time the claimant commenced work and the hour of the accident. Industry Code - The Standard Industr ia l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n (S.I.C. Code) of the employer charged with the accident experience, from: The Standard Industr ia l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Code, 1971. Note: Industries may be c l a s s i f i e d on a general 3 -d i g i t code or a more deta i led 5 -d ig i t code. Language Problem - indicates i f the employer considered language as a problem contr ibut ing to the accident. Length of Sh i f t - A statement of the normal hours worked per day by the claimant. Man Years Worked - An estimate of the s i ze of the workforce insured by the Alberta Workers' Compensation Board, by industry or occurrence c lass . One man-year i s the equivalent of one worker who has worked an average weekly s h i f t over a period of one year. - 3 - Nature of Injury - I dent i f ie s the in jury in terms of the p r i nc ipa l physical cha rac te r i s t i c s (e.g. chemical burn). Occupation - The occupation of the claimant at the time of the a c c i - dent, using the Standard Canadian C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Occupations, from: Volume I I , Occupational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Manual, Census of Canada, 1971. Occurrence Class - The Alberta Workers' Compensation Board assess- ment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( for the payment of insurance premiums) of the employer. Severity Estimate - An i n i t i a l estimate of the sever i ty of the a c c i - dent and, hence, the type of claim that w i l l evolve. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n may be updated as more medical information becomes ava i l ab le . The c l a s s i - f i ca t i on s are: 1 - Medical aid only (no compensation due). 2 - Compensable in jury or i l l n e s s (causing l o s t work time) not re su l t ing in permanent d i s a b i l i t y . 3 - Permanent d i s a b i l i t y . 4 - Medical aid only ( involv ing a mul t ip le i n j u r y , e.g. to the eye and face). Source of Injury - I dent i f i e s the object, substance, exposure, or bodi ly motion which d i r e c t l y produced or i n f l i c t e d the nature of in jury i d e n t i f i e d (e.g. metal p a r t i c l e ) . Time of Accident - The loca l time of the accident on a 24-hour clock system. Type of Accident - I dent i f ie s the event which d i r e c t l y resulted in the in jury (e.g. struck by a f l y i n g object ) . - 4 - CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In order to provide an adequate background f o r th i s study of eye pro- tect ion in industry i t was necessary to review several areas of the l i t - erature. These were: A) A h i s t o r i c a l review of eye protection B) A review of eye injury hazards and current modes of eye protection C) The epidemiology of eye i n ju r i e s D) A review of eye protection programs, prevention and compliance E) Prov inc ia l l e g i s l a t i on concerning eye protection F) The costs of eye i n ju r i e s G) Estimates of the Alberta workforce by occupation 2.A. A H i s to r i ca l Review of Eye Protection Figure 2.A.1 gives a chronological l i s t i n g of selected milestones per- ta in ing to the development of eye protection in industry. Although rudimen- tary forms of protection were used in the 17th century (1), concerted ef - fo r t s did not begin un t i l the 19th century. As ear ly as 1923 (8) and 1924 (9), major documents were published concerning eye protection in industry. The content of these reports, accounting for changes in l i t e r a r y presen- t a t i o n , and some advances in technology, do not appear r ad i ca l l y d i f fe rent from current trends and thoughts on eye protection in industry. 2.B. A Review of Eye Hazards and Current Eye Protection The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of eye hazards has been an important aspect of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , ana lys i s , and a l l e v i a t i o n of e n t i t i e s which may cause eye i n j u r i e s . Although de f in i t i on s may be c lose, there i s no acceptable un i - versal c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme known. Table 2.B.1 l i s t s the various c l a s s i - f i ca t i on s of ocular hazards that have been put forward in the l i t e r a tu re - 5 - TABLE 2.A.1 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY MATERIALS, LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF EYES IN INDUSTRY (1840 - 1978) YEAR SELECTED MILESTONE REFERENCE SOURCE 1840 BEGINNING CONCERN FOR THE USE OF PROTECTION LENSES FOR WORKERS • HIRE GAUZE OR PLAIN GLASS SPECTACLES 2 1850 PLATE GLASS LENSES INTRODUCED (4-6 mti THICK) 2 I860 1870 1880 1884 GERMAN LAWS REQUIRING PROTECTIVE GOGGLES IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS 2 1889 GERMAN STONE QUARRIERS GUILD REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO FURNISH GOGGLES 2 1890 1893 BERLIN ACCIDENT INSURANCE ORDERS - FIRST MODERN POLICY FOR THE PREVENTION OF EYE INJURIES - SPECIFIED THE USE OF PROTECTIVE EQUIPHENT 2 1900 1908 FIRST ACTS PASSED IN THE U.S. REQUIRING EYE PROTECTION IN CERTAIN JOBS 2 1910 1912 DEVELOPMENT OF FINER PROTECTIVE LENSES AND HEAT TEMPERING PROCESSES 2 1915 FIRST W.C.B. LEGISLATION IN CANADA (ONTARIO) 3 1918 U.S. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS - CODE FOR THE PROTECTION OF EYES 2 1920 1930 1938 AMERICAN STANDARD SAFETY CODE Z26.1 FOR THE PROTECTION OF HEAD, EYES AND RESPIRATORY ORGANS 2 1940 1948 CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION - FIRST CODE (Z94-1948) FOR HEAD AND EYE PROTECTION 4 1950 COMMON USE OF PLASTIC SAFETY SPECTACLES 5 1960 - 1968 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE - CODE Z87.1-1968 OCCUPATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL EYE AND FACE PROTECTION 6 1969 CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION - CODE Z94.3-1969 EYE PROTECTION 7 1970 1978 SEE REVIEW OF CANADIAN PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION - LIT REVIEW, SECTION 2.E. TABLE 2.B.I LISTING OF VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS BAUSCH AND LAMB CO. (10) AUSTRALIAN STANDARD C27 (IT) RESNICK 02) FLETCHER (13) COLLIN (14) C.S.A. STANDARDS (15) Impact from flying articles or objects Dust and Powder Chemicals, Vapours, Splash' and Spray Glare, Heat, and Radiation Flying fragments and objects Small f,1y1ng particles Dusts Harmful liquids, gases and vapours Splashing metals, splashing materials, and corrosives Radiation High Energy Particles Relatively large flying objects Dust and small flying particles Dust and Wind Gas, fumes, and liquid Splashing metal Reflected light or glare Injurious radiant energy with a moderate reduction 1n Intensity of visible radiant energy Injurious radiant energy with a large reduction of visible energy Abrasive Blasting Mechanical - Large Projectiles Small objects Falls and Explosions Dust Chemicals Splashes of metal Radiation Direct of Indirect Blows Foreign Bodies - projectiles Chemicals Radiation Flying Objects Flying particles, dust, wind Heat, glare, sparks and molten metal splash Chemicals Abrasive Blasting Materials Glare, Stray light Injurious Radiation Contagious Disease - 7 - (10-15). Using various components of these hazard c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes, a comprehensive c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has been suggested (16)(Table 2.B.2). Although C o l l i n (17) points out that there are human anatomical and phys io log ical mechanisms that a id in protect ing the eye from hazards, eye protection devices that f i t about the eyes are s t i l l required. In accor- dance, with commonly recognized eye hazards, Fox (18) gives a descr ipt ion of the basic types of eye and face protect ion that should be worn in various hazardous s i tuat ions (Table 2.B.3). Descriptions of eye protect ion devices ava i lab le on the market and the i r uses abound in l i t e r a t u r e published by commercial firms (19-22). The Canadian Standards Association (23) and American National Standards In s t i tu te (24) have published a l i s t i n g of recommended protectors fo r use in various hazardous s i tua t ions . Other authors (25-27) have reported c r i t e r i a fo r se lect ing the appropriate eye protect ion according to the hazard. A recent survey by the Construction Safety Associat ion of Ontario (28), however, notes disregard fo r the careful se lect ion of protection by personnel in some opt ica l establishments and safety supply houses, and recommends t ra in ing of personnel in th i s area. In order to ensure that eye protect ion does the intended job , s tan- dards of qua l i t y have been formulated by the Canadian Standards Assoc i - ation (29) and the American National Standards I n s t i tu te (30). In Canada, however, few provinces l e g i s l a t e adherence to the Canadian standards fo r eye protect ion (see L i te rature Review, Section 2.E.). The National Re- search Council reported in a recent study (31) that 50% of 181 randomly selected eye protectors f a i l e d at least one of the tests spec i f i ed in the C.S.A. Standard on Eye Protectors. To aid workers and safety personnel in se lect ing qua l i t y eye protect ion, the Canada Safety Council (32) has re - - 8 - TABLE 2.B.2 COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONAL EYE HAZARDS Mechanical Hazards 1) Large f ly ing fragments and objects 2) Small f ly ing part ic les 3) Dusts, powders and winds Chemical and Splashing Hazards 4) Harmful l iquids and corrosives 5) Gases, vapours, and fumes 6) Splashing metals, sparks, heat Radiation 7) Reflected l ight or glare 8) Injurious radiant energy - Large component of non-visible radiant energy - Small component of v i s i b le radiant energy Disease must also be considered a hazard but is not categorized in the part icular c l a s s i f i ca t ion scheme - 9 - TABLE 2.B.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC TYPES OF EYE AND FACE PROTECTION from Fox (18) 1. Safety Spectacles For flying particles and injurious radiation 2. Eye Cup Goggles (Cup Type or Cover Type) a) Chippers Model b) Dust and Splash Models c) Welders and Cutters Models For flying Particles For relatively fine dust particles, liquid splashes and impact For glare, injurious radiation and impact 3. Flexible Goggles Which conform to the countours of the face. These also come in Chippers, Dust and Splash and Welders and Cutters Models 4. Foundrymen's Goggles For impact, hot-metal splashes and radiation hazards under conditions of extreme heat and humidity 5. Helmets and Handshields For intense radiation and weld splatter 6. Face Shields For flying particles and chemicals Protection in categories 5 and 6 are generally worn over the standard protection in category 1. - 10 - ported the names of companies who claim t h e i r products meet the C.S.A. stan- dards. 2.C. The Epidemiology of Eye Injur ies Carman (33) sets out in Table 2.C.1 the incidence of l o s t time eye i n ju r i e s in 1976 as reported by P rov inc ia l Workers' Compensation Boards. The rates vary between 9 and 48 eye i n ju r i e s per 10,000 workers but com- parisons are d i f f i c u l t because of discrepancies in reporting procedures. In the same study, Carman reports the cumulative resu lts of a National Survey of eye i n j u r i e s , shown in Column 1 of Table 2.C.2. Columns 2 through 4 in Table 2.C.2 give comparative f igures fo r the Province of A lber ta , these being taken from the deta i led resu l t s of the survey (34). Various authors (35-41) have noted the incidence of l o s t time eye i n - ju r i e s in re l a t i on to the to ta l number of i n j u r i e s . These are given in Table 2.C.3. On average, 4.8% of l o s t time i ndu s t r i a l i n j u r i e s are accoun- ted f o r by eye i n j u r i e s . Table 2.C.2 shows that about 60% of the . l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s are i n - curred by workers with less than 5 years ' experience on the job. This f i - . gure i s supported by Ivanov and Bezugly (42) who found an incidence of 57.8% in the same job experience category. The resu l t s of the Canadian eye in jury survey (Table 2.C.2) show that 75% of the i n j u r i e s occurred in workers who were less than 35 years of age. Veale (36) showed also that 53% of l o s t time eye i n ju r i e s occurred in th i s age group whereas Bel f o r t (38) notes that 85% of his sample of l o s t time eye i n ju r i e s occurred in workers who were less than 40 years of age. (58% of the eye i n ju r i e s in the Bel f o r t study occurred in workers who were less than 30 years of age.) - 11 - TABLE 2.CV1 THE INCIDENCE OF EYE INJURIES IN PROVINCIAL WORKFORCES (1976) Province 1976 Stats Can Labour Force Data (1000's) Lost Time Eye Injuries in 1976 Rate of Eye Injuries per 10,000 Workers Alberta' 856 2625 31 B.C. 1135 2429 21 Manitoba 449 1062 24 New Brunswick 261 823 32 Newfoundland 183 317 17 Nova Scotia 326 293 9 Ontario 3931 6547 17 P.E.I. 48 83 17 Quebec 2761 13166 48 Saskatchewan 403 1724 43 Canada 10330 29069 28 *Data not available for Yukon and N.W.T. - 12 - TABLE 2.C.2 RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SURVEY ON EYE INJURIES (1977) FOR CANADA, ALBERTA AND SELECTED ALBERTA INDUSTRIES - ^ ^ ^ SURVEY GROUP CANADA (Total of ALBERTA ALBERTA ALBERTA SELECTED VARIABLE^--^^^ Provincial Results) (Manufactur- ing only) (Construc- tion only) NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED [ 3107 627 97 213 AGE OF WORKER (%) {%) (%) (2) 15-20 YEARS 447 (14) 114 (18) 15 (15) 37 (17) 20-25 796 (26) 178 (28) 22 (24) 61 (29) 25-30 517 (19) 111 (18) 23 (24) 36 (17) 30-35 416 (13) 75 (12) 13 (13) 28 (13) 35-40 242 ( 8) 46 ( 7) 9 ( 9) 15 ( 7) 40-45 214 ( 7) 44 ( 7) 7 < 7) 17 ( 8) 45-50 159 ( 5) 23 ( 4) 4 ( 4) 6 ( 3) 50-55 128 ( 4) 21 ( 3) 3 ( 3) 8 ( 4) 55-60 74 ( 2) 10 ( 2) 3 ( ]) 60-65 48 ( 2) 5 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 2 ( 1) 65+ 5 ( 0) No Response 1 YEAR IN INDUSTRY 00-05 YEARS 1906 (62) 399 (64) 61 (63) 125 (58) 05-10 500 (16) 88 (14) 17 (18) 35 (16) 10-15 263 ( 8) 56 ( 9) 11 (12 23 15-20 164 ( 5) 33 ( 5) 2 ( 2) 12 ( 6) 20-25 108 ( 4) 22 ( 4) 3 ( 3) 8 ( 4) 25+ 148 ( 5) 22 ( 4) 2 ( 2) 10 ( 5) No Response 18 7 1 OCCUPATION OF WORKER Management 111 ( 5) 22 ( 4) 8 (11) 6 ( 4) Labourer 857 (36) 157 (32) 16 (21) 49 (28) Trades 1242 52) 281 (57 47 63) no 65) Clerical 51 2) 6 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) Technical 94 ( 4) 23 ( 5) 2 ( 3) 2 ( 1) Student - - 23 t 1) 2 ( 1) 1 t 1) 1 t 1) No Response 728 136 22 44 YEARS IN OCCUPATION 00-05 1816 (59) 386 (63) 57 (59) 127 (60) 05-10 534 (18) 96 (15) 16 (17) 37 (17) 10-15 305 (10) 59 ( 9) 15 (16) 18 ( 8) 15-20 165 ( 5) 33 ( 5) 5 ( 5) 11 ( 5) 20-25 100 [ 3) 27 ( 4) 1 ( !) 12 ( 6) 25+ 150 ( 5) 22 ( 4) 2 ( 2) 8 1 4) No Response 37 4 1 TASK AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENT Drilling 172 ( 6) 31 ( 5) 1 ( 1) 17 ( 8) Grinding 356 (12) 88 (16) 26 (27) 29 (15) Welding, Soldering 224 ( 7) 42 ( 7) 8 ( 9) 17 ( 8) Cutting 203 ( 7) 32 ( 5) 7 ( 8) 12 ( 6) Hammering 241 ( 8) 48 ( 8) 4 ( 4) 27 (13) Sawing, Filing, Chipping 246 ( 8) 45 ( 7) 5 ( 5) 18 ( 9) Working with chemicals, elec. 699 (23) 145 (24) 15 (16) 38 (19) Housekeeping 146 ( 5) 33 ( 5) 5 ( 5) 4 ( 2) Working on or with equipment 310 (10) 49 ( 8) 3 (.3) 9 ( 4) Miscellaneous 367 (12) 80 (13) 20 (21) 24 (12) Plastering, Painting 52 ( 2) 14 ( 2) 1 ( 1) 9 (4) No Response 91 20 2 9 - 13 - TABLE 2.C.2 (Continued) " " " - - ^ . ^ ^ SURVEY GROUP SELECTED V A R I A B L T " ^ - ^ . ^ ^ CANADA (Total of Provincial Results) ALBERTA ALBERTA (Manufactur- ing only) ALBERTA (Construc- tion only) NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED 1 3107 627 97 213 PROTECTION WORN Spectacles Spectacles with side shields Radiation Protection Radiation Protection with SS Goggles with screened SS Eye Cup Goggles Eye Cup Goggles for Radiation Cover Type Goggles Flexible Goggles Flexible Goggles with vents Welders Eye Cup Goggles Welder Flexible Goggles Welding Helmet Handshield Clear Face Shield Hood No protection or no response (%) 387 (35) 278 (25) 21 ( 2) 44 ( 4) 16 ( 1) 20 ( 2) 18 ( 2) 11 ( 1) 37 ( 3) 35 (3) 8 (.1) 14 (1) 134 (12) 8 ( 1 ) 65 ( 6) 10 ( 1) 2001 71 (32) 52 (24) 14 i I] 1 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 3 (1) 2 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 9 ( 4) 1 ( 1 ) 3 ( 1) 30 (13) 21 (10) 1 ( 1 ) 401 (%) 16 (28) 14 (26) 1 ( 2 ) 4 ( 7) 1 ( 2) 1 ( 2) 1 ( 2) 1 ( 2 ) 7 (13) 9 (16) 42 (2) 18 (26) 18 (26) 4 ( 6) 5 ( 7) 1 ( 2) 2 ( 3) 1 (2) 2 (3) 9 (13) 7 (10) 1 ( 2) 145 SOURCE OF INJURY Dust Metal particles Wood slivers Arc Rays Acids (chemicals) and Fumes Rock, Mud, Dirt, Stones Liquids Molten metal, other Molten or hot substances Glass, Staples, Nails Radiation Plaster, Paint, Stucco, Cement, Fiberglass Tools, Rope, Wire, Rods No Response 543 (16) 1144 (33) 209 ( 6) 196 ( 6) 207 ( 6) 150 ( 4) 109 ( 3) 196 ( 6) 207 ( 6) 28 ( 1) 157 ( 5) 269 ( 8) 107 (15) 251 (35) 41 ( 6) 43 ( 6) 41 (6) 38 ( 5) 15 ( 2) 30 (4) 49 ( 7) 9 ( 1) 37 (5) 52 (8) 14 (13) 53 (48) 6 (5) 4 ( 4) 3 ( 3) 2 ( 2 ) 5 ( 5) 7 ( 6) 4 ( 4) 2 ( 2) I i l l 39 (16) 82 (33) 21 ( 9) 21 (9) 7 ( 3) 20 ( 8) 2 ( 1) 11 ( 4) 10 4) 3 ( 1) 14 ( 6) 14 ( 6) IF WEARING PROTECTION, HOW DID SOURCE REACH THE EYE Through Lens Through Body Around Above Below Temple Nose No Response 84 ( 6) 51 (4 357 (28) 244 (19) 263 (20) 195 (15) 98 ( 8) 1815 23 ( 8) 7 ( 3) 84 (31) 44 (16) 48 (18) 46 (17) 19 ( 7) 356 3 ( 5) 3 ( 5) 21 (33) 8 (13) 12 (19) 14 (22) 2 ( 3) 34 8 (10) 2 ( 2 ) 31 (36) 13 (15) 13 (15) 12 (14) 7 ( 8) 127 WAS THERE A MANUFACTURER'S MARK ON PROTECTION Yes No Don't know No Response 224 (20) 320 (28) 559 (52) 1964 38 (17) 63 (28) 124 (55) 402 11 (19) 13 (22) 35 (59) 38 15 (22) 20 (30) 32 (48) 146 WAS LENS BROKEN Yes No No Response 29 ( 3) 1114 (97) 1964 10 ( 4) 215 (96) 402 2 ( 3) 57 (97) 38 0 ( 0) 67 (100) 145 - 14 - TABLE 2.C.2 (Continued) ^ ^ " ^ - ^ ^ ^ SURVEY GROUP SELECTED V A R I A B L E " " " " " ^ - - ^ ^ ^ CANADA (Total of Provincial Results) ALBERTA ALBERTA (Manufactur- ing Only) ALBERTA (Construc- tion Only) NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED 1 3107 627 ?7 213 WAS LENS DRIVEN OUT OF 1 PROTECTION Yes No No Response (*) 23 ( 2) 1120 (98) 1964 (2) 5 ( 2) 220 (98) 402 (%) 3 ( 5) 56 (95) 38 (%) 0 ( 0) 67 (100) 145 PRIOR PARTICIPATION IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROGRAM Yes ' No No Response 804 (29) 1974 (71) 319 131 (23) 437 (77) 59 24 (74) 69 (74) 4 34 (15) 189 (85) WAS USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IN PROGRAM Yes No No Response 731 (91) 73 ( 9) 2303 116 (89) 15 (11) 496 21 (88) 3 (12) 73 31 (90) 3 ( 9) 179 IF NO PROTECTION WORN, SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN Yes No No Response 584 (36) 1036 (64) 1487 137 (41) 198 (59) 292 13 (39) 20 (61) 64 54 (46) 63 (54) 96 WAS PROTECTION WORN AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT Yes No No Response 1158 (42) 1949 (58) 233 (37) 394 (63) 59 (61) 38 (39) 72 (34) 141 (66) IS PROTECTION REGULARLY INSPECTED BY EMPLOYER Yes No Don't Know No Response 328 (28) 534 (45) 320 (27) 1925 46 (20) 119 (52 65 (28) 397 5 ( 8) 42 (70) 13 (22) 37 17 (25) 30 (45) 20 (30) 146 - 15 - TABLE 2.C.3 REVIEW OF THE REPORTED INCIDENCE OF LOST TIME EYE INJURIES IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AUTHOR REF. # PROPORTION OF EYE INJURIES TO TOTAL INJURIES.(%) TOTAL NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED IN STUDY VENKATASWAMY 35 6.3 40,000 VEALE 36 6.0 56,498 LAMBAH 37 4.0 All Industrial Injuries in Britain in 1965 BELFORT 38 5.0 General Statement YOUNG 39 4.2 155,000 B.C.-W.C.B. 40 4.3 56,110 CARR 41 3.7 Injuries in Britian Average 4.8% - 16 - Whereas Table 2.C.2 shows that 59% of the people injured in Canada, who completed the survey, were not wearing issued eye protect ion, Veale (36) notes that 42% of his population were in the same s i t ua t i on . In Veale 's group, however, a further 21% of peoDle injured did not have pro- tect ion suppl ied. Ten percent of the injured had protect ion which was not adjusted co r rec t l y and 6% had the wrong type of protect ion. Table 2.C.4 shows the sources of l o s t time eye i n ju r i e s reported by various authors (36, 38, 43, 44). Table 2.C.5 shows the incidence of eye i n ju r i e s in B.C., by selected occupation, as reported by the B r i t i s h Columbia Workers' Compensation Board (43). Smith (45) reports that i ndu s t r i a l accidents of a l l types are commoner at certa in times of the day, the l a s t hour of the morning s h i f t and the second hour of the afternoon s h i f t . Mason (46) has noted a de f i n i t e mid- morning peak in a l l types of i n j u r i e s , a mid-day low (lunch t ime), and a mid-afternoon peak. 2.D. A Review of Eye Protect ion Programs (Prevention), and Worker Compliance in the Use of Eye Protect ion Components of each eye protect ion program described in the l i t e r a t u r e are recorded in Table 2.D.1 (47-67). The X marks in v e r t i c a l array i n - dicate the components discussed in each a r t i c l e . A synthesis of the major components suggests a comprehensive eye protect ion (preventive) program. Authors from European countries (66,67) emphasize the importance of organized programs in preventing eye i n j u r i e s . Biran (66) notes that edu- cat ion programs s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f fec t the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s , as do preventive measures in the factory which are based on the analysis of eye i n j u r i e s . Matiashina et a l . (67) note that the prevention of eye i n ju r i e s i s best rea l i zed by the organization of e f f ec t i ve reporting mechanisms, TABLE 2.C.4' SOURCES OF LOST WORK TIME EYE INJURIES SOURCE OF INJURY INJURY STUDY VEALE (36) BELFORT (38) IVANOF (44) B.C.-W.C.B. (43) Foreign Bodies 68.0%* 75% 69.7% Cuts, Lacerations 6.1% 4.0% Chemicals - Heat Burns 19.6% 12% 11.0% Bruises, Contusions 4,2% 3.4% Radiation Effects 11.0% Other • 1.0% * These figures represent the proportion of the total number of eye injuries reported in the study which are attributable to a particular Injury source. (Due to incomplete reporting of injury sources, figures do not sum to 100%) TABLE 2.C.5 INCIDENCE OF LOST WORK TIME EYE INJURIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, BY SELECTED OCCUPATION, FOR 1975 AND 1976 (B.C. - WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD) . YEAR OCCUPATION _ 1976 NUMBER {%)* NUMBER 1975 •(%)* Machining Occupations 8313 - Machinist 59 (2.6) 85 (3.4) 8333 - Sheet Metal Worker 29 (1.3) 38 (1.5) 8335 - Welders and Flame Cutters 269 (12.0) 323 (13.0) 8337 - Boiler Makers, Platers 49 (2.2) 88 (3.6) 8379 - Clay, Glass, and Stone Materials 3 (0.1) 1 8393 - Metal Shaping and Forming 31 (1.4) 33 (1~3) Product Fabricating & Assembling & Repairing 8528 - Laboring 32 (1.4) 12 (0.5) 8529 - Fabricating Occupations 13 (0.6) 10 (0.4) 8581 - Motor Vehicle Mechanics 139 (6.2) 171 (6.9) 8584 - Heavy Duty Machinery Mechanics 145 (6.5) 179 (7,2) 8590 - Foreman - Product Fabricating - - - -8592 - Marine Craft Fabricating 49 (2.2) 51 (2.1) Construction Trades 8718 - Laboring: Excavating and Grading 30 (1.3) 18 (0.7) 8733 - Electricians 46 (2.0) 64 (2.6) 8781 - Carpenters 106 (4.7) 18 (3.3) 8791 - Plumbers and Pipefitters 36 (1.6) 47 (1.9) 8793 - Structural Metal Erectors 9 (0.4) 12 (0.5) 8798 - Laboring 67 (3.0) 73 (3.0) TOTAL PROPORTION OF TOTAL INJURIES (49.5) (52.3) *Represents the proportion of the total number of lost work time eye injuries that occurred in the occupational class within a specific year. The total number of reported lost work time injuries in 1975 and 1976 was 2,473 and 2,244 respectively. TABLE 2.D.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY PROGRAM COMPONENTS ORGANIZE PROGRAM CRITERIA - DETERMINE STATUS OF PROBLEM AND SET OUT PRELIMINARY OBJECTIVES GAIN SUPPORT & ACCEPTANCE OF PROGRAM (ALL GROUPS-PRIHARILY MANAGEMENT) BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION INITIATE PLANT SURVEY & VISUAL JOB ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE VISION SKILLS, THE ACCIDENT FACTORS S SEVERITY OF THE PROBLEM SET UP A VISION SCREENING PROGRAM FOR THE WORKER ESTABLISH A REFERRAL SYSTEH TO A VISION CARE PROFESSIONAL FOR THOSE WORKERS WHO NEED VISUAL AID FORMULATE AND/OR REVIEW A/THE PLANT EYE PROTECTION POLICY: INCLUDING WHO SHOULD WEAR THEM. WHERE. ETC. REVIEW THE EYE PROTECTION WITH THE UNION - GAIN THEIR COOPERATION AND SUPPORT DRAW UP A STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES TO COVER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM INFORM ALL EHPLOYEES OF THE PROGRAH & WHY IT IS IMPORTANT (INCLUDING ALL ASPECTS OF EDUC. S MOTIVATION AS A FIRST STEP, ENGINEER THE DANGER OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (HAZARD ELIMINATION AND/OR CONTROL) SELECT A REPUTABLE SUPPLIER OF EYE PROTECTION WHO HANDLES GOOD MATERIALS OR SECURE BIDS FROM SUPPLIERS SELECT MOST APPROPRIATE TYPE OF PROTECTION - CONSIDERING HAZARDS, EMPLOYEE COMFORT AND COST STANDARDIZE THE EQUIPMENT CARRIED FOR SMALLER INVENTORY AND LOWER VOLUME COST ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENTS ARE TAKEN BEFOREHAND & THAT THE PROTECTION IS PROPERLY FITTED -INCLUDING FOLLOW-UP MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE INVENTORY AND ENSURE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE EYE PROTECTION DEVELOP PROCEDURES TO ENSURE UNIFORMITY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PROBLEM: IE. IDENTIFY AREAS, ETC. DEVELOP SUPERVISION & ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE PROGRAM - EVERYONE WEARS THEM IN HAZARDOUS AREAS - MANDATORY AT ANY TIME OR ANY PLACE IN THE PLANT - USE OF PROTECTION MANOATORY AND A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MONITOR AND EVALUATE THE PROGRAM DEVELOP ACCIDENT EMERGENCY PROCEDURES WHO PAYS FOR THE EYE PROTECTION - TOTALLY BY THE EMPLOYER - BY THE EMPLOYER & WORKER; VARIOUS NEGOTIATED PROPORTIONS & TIHE PERIODS MENTION OR RECOGNITION OF USING EYE PROTECTION ACCORDING TO AMERICAN OR CANADIANT STANDARDS ASSOCIATION STANDARDS REFERENCES 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - 20 - eye in jury hazards ana lys i s , the proper use of safety engineering features and personal p rotect ion, and the education of the worker. Matiashina et a l . (67) state that the incidence of eye i n ju r i e s i s highly dependent on the degree of i ndu s t r i a l development in a country. In the same ve in , Veale (68) notes that the increase in eye i n ju r i e s in Aus t ra l i a from 1962 to 1966 was " . . . p r e t t y much due to a concurrent i n - crease in the labour f o r ce " . In Industr ia l Vis ion," Hofstetter (69) describes the Heinrich accident/ in jury re la t ionsh ip . "A major in jury i s an inev i tab le s t a t i s t i c a l by- product of many minor i n j u r i e s , and minor i n j u r i e s , in tu rn , are the s t a t - i s t i c a l by-product of an excess of no- injury accidents. " He inr i ch , there- fo re , regarded a l l accidents as potent ia l major- injury accidents. Gilmore (70) notes that in most cases the cause of an accident i s the same while the sever i ty of the in jury varies according to chance. He concludes that reducing the causes of minor i n j u r i e s reduces the p robab i l i t y of ser ious, d i sab l ing and f a t a l i n j u r i e s . Gilmore c i te s f i xed rat ios between sever i ty c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of in jury f o r d i f f e ren t types of industry. Wood (71), quoting the work of He inr i ch , notes that 98% of a l l a c c i - dents are preventable, and that 88% of a l l i ndu s t r i a l accidents could be prevented by proper administration ( i . e . preventive programs). Bel f o r t (72) states that 88% of reported eye i n ju r i e s are due to human e r ro r , a fur ther 10% due to inherent r i sks of the job , bad organization or inadequate pro- t e c t i o n , and only 2% due to unforeseeable circumstances. Smith (73) states that the Drevention of eye i n ju r i e s i s rea l i zed in three ways, 1) Automation of machinery (or guarding), 2) The use of pro- t e c t i o n , to be considered when automation or l oca l protect ive screening i s not p rac t i ca l and, 3) Training in eye safety, to be used in a l l cases. -21 - This involves the development of s k i l l s in avoiding danger to the eyes (of others as wel l ) through; a) safety t r a i n i n g , b) encouragement in the use of eye protect ion, and c) awareness of safety ru les . Carr (74) concludes that i t i s necessary not only to ident i f y the r i sk and to provide the appropriate protect ion, but to contrive that the pro- tect ion i s used on every occasion that the worker i s exposed to the r i sk (the subject of compliance). Compliance Schlesinger (75) states that workers have been c l a s s i f i e d in to four groups; 1) those who do not think about the hazard at a l l , 2) those uncer- ta in about the existence of the hazard (and who tend to equate the uncer- ta in ty of the hazard with a lack of real personal r i s k ) , 3) those who actua l l y bel ieve no real hazard ex i s t s and, 4) those who del iberate ly ap- praise the hazard, and the r i sk involved, and act accordingly. Optimally, a l l workers should be in the fourth category. Wigglesworth (76) states that methods which motivate towards the use of eye protection may be more e f fec t i ve than methods of compulsion. Those methods which motivate t o - wards compliance are: the need fo r v isual co r rec t ion , fear of i n ju ry , peer acceptance of the protect ion, choice and proper f i t t i n g and the effects of safety t r a i n i ng . ' Those factors which motivate against compliance are: cos- metic unacceptab i l i ty , discomfort, and poor design. Wigglesworth notes in pa r t i cu l a r that apprentice safety t ra in ing i s an important pract ice although no studies have been undertaken to ascertain the e f f ec t s . A recent study by Logar (77) showed that there i s a 9% non-compliance rate ( for eye protection) in American industry. Of the three major com- pliance fac to r s ; physical f i t , v i sual acceptab i l i t y and cosmetic accept- a b i l i t y , i t was found that the physical f i t of the appliance was the most - 22 - important factor in worker compliance. 2.E. Leg i s la t ion Table 2.E.1 (78-92) presents a tabular review of Canadian l e g i s l a t i on concerning occupational and i ndus t r i a l eye protect ion. The review i s based pr imar i l y on regulations made under the respective Acts. Not a l l relevant l e g i s l a t i on i s covered, notably l e g i s l a t i on concerning mines. The i n f o r - mation provided, however, gives a good ind icat ion of the status of l e g i s - l a t i on concerning eye protection in Canadian industry. 2.F. The Costs of Eye Injuries Although the costs of accidents in general have been documented in the l i t e r a t u r e and found to be substant ia l l y more than the costs of e s t ab l i s h - ing protect ive programs, the costs of eye i n ju r i e s versus preventive pro- grams have not been well documented. Young (93) reports that the approximate costs of the 20,000 reported medical-aid-only and compensable eye i n ju r i e s in Ontario, in 1976, was $800,000. 1.6% of the lo s t time claims resu l t in a permanent d i s a b i l i t y , fo r a further cost of $1.2 m i l l i o n . Young states that the average cost of a medical-aid-only eye injury i s $40-$50, whereas the average l o s t work time claim costs $200, and a permanent d i s a b i l i t y award $10,000. Several authors (94, 95, 96) point out, however, that these d i rect costs (of medical aid and compensation) are only a f r ac t i on of the to ta l costs of eye i n j u r i e s . A common consensus i s that the hidden or i nd i rec t costs of i ndus t r i a l accidents ( interrupt ion of the job , t ra in ing of another wor- ker, etc. ) are four times greater than the d i rec t costs. Duffy (97) reports the cost benef it results of an eye protection pro- gram of 23 years ' duration. The potent ia l d i rec t and ind i rect costs of 160 d i sabl ing eye i n ju r ie s that were prevented by the use of protection was TABLE 2.E.1 A REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING. EYE PROTECTION IN INDUSTRY P R O V I N C E S B.C . AL BE RT A SA SK . MA NI TO BA  ON TA RI O QU EB EC  N. B.  CO z P. E. I.  NF LD . YU KO N t - j 3 E Z COMPONENTS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING EYE PROTECnOTJ B f ^ E R ^ E J ^ 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 99 EYE PROTECTION AND/OR SCREENS FOR HAZARDS IN GENERAL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EYE PROTECTION SHOULD MEET C.S.A. STANDARD Z94.3 (OSHA 87.1) X X X X SPECIFIC NOTE: PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (eg. U.V., I.R., MICROWAVE) X X X X X PROTECTION FOR WELDERS & RELATED OCCUP (PROT AND/OR SCREENS) X X X X X X X X X X LASER OPERATIONS X ILLUMINATION - FOR ADEQUATE ACCESS OR EGRESS X X X X X ACCORDING TO C.S.A. STANDARD C92.1 X X X X ACCORDING TO OTHER ACCEPTED OR ESTABLISHED STANDARDS X X X X X X X X SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR OPTIMIZING VISUAL PERFORMANCE FACTORS X X X EYE PROTECTION WHEN HANDLING STORAGE BATTERIES OR ELECTROLYTES X X EYE PROTECTION WHEN USING EXPLOSIVE ACTIVATED TOOLS X X X X X X X EYE PROTECTION WHEN USING COMPRESSED AIR X X REFERENCE TO THE USE OF GUARDS ON MACHINERY X X REQUIRED EYE WASH FACILITIES X X X X REFERENCE TO THE USE OF CONTACT LENSES X MAINTENANCE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT X X X SPECIFIC REF TO RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYER TO SUPPLY PER PROTECTIVE EQUIP X X X X BLANKET USE OF ANY C.S.A. STANDARD 'X - 24 - ca lcu lated at $2,412,257.80, whereas the to ta l costs of the eye protect ion program over th i s period of time was only $1,080,871.20, a saving of $1,331,386.60. 2.G. Estimates of the Alberta Workforce by Occupation Using data co l l ec ted by Walker (98) an estimate was obtained of the number of workers in occupational categories in A lberta industry. Infor- mation was obtained from the 1971 Census of Canada Labour Force A c t i v i t y , Work Experience Catalogue, 94-782, Vo l . I l l , Part VII. The catalogue c l a s s i f i e s the number of workers in occupations in Alberta using the Cana- dian C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Occuptaions. The l a s t census of th i s kind was in 1971 and since the Alberta Labour Force has increased from 688,000 in 1971 to 822,000 in 1976, the use of 1971 s t a t i s t i c s i s not accurate. How- ever, since there i s no r e l i a b l e method of determining into which of the occupations the increase occurred, provis ions could not be made and l i nea r projections were used in each of the occupational categories to account for the population increase. This data i s shown in Chapter 4 where occupation- al eye in jury rates have been ca lcu lated. - 25 - CHAPTER 3 PRESENTATION OF THE METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION In a study such as t h i s , which can u l t imate ly a f fect a number of d i f fe rent groups, i t i s necessary fo r p o l i t i c a l and p rac t i ca l reasons to s o l i c i t information from a l l concerned groups and sources. Inherent in the implementation of any plan must be the commitment of the actors which, in th i s s i t u a t i o n , include the government, the worker, and the pr ivate sector. Therefore, in order to examine a l l po ten t i a l l y relevant sources of data and information, and to gain a wide perspective of the problems of eye pro- tect ion in industry, seven studies (Sections A - G in Chapter 3) were de- signed fo r the research project . Each of the seven studies were designed and car r ied out independently but together provide a wide persDective con- cerning eye protect ion in industry. To avoid confusion, the methods, r e - s u l t s , and discussion fo r each study are presented as a un i t , and are de- signated by the l e t t e r s M (methodology), R ( r e s u l t s ) , and D (discussion) fo l lowing the section headings (e.g. 3.A.M., 3.A.R., and 3.A.D.). The studies (section headings) are: 3.A. A Review of W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e Data 3.B. A Review of Selected W.C.B. Personal Medical F i l e s 3.C. A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Of f icers 3.D. A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel 3.E. A Review of the Minutes of Selected Jo int Work S i te Committees in A lberta 3.F. A Review of Anecdotal Data 3.G. A Review of Selected S i te V i s i t s to Industries in Alberta. - 26 - CHAPTER 3 SECTION A METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION OF A REVIEW OF W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE DATA - 2 7 - 3.A.M. Methodology - W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e Data Rationale The Alberta W.C.B. keeps a computerized record of a l l reported a c c i - dents. This data represents the most complete source of information in Alberta on eye i n j u r i e s , and one that would be read i ly access ible in the future f o r planning and evaluative work. Access In the summer of 1977 th i s researcher contacted the Alberta W.C.B. and, with the a id of Alberta Labour, was able to obtain access to that seg- ment of the computer f i l e , concerning eye i n j u r i e s , f o r review and analys i s . Population A l l persons who reported eye i n j u r i e s to the W.C.B. in Alberta i n 1976 were included in the analys i s . Some information concerning eye i n - j u r i e s reported in 1974 and 1975 was used for comparison. The Instrument The W.C.B. in Alberta requires eye accident reports to be submitted on standard forms, shown in Appendix 1. Reports are submitted fo r those accidents which involve l o s t time at work and fo r those accidents that re - quire medical aid only. Compensation fo r lo s t time accidents i s not paid unless a l l pert inent information has been f i l e d , but i n the case of a c c i - dents where only medical aid i s required th i s i s not the rule and repor- t ing i s often incomplete. The data are retained at the Board o f f i c e s . The Content Figure 3.A.1 shows a l i s t i n g of var iables coded into the computer f i l e s at the W.C.B. by t ra ined personnel, that were used in th i s study. Method of Data Co l lec t ion The data from the reporting forms i s sent to the W.C.B. throughout - 28 - FIGURE 3.A.1 LISTING OF THE INFORMATION (VARIABLES) USED IN THE STUDY, CONTAINED WITHIN THE W.C.B. COMPUTER FILES, FOR EACH REPORTED INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD) Occurrence Class of the Industry in which the worker was in jured. Month of Injury. Standard Industr ia l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Industry in which the worker was in jured. Sex of the injured worker. Age of the injured worker. Length of time the in jured worker has been employed by the company. Occupational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the injured worker. Length of s h i f t normally worked by the injured worker. Time of the accident. Number of hours worked before the accident occurred. Severity Estimate of the Injury. Source of the Injury. Type of Accident re su l t ing in the Injury. Nature of the Injury. Whether f i r s t aid was rendered. Whether a language problem was a fac to r in causing the in ju ry . - 29 - the year where i t i s coded immediately and put into the computer f i l e s . The data was present in computer storage at the time i t was requested. Possible Bias The data does not include a l l eye i n j u r i e s that occurred in A lbe r ta , or in any pa r t i c u l a r i ndu s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , but only the i n j u r i e s that were reported to the W.C.B. ,In add i t ion, there i s no formal mechanism to monitor the v a l i d i t y of any accident report. A major ity of the i n f o r - mation i s derived from the worker report and the management report, which may be erroneous depending on the sever i ty of the accident, who was at f a u l t , and other factors . Method of Analysis The data in whole was processed using the SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l Program- ming Package, inc luding the use of frequency and cross-tabulat ion funct ions. Due to the nature of the data, and i t s intended use fo r th i s p ro jec t , few s t a t i s t i c a l operations were performed. A second part of the mini-study involved looking at industr ies with the higher rates of eye i n j u r i e s . Using estimates of the number of man years worked in 1976 in each 3 d i g i t Standard Industr ia l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and the respective number of i n j u r i e s , rates of eye i n ju r i e s per 100 man years worked were ca lcu lated fo r each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . It was found that most i n - dustr ies had r e l a t i v e l y low rates of eye i n j u r i e s and progressively fewer ( in an exponential function) industr ies had higher rates. Standard i n - dus t r ia l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s with eye in jury rates above an acceptable cu t -o f f leve l were selected for further study. The majority of the industr ies had a large number of man years worked and the f indings can be s t a t i s t i c a l l y j u s - t i f i e d . A few industr ies were excluded from the analys is because one or two i n ju r i e s with in a small group of workers caused the high rates. - 30 - 3.A.R. Results of a Review of A lberta W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e Data Part 1 - General Results Table 3.A.1 shows the number of i n j u r i e s that occurred in Alberta in 1976 by occurrence c lass . Using estimates of the workforce s ize in each class ( in man years worked), in jury rates have been establ i shed. The i n - surance premium paid by companies with in each occurrence class i s included f o r comparison purposes. An occurrence class may contain a var ie ty of i n - dustr ies. The highest rates of eye i n j u r i e s are in occurrence classes which contain a number of mechanical and metal re lated indust r ie s . Table 3.A.2 shows the to ta l number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the month in which they occurred. The greatest number of i n j u r i e s occur in the summer and f a l l months. The proportion of i n j u r i e s incurred in the months of January, May and September has increased over a three year per iod, while the month of November has shown a steady dec l ine. Table 3.A.3 shows the number of eye i n ju r i e s that were reported in 1976 by the 3 d i g i t i ndus t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in which they occurred. In- cluded in the table are estimates of the s i ze of the workforce in each i ndus t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and ca lcu lated eye in jury rates. The number of eye i n ju r i e s reported in 1974 and 1975 i s included f o r reference pur- poses although estimates of the s i ze of the workforce (and, therefore, eye in jury rates) were not ava i lab le f o r these years. The highest rates of eye i n ju r i e s are found general ly in industr ies concerned with the manu- facture, f ab r i ca t i on or repai r of metal products, while the lowest rates are found in business and professional o f f i c e s . Table 3.A.4 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the sex of the worker. Nearly 97% of the eye i n ju r i e s over the three year period were incurred by males. - 31 - TABLE 3.A.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY OCCURRENCE CLASSIFICATION (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) OCCURRENCE NUMBER OF WORKFORCE RATE OF CLASS OCCURRENCE REPORTED SIZE EYE INJURIES INSURANCE CLASS INJURIES (MAN-YEARS) PER 100 MAN/YRS PREMIUM ($) 01-01 M l 826 5.0 $12.75 01-02 79 2364 3.3 2.50 02-01 25 698 3.6 5.75 03-01 47 1465 3.2 10.50 03-02 76 2300 3.3 6.25 04-01 29 13887 0.2 0.50 04-02 33 1586 2.1 3.45 04-03 157 6659 2.4 5.75 04-04 254 13574 1.9 1.35 04-05 60 5320 1.1 1.05 04-06 85 3931 2.2 3.00 05-01 1069 28792 3.7 1.45 06-01 2031 45308 4.5 2.85 06-02 725 13458 5.4 2.50 06-03 435 9348 4.7 3.20 06-04 113 2160 5.2 4.45 06-05 44 1161 3.8 9.50 06-06 304 6.59 4.9 2.25 06-07 518 17333 3.0 4.00 06-08 109 1249 1.0 8.25 06-09 13 426 3.1 8.75 07-01 247 15445 1.6 4.75 08-01 96 1328 7.2 4.10 08-02 1668 11759 14.2 3.00 08-03 788 10414 7.6 2.20 08-04 602 9815 6.1 3.25 08-05 153 1271 12.0 3.60 09-01 98 8288 1.2 1.70 09-02 31 2264 1.4 3.00 09-03 119 6045 2.0 3.40 09-04 39 1883 2.1 3.50 10-01 111 9451 1.2 0.80 10-02 131 6080 2.2 1.80 11-01 9 18230 0.1 0.30 ' 11-02 138 37512 0.4 0.50 11-03 115 26605 0.4 0.60 11-04 37 10279 0.4 1.35 11-05 44 3282 1.3 2.05 11-06 25 2056 1.2 3.35 12-01 42 18732 0.2 0.30 12-02 41 10644 0.4 1.00 12-03 83 36725 0.2 0.95 14-01 81 22424 0.4 0.50 14-02 15 7618 0.2 1.00 - 32 - TABLE 3.A.1 (Continued) OCCURRENCE NUMBER OF WORKFORCE RATE OF CLASS OCCURRENCE REPORTED SIZE EYE INJURIES INSURANCE CLASS INJURIES (MAN-YEARS) PER 100MAN/YRS PREMIUM ($) 16-01 34 2763 1.2 1.40 17-01 47 2513 1.9 2.05 17-02 48 4492 1.1 1.25 17-03 204 20795 1.0 2.25 17-04 64 10990 0.6 0.70 17-05 47 15356 0.3 0.25 19-01 41 2970 1.4 0.50 - 4.50 19-02 250 25248 1.0 0.50 - 7.50 19-03 1 1717 0.1 - 19-04 99 3514 2.8 -19-05 13 1571 0.8 -19-06 8 2041 0.4 - Unclassed 587 Unknown - - TOTAL 12403 550124 - - - 33 - TABLE 3,A.2 TOTAL REPORTED EYE INJURIES IN ALBERTA BY THE MONTH OF INJURY (1974, 1975 AND 1976) (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) MONTrP ^ J ^ E A R ^ ^ 1976 ( % ) 1975 ( % ) 1974 ( % ) TREND January 854 (6.9) 761 (6.4) 677 (6.1) . t February 883 (7.2) 692 (5.8) 703 (6.5) -March 999 (8.1) 740 (6.2) 754 (6.8) -April 911 (7.3) 944 (7.9) 810 (7.3) - May 1103 (8.9) 1012 (8.5) 896 (8.1) t June 1169 (9.4) 958 (8.0) 972 (8.8) - July 1172 (9.4) 975 (8.1) 937 (8.5) -August 1191 (9.6) 924 (7.7) 949 (8.6) _ September 1126 (9.1) 1075 (9.0) 917 (8.3) + October 1119 (9.0) 1419 (11.8) 1154 (10.5) November 1106 (8-9) 1357 (11.3) 1367 (12.4) •f December 770 (6.2) 1108 (9.3) 889 (8.1) No Response 2 ( - ) 1 ( - ) 28 (0.3) TOTAL INJURIES 12403 11966 11053 - 34 - TABLE 3.A.3 TOTAL NUMBER AND RATES OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES IN ALBERTA BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION ( S . I . C . , 1971) FOR 1976, WITH ADDITIONAL DATA FOR 1974 AND 1975 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER F ILE) NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MAN- RATE OF EYE INDUSTRY CLASS INJURIES YEARS WORKED INJURIES (1976) INJURIES INJURIES (1976) (1976) PER 100 MAN YEARS (1975) (1974) TREND L i v e s t o c k Farms 1 309 0.3 2 1 Commerc ia l Farms 3 139 2.2 3 _ Other Crop Farms 4 306 1.3 2 _ M i s c e l l a n e o u s Farms 11 883 1.2 10 12 _ A g r i c u l t u r a l S e r v i c e s 22 2373 1.0 24 22 _ Logg ing 44 1465 3.0 37 61 _ F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e s 1 19 5.3 _ Coa l Mines 117 3130 3.7 102 72 t P e t r o l e u m and Gas W e l l s 156 16639 1.0 180 194 N a t u r a l Gas P l a n t s 68 3980 1.7 71 46 O i l S h a l e P i t s 21 2378 0.9 21 31 S a l t Mines 1 121 0.8 2 O the r Non-Meta l M ines 3 110 2.7 1 2 Sand P i t s o r Q u a r r i e s 35 1104 3.2 43 36 _ P e t r o l e u m P r o s p e c t i n g 33 1586 2.1 40 29 Othe r P r o s p e c t i n g 2 201 1.0 1 1 _ C o n t r a c t D r i l l i n g f o r P e t r o l e u m 134 5205 2.6 102 94 Other C o n t r a c t D r i l l i n g 4 •54 7.4 2 2 O the r S e r v i c e s I n c i d e n t a l t o M i n i n g 104 5317 2.0 110 79 S l a u g h t e r i n g and Meat P r o c e s s o r s 120 5821 2.1 107 88 + P o u l t y P r o c e s s o r s 12 735 1.6 14 6 D a i r y F a c t o r i e s 23 2345 1.1 20 21 _ F r u i t and V e g e t a b l e Canners 2 363 0.6 6 8 Feed M a n u f a c t u r e r s 13 1017 1.3 34 18 _ F l o u r M i l l s 9 585 1.5 6 3 + B a k e r i e s 5 1851 0.3 9 5 C o n f e c t i o n e r y M a n u f a c t u r e r s 1 124 0.8 1 _ Sugar R e f i n e r i e s 6 3U5 2.0 6 5 V e g e t a b l e 011 H i l l s 7 334 2.1 6 7 M i s c e l l a n e o u s Food I n d u s t r i e s 12 627 1.9 . 4 3 S o f t D r i n k M a n u f a c t u r e r s 23 1185 1.9 9 19 D i s t i l l e r i e s 3 219 1.4 1 2 _ B r e w e r i e s 15 720 2.1 13 12 T i r e and Tube M a n u f a c t u r e r s 23 806 2.9 16 37 O the r Rubber I n d u s t r i e s 1 104 1.0 6 5 _ L e a t h e r T a n n e r i e s 3 137 2.2 2 1 _ Luggage and L e a t h e r Goods M a n u f a c t u r e r s 1 171 0.6 1 _ Canvas P r o d u c t s I n d u s t r y 4 264 1.5 3 3 _ M i s c e l l a n e o u s T e x t i l e I n d u s t r i e s 2 457 0.4 3 Other C l o t h i n g I n d u s t r i e s 17 2276 0.8 17 a Sawmi l l s 72 2174 3.3 90 92 t Veneer and P lywood M i l l s 36 .541 6.7 13 30 _ Sash and Door and P l a n i n g M i l l s .424 10554 4.0 433 440 _ Wooden Box F a c t o r i e s 4 126 3.2 2 1 _ C o f f i n and C a s k e t I n d u s t r y 1 74 1.4 6 M i s c e l l a n e o u s Wook I n d u s t r i e s 5 300 , 1.7 11 13 Household F u r n i t u r e I n d u s t r y 17 960 1.8 25 22 _ O f f i c e F u r n i t u r e I n d u s t r y 20 265 7.5 13 21 _ Other F u r n i t u r e I n d u s t r i e s 7 389 1.8 4 4 _ P u l p and Paper M i l l s . 60 1225 4 .9 63 55 _ A s p h a l t R o o f i n g M a n u f a c t u r e r s 13 515 2.5 28 18 Paper Box and Bag M a n u f a c t u r e r s 4 404 1.0 3 6 -Commercial P r i n t i n g 17 3510 0.5 18 13 -P r i n t i n g and P u b l i s h i n g 3 2766 0.1 7 5 -I r on and S t e e l M i l l s 152 1271 12.0 224 193 -S t e e l P i p e and Tube M i l l s 64 1073 6.0 91 67 -Copper and A l l o y C a s t i n g 7 97 7.2 1 6 -B o i l e r and P l a t e Works 584 2830 20.6 603 431 -F a b r i c a t e d S t r u c t u r a l Me ta l I n d u s t r y 295 1814 16.3 .354 264 -Ornamental Meta l I n d u s t r y 202 2607 7.7 185 149 t Meta l S t amp ing , P r e s s i n g I n d u s t r y 97 1701 5.7 95 114 -Wire and Wi re P r o d u c t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 1 7 14.2 - - -Hardware M a n u f a c t u r e r s 2 9 22.2 - - - • H e a t i n g Equipment M a n u f a c t u r e r s 29 291 10.0 29 11 -Machine Shops 397 3702 10.5 408 440 + M i s c . Me ta l F a b r i c a t i n g I n d u s t r i e s 8 * 186 4.3 11 12 -A g r i c u l t u r a l Implement I n d u s t r y 51 513 9.9 41 60 -M i s c . Mach i ne r y and Equ ip M a n u f a c t u r e r s 30 633 4 .5 26 35 -A i r c r a f t and P a r t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 25 829 3.0 32 31 -Motor V e h i c l e M a n u f a c t u r e r s 47 304 15.5 43 25 t T ruck Body and T r a i l e r M a n u f a c t u r e r s 312 2405 13.0 207 171 t B o a t b u i l d i n g and R e p a i r 5 60 8.3 9 10 -Communicat ions Equipment M a n u f a c t u r e r s 6 943 0.6 2 2 - M a n u f a c t u r e r s o f E l e c t r i c a l I ndu s t Equ ip 36 398 9.0 5 - -B a t t e r y M a n u f a c t u r e r s 4 146 2.7 5 2 -E l e c t r i c W i re and Cab l e M a n u f a c t u r e r s 10 379 2.6 7 8 -M i s c E l e c t r i c a l P r o d u c t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 2 147 1.4 8 2 - Cement M a n u f a c t u r e r s 32 650 4 .9 13 1 1 - 35 - TABLE 3.A.3 ( Con t i nued ) INDUSTRY CLASS NUMBER OF INJURIES (1976) NUMBER OF MAN- YEARS WORKED (1976) RATE OF EYE INJURIES (1976) PER 100 MAN YEARS INJURIES (1975) INJURIES (1974) TREND Lime M a n u f a c t u r e r s 12 94 12.8 8 23 -Gypsum P roduc t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 4 195 2.1 9 4 C o n c r e t e P r o d u c t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 96 1344 7.1 87 65 • Ready-Mix C o n c r e t e M a n u f a c t u r e r s 53 1798 2.9 68 51 -R e g r a c t o r i e s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 7 325 2.2 8 16 M i n e r a l Wool M a n u f a c t u r e r s 28 539 5.2 32 10 -G l a s s and G l a s s P r o d u c t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s 5 345 1.4 13 io -O t h e r N o n - M e t a l l i c M i n e r a l I n d u s t r i e s 21 1025 2.0 10 5 P e t r o l e u m R e g i n e r i e s 13 1170 1.1 22 14 -M a n u f a c t u r e r s o f M ixed F e r t i l i z e r s 21 1546 1.4 33 27 -Manuf o f P l a s t i c s and S y n t h e t i c Re s i n s 22 1164 1.9 17 18 -Manuf o f Soap and Soap Compounds 1 80 1.3 2 2 -Manuf o f I n d u s t r i a l Chem ica l s 35 2033 1.9 37 50 Othe r Chemica l I n d u s t r i e s 2 104 1.9 8 3 -S c i e n t i f i c Equipment M a n u f a c t u r e r s 21 1793 1.2 31 26 -J e w e l l e r y and S i l v e r w a r e M a n u f a c t u r e r s 5 131 3.8 2 1 -P l a s t i c F a b r i c a t o r s 13 244 5.3 13 16 -S i g n s and D i s p l a y s I n d u s t r y 11 347 3.2 12 21 Mi s c M a n u f a c t u r i n g I n d u s t r i e s 2 173 1.2 1 - -B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n 1603 37711 4.3 1215 1108 Highway, B r i d g e and S t r e e t C o n s t r u c t i o n 248 10492 2.4 301 285 -Other C o n s t r u c t i o n 209 4972 4.2 256 208 -S p e c i a l - T r a d e C o n t r a c t o r s 1817 36548 5.0 1624 1424 + A i r T r a n s p o r t 12 1257 1.0 19 23 -S e r v i c e s I n c i d e n t a l t o A 1 r T r a n s p o r t 5 808 0.6 8 2 -Water T r a n s p o r t 16 N/A - 17 9 -R a i l w a y T r a n s p o r t 169 N/A - 219 219 -Truck T r a n s p o r t 225 14735 1.5 203 229 -Bus T r a n s p o r t 13 1486 0.9 11 14 -P i p e l i n e T r a n s p o r t 30 3299 0.9 32 22 _ Othe r S e r v i c e s I n c i d e n t a l t o T r a n s p o r t 2 404 0.5 5 _ Other T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 1 251 0.4 _ G r a i n E l e v a t o r s 25 2056 1.2 22 25 Warehous ing 13 1776 0.7 11 18 Rad io and T e l e v i s i o n B r o a d c a s t i n g 6 2019 0.3 7 > ' b Te lephone Systems 16 N/A _ 25 11 E l e c t r i c Power 34 2736 1.2 20 31 Gas D i s t r i b u t i o n 39 2611 1.5 38 31 Water Systems 5 282 1.8 2 3 _ Other U t i l i t i e s 13 349 3.7 14 6 _ W h o l e s a l e r s o f L i v e s t o c k 1 394 0.3 2 W h o l e s a l e r s o f P e t r o l e u m P r o d u c t s 3 1366 0.2 5 12 W h o l e s a l e r s o f Farm Mach i ne r y 210 5354 3.9 230 226 W h o l e s a l e r s o f Mach i ne r y , 72 4704 1.5 70 60 W h o l e s a l e r s o f Sc rap and Waste M a t e r i a l s 37 668 5.5 26 35 W h o l e s a l e r s , Not E l s ewhe re C l a s s i f i e d 115 27988 0.4 111 137 Food S t o r e s 28 9693 0.3 22 18 _ Department S t o r e s 73 22563 0.3 84 57 _ A c c e s s o r y , P a r t s , T1 re & B a t t e r y Shops 40 1453 2.8 33 35 G a s o l i n e S e r v i c e S t a t i o n s 173 7633 2.3 191 196 Motor V e h i c l e D e a l e r s 289 10338 2.8 277 315 Motor V e h i c l e R e p a i r Shops '359 4410 8.1 359 375 Shoe S t o r e s 1 1043 0.1 C l o t h i n g S t o r e s 3 6298 0.1 2 6 Hardware S t o r e s 19 4118 0.5 16 16 Househo ld F u r n i t u r e S t o r e s 18 3414 0.5 7 n R a d i o , T e l e v i s i o n Shops 10 1024 0.5 5 8 Book and S t a t i o n e r y S t o r e s 1 1732 0.1 4 2 F l o r i s t s ' Shops 1 572 0.2 2 Fue l D e a l e r s 4 508 0.8 4 7 _ L i q u o r S t o r e s 3 N/A 6 4 _ R e t a i l S t o r e s , NEC 31 5460 0.6 50 37 E l ementa r y and Secondary S c h o o l s 60 12875 0.5 52 66 V o c a t i o n a l S choo l s 4 437 0.9 3 5 U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s 45 13587 0.3 43 48 L i b r a r i e s 3 906 0.3 j 1 H o s p i t a l s 123 25720 0.5 159 143 O f f i c e s o f D e n t i s t s 4 767 0.5 2 2 Other H e a l t h S e r v i c e s 1 1043 0.1 3 2 W e l f a r e O r g a n i z a t i o n s 14 6783 0.2 4 18 R e c r e a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s 4 1783 0.2 12 4 E n g i n e e r i n g and S c i e n t i f i c S e r v i c e 21 8336 0.3 19 10 S e r v i c e s t o Bu s i ne s s Management 23 5304 0.4 22 24 _ Shoe R e p a i r Shops 1 73 1.4 _ B a r b e r and Beauty Shops 1 1961 0.1 — _ L a u n d r i e s 10 99 0.4 6 10 H o t e l s , R e s t a u r a n t s and Tavern s 86 38124 0.2 83 62 Labour O r g a n i z a t i o n s 6 1610 0.4 3 4 B l a c k s m i t h i n g and We ld ing Shops 311 1857 16.7 282 247 + M i s c e l l a n e o u s R e p a i r Shops 42 1088 3.9 58 46 S e r v i c e s t o B u i l d i n g s 28 7060 0.4 22 35 _ M i s c e l l a n e o u s S e r v i c e s 64 7856 0.8 58 67 Other F e d e r a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 119 N/A 115 118 P r o v i n c i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 192 N/A - 183 154 t - 36 - TABLE 3.A.3 (Continued) INDUSTRY CUSS NUMBER OF INJURIES (1976) NUMBER OF MAN- YEARS WORKED (1976) RATE OF EYE INJURIES (1976) PER 100 MAN YEARS INJURIES (1975) INJURIES (1974) TREND Local Administration 303 28107 1.1 314 277 Unspecified or Undefined 92 3159 2.9 124 139 Not Classified 347 271 257 TOTAL 12405 551124 2.3 11966 11053 - 37 - TABLE 3.A.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, BY THE SEX OF WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) YEAR SEX ^ - ^ ^ ^ 1976 {%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) MALES FEMALES NOT CLASSIFIED 11986 (96.6) 418 (3.4) 1 (O.O) 11541 (96.4) 395 (3.3) 30 (0.3) 10711 (96.9) 333 (3.0) 9 (0.1) TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 TABLE 3.A.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, BY THE AGE OF INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) A G E ^ \ _ YEAR C A T E G O R Y ^ ^ - ^ ^ 1976 (%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) 70+ 5 (0.0) 7 (0.1) 3 (0.0) 65-69 25 (0.2) 28 (0.2) 39 (0.4) 60-64 130 (1.0) 126 (1.1) 165 (1.5) 55-59 231 (1.9) 275 (2.3) 265 (2.4) 50-54 435 (3.5) 396 (3.3) 384 (3.5) 45-49 665 (5.4) 632 (5.3) 606 (5.5) 40-44 840 (6.8) 885 (7.4) 813 (7.4) 35-39 1072 (8.6) 1059 (8.9) 978 (8.9) 30-34 1611 (13.0) 1438 (12.0) 1323 (11.9) 25-29 2342 (18.9) 2298 (19.2) 2056 (18.6) 20-24 3485 (28.1) 3158 (26.4) 2874 (26.0) 15-19 1470 (11.9) 1523 (12.7) 1390 (12.6) 14 1 (0.0) 4 (0.0) 7 (0.0) AGE UNCLASSIFIED 93 (0.7) 137 (1.1) 150 (1.3) TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 38 - Table 3.A.5 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 according to the age of the injured worker. The greatest pro- proportion of i n j u r i e s occurred in the 20-24 year age group. High pro- portions were found also among the 15-19, 25-29, and 30-34 year age groups, over the three year per iod. Table 3.A.6 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the length of time the injured worker has been employed. The greatest number of i n j u r i e s occurred among workers with less than one year of work experience in t h e i r present job. There were a great number of missing responses. Table 3.A.7 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1976 by the occupation of the injured worker. Estimates of the number of persons in each occupational c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (see L i te ra ture Review - Section G) are given, in order to es tab l i sh in jury rates. The number of reported eye i n - j u r i e s in 1974 and 1975, by occupation, are included fo r comparison pur- poses. The highest rates of eye i n ju r i e s occur among metal re lated occupations such as mechanics, machinists, plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s , and welders. The lowest rates of eye i n j u r i e s occur in the professions and c l e r i c a l trades. Table 3.A.8 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the length of s h i f t the injured person worked per day. The majority of i n j u r i e s occurred during an eight hour s h i f t although a sub- s t an t i a l number of i n j u r i e s occurred among workers who were on a nine to ten hour s h i f t . Table 3.A.9 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the hour of the day in which the accident occurred. The greatest proportion of i n j u r i e s occurred during the 1000, 1100, 1400 and 1500 hour periods (e.g. before lunch time and the end of the normal work - 39 - TABLE 3.A.6 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976 BY THE LENGTH OF TIME THE INJURED WORKER HAS BEEN EMPLOYED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) L E N G T H ^ \ R EMPLOYED ^ v . 1976 (35) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) <1 mnth 1 mnth - <6 mnths 6 mnths - <1 yr si yr Unknown 535 (17.6) 1086 (35.7) 381 (12.5) 1042 (34.2) 9361 472 (16.7) 954 (33.7) 384 (13.6) 1019 (36.0) 9137 435 (16.9) 862 (33.4) 387 (15.0) 897 (34.7) 8472 TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 40 - TABLE 3.A.7 TOTAL NUMBER AND INCIDENCE RATES OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION - INCLUDING DATA FOR 1974 AND 1975 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) WORKFORCE INJURY RATE OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES OF INJURED WORKERS WORKERS) 1976 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974 TREND Administrators 840 3 0.36 1 2 . Inspectors; Government 1115 2 0.18 _ _ • General Managers 2445 7 0.29 5 5 Production Management 390 2 0.51 4 3 -Construction Management 410 15 3.66 12 15 -Other Managers 1720 7 0.41 9 4 -Financial Officers 8340 2 0.02 1 _ Personnel Officers 1955 1 0.05 _ _ • Purchasing Officers 1255 2 0.16 _ _ Occupations: Management 3060 1 0.03 _ -Geologists 2145 1 0.05 3 3 Meteorologists 90 1 1.10 _ _ _ Physical Sciences Technologists 1545 15 0.97 19 14 Agriculturists 685 2 0.29 3 4 Biologists 320 1 0.31 _ _ Life Sciences Technologists 900 9 1.00 3 5 Civil Engineers 1690 7 0.41 6 5 Electrical Engineers 970 5 0.51 1 3 Mechanical Engineers 680 4 0.59 1 4. _ Petroleum Engineers 1090 1 0.37 _ 1 Aerospace Engineers 125 5 4.00 5 1 Surveyors 1050 9 0.86 5 7 Draughtsmen 2200 6 0.27 5 7 Engineering Technologists 1875 4 0.21 3 8 _ Other occupations: Engineering 1210 13 1.07 13 16 Analysts and Programmers 1375 1 0.07 1 . _ Community Services Occupation 1810 1 0.06 3 2 Librarians 510 1 0.20 Social Sciences Occupations 195 2 1.03 _ - -Elementary Teachers 12515 2 0.02 2 1 _ Conmunity College Teachers 1130 4 0.35 5 1 _ Fine Arts Teachers 1175 2 0.17 2 _ _ Post-Secondary Teachers 460 5 1.09 2 1 Flying Instructors 570 1 0.18 1 2 _ Other Teaching Occupations 345 1 0.29 _ 1 _ Veterinarians 190 1 0.53 _ _ _ Health Diagnosing Occupations N/A 1 _ _ _ Nurses 9260 24 0.26 23 6 _ Nursing Aides 6500 20 0.31 21 21 -Physiotherapists 760 2 0.26 3 4 -Nursing Assisting Occupations 3385 7 0.21 - 3 -Dispensing Opticians 140 1 0.71 1 _ -Radiological Technologists 815 1 0.12 1 1 _ Medical Laboratory Technologists 1730 12 0.69 14 11 -Other Occupations in Medicine 390 2 0.51 1 3 -Interior Designers 815 4 0.49 _ 1 -Illustrating Artists 540 1 0.19 1 1 Secretaries 18395 2 0.01 3 2 Typists 10885 2 0.02 5 2 Bookkeepers 17576 2 0.01 _ 4 -Cashiers 1785 6 0.34 4 4 Statistical Clerks 375 1 0.27 _ _ Office Machine Operators 2400 1 0.04 _ 1 _ Data-Processing Operators 2220 2 0.09 _ Scheduling Occupations 635 1 0.16 _ 1 _ Production Clerks 485 2 0.41 1 1 Shipping Clerks 3845 33 0.86 34 34 Stock Clerks 3775 14 0.37 6 12 Weighers 300 1 0.33 1 3 - - 41 - TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued) WORKFORCE INJURY RATE OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES OF INJURED WORKERS WORKERS) 1976 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974 TREND Material Recording Occupations 120 1 0.83 3 1 _ Medical-Records Librarians 3610 3 0.08 1 2 - Receptionists 4635 1 0.02 2 1 _ Mail Carriers 1325 9 0.68 5 7 _ Postal Clerks 3225 4 0.12 5 4 Telephone Operators 3175 1 0.03 5 _ -Messengers 540 1 0.19 - - -Message Distribution Occupations 1110 1 - 0.09 _ 1 _ Hotel Clerks 1070 2 0.19 _ 1 -Office Clerks 8970 4 0.04 3 3 -Other Clerical occupations 6915 5 0.07 10 7 _ Managing Supervisors 20895 56 0.27 44 45 -Commercial Travellers 3715 1 0.03 1 2 -Salesmen 6060 11 0.18 1 13 Sales Clerks 24940 61 0.24 62 38 - Newsboys 1095 1 0.09 - - -Service Station Attendants 3405 23 0.68 17 18 -Sales Occupations N/A 3 - - -Driver-Salesmen 2025 5 0.25 5 6 Fire-Fighters 1570 25 1.59 26 10 _ Policemen 2740 9 0.33 7 11 Guards 3245 17 0.52 3 6 - Protective Service Occupations 875 2 0.23 1 1 -Supervisors; Food and Beverage 3125 3 0.10 1 2 _ Chefs and Cooks 8015 11 0.14 20 16 _ Bartenders N/A 3 - 5 1 Waiters 14220 12 0.08 9 10 _ Food Preparation Occupations 2100 12 0.57 21 12 - Supervisors & Lodging Occupations 2275 15 0.66 15 22 _ Chambermaids N/A 7 _ 4 3 Occupations in Lodging 155 2 1.29 _ Barbers and Hairdressers 4795 2 0.04 _ _ _ Hostesses and Stewards 3270 1 0.03 _ _ _ Personal Service Occupations 4080 3 0.07 1 Supervisors; Laudering Occupations 570 1 0.17 _ - Apparel Service Occupations 555 1 0.18 _ 1 Janitors N/A 95 . 81 91 Occupations in Labouring 6915 20 0.29 28 24 Other Service Occupations 655 2 0.30 1 _ _ Farm Workers N/A 9 _ 6 7 _ Nursery Workers N/A 12 _ 12 21 Farm-Machinery Operators N/A 1 - 1 1 _ Animal Care Occupations N/A 1 - 3 2 1 Fishermen 155 1 0.65 _ _ _ Forestry Conservation Occupations 1020 4 0.39 4 7 _ Timber Cutting Occupations 660 10 1.52 10 23 _ Log Inspecting N/A 1 . _ _ _ Log Hoisting 265 4 1.51 6 10 Labouring; Forestry and Logging 270 2 0.74 _ 3 _ Forest Related Occupations 110 1 0.91 2 5 _ Supervisors; Dr i l l inq Operations 1875 11 0.58 6 14 _ Rotary Well-Dril l ing 2050 93 4.53 88 72 t Rock Dr i l l ing Occupations 400 1 0.25 3 6 + Mining and Quarrying 745 12 1.60 19 • 21 Labouring in Mining and Quarrying 970 24 2.47 32 32 _ 011 and Gas Field Occupations 1695 58 3.46 48 26 + Supervisors-M1neral Ores Operations 50 1 2.00 Crushing and Grinding Occupations N/A 1 5 _ Supervisors-Ore Testing Operations 230 2 0.87 4 3 _ Metal Furnacemen 115 2 1.74 5 14 Metal Rolling Occupations 85 1 1.17 1 1 Metal Casting 185 11 5.95 9 14 _ Plating, Metal Occupations 75 3 4.00 3 3 Labouring 1n Metal Processing 95 4 4.20 2 8 - - 42 - TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued) WORKFORCE INJURY RATE OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES OF INJURED WORKERS WORKERS) 1976 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974 TREND Metal Processing 270 8 2.96 15 14 Furnacemen: Clay,Glass,Stone 185 5 2.70 9 6 -Mixing Occupations: Clay,Glass,Stone 360 2 0.56 9 5 -Clay,Glass,Stone Forming Occupations 175 7 4.00 5 18 -Chemicals; Mixing and Blending 105 1 1.00 - - -Chemicals; Distilling, Carbonizing 835 6 0.70 8 _ _ Chemicals; Crushing and Grinding N/A 1 - 1 2 _ Chemicals,Petroleum-Inspecting 210 2 0.95 2 _ _ Labouring in Chemicals,Petroleum 205 2 0.97 2 6 _ Chemicals,Petroleum-Processing Occu. 965 1 0.10 3 3 -Foremen: Food Occupations 850 2 0.24 - 2 -Grain Milling Occupations 310 3 0.97 2 5 _ Baking Occupations 1485 2 0.13 1 1 _ Slaughtering and Meat Cutting 3720 35 0.94 20 35 -Milk Processing Occupations 460 1 0.21 1 2 _ Inspecting,Testing: Food,Beverages 215 1 0.47 - _ _ Beverage Processing Occupations 200 1 0.50 2 3 Labouring in Food & Beverages 750 73 9.73 42 44 _ Food & Beverage Occupations 515 5 0.97 4 5 _ Sawmill Sawyers 355 1 0.28 1 _ _ Plywood Making 50 1 2.00 _ 3 _ Wood Treating Occupations N/A 2 - - 2 _ Inspecting & Testing-Wood Processing 55 1 1.81 _ _ _ Labouring in Wood Processing 395 1 0.25 4 6 _ Wood Processing Occupations N/A 2 - _ _ -Pulp Preparing Occupations 60 2 3.30 3 1 _ Labouring in Pulp and Papermaking 65 1 1.54 2 3 -Pulp and Papermaking 55 2 3.60 1 2 _ Textile Winding and Reeling 175 1 0.57 _ _ _ Textile Finishing 175 1 0.57 _ Other Processing Occupations 75 1 1.33 _ _ Foremen: Machining Operations 445 3 0.67 3 4 Tool and Die Making 90 4 4.44 8 3 _ Machinist 1315 209 15.42 223 212 Machine-Tool Operating 640 7 1.09 5 17 Metal Machining 55 2 3.64 3 4 _ Foremen: Metal Shaping & Forming 775 3 0.38 2 10 Forging Occupations 185 3 1.62 5 5 _ Sheet-Metal Workers 1480 306 20.68 256 245 Metalworking-Machine Operators 280 6 2.14 5 10 -Welding and Flame Cutting 4910 1511 30.77 1405 1342 + Inspecting Metal Shaping & Forming N/A 1 - 1 -Boilermakers, Platers 280 91 32.50 90 70 -Metal Shaping and Forming 65 4 6.15 4 2 _ Wood Sawing 320 9 2.81 10 24 Wood Machining 185 4 2.16 2 2 -Wood Sanding N/A 1 - _ _ _ Cutting,Shaping-Clay,Glass,Stone 75 3 4.00 4 4 -Abrading,Polishing-Stone,Cement,Clay no 1 0.90 - 3 -Clay,Glass,Stone Machining 75 9 12.00 6 3 t Filing,Grinding,Buffing Occupations 260 64 24.62 79 72 _ Motor Vehicle Fabricating 180 8 4.40 12 2 _ Business Machines Fabricating N/A 1 - _ _ Other Fabricating Occupations 215 19 8.83 12 28 _ Electrical Equip. Fab & Assembling 255 6 2.35 9 8 -Electrical Equip. Installing,Repair 1215 12 0.99 14 17 _ Electronic Equip. Fab & Assembling 140 3 2.14 1 3 _ Radio & TV Repairmen 815 4 0.49 2 4 -Labouring: Fab, Assembling, Instal- ling, Repairing Electrical Equip. N/A 1 _ - _ -Cabinet Makers [ 1000 40 4.00 21 22 _ Labouring: Fab, Assembling, Repair- ing Wood Products 80 6 7.50 6 14 - - 43 - TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued) WORKFORCE INJURY RATE OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES OF INJURED WORKERS WORKERS) 1976 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974 TREND Fab, Assembling, Repairing: Wood N/A 2 • 2 3 Products Upholsterers 555 12 2.16 15 9 _ Sewing Machine Operators 2630 10 0.38 10 2 -Fab, Assembling: Textile, Fur & 205 1 0.49 - - -Leather Products Bonding & Cementing: Rubber,Plastic 525 31 5.90 20 37 _ Moulding Rubber,Plastic 110 2 1.82 3 1 _ Cutting & Finishing: Rubber,Plastic N/A 1 - - _ -Fab,Assembling Rubber,Plastic N/A 1 - - _ Foremen: Motor Vehicle Mechanics 2735 2 0.07 9 8 Motor-Vehicle Mechanics 9915 758 7.60 836 845 Aircraft Mechanics 635 11 1.73 12 15 -Rail Transport Mechanics 630 39 6.19 51 50 -Heavy Duty Machinery Mechanics N/A 303 - 204 202 t Watch.Repairmen 265 1 0.38 - 2 _ Other Mechanics 1215 14 1.15 21 16 _ Foremen: Product Fab.Assembling & 205 27 13.17 4 9 _ Repairing Jewellery & Silverware Fabricating 60 1 1.67 1 2 _ Painting & Decorating 325 9 2.77 20 19 -Labouring in Product Fabricating, N/A 365 - 272 279 + Assembling and Rapairing Musical Instrument Fabricating, 325 5 1.54 1 10 _ Assembling and Repairing Foremen: Excava ti ng,Gradi ng,Pav i ng 2030 9 0.44 23 20 -Excavating and Grading 2895 36 1.24 7 33 _ Paving and Surfacing 355 1 0.28 3 _ -Railway Sectionmen 1180 14 1.19 19 12 _ Excavating,Grading,Paving 1025 76 7.41 81 33 -Foremen: Electrical Power & Wire 1395 6 0.43 3 3 _ Communication Equipment Electrical Power Lineman 485 18 4.14 8 26 -Construction Electricians 3780 347 9.18 347 276 -Wire Communications Installing 2195 11 0.50 8 11 _ Inspecting & Testing: Electrical 215 2 0.93 _ _ _ Power and Wire Communications Electrical Power: Wire Communica- 300 3 1.00 1 1 tions Equipment Foremen: Other Construction Trades 6340 50 0.79 19 34 _ Carpenters 8515 475 5.58 374 354 Brick and Stone Masons 875 51 5.94 34 30 + Concrete Finishing 900 13 1.44 18 24 Plasterers 1375 43 3.13 26 44 _ Painters & Paperhangers 3270 68 2.08 57 50 Insulating Occupations 495 34 6.87 36 24 -Roofing 800 28 3.50 27 20 Pipefitting, Plumbing 4275 636 14.88 482 411 Structural-Metal Erectors- 630 129 20.48 107 80 Glaziers 275 10 3.64 10 18 Inspecting & Testing Construction 495 2 0.40 2 -Labouring in Construction 6675 486 7.28 344 451 Other Construction Trade Occupations 2380 42 1.76 26 36 _ Air Pilots N/A 2 - _ 3 _ Air Transport Support Occupations N/A 1 1 1 _ Foremen: Railway Operations N/A 1 - 1 3 _ Locomotive Engineers N/A 3 - 2 4 Conductors and Brakemen N/A 11 _ 14 17 Railway Transport Operating Occup. N/A 9 - 19 7 -Ship's Carpenters N/A 2 - 1 - -Foremen: Motor Transport Operations 1315 2 0.15 2 2 Bus Drivers 3180 14 0.44 8 9 _ Truck Drivers 20135 190 0.94 170 221 _ Motor Transport Operating Occup. 550 1 0.73 - 1 - - 44 - TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued) WORKFORCE INJURY RATE OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES OF INJURED WORKERS WORKERS) 1976 100 WORKERS) 1975 1975 TREND Motormen and Dinkeymen 300 4 1.33 1 5 - Other Transport Operating Occup. 95 1 1.05 - 2 Foremen: Material Handling 2200 6 0.27 7 7 Hoisting Occupations 990 37 0.20 21 23 -Longshoremen 3055 53 0.03 60 60 -Material-Handling Equip. Operators 3500 96 2.74 116 106 -Packaging Occupations 3680 15 - 0.41 14 9 -Labouring in Material-Handling 2470 25 1.00 20 21 -Other Material-Handling Occupations 515 5 0.97 4 5 -Typesetting 715 3 0.28 1 6 -Printing Press 440 2 0.45 5 5 -Pri nti ng-Engravi ng 85 1 1.17 1 - -Bookbinding 400 1 0.25 - 2 -Printing N/A 4 - - 2 -Power Station Operators 245 2 0.80 1 3 -Other Stationary Engine Operating 2855 10 0.35 9 16 -Occupations 1.18 Radio and TV Broadcasting 85 7 2 - -Foremen Occupations 1075 1 0.09 1 1 -Inspecting, Testing and Sampling 565 3 0.53 - 3 -Occupations 878 801 Labouring Occupations 7780 746 9.59 -Other Occupations N/A 124 - 107 78 + Not Classified 3326 3676 2859 TOTAL 470970 12405 - 11966 11053 - 45 - TABLE 3.A.8 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA. IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976 BY THE LENGTH OF SHIFT WORKED BY THE INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) YEAR LENGTH OF SHIFT 1976 (%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) 1 - 4 Hours/Day 28 (0.3) 33 (0.4) 18 (0.3) 5 - 6 37 (0.4) 33 (0.4) 18 (0.3) 7 371 (4.0) 478 (5.4) 284 (4.1) 8 7498 (81.0) 6947 (78.7) 5391 (77.0) 9 -10 1171 (12.6) 1192 (13.5) 1148 (16.4) 11-12 146 (1.6)) 142 (1.6) 128 (1.8) 13-14. 4 (0.1) 2 (0.0) 8 (0.1) 15 1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.0) Unknown 3143 3139 4055 TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 46 - TABLE 3.A.9 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, BY THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (ON A 24 HOUR SCALE) (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) TIME 24 HR. . YEAR CLOCKS. 1976 [%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) 01 41 (0.5) 32 (0.4) 44 (0.5) 02 47 (0.5) 39 (0.5) 39 (0.5) 03 33 (0.4) 35 ;0.4) 32 (0.4) 04 31 (0.4) 25 ;0.3) 15 (0.2) 05 21 ;o.2) 27 (0.3) 28 (0.3) 06 41 (0.5) 39 (0.5) 33 (0.4) 07 114 ;i.3) 119 ;i.4) 88 (1.1) 08 361 (4.2) 304 (3.6) 291 (3.6) 09 703 (8.2) 668 ;8.o) 633 (7.9) 10 1069 C 12.4) 986 C 11.8) 900 (11.2) 11 977 C 11.4) 946 C 11.4) 944 (11.8) 12 343 (4.0) 300 (3.6) 285 (3.6) 13 635 (7.4) 632 (7.6) 632 (7.9) 14 1360 .C 15.8) 1258 C 15.1) 1226 (1.5) 15 1145 (' 13.3) 1240 (' 14.9) 1167 (14.6) 16 804 (9.4) 815 (9.8) 814 (10.2) 17 222 (2.6) 253 (3.0) 219 (2.7) 18 133 (1.5) 138 (1.7) 123 (1.5) 19 n o (1-3) 106 (1.3) 123 (1.5) 20 110 (1.3) 107 (1.3) 115 (1.4) 21 96 (1.1) 84 (1.0) 72 (0.9) 22 105 (1.2) 79 (0.9) 100 (1.2) 23 71 (0.8) 67 (0.8) 65 (0.8) 24 22 (0.3) 31 (0.4) 26 (0.3) Unknown 3811 3636 3039 TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 47 - day). Table 3.A.10 shows the number of eye i n ju r i e s reported in 1974, 1975 and 1976 according to the number of hours that were worked on the job be- fore the accident occurred. The greatest proportion of i n j u r i e s occurred during the s i x th hour of the work s h i f t , although a substant ial proportion of i n j u r i e s occurred also during the t h i r d , f i f t h and seventh hours. Table 3.A.11 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the sever i ty estimate of the in ju ry . Because they are e s t i - mates, permanent d i s a b i l i t y i n j u r i e s ( sever i ty #3) are often f i r s t c l a s s i - f i e d as compensation i n j u r i e s ( sever i ty #2) u n t i l the prognosis has been establ i shed. Over the three year per iod, 23 percent of the in jury claims were f o r compensation. Excepting a proportion of less than 0.5% (per- manent d i s a b i l i t i e s ) , the remainder of the reported i n ju r i e s only required medical a id . Table 3.A.12 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the source of the i n ju ry . Approximately 50 percent of the i n - j u r i e s were caused by un ident i f ied p a r t i c l e s , while approximately 20 per- cent were due to metal chips and p a r t i c l e s . The remaining i n j u r i e s were caused pr imar i l y by welding equipment, acids and other chemicals. Table 3.A.13 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the type of in jury incurred. Three-quarters of the i n j u r i e s were a resu l t of being abraded by foreign matter in the eyes while a f u r - ther 15% were due to contact with rad iat ions . The remaining i n j u r i e s were a resu l t of a great var iety of events. Table 3.A.14 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the nature of the i n j u r y , while Table 3.A.15 shows the nature of eye i n ju r i e s in 1976 by the sever i ty estimate. Table 3.A.14 shows that - 48 - TABLE 3.A.10 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BEFORE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) HOUR O F ^ P R ACCIDENT 1976 (X) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) 00 376 (4.7) 310 (3.9) 259 (3.5) 01 715 (8.8) 661 (8.4) 570 (7.7) 02 985 (12.2) 932 (11.9) 897 (12.2) 03 1051 (13.1) 1005 (12.8) 989 (13.4) 04 676 (8.4) 659 (8.4) 564 (7.6) 05 989 (12.3) 957 (12.2) 903 (12.2) 06 1258 (15.6) 1208 (15.3) 1107 (15.0) 07 1137 (14.1) 1197 (15.2) 1134 (15.4) 08 617 (7.7) 683 (8.7) 676 (9.2) 09 145 (1.8) 141 (1.8) 147 (2.0) 10 55 (0.7) 52 (0.7) 70 (0.9) 11 21 (0.3) 22 (0.3) 31 (0.4) 12 21 (0.3) 24 (0.3) 14 (0.2) 13 4 (0.0) 4 (0.1) 5 (0.1) 14 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 5 (0.1) 15 1 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 3 (0.1) 16 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 17 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 19 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) Unknown 4353 4105 3678 TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 49 - TABLE 3.A.11 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA. IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976 BY THE SEVERITY ESTIMATE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) ^ S v v . YEAR SEVERITY^\. ESTIMATE 1976 (%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) No Compensation Medical Aid Only 9534 (76.9) 9133 (76.3) 7721 (69.9) Compensation 2854 (23.0) 2771 (23.2) 2597 (23.5) Permanent Disability 7 (0.1) 40 (0.3) 51 (0.5) Multiple - No Compensation 5 (0.0) 4 (0.0) 1 (0.0) Unknown and Other 7 (0.0) 7 (0.0) 683 (6.2) TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 50 - TABLE 3.A.12 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, BY THE SOURCE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) 1976 (%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) TREND _ _ 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) - 1 (0.0) - - - - -3 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 5 (0.0) -1 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 6 (0.1) 21 (0.2) 27 (0.2) 21 (0.2) -2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 7 (0.1) -2 (0.0) - - - - -3 (0.0) 4 (0.0) 1 (0.0) _ 5 (0.0) 9 (0.1) 11 (0.1) 3 (0.0) 5 (0.0) 5 (0.0) -1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) - - -4 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 5 (0.0) -2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) -189 (1.5) 181 (1.5) 154 (1.4) + 3 (0.0) 8 (0.1) 8 (0.1) -43 (0.3) 58 (0.5) 50 (0.5) -1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -3 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 8 (0.1) -1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) - - -30 (0.2) 38 (0.3) 44 (0.4) + • 7 (0.1) 16 (0.1) 17 (0.2) 6 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 6 (0.1) -_ 4 (0.0) 6 (0.1) 23 (0~2) 26 (0.2) 32 (0.3) + 3 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) -459 (3-7) 437 (3.7) 389 (3.5) 1 (0.0) - - 2 (0.0) -2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -15 (0.1) 14 (0.1) 12 (0.1) -33 (0.3) 28 (0.2) 31 (0.3) -3 (0.0) 8 (0.1) 5 (0.0) -1 (0.0) - - - - -9 (0.1) 14 (0.1) 4 (0.0) -12 (0.1) 16 (0.1) 24 (0.2) 1 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 6 (0.1) + 8 (0.1) 17 (0.1) 8 (0.1) -5 (0.0) 12 (0.1) 15 (0.1) 1 (0.0) - - 2 (0.0) -2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) -1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -8 (0.1) 11 (0.1) 6 (0.1) -13 (0.1) 8 (0.1) 13 (0.1) -3 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -3 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -1 (0.0) - - - - -1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) - - -2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) - - -1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 6 (0.1) -1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -6 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -191 (1.5) 136 (1.1) 148 (1.3) -2 (0.0) - - - - -1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 6 (0.1) -11 (0.1) 9 (0.1) 5 (0.0) _ 4 (0.0) 4 (0.0) -7 (o'l) 7 (0.1) 6 (0.0) - INJURY SOURCE .YEAR Air pressure High pressure, deep diving High pressure Insects Persons Bones Fur, hair, wool Pressure lines Boxes, crates, cartons Containers, NEC Bui 1 dings-office-plant-residential-etc. Building:, and structures, NEC Ceramic Items, NEC Acids Alcohols Alkalies Aromatic compounds Halogenated compounds Other metallic compounds Oxides of nitrogen Cement or calcium silicates Chlorine and chlorine compounds Disinfectants Resins Sulphur and sulphur compounds Hydrogen sulphide Chemicals, chemical compounds, NEC Gloves Coal Crude o i l , fuel oil Gasoline and liquid hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon gases Keronsene Lubricating and cutting oils Naptha solvents Petroleum asphalts Coal tars Coal and petroleum products Motors Conductors Switchboard and bus structures Electrical apparatus, NEC Flame and fire Smoke Grains and grain product's Meats and meat products Milk and milk products Vegetables and vegetable products Food products, NEC Cabinets Chairs, benches, etc Furniture, fixtures, furnishings Glass items Axe Chisel Crowbar, pry bar Hammer, sledge, mallet Knife Pliers, tongs - 51 - TABLE. 3.A.12 (Continued) INJURY SOURCE~~~~ ~~~~^~-^_YEAR^ 1976 (X) 1975 (%) 1974 W TREND Rope, chain 9 (0.1) 2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) - Saw 1 (0.0) - - 1 (0.0) -Screwdriver 22 (0.2) 12 (0.1) 30 (0.3) -Wrench 16 (0.1) 14 (0.1) 16 (0.1) -Hand tools, not powered 6 (0.0) 9 (0.1) 3 (0.0) -Drill 6 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 7 (0.0) -Hammer, tamper 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -Welding tools . 5 (0.0) 9 (0.1) 5 (0.0) -Cranes, derricks, 1 (0.0) - - - - -Jacks (mechanical) 2 (0.0) - - 3 (0.0) -Chokers and tongs 1 (0.0) - - 1 (0.0) -Infectious and parasitic agents 3 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -Extension ladders 1 (0.0) - - - - -Straight, single, ladders 1 (0.0) - - - - -Ladders, NEC 1 (0.0) - - 2 (0.0) -Water 6 (0.0) 6 (0.1) 5 (0.0) -Other liquids, NEC 15 (0.1) 15 (0.1) 25 (0.2) -Agricultural machines, NEC 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) - - -Buffers, polishers, sanders, qrinders 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -Earth moving & highway const machines NEC 1 (0.0) - - 2 (0.0) -Office machines 1 (0.0) - - - - -Machines, NEC 2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 7 (0.1) -Chains, ropes, cables 20 (0.2) 14 (0.1) 19 (0.2) -Nails, spikes, tacks 127 (1.0) 63 (0.5) 53 (0.5) Nails and staples 12 (0.1) 10 (0.1) 7 (0.1) Metal chips and particTes 2617 (21.1) 2238 (18.7) 2477 (22.4) -Molten metal 201 (1.6) 232 (1.9) 187 (1.7) -Structural members 8 (0.1) 7 (0.1) 14 (0.1) -Pipe, NEC 16 (0.1) 9 (0.1) 6 (0.1) + Metal items, NEC 142 (1.1) 162 (1.4) 155 (1.4) -Rocks, stones and sand 39 (0.3) 65 (0.5) 55 (0.5) -Mineral items, nonmetallic, NEC 14 (0.1) 44 (0.4) 105 (0.9) Paper and pulp items, NEC Particles (unidentified) 17 (0.1) 26 (0.2) 16 (0.1) -6066 (48.9) 6205 (51.9) 5037 (45.6) -Trees, saplings 1 (0.0) 11 (0.1) 5 (0.0) -Branches, limbs 57 (0.5) 51 (0.4) 75 (0.7) -Snags 4 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 4 (0.0) -Plants, trees, vegetation, NEC 8 (0.1) 8 (0.1) 8 (0.1) -Plastic items, NEC 16 (0.1) 18 (0.2) 17 (0.2) -Isotopes or irradiated substances for industrial or medical use 1 (0.0) - - _ - -Sun 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -Ultraviolet equipment 7 (0.1) 5 (0.0) 4 (0.0) -Welding equipment, electric arc 1010 (8.1) 998 (8.3) 893 (8.1) t X-ray and fluoroscope equipment 1 (0.0) - - - - -Laser equipment 5 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) -Radiating substances or equipment, NEC 5 (0.0) 18 (0.2) 21 (0.2) Soaps, detergents, cleaning compounds, NEC 78 (0.6) 98 (0.8) 63 (0.6) -Steam 7 (0.1) 4 (0.0) 4 (0.0) -Textile items, NEC 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -Highway vehicles, powered 2 (0.0) 10 (0.1) 9 (0.1) -Handtrucks, dollies 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 3 (0.0) -Mules, tractors 1 (0.0) - - - - -Lumber 11 (0.1) 9 (0.1) 14 (0.1) -Veneer, Plywood 8 (0.1) - - 3 (0.0) -Slivers, splinters, etc 396 (3.2) 147 (172) 122 (1.1) + Chips 59 (0.5) 15 (0.1) 38 (0.3) -Wood items, NEC 19 (0.2) 39 (0.3) 58 (0.5) Ground (outdoors) 1 (0.0) - - 4 (0.0) -Concrete items, NEC 2 (0.0) 8 (0.1) 54 (0.5) Miscellaneous, NEC 66 (0.5) 69 (0.6) 84 (0.8) Unknown, unidentified 85 (0.7) 106 (0.9) 126 (l.D TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 t - 52 - TABLE 3.A.13 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976 BY THE TYPE OF ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) ACCIDENT nPE^"""-*-^^ 1976 (%) 1975 {%) 1974 TREND Struck against moving object 1 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 2 (0.0) _ Step on stationary object - (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) - Bumping into stationary object 9 (0.1) 7 (0.1) 19 (0.2) - Struck against stationary object 39 (0.3) 25 (0.2) 38 (0.3) - Struck by falling Object during handling 8 (0.1) 2 (0.0) 17 (0.2) - Struck by falling object 20 (0.2) 28 (0.2) 61 (0.6) Flying object due to explosion 12 (0.1) 15 (0.1) 25 (0.2) + Flying object thrown back by a machine 12 (0.1) 28 (0.2) 451 ( .1) Struck by flying object NEC 237 (1.9) 292 (2.4) 250 (2.3) - Struck by objects being hoisted, handled 136 (l.D 127 (1.1) 130 (1.2) - Struck by NEC 266 (2.1) 313 (2.6) 293 (2.7) - Fall from elevation - on stairs - - -. - 1 (0.0) -Fall from stationary vehicles - - - - 2 (0.0) - Fall from chairs, sawhorses, kegs 1 (0.0) - - - Fall from buildings, roofs - - - - 1 (0.0) Fall from poles, trees, logs 1 (0.0) - - - - - Fall into or against objects 6 (0.0) 6 (0.1) 8 (0.1) - Fall to walkway - - - - 1 (0.0) - Fall to walkway or working surface - - 1 (0.0) 3 (0.0) - Fall to walkway or working surface NEC 1 (0.0) - - - Caught in a moving and a stationary object 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) - Caught 1n, under, or between NEC 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 2 (0.0) - Abraded by leaning, kneeling, or sitting - - - . - 1 (0.0) -Abraded by objects being handled - - - - 4 (0.0) - Abraded by vibrating objects - - - - 2 (0.0) - Abraded by foreign matter in eyes 9411 (75.9) 8784 (73.4) 7599 (68.8) + Abraded by repetition of pressure - - 12 (0.1) 15 (0.1) Abraded by foreign matter 1n nose, ears 36 (0.7) 79 (0.7) 90 (0.8) Rubbed or abraded NEC 7 (0.1) 14 (0.1) 31 (0.3) Bodily reaction from voluntary motions - - - - 1 (0.0) - Overexertion in lifting objects 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 5 (0.0) Overexertion 1n carrying objects - - 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) - Overexertion NEC 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) - Contact with electric current 3 (0.0) - - 2 (0.0) - General heat - atmosphere or environment - - 1 (0.0) 4 (0.0) - General cold - atmosphere or environment - (1~3) - - 1 (0.0) - Hot objects or substances 163 121 (1.0) 164 (1.5) - Contact with radiations, caustics, toxic and noxious substances: By absorption 7 (0.1) 199 (1.7) 438 (4.0) By inhalation of water - - 4 (0.0) 1 (0.0) - By inhalatin NEC 3 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 6 (0.1) - Contact with radiations, caustics 1945 (15.7) 1793 (15.0) 1242 (11.2) Human assault 12 (0.1) 13 (0.1) 6 (0.1) - Uncalssified, Insufficient data 63 (0.5) 82 (0.7) 126 (1.1) + TOTAL 12405 11966 11C53 t NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified - 53 - TABLE 3.A.14 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976 BY THE NATURE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NATURT^^J^AR OF INJURY 1976 (%) 1975 {%) 1974 (%) TREND Enucleation 2 (0.0) 5 (0.0) 1 (0.0) _ Burn or Scald (heat) 158 (1.3) 142 (1.2) 171 (1.5) -Electric burn 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) -Contusion, Bruise 206 (1.7) 149 (1.3) 173 (1.5) -Cut, Laceration 113 (0.9) 153 (1.3) 249 (2.3) Hernia, Rupture - (0.0) . - (0.0) 2 (0.0) -Scratches, Abrasions 9910 (79.9) 9430 (78.8) 8647 (78.2) T Sprains, Strains - (0.0) - (0.0) 6 (0.1) -Multiple Injuries - (0.0) - (0.0) 1 (0.0) -Occup. Injury NEC 14 (0.1) 38 (0.3) 62 (0.6) + Burn (chemical) 922 (7.4) 978 (8.2) 763 (6.9) -Contagious Disease (0.0) - (0.0) 11 (0.1) -Dermatitis 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) -Freezing, Frostbite - (0.0) - (0.0) 1 (0.0) -Irritation - (0.0) - (0.0) 6 (0.1) -Poisoning, systemic - (0.0) pa (0.0) 8 (0.1) -Radiation effects 892 (7.2) 1031 (8.6) 892 (8.1) Radiation NEC 1 (0.0) - (0.0) - (0.0) -Nonionizing Radiation 147 (1.2) - (0.0) - (0.0) -Non-personal damage - (0.0) - (0.0) 1 (0.0) -Unclassified disorder 38 (0.3) 36 (0.3) 55 (0.5) TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified - 54 - TABLE 3.A.15 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, BY THE NATURE.OF INJURY, BY THE SEVERITY ESTIMATE (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) oi M u lt ip le  No  Co m pe ns at io n w  Pe rm an en t D is a b il it y M  Co m pe ns at io n M  N o Co m pe ns at io n M ed ic al  A id  O nl y No t C la ss if ie d ROW TOTAL NATURE OF INJURY COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT oi M u lt ip le  No  Co m pe ns at io n w  Pe rm an en t D is a b il it y M  Co m pe ns at io n M  N o Co m pe ns at io n M ed ic al  A id  O nl y No t C la ss if ie d Unclassified Disorder 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 26.3 0.4 0.1 28 73.7 0.3 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 0.3 Non-Ionizing Radiation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 23.8 1.2 0.3 112 76.2 1.2 0.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147 1.2 Ionizing Radiation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Radiation Effects 1 0.1 33.3 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 332 37.2 11.6 2.7 558 62.6 5.9 4.5 1 0.1 16.7 0.0 892 7.2 Dermatitis 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Chemical Burns z 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 202 21.9 7.1 1.6 718 77.9 7.5 5.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 922 7.4 Occupational Injury-NEC 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 35.7 0.2 0.0 9 64.3 0.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.1 Scratches, Abrasions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 42.9 0.0 2105 21.2 73.8 17.0 7796 78.7 81.8 62.8 6 0.1 83.3 0.0 9910 79.9 Cuts, Lacerations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2.7 42.9 0.0 40 35.4 1.4 0.3 70 61.9 0.7 0.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 113 0.9 Contusions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70 34.0 2.5 0.6 136 66.0 1.4 1.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206 1.7 Electric Burn 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 Burn (Heat) 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53 33.5 1.9 0.4 105 66.5 1.1 0.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 158 1.3 Enucleation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 so. 1 : 14.3 0.0 1 50.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o i COLUMN TOTAL 3 0.0 7 u °- 1 2854 23.0 9534 76.9 1 • T ™ 1 0.0 12405 100.0 NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified - 55 - three categories (of nature of injury) account fo r a major ity of eye i n - j u r i e s (95.7%): Radiation e f fect s ( i . e . from welding f lash (8.4%), chemi- cal burns (7.4%) and scratches or abrasions (79.9%)). The eye in jury s t a t - i s t i c s fo r 1974 and 1975 show s im i l a r trends. Table 3.A.15 shows that these three categories account fo r 96.4% of the medical-a id-only ( sever i ty #1) eye i n j u r i e s ; rad iat ion e f fect s (7.1%), chemical burns (7.5%) and scratches or abrasions (81.8%). The same categories of nature of in jury ( in 1976) accounted fo r 93.7% of the l o s t time (sever i ty #2) i n j u r i e s ; rad iat ion e f fect s (12.8%), chemical burns (7.1%), and scratches or abra- sions (73.8%). Table 3.A.16 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s i n 1974, 1975 and 1976 according to whether f i r s t aid was rendered at the time of the accident. In 1976, 40% of the to ta l number of reported eye i n ju r i e s were provided with f i r s t a id . This proportion has increased s l i g h t l y since 1974. Table 3.A.17 shows the number of reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 according to the p o s s i b i l i t y that language d i f f i c u l t y may have contributed to the in ju ry . In 1976, 0.6% of the reported i n j u r i e s had some language (communication) problem associated with them. - 56 - TABLE 3.A.16 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER FIRST AID WAS RENDERED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) ^ ^ - ^ ^ YEAR FIRST A I D ^ ^ ^ ^ 1976 (%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) Yes 3485 (40) 3380 (41) 2897 (37) No 5266 (60) 4780 (59) 4870 (63) Unknown 3654 3806 3286 TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 TABLE 3.A.17 TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1974, 1975 AND 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER A LANGUAGE PROBLEM WAS A FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) YEAR LANGUAGE PROBLEM 1976 (%) 1975 (%) 1974 (%) Yes 51 (0.6) 39 (0.5) 41 (0.5) No 8672 (99.4) 8198 (99.5) 7894 (99.5) Unknown 3682 3729 3118 TOTAL 12405 11966 11053 - 57 - Part 2 - Detai led Results - High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes Figure 3.A.2 shows a frequency d i s t r i bu t i on of standard industry classes (S.I.C. Code), showing various rates of eye i n ju r i e s in A lberta in 1976. The graph i s exponential in nature, with the greatest number of industry classes having low rates and progress ively fewer industry classes having higher rates of eye i n j u r i e s . With two exceptions, industry classes with an eye in jury rate of greater than 9 i n j u r i e s per 100 man years worked were selected for f u r - ther study. These are l i s t e d in Table 3.A.18. The two industry classes with eye in jury rates greater than 9/100 man years, but with very small workforces, were excluded from the study because even one in jury gave an a r t i f i c i a l l y high eye in jury rate. These were classes 305 (wire manu- f ac tu re r s ) , and 306 (hardware manufacturers). Tables 3.A.19 to 3.A.29 concern selected eye in jury cha rac te r i s t i c s ( va r i ab le s ) , fo r sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s , taken from the Alberta W.C.B. Stat - i s t i c a l Master F i l e , while Tables 3.A.30 .to 3.A.40 are concerned with i n - formation fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . (These tables are found at the end of 3.A.R., Part 2.) The eye in ju ry c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , or va r iab les , that were selected are: Var iable (Sev. #1) (Sev. #2) 3.A.19 3.A.30 Prel iminary information concerning the industry classes 3.A.20 3.A.31 Age of Injured Worker 3.A.21 3.A.32 Occupation of Injured Worker 3.A.22 3.A.33 Length of Sh i f t Worked per Day 3.A.23 3.A.34 Time of Day the Accident Occurred (cont 'd) - 58 - FIGURE 3.A.2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RATE OF EYE INJURIES FOR INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS IN ALBERTA (w.C.B. 1976) 111 rrhi- HIGH EYE INJURY RISK CLASSES 1~i i H ' — i - i - i - i 10 1 5 i RATE OF EYE INJURIES PER 100 MAN YEARS WORKED - 59 - TABLE 3,A.18 LISTING OF FIVE DIGIT STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSES (S.I.C., 1971) SELECTED FOR DETAILED EYE INJURY ANALYSIS (SHOWN IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR IN TABLES 3.A.19 TO 3.A.40) INDUSTRY CLASS DESCRIPTION 31100 Mfg. of Agricultural Implements 30700 Mfg. of Heating Equipment 30800 Automotive Machine Shops 30801 Machine Shops 29100 Mfg. of Steel •• 02 Foundry - Iron and Steel 34300 Mfg. of Lime 32400 Mfg. of Holiday Trailers and Campers •• 01 Mfg. of Truck Bodies and Cabs •• 03 Mfg. of Wooden Truck Boxes 32300 Mfg. of Vehicles 30200 Fabrication of Structural Steel 89400 Blacksmith Shop • 01 Welding Shop 30100 Mfg., Fabrication and Repair of Metal Products - 60 - Variable (Cont'd) (Sev. #1) (Sev. #2) 3.A.24 3.A.35 Hours worked before Accident 3.A.25 3.A.36 Source of Injury 3.A.26 3.A.37 Type of Accident 3.A.27 3.A.38 Nature of Injury 3.A.28 3.A.39 F i r s t Aid Provided 3.A.29 3.A.40 Language problem involved in Injury There were only 4 i n j u r i e s in these selected classes that were classed as sever i ty #2 (permanent d i s a b i l i t y ) or sever i ty #5 (mult iple i n j u r i e s which involve medical aid only). These were found in classes 301, 302 and 311. Instead of looking only at these few permanent d i s a b i l i t y i n j u r i e s i t was decided to look at a l l permanent d i s a b i l i t i e s that were reported in 1976, regardless of industry (see Part 3). F i f teen industry classes (using 5 d i g i t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ) were analyzed i n d i v i d u a l l y , with the same var iables used in the general analysis (Part 1). As f i f t e e n f i v e d i g i t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s arose from an i n i t i a l number of ten three d i g i t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , the rates of eye i n ju r i e s in Tables 3.A.19 and 3.A.30 no longer fo l low an ascending trend. Industry class 29100, for i n - stance, shows a low rate of eye i n j u r y , t h i s being masked and averaged in the three d i g i t code 291 by industry class 29102 which has a high incidence of eye i n j u r i e s . The analysis i s not hampered by th i s f ac to r , however, but i t must be taken into account. Table 3.A.20 shows that a high percentage ( s im i l a r to the general re - su l t s discussed previously) of sever i ty #1 eye i n ju r i e s occur in workers less than 30 years of age. Workers who incur sever i ty #1 eye i n ju r i e s in the machine shop and steel f ab r i ca t i on industr ies are older in general. Table 3.A.31 indicates a s im i l a r trend fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , although - 6 1 - in the machine shop and steel f ab r i ca t i on i ndus t r i e s , the more serious i n - j u r i e s occur in the s l i g h t l y older worker. On the other hand, automotive machine shops and industr ies manufacturing ag r i cu l tu ra l implements and heating equipment incur more serious i n j u r i e s in t h e i r s l i g h t l y younger workers. In a majority of the industr ies c i ted in Table 3.A.21, welders and p i p e f i t t e r s incur the greatest number of sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s . Machinists, metal shapers and formers and mechanics top the l i s t in three indust r ie s . Each of these occupations involve handling metal products. Much the same s i tua t i on ex i s t s in Table 3.A.32 f o r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . Welders do not f igure as prominently, but th i s i s due mainly to the lower number of sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s which allow other occupations to dominate by v i r - tue of chance. The majority of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , in a l l industry c lasses, were most prevalent among workers who worked the normal 8 hour s h i f t (Tables 3.A.22 and 3.A.33). In f i v e out of twelve industry classes a r e l a t i v e l y greater proportion of sever i ty #1 than sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s occurred in the 9 hour s h i f t , while another f i v e classes showed the opposite trend. The remaining classes showed no dif ference or could not be compared due to lack of numbers. Severity #1 eye i n j u r i e s were prevalent among workers who worked 7 hour s h i f t s , while very few sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s occurred in t h i s category. Tables 3.A.23 and 3.A.34 show that the majority of industry classes have eye in jury peaks at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Welding shops and manufac- turers of ag r i cu l tu ra l equipment had peaks occurring at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. Machine shops and vehic le manufacturers showed peaks at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., while t r a i l e r manufacturers showed peaks at 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., - 62 - and metal products fabr icators at 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. The duration between peaks var ied between three and f i ve hours. A l l industry classes excep- t ing cab and truck body manufacturers and heating equipment manufacturers showed a higher peak in the afternoon, while the l a t t e r showed a higher peak in the morning. The majority of high r i sk industry classes studied in Table 3.A.25 show that between 30% and 40% of the sever i ty #1 eye i n j u r i e s are caused by metal chips and pa r t i c l e s . Among steel manufacturing industr ies and t r a i l e r manufacturers th i s f igure i s lower. Lime manufacturers show no in jury source of th i s k ind. Metal chips and pa r t i c l e s contribute to a high proportion of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s also shown in Table 3.A.36. Automotive machine shops, t r a i l e r manufacturers and vehic le manufacturers show lower rates. A high proportion of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n j u r i e s are caused by un ident i f i ed pa r t i c l e s and welding equipment. A l l industry c lasses, with the exception of lime manufacturers, show in Table 3.A.26 that a very high proportion of eye i n ju r i e s occur as a re su l t of foreign matter being rubbed or abraded on the anter ior segment. Table 3.A.37 shows that th i s proportion i s lower, although s t i l l high, f o r sever i ty #2 eye i n j u r i e s . Contact with radiat ions and caustics i s the second most prevalent type of sever i ty #2 accident. Truck body and cab manufacturers and lime manufacturers show a higher than average incidence of sever i ty #1 i n ju r i e s in th i s category. Hot objects (which could i n - clude molten metal and sparks) were responsible fo r a moderate proportion of l o s t work time i n ju r i e s in industr ies concerned with the manufacture of ag r i cu l tu ra l implements and heating equipment. In general, t h i s type of accident var iable does not prove f r u i t f u l in t h i s analysis as i t i s highly generalized and repet i t i ou s . - 63 - Excepting lime manufacturers with 40%, Table 3.A.27 shows that super- f i c i a l abrasions to the cornea were responsible fo r 78% to 100% of the sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s in the high eye in jury r i sk industry c lasses. The range becomes greater, and the proportion lower, fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s (Table 3.A.38) (e.g. between 62% and 91%). Notable exceptions are lime manufacturers and vehic le manufacturers with proportions of 0 and 42% res- pect ive ly . The proportion of sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s due to ion i z ing r ad i a - tions i s va r iab le , between 2.2% and 14.7%. With the exception of lime manufacturers, where no sever i ty #1 in ju ry i s due to rad ia t ions , no trends in the nature of the i n ju r i e s can be seen and var ia t ion i s l i k e l y due to chance. A high proportion of sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s i s caused by rad ia - t ion e f f ec t s . Again, the prevalence of th i s in jury among high eye in jury r i sk industry classes i s highly var iab le and ranges from 9% to 51%. Sev- e r i t y #2 eye i n ju r i e s caused by chemical burns are prevalent in lime manu- fac turer s , automotive machine shops and s t ructura l steel f ab r i ca t i on plants. Severity #2 eye i n ju r i e s due to contact with hot substances appear con- s i s t e n t l y but are not in high proport ion. The provis ion of f i r s t aid among these selected industry classes i s highly var iab le . Tables 3.A.28 and 3.A.39 show that i t ranges from 20% to 80% fo r sever i ty #1 eye i n ju r i e s and 13% to 68% fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , respect ive ly. The provis ion of f i r s t aid serv ices , e spec ia l l y fo r l o s t time i n j u r i e s , however, i s extremely low. Tables 3.A.29 and 3.A.40 show that language problems did not play a s i g n i f i c an t part in the causation of sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s among the selected industry classes although i t i s notable that language problems were involved in f i v e sever i ty #1 eye in jury cases in the metal products f a b r i c a t i o n , manufacture and repair industry. TABLE 3.A.19 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) INDUSTRY CLASS AG RI CU LT UR AL  IM PL EM EN TS  HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E SH OP  MA CH IN E SHO P MF G STE EL FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  I RO N LI ME  HO LI DA Y TR AI LE RS , CA MP ER S TR UC K BO DI ES , CAB S WO OD EN  TR UC K BO XE S VE HI CL ES  FA BR IC AT IO N STR UCT URA L ST EE L BL AC KS MI TH SHO P t—1 a _ i U l 3 5 FA B, MF G & RE PA IR MET AL PR OD UC TS PRELIMINARY INFORMATION AG RI CU LT UR AL  IM PL EM EN TS  HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E SH OP  MA CH IN E SHO P MF G STE EL FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  I RO N LI ME  HO LI DA Y TR AI LE RS , CA MP ER S TR UC K BO DI ES , CAB S WO OD EN  TR UC K BO XE S VE HI CL ES  FA BR IC AT IO N STR UCT URA L ST EE L BL AC KS MI TH SHO P FA B, MF G & RE PA IR MET AL PR OD UC TS POPULATION OF INDUSTRY CLASS (MAN YEARS) 513 291 843 2843 678 593 94 1494 818 63 310 1814 19 1822 2848 NUMBER OF SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES (1976) 34 18 54 244 35 80 IP. 139 94 _3 35 196_ 1 239 399 RATE OF EYE INJURIES/100 MAN YEARS 6.6 6.2 6.4 O.G 5.2 13.5 10.6 9.3 11.5 4.8 11.3 10.8 5.3 13.1 14.0 PROPORTION OF TOTAL INJURIES SEVERITY #1 67% 62% 75% 77% 95% 70% 83% 85% 66% 60% 74% 66% 100% 77% 68% OCCURRENCE CLASSIFICATION 8-03 6-02 5-01 8-02 8-05 0-05 19-02 8-04 8-02 8-04 8-03 8-02 8-02 8-02 8-02 0-03 PROPORTION OF INJURED WORKERS OF • THE MALE SEX 97% 09% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 84% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 906% 99% TABLE 3.A.20 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE INJURED WORKER, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NO. (X) AGE OF INJURED WORKER INDUSTRY CLASS 35 cn CL. HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E SH OP  MA CH IN E SH OP  MF G ST EE L FO UN DA RY : ST EE L,  I RO N LI ME  HO LI DA Y TR AI LE RS , CA MP ER S TR UC K BO DI ES , CA BS  WO OD EN  TR UC K BO XE S VE HI CL ES  •F AB RI CA TI ON  ST RU CT UR AL  S TE EL  4 1 1 (1.6) (2.9) (0.5) 1 5 6 1 1 3 3 (5.6) (2.0) (7.5) (10.0) (0.7) (3.2) (1.5) 2 11 3 2 2 1 4 (3.7) (4.5) (3.8) (1.4) (2.1) (2.9) (2.0) 1 11 2 4 1 5 4 3 10 (1.9) (4.5) (5.7) (5.0) (10.0) (3.6) (4.3) (8.6) (5.1) 5 22 2 4 1 7 3 1 2 13 (9.2) (9.1) (5.7) (5.0) (10.0) (5.0) (3.2) (33.2) (5.7) (6.6) 1 5 25 3 7 2 3 7 3 24 (5.6) (9.2) (10.2) (8.6) (8.8) (20.0) (2.2) (7.4) (8.6) (12.2) 3 6 51 6 10 15 11 5 42 (16.6) (11.1) (20.8) (17.0) (12.5) (10.8) (11.7) (14.3) (21.4) 1 11 43 8 13 1 17 14 5 44 (5.6) (20.4) (17.6) (22.9) (16.3) (10.0) (12.2) (14.9) (14.3) (22.4) 8 15 60 12 22 2 49 40 2 12 40 (44.4) (27.8) (24.6) (34.3) (27.5) (20.0) (35.3) (42.6) (66.7) (34.3) (20.4) 4 9 11 1 11 2 39 9 3 13 (22.2) (16.7) (4.5) (2.9) (13.8) (20.0) (28.1) (9.6) (8.6) (6.6) 1 1 1 1 2 (0.4) (0.7) (1.1) (2.9) (1.0) , I 8 , (100) , 5 4 » (100) 244 , (100) 35 (100) 80 (100) (io§) (IS ( l O T j ) (10(1) ( l f t , 1 9 6v (100) z: o a. ca to CD z » a _ i ui 3 «t to a. h- L U (_) Q £ =3 O oO O CC cu a. « £ U l u. 3E -70+ YRS 65-69 YRS 60-64 YRS 55-59 YRS 50-54 YRS 45-49 YRS 40-44 YRS 35-39 YRS 30-34 YRS 25-29 YRS 20-24 YRS 15-19 YRS £14 YRS MISSING VALUES TOTAL 1 (2.9) 3 (8.8) 3 (8.8) 2 (5.9) 3 (8.8) 2 (5.9) 11 (32.4) 9 (26.5) 34 (100) 1 (100) (100) (0.4) 3 (1.3) 13 (5.4) 18 (7.5) 21 (8.8) 35 (14.6) 55 (23.0) 63 (26.4) 28 (11.7) 2 (0.8) 239 (100) 12 (3.0)| 5 (1.3)1 11 (2.8)| 19 (4.8)| 22 (5.5)| 47 (11.8)| 61 (15.3)| 97 (24.3)| 114 (28.6)| 30 (7.5)1 399 , (lOOH TABLE 3.A.21 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE INJURED WORKER, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER NO. (%) INDUSTRY CLASS CO cc DC _ l Q_ U J - J - < o o a. h- AG RI CU LT UR A IM PL EM EN TS  H EA TI NG  EQ UI PM EN T AU TO M O TI VE  M AC H IN E SH O ; M AC H IN E SH OP  MF G ST EE L FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  IR O N  U i s: »—• — i HO LI DA Y T R A ! CA M PE RS  TR UC K BO D IE ! CA BS  W OO DE N TR UC K BO XE S CO U i _ J U i > FA BR IC A TI O N  ST RU CT UR AL  «  BL AC KS M IT H  SH OP  CO z o — 1 FA B. M FG  &  R E  M ET AL  PR OD UC  12 (35.3) 3 (16.7) 10 (18.5) 72 (29.5) 5 (14.3) 13 (16.2) 3 (30.0) 49 (35.3) 1 (0.7) 17 (18.1) 7 (20.0) 53 (27.0) 72 (30.1) 90 (22.6) (O.J) (0.3) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7) (0.5) 1 (10.0) 1 (1.9) (2.9) 1 (1.2) 1 (0.7) (0.3) 2 (0.5) 1 (10.0) 1 (10.0) 1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 4 (5.0) 1 (0.4) (8.6) 2 (2.5) 1 (10.0) 1 (5.6) 1 (2.9) 2 (2,5) 2 (0.5) 17 (31.5) 2 (0.8) 69 (28.3) 2 (5.7) 2 (2.5) (0.7) 3 (8.6) 2 (1.0) (0.4) (0.4) 10 (2.5) (0.4) 2 (0.5) NOT CLASSIFIED CIVIL ENGINEERS MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BOOKKEEPERS SHIPPING CLERKS COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS FIRE-FIGHTERS JANITORS SUPERVISORS: DRILLING OPERATIONS ROTARY WELL-DRILLING CRUSHING AND GRINDING OCCUPATIONS SUPERVISORS: ORE TREATING OPERATIONS METAL FURNACEMEN METAL CASTING PLATING, METAL OCCUPATIONS LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM METAL PROCESSING LABOURING IN FOOD & BEVERAGE TOOL-AND-DIE MAKING MACHINIST FOREMEN:METAL SHAPING AND FORMING FORGING OCCUPATIONS TABLE 3.A.21 - CONTINUED SHEET-METAL WORKERS METALWORKING-HACHINE OPERATORS WELDING ANO FLAME CUTTING INSPECTING: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING BOILERMAKERS. PLATERS HETAL SHAPING AND FORMING FILING. GRINDING. BUFFING OCCUPATIONS MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS ELECTRICAL EQUIP FABRICATING & ASSEMBLING MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS FOREMEN: PRODUCT FAB.. ASSEMBLING & REPAIR LABOURING IN PRODUCT FAB.ASSEHB. & REPAIR EXCAVATING. GRADING ELECTRICAL POWER LINEMEN CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS FOREMEN: OTHER CONSTRUCTION TRADES CARPENTERS CONCRETE FINISHING PAINTERS. PAPERHANGERS PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION LT UR AL  1E NT S LE R S,  TE EL  OC < CO LT UR AL  1E NT S r~ Z ID Ul O- o UJ 3: > i/> P UJ —i Ul UJ z o cc >- s h- >~ CO CO UJ Q O CO */> UJ X o CO Ul CI z O -1 PS DC 0- 13 Ul t_> ad => a -§ C9 CI. A G RI CU  IM PL EM  z s: P °" 2 3- X UJ § ? ~ P 1 §3 z x a. o o 2£ h-f) o U-z: OC • a _i z Ul =3 UJ £ co UJ z: -i <C al O UJ t— Q. _ J X S 3 O CO =3 ca PS z UJ Z£ a <_> Q => s i— - J ac Ul >• ce 3 ca a: < >-u. l/> o a- 3 S ca to Z a d U- x-5i u x 1 (1.2) 1 (1.1) 2 (5.7) 4 (2.0) (0.5) 63 (32.1) 1 (0.5) (0.5) 11 (2.8) 9 (26.5) 6 (33.3) 3 (5.6) 62 (25.4) 4 (11.4) 3 (3.7) 4 (2.9) 42 (44.7) 2 (66.7) 17 (48.6) 1 (100) 144 (60.3) 194 (48.6) 1 (2.9) 4 (1.6) (0.4) 6 (1.5) 20 (25.0) (0.7) 1 (0.7) 2 (1.4) 55 (39.6) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.0) (0.1) 4 (1.0) 2 (1.0) (0.4) 1 (2.9) 5 (14.7) 5 (27.8) 11 (20.4) 7 (13.0) 1 (1.9) 4 (1.6) (2.9) 3 (1.2) 1 (2.9) 6 (17.1) (2.9) 1 (1.2) 7 (8.7) 1 (10.0) 16 (17.0) 9 (9.6) 3 (3.2) 1 (33.3) 1 (2.9) 2 (5.7) (0.5) (0.5) 1 (1.5) 5 (2.6) (0.4) 6 (1.5) 1 (0.3) (0.3) 14 (3.5) (0.7) (5.6) 1 (2.9) 1 (2.9) (0.3) 2 (1.4) (0.4) (0.4) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.3) 1 (0.3) (2.9) 1 (5.6) 2 (0.8) 1 (0.4) (0.4) 1 (2.9) (5.0) 2 (2.1) (2.9) (2.9) 5 (2.6) 25 (12.8) 3 (1.5) 2 (1.0) (0.3) 28 (7.0) 2 (0.5) TOTAL HO ISTING  OCCUPATIONS LONGSHOREMEN M ATERIAL-HANDLING  EQUIPM ENT OPERATORS FOREMEN OCCUPATIONS INSPECTING . TESTIN G . GRADING &  SAM PLING LABOURING OCCUPATIONS OTHER OCCUPATIONS TABLE 3.A .21 - CONTINUED 34 (100) (2.9) (14.7) AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 18 (100) tn cn —« HEATING EQUIPMENT 54 (100) - j AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP *-• ro O J > o X . (0.4) 12 (4.9) (0.4) MACHINE SHOP 35 (100) (8.6) (2.9) (11.4) MFG STEEL 80 (100) ro » .—» u> —• ro > j « ) r o - j tn ro FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON 10 (100) 2 (20.0) LIME 139 (100) 12 (8.6) HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS 94 (100) ro —• TRUCK BODIES. CABS o WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 35 (100) VEHICLES 196 (100) *—* — .—. CD O — ' —it/i —' o ro FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL o o — BLACKSMITH SHOP •— ro O u * O U3 ro o WELDING 399 (100) tn ro O o FAB,MFG t REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS - 89 - TABLE 3.A.22 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF SHIFT WORKED BY THE INJURED WORKER, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS S5 CO - J L U 3 5 a. z » co cc L U a. X co L U CO _ j LU L U Z 1 FA B, MF G & RE PA IR  ME TA L PR OD UC TS  NO. 00 eg L U Z X 1-4 CL AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E S HI  L U z 1—t - J L U L U h- «/> o cc >-cc - O _ J a o to >- cc < L U Q _1 I—I O L U X o CO z L U i£ to L U _ l o O _ l P S W O X < to z . FA B, MF G & RE PA IR  ME TA L PR OD UC TS  LENGTH OF SHIFT WORKED * — * . — J CC Cu ts x <* i - i J— L U O * X L U AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E S HI  X Q . C_> O to LL. X Z L U = ) L U O (— Lu L O L U X . « —J »—4 *—t o S X r- O C O zz) ca ac < t- C_) O U 8 3 *~* X L U CC =3 CO CC < . r - U. CO O O - 3 S co co a _ i L U FA B, MF G & RE PA IR  ME TA L PR OD UC TS  UNKNOWN 8 6 4 61 3 9 43 25 5 49 88 89 5 THRU 6 HOURS PER DAY 7 HOURS PER DAY 8 HOURS PER DAY 9 THRU 10 HOURS PER DAY 11 THRU 12 HOURS PER DAY 1 (3.8) 22 (84.6) 3 (11.5) 12 (100) 46 (92.0) 4 (8.0) 2 (1.1) 1 (0.5) 163 (88.1) 16 (8.7) 1 (0.5) 4 (12.5) 28 (87.5) 71 (100) (1.0) 8 (80.0) 1 (10.0) 95 (99.0) (1.0) 63 (91.3) 5 (7.2) 1 (1.4) 3 (100) 1 (3.3) 27 (90.1) 2 (6.6) 4 (2.7) 133 (90.5) 10 (6.8) 1 (100) 4 (2.6) 104 (68.8) 40 (26.5) 3 (1.9) 1 (0.3) 13 (4.2) 259 (8.4) 32 (10.3) 5 (1.6) TOTAL 34 (100) 18 (100) 54 (100) 244 (100) 35 (100) 80 (100) 10 (100) 139 (100) 94 (100) 3 (100) 35 (100) 196 (100) 1 (100) 239 (100) 399 (100) T - 70 - TABLE 3.A.23 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE"TIME OF DAY THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA ti.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS l / l OC Ul _ J Ul UJ OC *c a_ is* _ l <c a. o aE Ui I— IS) U J r - CC C J NO. ae vi => t— K- Z »— z ca ui z X UJ zc —i Ui o CC 3 I— a o Ui X o Wt O —1 P S X r- Z3 o (S) ^ UJ =D X \— UJ Ul z Ui Hj >- OC * >- trt < OC aa ca UJ _ i <: = C J 1— zc. on C9 z co a. u> TIME >-• _j P x a. CO U. o ^ 3= UJ Ul O UJ •—. a. £̂ C J o UJ irf a C J C J — C J OC ZD LA CK  HO P I—1 OF ACCIDENT ac a. C9 3E 2 3 - h- O c_> o S =5 =3 Ul O r - 3E ^ 5 =3 ca oc «c S i 3= Ul ca cc «€ i — LA CK  HO P J * Ul «£ Ul <c —> ZC UJ -e u_ 1/1 _1 X cj h- <_) 36 I— > U. V ) 3 £ s 01 1 2 02 (0.6) 1 1 (0.8, (0.8, 03 I 1 l (0.6) 2 2 04 (4.0) (2.3) (6.7, 1 (3.3, 3 (3.4, 1 (0.4, 05 i 06 1 (10.0, 1 1 07 1 (0.6) (3.3, (0.8, 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 8 08 (4.0) 1 1 1 (0.6) (6.7, 0 - 7 , (1.1, (3.1) (7.7, (1.5, (0.8, (3.0, 6 2 4 2 4 1 2 7 2 5 09 (4.0) (7.7) (2.3) (3.8) (6.7, (6.9, (20.0, (4.5, (1.5, (7.7) (5.4, (1.7, (1.9, 5 4 6 7 1 3 1 11 4 3 7 17 25 10 (20.0) (30.8) (13.6) (4.5) (3.3, (5.2, (10.0, (12.5, (6.2, (11.5, (5.4, (14.3, (9.4, 1 7 14 7 14 11 4 16 13 31 11 (7.7) (15.9) (8.9) 02.1) (15.9, (16.9, (15.4, (12.3, (10.9, (11.7, 2 5 18 2 5 3 16 4 1 1 14 14 36 12 (8.0) 1 0 1 . 4 ) (11.5) (6.7, (8.6, (30.0, (18.2, (6.2, (50.0) (3.8, (10.8, (11-8, (13.6, 6 3 1 5 2 1 1 4 5 8 13 (7.7) (3.8) (10.0, 0 . 7 , (5.7, (3 .1 , (50.0, (3.8, (3.1) (4.2, (3.0, 1 2 13 2 3 1 13 4 3 12 5 18 14 15 (7.7) (4.5) (8.3) (6.7, (5.2, (10.0, (14.8, (6.2, (11.5) (9.2, (4.2, (6.8, g (20.0) (23.1) 6 (13.6) 26 (16.6) 2 (6.7, 9 (15.5, 10 (11.4, 13 (20.0, 5 (19.2) 18 (13.8, 22 (18.5, 56 (21.1, (8.0) 4 1 7 35 1 9 1 8 11 3 19 i 19 43 16 (7.7, (15.9) (22.3, (3.3, 2 (15.5, 4 (10.0, (9.1) 6 (16.9, (11.5) (14.6, 6 (100, (11.0) ( 1 6 l f 17 (16.0) (7.7) (11.4) (10.8, (6.7) (6.9, (10.0, (6.8, (7 .7, (3.8) (4.6, (10.9) (5.3, 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 18 (12.0) (2.3) (1-9) (3.3, (1.7) (10.0, (3 .1 , (3.8) (1 .5, (0.8, (1.5, 3 1 2 7 2 19 (1.9) (1.7) (3 .1 , (5.4, (1 .7 , 1 2 2 3 4 20 (0.6) (3 .1, (1.5, (2-5) (1.5, 1 3 2 5 2 21 1- (0.6) 1 (5.2, (3.1, (3.8, (0.8), 2 3 5 3 22 (4.0) 1 (1.3) (3.3, (5.2, (3.8, (1.1) 1 2 3 3 23 (2.3) (0.6, (6.7, (2.3, (1.1) 1 2 2 1 1 24 (2.3) (6.7, (3.4, (0.8) (0.4) (2.3) 1 (0.4, MISSING VALUE 9 5 10 87 5 22 51 29 1 r 66 120 134 TOTAL 34 18 54 244 35 80 10 139" 94 3 . 35 196 I 239 399 (ICO) :ioo) (100) (100, (100, (100, (100) (100) (WO, (100, (100, (100, (100, (100, (100, TABLE 3.A.24 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES. ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA U.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS 52 —i L U OC t—« NO. (1) RIC U LT U RA L PL EM EN TS  H EA TI NG  EQ UI PM EN T AU TO M O TI VE  M AC H IN E SH O P CH IN E DP J S TE EL  JN DR Y:  DN , ST EE L L U 3E .ID A Y TR A IL E 1P ER S JC K B O D IE S,  iS  )D EN  JC K BO XE S IIC LE S Ut t -(/> z O _ J *~* s Si= s 3 iC KS M IT H  IP C D z r—« o i.M FG  &  R EP A AL  P RO DU CT S HOURS WORKED BEFORE ACCIDENT «t —> HE AT IN G  EQ UI PM EN T AU TO M O TI VE  M AC H IN E SH O P li-ar SS •™. _ l ac U L U > EEfc co tn « £ U J u. ac OO - - 3 1 1 4 4 1 3 4 2 6 2 11 01 (12.5) (9.1) (2.4) (2.8) (14-8) (1.8) (3.5) (6.3) (8.0) (5.0) (1.9) (4.3) 2 2 6 9 1 8 3 a 3 3 6 11 15 02 (8.3) (18.2) (14.3) (6.3) (3.7) (14.0) (33.3) (9.4) (4.8) (12.0) (4.2) (10.4) (5.9) 3 2 4 13 3 4 7 10 4 14 12 28 (12.5) (18.2) (9.5) (9.1) (11.1) (7.0) (8.2) (15.9) (16.0) (11.7) (11.3) (11.1) 03 2 5 11 1 6 2 20 8 1 1 18 18 37 04 (8.3) 1 (11.9) (7.7) (3.7) (10.5) (22.2) (23.5) (12.7) (50.0) (4.0) (15.0) (17.0) (14.6) 2 16 5 5 1 7 4 1 1 8 7 19 (9.1) (4.8) (11.2) (18.5) (8.8) (U . l ) (8.2) (6.3) (50.0) (4.0) (6.7) (6.6) (7.5) 05 2 2 6 16 3 6 1 14 8 2 19 10 37 (8.3) (18.2) (14.3) (11.2) (11.1) (10.5) (11.1) (16.5) (12.7) (8.0) (15.8) (9.4) (14.6) 06 3 2 5 16 7 8 1 7 10 6 21 12 42 (12.5) (18.2) (11.9) (11.2) (25.9) (14.0) (11.1) (8.2) (15.9) (24.0) (17.5) (11.3) (16.6) 07 3 1 10 28 2 9 1 13 9 4 13 I 24 45 08 (12.5) (9.1) (23.8) (19.6) (7.4) (15.8) (11.1) (15.3) (14.3) (16.0) (10.8) (100) (22.6) (17.8) 5 2 23 1 7 4 6 .2 11 7 16 09 (20.8) (4.8) (16.1) (3.7) (12.3) (4.7) (9.5) (8.0) (9.2) (6.6) (6.3) 1 4 2 2 1 2 2 10 (4.2) (2.8) (3.5) (2.4) (1.6) (1.7) (0.8) 3 1 2 2 1 11 1 (2.4) (2.1) (1.8) (1.7) (0.8) (1.9) (0.9) (0.4) UNKNOWN 10 7 12 101 8 23 1 54 31 1 10 76 133 146 TOTAL 34 18 54 244 35 80 10 139 94 3 35 196 1 239 399 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) T J -r- cn T I r- i— 3 > ^» m 22 CO 3 3 m CO m CO XI M > - ( z —t CO m o o r- 3 E z m CO - n o o »-« r n CO CD A LL! —t TP CO o E CO o o o > 3 3 r - X i — an  An  AU  cu tn 5 m m *—« r - CO o •—» O 5 > m * |— CO r- CO * • - n z cz o m —1 r- m o r - CO r- m z : X :RE o r - 5 > CO CO t - n o 5» - D X O 3 d t—< * m tr> a CO X CO CO cz -D 3 3 TO m CO r - CO #—« cz z 3 3 CO m ro vo —' ro vo • ro —1 ro —• ro vo —• o c n • o cn • c o o TO O cr 3 3 AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP MFG STEEL 4 (40.0) (10.0) LIME ro O o ro co «J ~ J — ' o —1 — ' o ~j —' HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS CO ro co TRUCK BODIES, CABS FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON WOODEN TRUCK BOXES VEHICLES FABRICATION ISTRUCTURAL STEEL o o j > —• * » • o CO CO .BLACKSMITH SHOP MELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR FETAL PRODUCTS > o o o O O —I TO O X O C P l i - i TO Z TO O CD *—• « Z CO 3 > —( CD —4 t— O TO CO M *—* m — i z co cn •—i co O 9 C o x z • cr •—• o TO tn o . o X T I C D m m TO —< O - < m s» co T ] rn "o co —I O r- j » —I 3 3 m co c o • — ) i - i 3 3 >» o c_ m ro > CZ 3 3 « = cn r— 3 3 i—• m -< CO 3 3 5- ~ ~ CO • -< —1 z z 1—1 • m o =»fc z 3 3 S » CZ —' o r— co cz co l - l m 3 3 -c —1 r- 3 3 — m TO m — I 3 » -c co s» r— •—> - — • z o o c-r- •-« r— cz 5 > Z * » 3 3 CO CO * - i CO —»co m vo m co - ~ J C O - en- - ZL - T O T A L  S C R E W D R IV E R  IN F E C T IO U S  A N D  P A R A S IT IC  A G E N T S  N A IL S , S P IK E S , T A C K S  M E TA L  C H IP S  A N D  P A R T IC L E S  M O LTE N  M E TA L  S TR U C TU R A L  M E M B E R S  M E TA L IT E M S  R O C K S , S T O N E S , S A N D  M IN E R A L  IT E M S , N O N -M E T A L L IC , N E C  P A R T IC L E S  (U N ID E N T IF IE D ) W E L D IN G  E Q U IP M E N T , E L E C T R IC  A R C  H IG H W A Y  V E H IC L E S , PO W ER ED  S L IV E R S , S P L IN T E R S , E T C  C H IP S  W O O D  IT E M S , N O T  E LS E W H E R E  C L A S S IF IE D  M IS C E L L A N E O U S , N O T  E LS E W H E R E  C L A S S IF IE D  U N K N O W N , U N ID E N T IF IE D  T A B L E  3 .A .2 5  - C O N T IN U E D  • ' . 34 (1 0 0 ) — » C O oo .—* . t o c o c n ro c n • • — ' • • _ J . cn ro u vo ro - c * — • vo ro AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS (0 0 1 ) —' ro —' c o cn cn ro —< oo • • • • os—' N I U M v > - i r o i o > j HEATING EQUIPMENT 54 (1 0 0 ) 20 [3 7 .0 ) 3 1 [5 7 .4 ) (3 .7 ) AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 244 (1 0 0 ) O N J c n — • * o O to ^ co ro C D vo vo ro roco!t»—» no co co cn cn J> MACHINE SHOP 35 (1 0 0 ) C D cn .—* "ZT • cn ^ , cn N I • U V I C O V I M - < C h MFG S T E E L (0 0 1 ) 08  ^ — . J > ro cn —* co i t • • C O . . . C O . c n ro ro N I ro — » N I C O ro co ro —• FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON O !-• o o ro ro i o o o O ro o ro o —• L IME O oo O V O O o ro —< ro to "ro o * o • — 1 • —J . . ro • . • N J — • N I — • ro co cn cn ro co ro J > ro co vo vo N I - ^ L . _ , 1 1 • • • r » •• •—• •— — • .. "*T HOLIDAY T R A I L E R S , CAMPERS 9 4 (1 0 0 ) — — • > — < J > — » ro M ^ o i o i — . cn ^ • • • — j . j j k * » r o —^ro — ' — ' o cn C D J > - i ^ o i J> . . TRUCK B O D I E S , C A B S o O C O co cn co cn co -* N I ro WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 35 (1 0 0 ) *> •—N C O J > cn cn —• —1 . . _j co c n N J cn N I ro i V E H I C L E S 196 (1 0 0 ) -~~ — • Jfi. ~ N C O «-N o ro cn cn —• • • . ro • vo . . cr , . c n — ro -e* —< cn co cn ro o ro FABRICATION STRUCTURAL S T E E L o o » - o o —' BLACKSMITH SHOP 2 3 9 (1 0 0 ) ' — - - — • — J C O • — * « - N > ^ C O . - N — o j f i » c o o o cn —< ro ' • • co • vo . . . — i . ^ j • _co_co J > —' cn cn vo co j & . —• j > — . N I en co cn c n cn WELDING 3 9 9 (1 0 0 ) (0 .3 ) (0 .3 ) 1 3 4 [3 3 .6 ) 16 (4 .0 ) (0 .3 ) (0 .8 ) 176 (4 4 .1 ) 60 (1 5 .0 ) (0 .3 ) (0 .3 ) (0 .5 ) FAB,MFG & REPAIR 4ETAL PRODUCTS - ZL - TABLE 3.A.26 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES, OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF ACCIDENT. IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS NO. (X) AGR ICU LTU RAL  IMP LEM ENT S HEA TIN G EQU IPM ENT  AUT OMO TIV E MAC HIN E S HOP  MAC HIN E S HOP  MFG  S TEE L FOU NDR Y: STE EL,  IR ON LIM E HOL IDA Y TRA ILE RS,  CAM PER S TRU CK BOD IES , CAB S WOO DEN  TRU CK BOX ES VEH ICL ES FAB RIC ATI ON STR UCT URA L STE EL BLA CKS MIT H SHO P WEL DIN G FAB . M FG & R EPA IR MET AL PRO DUC TS TYPE OF ACCIDENT AGR ICU LTU RAL  IMP LEM ENT S HEA TIN G EQU IPM ENT  AUT OMO TIV E MAC HIN E S HOP  MAC HIN E S HOP  MFG  S TEE L FOU NDR Y: STE EL,  IR ON LIM E HOL IDA Y TRA ILE RS,  CAM PER S TRU CK BOD IES , CAB S WOO DEN  TRU CK BOX ES VEH ICL ES FAB RIC ATI ON STR UCT URA L STE EL BLA CKS MIT H SHO P WEL DIN G FAB . M FG & R EPA IR MET AL PRO DUC TS STRUCK AGAINST MOVING OBJECT STRUCK AGAINST STATIONARY OBJECT STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECT FLYING OBJECT THROWN BACK BY A MACHINE FLYING OBJECT, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED STRUCK BY OBJECTS BEING HOISTED STRUCK BY, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED CAUGHT IN A MOVING/STATIONARY OBJECT FOREIGN MATTER IN EYES ABRADED BY FOREIGN MATTER HOT OBJECTS OR SUBSTANCES CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS. CAUSTICS UNCLASSIFIED, INSUFFICIENT DATA 1 (2.9) 28 (82.1) 5 (14.7) 1 (5.6) 12 (66.7) (11.1) 3 (16.7) 51 (94.4) 3 (5.6) 3 (1.2) 2 (0.8) 212 (86.9) 1 (0.4) 2 (0.8) 22 (9.0) 2 (0.8) 1 (2.9) 30 (85.7) 4 (11.4) 1 (1.2) 73 (91.2) 2 (2.5) 4 (5.0) 4 (40.0) 1 (10.0) 5 (50.0) 3 (2.2) 3 (2.2) 2 (1.4) 123 (88.5) (5.0) 1 (0.7) 1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 70 (74.5) 1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 19 (20.2) j 3 (io o . o : 29 (82.9) 1 (2.9) 5 (14.3) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 160 (81.6) 6 (3.1) 26 (13.3) 1 (0.5) 1 (100.0 1 (0.4) (0.4) 185 (77.4) 1 (0.4) 10 (4.2) 39 (16.3) 2 (0.8) (0.3) (0.3) 5 (1.3) (0.3) (0.3) 311 (77.9) 2 (0 . 5 ) 11 (2.8) 65 (16.3) 1 (0.3) TOTAL 34 (100) 18 (100) 54 (100) 244 (100) 35 (100) 80 (100) 10 (100) 139 (100) 94 (100) 3 (100) 35 (100) 196 (100) 1 (100) 239 (100) 399 (100) TABLE 3.A.27 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES, OCCURRING IN 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THE INJURY, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS NO. (X) 2 co _ 1 LU = > s : C 9 LU £ < ? CL. O LU x > t o i—« r- LU O Z LU z — i LU LU 1 — z o cc >- cc » * co OC LU —1 •—< ff >- CO < OC co LU I—< o o CO co LU X o 03 z CO U i _ J _ i U l U l z O _ l X i - 1—4 S T ' o o_ < o _ l X CO CO tn z OC < co a. (- U l C J "R o a. LL. NATURE OF INJURY O LU •-< _ l OC Q_ <s H >- Lu O" X LU 3E « o z I i rc a. C J o CO CO U. 3 £ O _ l Z LU S £ LL. CO LU s : »—» _ i a LU i — i o_ x o zc C J CO =3 CO pr < r ~ c j LU ZC a C J o => C J ( X U l > >-> C J OC zz> ca cc < H-U. CO 1—4 o —1 LU 2 a t LL. E BURN (HOT SUBSTANCE) CONTUSIONS CUTS, LACERATIONS SCRATCHES OR ABRASIONS UNCLASSIFIED OCCUP. INJURY CHEMICAL BURN RADIATION EFFECTS NON-IONIZING RADIATION UNCLASSIFIED (2.9) 28 (82.4) (14.7) 1 (5.6) 14 (77.8) 2 (11.1) 1 (5.6) 51 (94.4) (1.9) 2 (3.7) 2 (0.8) 1 (0-4) (0.4) 218 (89.3) 3 (1.2) 16 (6.6) 3 (1.2) (2.9) 30 (85.7) (2.9) 3 (8.6) 3 (3.7) 73 (91.2) 1 0.2) 3 (3.7) 1 (10.0) 4 (40.0) 5 (50.0) (0.7) 131 (94.2) 4 (2.9) 3 (2.2) 1 (l.D 1 (1.1) 72 (76.6) 5 (5.3) 12 (12.8) 3 (3.2) 3 (100) 1 (2.9) (2.9) 28 (80.0) 2 (5.7) 3 (8.6) 6 (3.1) 164 (83.7) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.0) 18 (9.2) 5 (2.6) 1 (100) 9 (3.8) 1 (0.4) 2 (0.8) 187 (78.2) 5 (2.1) 27 (11.3) 7 (2.9) 1 (0.4) 10 (2.5) (0.3) 2 (0.5) 323 (81.0) 2 (0.5) 54 (13.5) 6 (1.5) 1 (0.3) TOTAL 34 (100) 18 (100) 54 (100) 244 (100) 35 (100) 80 (100) 10 (100) 139 (100) 94 (100) 3 (100) 35 (100) 196 (100) 1 (100) 239 (100) 399 (100) o —I o O CU O J > • r o O — ' © • O CD c o c n r o c n O cn • CO O O V O r o o * » CO • r o c o r o r o C D O CO O cn r o CO c n • r o c o O 33 • c n 00 c n r o r o o —• O ZJ r o o o r o c o o O CO O VO C D cn ->j 3 D CO 3» »—« o C D »« O AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP MFG STEEL FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON LIME HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS o <o O 4» r o o c o o o r o o co o cn c o • r o c n r o o VO o c n c n c o r o ~ j • CO • V O C o —• v o o o •— O C O O VO r o c n —• c n • o • c o c o -«j c n O VO O VO "»J r o o r o v o • O ' 0 0 CO (SO 4>, TRUCK BODIES, CABS WOODEN TRUCK BOXES VEHICLES FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL BLACKSMITH SHOP WELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS 3» r > et © 3D o o ~ C D — I Z r > x C D c z m 33 —I 33 O CZ» Z CO S J C C D - I t~ ZT. 33 CD m •—« i—i m — i z c o 33 X C Z —t m —• — i 3> 33 c n »-t _ o o c r 33 - C O r - 3> c o C O C D 33 C D O • c o x - n D O —1 m 33 —I 3» - < m 3» CO •—• m T3 C O —( zs o t— *» M 3 3 m —1 C Z -1 • i > c - m CO c o c o c z o —1 33 Zt> •—' T3 - < CO O 33 m r o > o » < C D i — « c . - . m • — i CO 33 ^ a 3<:« CO C3 -< —1- z m o « 33 w C Z —• Z CO -TI —i m •-• 3» 33 •< r — r — « m m c o s » c o m r - • — i -^33 z —1 o c » » r - c z - *» 33 CO i— i •—• c o m z m c o CO v o c n - 9Z - TOTAL UNKNOWN z o -< m c o LANGUAGE PR0BLE »« © 34 (100) o 24 (100) AGR IMPI [CULTURAL -EMENTS 18 (100) c n 12 (100) HEATING EQUIPMENT *-» O c n O O 44 (100) AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP ro O *. O -f* ~ j c n 168 (100) MACHINE SHOP 35 (100) - 34 (100) MFG STEEL 80 (100) CD O NI o ro FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON 10 (100) (0 01 ) 01  LIME INDUSTR 139 (100) c n c n 82 (98.8] ro —' HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS Y CLASS Y CLASS »—• O V O O J > ro v o (0 01 ) S9  TRUCK BODIES, CABS Y CLASS i—» o o c o o O C O WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 35 (100) 00 O ro O N I VEHICLES 196 (100) c n NJ 129 (100) FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL o o >— o o —• BLACKSMITH SHOP 239 (100) o ro 137 (100) WELDING 399 (100) o 284 (98.3) N i c n FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS »s. o r>: tt c r i O 3d 3D TO I c o m 3D —t 3> * z Jc> r -c o c o — I m 3> ? o — I — I <-• 3> C O - r>: 3> • — < : o x : c n r e m rc — I w r c c n m r c 30 m 3> -< m r— z z O C_i c r c r CD -< : c o i —l 3D : c o c r — I #—» o z o 3> OD r— m C o a> r o v o V O 3D C O T O 3 M 0 7 5 « 5> c n c o —i c o r — • — i - c — I m z r n 2 D * s o c r —• ? E c o •—• C O =o -< r ~ i — i m c o z r - • — i — S z O o c t— r— c r «: 3> so T T l C O •—1 own m c o c o - LL - TABLE 3.A.30 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES IN 14 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) PRELIMINARY INFORMATION INDUSTRY CLASS 2 i o —I LU => ac O LU CC CL. < >-" 5E I •-! 5 o- X U i o L U zn > t o I—4 ( - L U O Z o o o oc 3- c c - Q _1 Lu t o IS a o c o o o o =3 CO CC <C r- <-> X o CO z LU ^ o u O =J O QC O »—« X LU PS >-< O CC =3 CO QC 2 t o CO z t—4 a _ i LU 2 POPULATION OF INDUSTRY CLASS (MAN YEARS) NUMBER OF SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES (1976) RATE OF SEV #2 INJURIES PER 100 MAN YRS PROPORTION OF INJURED WORKERS OF MALE SEX 513 16 3.1 100% 291 J l 3.8 1002 843 18 2.1 94.421 2943 71 2.5 98.62] 678 2 0.3 1002 593 35 5.9 100* 94 2 2.1 1002 1494 25 1.7 B4.02 818 i i 6.0 1002 63 2 3.2 1002 310 l i . 3.9 1002 1814 97 5.3 1002 1822 21 3.9 1002 o — I 3 > 3C o t n z 171 r o o r o cn C O o C O cn o cn cn O cn cn cn o en cn v o r o r o v o C O J > C O v o J > J > v o cn J> cn v o cn J> C i v o —i o + o — O c n I c o r o c n c o r o c n c n r o c n C o c o c n r o c o c o c o c n r o c o c o —* c n r o c o • o c o r o —* C O C O t o t o t o u > c o r o r o r o r o — i « ^ ^ — • — J — ' * " — *—' r o — 1 mm* #•*"•«. - s j c n o n c n c n o > c n o i - ^ a c n N i u N J U O i ^ o i - » N J c o e n • o N I — 1 r o —' — ' — > « — . r o c n c n v o J > c n N J v o C D v o c n — * N I J > o c n J > r o C o r o . cn o O —• O —' O CO O c n ro o r o —• c o —• J > J > O N I O I O J > J > —» cn r o cn - E » . c * N i r o v o —" N j r o o O r o I cn cn O O O —• O — ' O no O cn —• c n cn r o O - t » O C 0 O — » O C T i o -to O V O —' c o r o -—- — J • — - - — -r o c o o C D -e» r o r o r o r o c n c o v o j > o r o J > — ' r o r o c n o - ^ o - o O r o O o ro O i — O r o o v o O N ) <— <•••—N C O - C O C O C O C O C O — ' C O 4* C O *-o cn C O —< ^ * — ' * — ' -—- u> _ J cn co o ro • C O • — ^ • — a • — * • • p o s j — 1 c n c n c n c n C o c o o r o N I —* r o —' r o O Nil o — C O c n c n C o v o • r o • — ' • — » c n j B > r o c 7 i c o c o N j o > — 1 o r o w J * —• -£».. O CO — . r o r o —• — . — . *—.. .—. .—. N I v o c n c n N I C O c n — 1 —' — ' • « ^ • C 7 1 * * C O * ™'J * * • • • c n j & c o j k c n N i c D — • c n j > c o N j 4 > o - ^ r o c n c o — ' r o 3 > cn 7 0 m o o 3 D 7 5 AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP MFG STEEL FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON LIME HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS TRUCK BODIES CABS WOODEN TRUCK BOXES VEHICLES FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS o c r C o — I 3 3 - C o c n c n CD —t r c r c z - c m 3 > C O z m o — I 3 0 I 3 > - < • Z c n 7^ VO o N I r— c n 3 > t n •—. c n 3 > m r — c n m O —» 3 3 3 > —1 o c n C O S > O m r — o • c r m s r 3 3 m • a 3 3 C O r> •—> • z - 4 3 > C D C O -< • C O —1 % c n o r o —i 3 > — I m —t r c -< •—• m m c n —1 3 > » c n z o m 3 > c r 1— O 3 3 - n S3 c n r c —1 m o m o 3 0 •-" o z c r 3 3 i - i c r 3 3 r - 33 #—t m m Z N ^ O c n C •—< o 3 3 7 5 3 3 - 6Z - TABLE 3 . A . 3 2 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY 12 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 14 HIGH EYE INJURY R I S K INDUSTIRAL C L A S S E S . ACCORDING TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE INJURED WORKER IN A L B E R T A . IN 1976 (ALBERTA W . C . B . S T A T I S T I C A L MASTER F I L E S ) N O . ( * ) OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER SJ 00 £ z _1 U i => 3 £ O U i —> —I oc o. to ar c o u i Z 3£ >-i a. u i c r o i x > co o z ZC a. o o c o CO u. z o cc CtC -O —I z u i =3 U l O h u. c o CO QC _ l *—* CO 111 s a o 3- CO CO <C cc O U l zc >-• CL. O CO _I 3 £ =3 CO OH PS o GO z U i a o o => § P o I—I z O — J PS s e •-> o a c => c o o c < t - U . CO U l < a. u i CO OC r~ CJ •o => c o oc u . a. X —I » < ca r- <C U l UNKNOWN S H I P P I N G CLERKS WEIGHERS JANITORS SUPERVISORS. D R I L L I N G OPERATIONS LABOURING I N MINING AND QUARRYING OIL AND GAS F I E L D OCCUPATIONS METAL CASTING METAL PROCESSING ( 6 . 3 ) 1 ( 6 . 3 ) 2 ( 1 8 . 2 ) 4 ( 2 2 . 2 ) 6 ( 8 . 5 ) 2 ( 5 . 7 ) ( 8 . 0 ) 6 ( 1 2 . 2 ) ( 5 0 . 0 ) ( 8 . 3 ) 10 ( 1 0 . 3 ) ( 9 . 9 ) ( 5 . 6 ) 1 ( 5 0 . 0 ) 1 ( 5 0 . 0 ) 1 ( 1 . 4 ) 3 ( 8 . 6 ) 9 ( 4 . 9 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 ) «/> T3 • o o r > m 3 > t - > - n X z o — t i > -H t—• 3 > S» o X c o 3 > CO o © <t S» C O 3D •o 3D z p CO CD CO 30 3> —( o CO o CZ m Z T3 CO > Sci m m «c o cz r ~ c r o -n —1 m —1 a C 3 : x ~c 3D " D > m yo m z 3D 3 » CD 3D CO 5» 3 3D — I CZ — I r - •-• r — z tz> < —1 c o Z CO CO m r > • * cz m 5> *—* w 3D — I z Z <7> z —< x o j> r ~ CO C3 C3 C3 " D -< z i T3 o « 3D o CO z X m A P z 3 > z z a» o z o LE o -n r o o o PL m 3D EL s O T J 3D o cz o CH X « as r ~ cr x m 3D O 3D —1 m z L O X rt m O m z r> C-i et iTR m CD —4 z T3 cr T3 -n m X cz o iTR 3D tr> 3D C3 s> <-> s> > 3D s> 3D 3 c z m z m » ^ • •— —( • — i CO -< z m c-> o •73 3D O 3D 3D 3D o —1 - H CO T3 <_• - n I—I t—H X o S o > > Z 3 > z o m c o 3 E C o 3D z « C C3 CO cn > Cl O R> t/> CO • —4 X _ 3D CL z « 5» 3* C3 Z Z m 0 ICS 3D c n c o • AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT c n - * — c n e n —• > e n • r o s i u AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP ' r o . —• C o r o MACHINE SHOP MFG STEEL r o v o —• FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON LIME C D O r o c n o • HOLIDAY T R A I L E R S , CAMPERS c n O c o C o r o c n TRUCK BODIES CABS c n o WOODEN TRUCK BOXES V E H I C L E S —• r o c n —' r o c n c n ~— •—' FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL r o c o r o WELDING O c n c n —' o —' O c n • — < r o —' r o r o * o c n • F A B . MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS " L8 " CRUSHING ANO GRINDING CHEMICALS MACHINIST MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING METAL MACHINING FOREMEN: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING SHEET-METAL WORKERS METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS FILING, GRINDING, BUFFING OCCUPATIONS OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER TABLE 3.A.32 (Continued) (6.3) (6.3) (50.0) (6.3) AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS ro co co HEATING EQUIPMENT 3 (16.7) (5.6) AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 27 (38.0) (1.4) 24 (33.8) (1.4) (2.8) MACHINE SHOP MFG STEEL (2.9) (5.7) (8.6) 8 (22.9) FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON LIME HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS 28 (57.1) TRUCK BODIES CABS WOODEN TRUCK BOXES (8.3) (8.3) (66.7) VEHICLES (l.J) (4.1) 49 (50.5) (1.0) FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL cr, —> —1 . j > . cr. CO 4=. —' 4>—' WELDING (0.5) (3.3) (0.5) (0.5) (3.8) (0.5) 111 (60.3) (1.1) FAB, MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS - 28 - TOTAL TRUCK DRIVERS HOISTING OCCUPATIONS MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS PACKAGING OCCUPATIONS OTHER MATERIAL-HANDLING OCCUPATIONS LABOURING OCCUPATIONS OTHER OCCUPATIONS OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER TABLE 3.A.32 (Continued) 16  (1 0 0 ) (1 2 .5 ) AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 11  (1 0 0 ) ro —i CO CO HEATING EQUIPMENT 18  (1 0 0 ) cn cn cn —' cn —• AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 71 (1 0 0 ) OO cn cn MACHINE SHOP o o ro MFG STEEL 35 (1 0 0 ) 2 (5 .7 ) (2 2 .9 ) (2 .9 ) FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON »—• o o ro 1 (5 0 .0 ) (5 0 .0 ) LIME 25 (1 0 0 ) (1 2 .0 ) HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS 49 (1 0 0 ) ro o —« TRUCK BODIES CABS o o ro WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 12 (1 0 0 ) VEHICLES 97 (1 0 0 ) oo ro co FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 7 1  (1 0 0 ) (1 .4 ) (1 2 .7 ) WELDING 184  (1 0 0 ) 1  (0 .5 ) 15 (8 .2 ) FAB, MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS - £8 - o o —I f H r— D t o —1 r c 50 c r 0 C D •jr. r c PO PO CO CO "Ni N» 0 0 3> 3> -< 3D CO N. g o >-• O O l r o NJ c n c n O J > O N o >-• o •— r o NJ NJ r o c o c o NJ co o co o —• O C O O NI o •— r o c o C O r o c n c n j > —* o o ro t n c n O o b —> b • O C O o c n ^ ^ C D c n c n c o • • • c o NI r o NI r o c n —• o o ro o o r o o r o O c n o cn • r o - o J> o - n c o AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP MFG STEEL FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON LIME o J » O VO — > C O r o — 1 —* c o r o c n c n o HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS TRUCK BODIES, (CABS o O r o o • o r o o <— O r o Co CO — ' O v o O NI —* c o —' r o o o r o 0 1 c n c o r o - c n c o — . —• C O ~ N _ 11 r o o J > — < c o 0 0 0 1 * • _ j # t n « > - - > O J > | | r o 4» c o v o T O c n - c o c n WOODEN ttTRUCK BOXES VEHICLES FABRICATION [STRUCTURAL STEEL MELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR flMETAL PRODUCTS o cr CO 33 •< > CO CO o m E n o c n o •—1 c o c r c n j * — t r n 30 — I r — r c c n 33 33 c o m « » »—* *—« m 2 c o s o « — • a > m c r — I 2 o —1 S » e _ r > 1 c r o 2 o x : s o 30 2 • m o — » r > o J > © • _ z • - n c o n o r c • o 1—1 30 33 —4 0 m t n 3T o r c T J —1 m o *» 33 - H m 30 — ( - r c -< —1 *~~* m m m t n o —( 2 1— i - i •-» m 2 c n o 3> 2 c m » r - o c r « : 1— c o - H 30 m t n > - n « < — ( - t n m 0 7 ^ % 3d w s r o CO CO 3 > •—' —' —t o - < r — v o c r m m NI Ti t o c o c n o —1»—• 33 3 3 2 J V I H C , m > c or— 30 - i?8 - - 85 - TABLE 3.A.34 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 14 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE TIME OF DAY THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS NO. (I) CU LT UR AL  EM EN TS  HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO M OT IV E M AC HI NE  SH OP  M AC HI NE  SH OP  MF G ST EE L FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  IR O N  L U HO LI DA Y TR A IL ER S CA M PE RS  i TR UC K BO DI ES  CA BS  W OO DE N TR UC K BO XE S VE H IC LE S FA BR IC AT IO N ST RU CT UR AL  ST EE L W EL DI NG  FA B, M FG  &  R EP AI R M ET AL  PR OD UC TS  TIME OF ACCIDENT AG R I ir lr L HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO M OT IV E M AC HI NE  SH OP  M AC HI NE  SH OP  MF G ST EE L FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  IR O N  HO LI DA Y TR A IL ER S CA M PE RS  i TR UC K BO DI ES  CA BS  W OO DE N TR UC K BO XE S VE H IC LE S FA BR IC AT IO N ST RU CT UR AL  ST EE L W EL DI NG  FA B, M FG  &  R EP AI R M ET AL  PR OD UC TS  01 1 1 (1.3) 02 1 (6.3) (9.1) 03 2 04 (1.4) 05 06 07 1 1 2 08 1 1 (1.7) (3.4) (1.4) 1 2 1 1 3 2 4 09 (6.3) (9.1) (5.6) (3.4) (3.4) (12.5) (3.8) (3.7) (2.7) 1 3 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 6 10 (6.3) 1 (5.2) (6.9) (50.0) (12.5) (7.5) (12.5) (5.1) (7.0) (4.1) 2 9 3 1 4 1 7 7 13 11 (9.1) (11.1) (15.5) (10.3) (4.2) (10.0) (12.5) (8.9) (13.0) (8.8) 2 2 2 2 4 6 5 1 5 5 19 12 (12.5) (18.2) (11.1) (3.4) (13.8) (25.0) (12.5) (50.0) (6.3) (9.3) (12.9) 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 7 13 (9.1) (8.6) (3.4) (4.2) (2.5) (1.3) (1.9) (4.8) 2 2 3 1 6 2 6 3 14 14 (18.2) (11.1) (5.2) (3.4) (25.0) (5.0) (7.6) (5.6) (9.5) 3 5 4 5 4 13 19 12 27 15 (18.8) (27.8) (6.9) (17.2) (16.7) (32.5) (24.1) (22.2) (18.4) 1 2 1 17 4 1 1 6 5 10 9 32 16 (6.3) (18.2) (5.6) (29.3) (13.8) (50.0) (4.2) (15.0) (62.5) (12.7) (16.7) (21.8) 2 1 2 5 1 2 2 4 9 15 17 (12.5) (9.1) (11.1) (8.6) (100) (8.3) (5.0) (5.1) (16.7) (10.2) 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 18 (6.3) (5.6) (3.4) (3.4) (5.0) (50.0) (1.3) (1.9) 1 1 1 3 1 19 (6.3) (3.4) (2.5) (3.8) (0.7) 1 1 1 1 3 20 (6.3) (5.6) (1.7) (3.4) (3.8) 1 2 21 (6.3) (2.5) 2 1 1 1 22 1 (3.4) (2.5) (1.3) (0.7) 1 3 7 1 23 (6.3) (1.7) (10.3) (8.9) (0.7) 1 1 1 1 1 3 24 (5.6) (1-7) (3.4) (1.3) (1.9) (2.0) 1 UNKNOWN (1.3) 1 13 1 6 1 9 4 18 17 37 TOTAL 16 (100) 11 (100) 18 (100) 71 (100) 2 (100) 35 (100) 2 (100) 25 (100) 49 (100) 2 (100) 12 (100) 97 (100) 71 (100) 184 (100) TABLE 3.A.35 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN 14 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) NO. (X) HOURS WORKED BEFORE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY CLASS or oo §g r a x : u u i >-i — i o r CL. t a x : C9 u i Z 5E >-> O- UJ © X U l O- o U l X > CO O X X o . C J o CO u . x : § or « O _ l Z U l => u i £ t o >- co < o r O Ul l - l o . _ l 3E a o ca CJ CO =3 co o r < x o ca z Ul Z£ Q CJ O =3 o or 3 r - co z O -I P e l Si? l-l CJ or =3 ca o r < (- u . c o cs z 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11-12 UNKNOWN TOTAL 1 (6.3) 1 (6.3) 3 (18.8) 2 (12.5) 1 (6.3) 3 (18.8) 4 (25.0) 1 (6.3) 1 (10.0) 2 (20.0) 1 (10.0) 2 (20.0) 1 (10.0) 2 (20.0) (10.0) 1 (5.6) 1 (5.6) (11.1) (11.1) 4 (22.2) 3 (16.7) 2 1) 2 (11.1) (11. 16 (100) 11 (100) 1 (5.6) 18 (100) (1.9) 4 (7.4) 7 (13.0) 5 (9.3) 5 (9.3) 5 (9.3) 3 (5.6) 8 (14.8) 13 (24.1) 2 (3.7) 1 (1-9) 17 71 (ion) l (100) 2 (6.9) 6 (20.7) 2 (6.9) 4 (13.8) 3 (10.3) 4 (13.8) 8 (27.6) (50.0) (50.0) 2 (8.3) 2 (8.3) 4 (16.7) 3 (12.5) 6 (25.0) 3 12.5) (12.5) (4.2) 2 (100) 35 (inn) 2 (100) 25 (ion) l (2.6) 3 (7.9) 2 (5.3) 3 (7.9) 6 (15.8) 4 (10.5) 9 (23.7) 6 (15.8) 3 (7.9) 1 (2.6) 11 49 (100) (50.0) 1 (12.5) (12.5) (12.5) (50.0) 3 (37.5) 2 1(25.0) 2 (100) 12 (100) 1 (1.3) 1 (1.3) 7 (9.3) 10 (13.3) 6 (8.0) 9 (12.0) 12 (16.0) 17 (22.7) 7 (9.3) 2 (2.7) 2 (2.7) 1 (1.3) 22 97 (100) (1.9)1 (9.3) | (7.4) | (16.7) | 2 (3.7)| 8 (14.8) | 8 (14.8) 12 (22.2) 4 (7.4) 1 (1.9) 17 71 (100) TABLE 3 . A . 3 6 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY #2 EYE I N J U R I E S , OCCURRING I N 14 HIGH EYE INJURY R I S K INDUSTRIAL C L A S S E S , ACCORDING TO THE SOURCE OF THE I N J U R Y , IN A L B E R T A , IN 1976 (ALBERTA W . C . B . S T A T I S T I C A L MASTER F I L E S ) INDUSTRY CLASS a _ l U l E P A IR  C TS  • n Q_ _ J to t-1/1 EP A IR  C TS  JL TU R A I 1E N TS  O O z L U O C A TI O N  TU RA L OC Z3 Q N O . ( * ) JL TU R A I 1E N TS  'IN G  : P M EN T O TI V E K IT  C L zc to U J z T EE L o or . . 1—* >- oc « r - >- to < oc Q O CO Z3 or z to L U _1 C A TI O N  TU RA L to z •e o oc to a . u. o SH 'IN G  : P M EN T AU TO M i M A CH I *—* to O _ l O L U TR U C K C A BS  ui to «_) FA BR I ST R U C  SOURCE OF THE INJURY A G RI  ui Cr X U l AU TO M i M A CH I z o to u. s : z U J n ui o I'- LL, to s : t—t _ i z u TR U C K C A BS  O X o o 3 OQ X U l > FA BR I ST R U C  _ l U i 3C C O r - < L U u. x : B O X E S , C R A T E S , CARTONS ACIDS A L K A L I E S RESINS SULPHUR AND SULPHUR COMPOUNDS C H E M I C A L , CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, NOT ELSEWHERE C L A S S I F I E D 2 ( 1 1 . 1 ) 1 ( 5 . 6 ) 1 ( 1 . 4 ) 2 ( 1 0 0 . 0 ) ( 1 . 0 ) 2 ( 2 . 1 ) 1 ( 1 . 4 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 ) COAL TARS E L E C T R I C A L A P P A R A T U S , NOT ELSEWHERE C L A S S I F I E D 1 ( 2 . 9 ) ( 4 . 0 ) FLAME AND F I R E GLASS ITEMS SCREWDRIVER WRENCH DRILL 1 ( 5 . 6 ) 1 ( 1 . 4 ) 1 ( 4 . 0 ) 1 ( 4 . 0 ) 1 ( 1 . 0 ) 1 ( 0 . 5 ) —1 o —1 s> r- U E LD IN G  TO O LS C H A IN S . R O P E S , C A B LES N A IL S , S P IK E S , TACKS M ETAL C H IP S A N D  P A R TIC LE S M O LTEN  M ETA L M ETA L IT E M S , N O T ELSEW HERE C L A S S IF IE D  R O C K S, STO N ES A N D  SA N D P A R TIC LE S (U N ID E N T IF IE D ) B R A N C H ES, LIM B S P LA S TIC  IT E M S , N O T ELSEW H ER E C L A S S IF IE D  W ELD IN G  E Q U IP M E N T, E LE C TR IC  A R C  S L IV E R S . S P LIN TE R S M IS C E LLA N E O U S , N O T ELSEW HERE C LA S S IFIE D  TA B LE 3 .A .3 6 C O N TIN U E D  i—• o •— O CM ro ro —* co cn cn ro • • • • O «&» o «c* cn ro tn cr* AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 1—' o •-• o •-> 1 0 co io 10 oo cn • • • • • • HEATING EQUIPMENT t—' o •— O 00 cn —' -—* cn cn cn cn O -«4 CO CT> — ' AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP O •-• u> ^ -e* cn ro —' ro o ro . —i • ro • • - r o * vo ro ^ CA) ^oorooovocoro MACHINE SHOP o O ro cn cn O O o —• O — ' MFG STEEL 35 (inn) i*, .J> cn co o ro **j cn cn co o vo —* FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON o o ro LIME 25 (ion) ^ ro •£» ro cn | o —^ O CO O O CO O i * HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS i—• O -to O VO .—* ro ro i * *—-ro cn o cn ^ . —« • —• ro • o — • cn co i?> o vo co —* ro TRUCK BODIES CABS I—• o o ro cn cn o o o —* o —• WOODEN TRUCK BOXES »—• O i— o ro cn ro —̂• —•* oo cn oo OD co o co co —^ co VEHICLES t—• o vo O -J ' ro ro *—. * co * • ro • ro • co • CD Cn VD 00 O —* O —' —^ 0~» O —^ O —' FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 71 (100) ro ro -—• - co - -oo ro —« i>> VD — J — J . ro • —* • • • • ro • - • ro o cn cn 4 * —* ro co i * co — ' i * —* WELDING •—• o oo O 4 * ro » ro *—* co CD O O VD - O CO O • cn • • • cn • • cn • Co co cn —• cn —^ vo cn co co ro —• cn —* FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS - 88 - TABLE 3.A.37 THE DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED SEVERITY §2 EYE INJURIES, OCCURRING IN 14 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF ACCIDENT, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILES) NO. (t) INDUSTRY CLASS JL TU RA L 1E NT S HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E SH OP  MA CH IN E SH OP  MFG  S TE EL  FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  I RO N U J _ t—t —1 HO LI DA Y TR AI LE RS , CA MP ER S TR UC K BO DI ES  CA BS  WO OD EN  T RU CK  BO XE S VE HI CL ES  FA BR IC AT IO N ST RU CT UR AL  S TE EL  WE LD IN G 1 F AB ,M FG  &  RE PA IR  ME TA L PR OD UC TS  TYPE OF ACCIDENT AG RI CI IMP LE1  HE AT IN G EQ UI PM EN T AU TO MO TI VE  MA CH IN E SH OP  MA CH IN E SH OP  MFG  S TE EL  FO UN DR Y:  ST EE L,  I RO N HO LI DA Y TR AI LE RS , CA MP ER S TR UC K BO DI ES  CA BS  WO OD EN  T RU CK  BO XE S VE HI CL ES  FA BR IC AT IO N ST RU CT UR AL  S TE EL  WE LD IN G 1 F AB ,M FG  &  RE PA IR  ME TA L PR OD UC TS  FLYING OBJECT THROWN BACK BY MACHINE FLYING OBJECT. NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED STRUCK BY OBJECTS BEING HOISTED STRUCK BY, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED FOREIGN MATTER IN EYES ABRADED BY FOREIGN MATTER CONTACT WITH ELECTRIC CURRENT HOT OBJECTS OR SUBSTANCES CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS. CAUSTICS 1 (6.3) 9 (56.3) (12.5) 4 (25.0) 1 (9.1) 7 (63.6) 2 (18.2) (9.1) 1 (5.6) 1 (5.6) 12 (66.7) (5.6) [16.7) 1 (1.4) 54 (76.1) 1 (1.4) 2 (2.8) 13 (18.3) 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 32 (91.4) 1 (2.9) 2 (5.7) 2 (100) 1 (4.0! 1 (4.0] 1 (4.0: 3b (73.5 13 (26.5 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0 5 (41.7) 7 (58.3! 1 (1.0) 67 (68.0) 1 (1.0) 28 (28.9) (1.4) +5 (63.4) 1 (1.4) 3 (4.2) 21 (29.6) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.1) 120 (65.2) 7 (3.8) 54 (29.3) TOTAL j 16 (100) 11 (100) 18 (100) 71 (100) 2 (100) 35 (100) 2 (100) 25 (100) 49 (100) 2 (100) 12 (100) 97 (100) 71 (100) 184 (100) o —I o •— o cn o •— o •— o •— O CO O N J O I — NO 5 CH SC z O m 3D i »—I _ £• »—< 3> •—i —1 o —1 o O z i 3> _ *—€ O 1— m I N z CO t—4 CO z m cz o o T l 3D 3D T | Z ?p m 3> > r> co o —I 3D co s> a> CO — i o o z z CO o cz —t co t—> m 2 o z CO o cr CO o . z co o —( 3D <-> CO cr 3D 3D Z o —I co cr CD CO si z o ro cn cn ro ro cn ro cn co • — cn N J — • cn ro NI co ro co J> ro ro co NI vo • NJ • cn • ' cn cn . ro Co ro cr 3D AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP •—* o o ro cn cn P ° o — o — MFG STEEL 35 (1 0 0 ) 2 (5 .7 ) (2 .9 ) 32 (9 1 .4 ) FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON i — o o ro — i o O ro LIME i— o ro o cn 24 (9 6 .0 ) (4 0 .0 ) HOLIDAY CAMPERS, TRAILERS 49 (1 0 0 ) 36 (7 3 .5 ) 12 (2 4 .5 ) (2 .0 ) TRUCK BODIES, CABS *—» o O ro 1 (5 0 .0 ) \ **** •  w / 1 (5 0 .0 ) WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 12 (1 0 0 ) cn C O — . . co N J N J cn VEHICLES 97 (1 0 0 ) 1 i*l f1\ 2 (2 .1 ) 66 (6 8 .0 ) (3 .1 ) 23 (2 3 .7 ) (2 .1 ) FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 71 (1 0 0 ) " N ro — en .—. _ ro cn — • j_ _ _ • . —•. • j_ . _ oo ro J > C O J > — . oocn j_ — ^ _, WELDING 184 (1 0 0 ) —• ro —. cn —. —* _ — • N I _ . cn — o o co • cn • . ro . . . —• roroo — rocorocn — i n — co cn FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS 3> O r> o o o —| so r> rc o cr m •—• 30 Z 30 O CT> «—« i z cn £-!->—i r- © 3D CO » t—i m —I z co as rc cr —j ITi —I — | o c n o • 3o rc -n co m m 3D O -< m co T | m T J -H . o m t_ m cn cr rn —I 3D • z •< co O f - rri »> cr 33 -e r~ so • — i m — C CO 33 W M H t < 33 5> cr ro r— co -n co —i rn *—» m 33 •< r— 3D i-i m m —i s> co 3> t— i—i -—- z r> _ •-• r- cr Z 3> 3D CO I—• - w m vo m co NJ co . cn . - 06 - TOTAL UNKNOW N z o -< m co FIRST A ID  G IVEN —»z M O 16 (100) CO 11 (8 4 .6 ) ? J* ro AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 11 (100) — 7 (70.0) 3 / OA t\\ (30.0} HEATING EQUIPMENT 18 (100) — 12 (70.6) 5 (2 9 .4 ) AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 71 (100) o 46 (7 5 .4 ) 15 In* r V (24.6) MACHINE SHOP o o ro 1 (50.0) (50.0) MFG STEEL 35 (100) ro 27 (81.8) 6 (1 8 .2 ) FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON o o ro • o o ro LIME INDU S' 25 (100) CO 5 (22.7) 17 (77.3) HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS TRY CLA  49 (100) 31 (73.8) ro cn . — * ro —* TRUCK BODIES. CABS CO CO *—* o o ro o O —' WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 12 (100) (0 01 ) ZI  VEHICLES 97 (100) mmm cn 66 (81.5) 15 (18.5) FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 71 (100) cn 45 (80.4) 11 (1 9 .6 ) WELDING 184 (100) CO ro 112 (7 3 .7 ) 40 FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS (-> o o S o —I O —1 Z O z CD cz m 3D —130 0 o *—' m—* Z CO S» C CD —1 t — Z 3D D I U M M rn —H z CD 3 3 1 C= —1 m —• —( S» 3D *» •-• o C - n z z • »—* i—i O 33 CD o • co z -ri OD —1 m jo —1 *»-< m *» t A t H m TJ cc —1 o o r— 3> •-• 30 m —1 E Z —1 M > c m CO CO CO cz o . —1 33 O 3D m CO > 0 3 3 < CO r < M m •HW33 J O ^ « > m —1 ( / > o « < —)- z m o >•= 3D — • c= ro Z CO -TI —i rn « J» 3D -< f— r - •—i rn m o > co m r - •—< — 3D z —too CO I—i •—• co m z m co CO IO cn - L6 - LA N GI TO TA L c= Z O 3Z Z z o -< m cn > CD m -D zo o CO r— m «-»z * * o (O O I)  91  ro o —• O 4k AGRICU IMPLEM LTURAL ENTS 11 (100) VO O to O vo HEATING EQUIPMENT 18 (100) mtml O —' O ~ J AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 71 (100) CO O cn O CO MACHINE SHOP »—* o o ro mmm* o o ro MFG STEEL i 35 (100) o co o —• FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON *m* Z D i—> o o ro o o ro LIME I CO —1 TO -< *-» o ro o tn CO vo ro cn —> 4k o —• HOLIDAY T R A I L E R S , CAMPERS a CO CO »—• O 4k O VO cn mmm O 4k O 4k TRUCK B O D I E S , CABS o o ro — o o — • WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 12 (100) o —• o ro VEHICLES i 97 (100) ro ro vo CD • »o ^1 4k CO —• FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 71 (100) 4k o cn WELDING 184 (100) ro cn o cn O CO FAB,MFG & R E P A I R METAL PRODUCTS o s» o —< n n i o c= m O 30 33 3D o t i «»—« M 2 1/I »• Z CD —1 I— CD 3D CD < _t m —< z co 3D O C —1 —•—1 3» mC 4> — 1 z o JC m z z —I O M I D O • z m z -n CD 3D . 3> m jo —1 r - *» -< m S» co co m -o CD —I m r — o P- >» 3D io i-i TO m —4 —1 Z Z —1 t H > Q o m CO C O . C C D • —1 S» 3D t »—• CD -< CO e-> z m m 4k 3> 3D <I O r - —• -o «—t m to 3D CO 3D 5> cn co —| co r~ i— -< —1 m z m 2 o ««fc 3D cc ro a: co - n 5> —I rn •-• CO 3D -e r- — m m 3» co z r- t-t « — «= z o o c-r— r— cz «: s» so m co M O co m m co CO - Z6 - - 93 - Part 3 - Severity #3 Eye Injur ies - Results, with Discussion I n i t i a l l y , only 7 permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims could be found, but through a further search at the W.C.B., 9 more were located. There were, most l i k e l y , more than 16 permanent d i s a b i l i t y i n ju r ie s incurred in 1976. It i s probable, however, that not a l l of the claims have been f i n a l i z ed to date, and these claims are s t i l l coded as sever ity #2 i n j u r i e s . Tables 3.A.41 to 3.A.54 show selected eye in jury character i s t i c s fo r the 16 i d e n t i - f i e d permanent d i s a b i l i t y i n ju r ie s that occurred in 1976. The selected character i s t i c s are: Table 3.A.41 Occurrence Class in which injury occurred 3.A.42 Month of accident 3.A.43 Industry C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 3.A.44 Sex of injured worker 3.A.45 Age of injured worker 3.A.46 Occupation of injured worker 3.A.47 Length of time injured worker employed 3.A.48 Length of s h i f t worked per day 3.A.49 Hours worked before accident 3.A.50 Source of in jury 3.A.51 Type of accident 3.A.52 Nature of in jury 3.A.53 F i r s t aid rendered 3.A.54 Language problem Tables 3.A.41 through 3.A.54 show data concerning 16 permanent d i sa - b i l i t y eye injury claims. Table 3.A.42 shows that 40% of the in ju r ie s occurred through February and March of 1976. Table 3.A.43 shows that no pa r t i cu l a r industry class i s prone to permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims. In a l l cases, the injured persons were male (Table 3.A.44). Forty-four percent - 94 - •TABLE 3.A.41 'NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE OCCURRENCE CLASS OF THE INDUSTRY IN WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) OCCURRENCE CLASS NUMBER OF INJURIES (%) 04-04 1 (6.3) 04-06 1 (6.3) 05-01 2 (12.5) 06-01 1 (6.3) 06-04 1 (6.3) 06-07 3 (18.8) 08-03 1 (6.3) 08-04 2 (12.5) 09-03 1 (6.3) 09-04 1 (6.3) 12-03 1 (6.3) 22-01 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 TABLE 3.A.42 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NUMBER MONTH OF INJURY OF INJURIES (%) January 2 (12.5) February 5 (31.3) March 3 (18.8) August 1 (6.3) October 2 (12.5) November 2 (12.5) December 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 - 95 - TABLE 3.A.43 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE INDUSTRY CLASS IN WHICH THE INJURY OCCURRED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) INDUSTRY CLASS NUMBER OF INJURIES (*) 09912 Well Testing and Coring ! (6.3) 10100 Meat Packing Plant 1 (6.3) 25405 Mfg, Prefab Wood Bldgs, Sections 1 (6.3) 25900 Peeling and Pointing of Posts 1 (6.3) 31100 Mfg of Agricultural Implements 1 (6.3) 37902 Chemical Blending and Packaging 1 (6.3) 40400 Construction of Bldgs, Plants 1 (6.3) 40601 Highway, Road, Railway Construction 1 (6.3) 40604 Excavating, Bulldozing, etc. 1 (6.3) 40905 Construction of Pipe Lines 1 (6.3) 42102 Masonry, Brick, Block Laying 1 (6.3) 62303 Sale-Service Oilf ield Equipment 1 (6.3) 65600 New, Used Car Dealers 1 (6.3) 65802 Brake Shop 1 (6.3) 87501 Restaurant or Drive-In 1 (6.3) 93100 Provincial Government 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 (100) TABLE 3.A.44 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERA, IN 1976, BY THE SEX OF THE INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) SEX NUMBER OF INJURIES (%) Male 16 (100) TOTAL 16 (100) - 96 - of the permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims involved workers who were less than 35 years of age (Table 3.A.45). This i s somewhat lower than the propor- t i on in the same age category f o r sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , 25% of the permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims involved motor vehicle mechanics and repairmen, while the remainder were spread over a large range of occupations, although a majority were metal re lated trades (Table 3.A.46). Table 3.A.47 shows that 69% of the permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims occurred among persons who had worked less than one year on t he i r Dresent job. This f ind ing i s incons istent with the ages of these workers unless there was a considerable change in occupations in mid-career. Reporting procedures may also be at f a u l t . Table 3.A.48 shows that the legnth of s h i f t worked by persons with permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims i s not incons istent with the general trends in the eye i n ju r i e s reported previously. Table 3.A.49 shows that the permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims do not show the normal time trends i l l u s t r a t e d in previous analyses where a peak appears toward the end of the s h i f t . This anomaly may be due to low num- bers (only 16 cases) or because permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims are a matter of chance where boredom and fatigue factors do not play a s i g n i f i c an t part. Table 3.A.50 shows that 50% of the permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims were caused by metal pa r t i c l e s or n a i l s . Two of these claims were due to na i l s from explosive actuated too l s . The remaining i n j u r i e s are spread over a range of sources including rad iat ion and caust ics . Table 3.A.51 indicates the type of in jury where a majority were due to being struck by a . f l y ing object. - 97 - TABLE 3.A.45 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE AGE OF THE INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NUMBER AGE GROUP OF INJURIES 70+ 65-69 1 (6.3) 60-64 55-59 1 (6.3) 50-54 1 (6.3) 45-49 2 (12.5) 40-44 4 (25.0) 35-39 30-34 2 (12.5) 25-29 2 (12.5) 20-24 2 (12.5) 15-19 TOTAL 16 (100) TABLE 3.A.46 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE OCCUPATION OF THE INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) OCCUPATION OF WORKER NUMBER OF INJURIES (%) 0000 2117 6121 8176 8541 8581 8711 8719 8781 8782 8798 9175 9918 Unknown Physical Sciences Technologists Chefs and Cooks Inspecting, Testing: Chemicals-Petro Cabinet Makers Motor-Vehicle Mechanics Excavating, Grading Excavating, Grading, Paving Carpenters Brick and Stone Masons Labouring in Construction Truck Drivers Labouring Occupations TOTAL 1 16 (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (25.0] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (6.3] (100) - 98 - TABLE 3.A.47 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE LENGTH OF TIME THE INJURED WORKER HAS BEEN EMPLOYED (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) TIME EMPLOYED NUMBER OF INJURIES (%) < 1 Month 4 (25.0) 1 Mth to < 6 Mths 4 (25.0) 6 Mths to < 1 Yr 3 (18.8) 1 Year or more 5 (31.2) Unknown - TOTAL 16 (100) TABLE 3.A.48 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE LENGTH OF SHIFT WORKED BY THE INJURED PERSON PER DAY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) * NUMBER LENGTH OF SHIFT OF INJURIES (%) 7 Hours 1 (6.3) 8 Hours 11 (68.6) 9 - 1 0 Hours 2 (12.5) 1 1 - 1 2 Hours 1 (6.3) Unknown 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 (100) - 99 - TABLE 3.A.49 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BY THE INJURED PERSON BEFORE THE ACCIDENT (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) 1 NUMBER HOURS OF WORK OF INJURIES (%) OO 1 (6.3) 01 2 (12.5) 02 1 (6.3) 03 2 (12.5) 04 1 (6.3) 05 1 (6.3) 06 1 (6.3) 07 2 (12.5) 08 2 (12.5) 09 1 (6.3) XX Unknown 2 (12.5) TOTAL 16 (100) TABLE 3.A.50 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IM 1976, BY THE SOURCE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NUMBER INJURY SOURCE OF INJURIES (X) Chemicals, NEC 1 (6.3) Rope, Chain 1 (6.3) Chains, Ropes, Cables 1 (6.3) Nails, Staples 2 (12.5) Metal Chips and Particles 6 (37.2) Particles (Unidentified) 2 (12.5) Slivers, Splinters, etc. 1 (6.3) Wood Chip 1 (6.3) Wood Items, NEC 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 (100) NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified - TOO - TABLE 3.A.51 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE TYPE OF ACCIDENT (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NUMBER ACCIDENT TYPE OF INJURIES (%) Struck against stationary object 1 (6.3) Flying object thrown back by machine 1 (6.3) Flying object, NEC 4 (25.0) Struck by, NEC 3 (18.8) By vibrating objects 5 (31.2) Rubbed or Abraded, NEC 1 (6.3) Contact with radiations, caustics 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 (100) TABLE 3.A.52 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE NATURE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NATURE OF INJURY NUMBER OF INJURIES (%) Enucleation 2 (12.5) Cut, Laceration 5 (31.2) Scratches, abrasions 8 (50.0) Burn (chemical) 1 (6.3) TOTAL 16 (100) - 101 - Table 3.A.52 shows that 50% of the claims were due to scratches and abrasions and a further 31% due to cuts and lacerat ions . The nature of the in jury in a permanent d i s a b i l i t y case, therefore, appears to be only a more serious form of an in jury that i s often classed as sever i ty #1 or sever i ty #2. F i r s t a id was rendered in only 56% of the cases (Table 3.A.53). I t i s uncertain as to how many of these permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims could have been reduced in sever i ty or degree of d i s a b i l i t y had f i r s t a id been rendered. I t does not appear that a communication (language) problem played a part in any of the i n j u r i e s (Table 3.A.54). - 102 - TABLE 3.A.53 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER FIRST AID WAS RENDERED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT NUMBER FIRST AID OF INJURIES (%) Yes 9 (56.0) No 7 (44.0) TOTAL 16 (100) TABLE 3.A.54 NUMBER OF REPORTED SEVERITY #3 EYE INJURIES, RESULTING IN PERMANENT DISABILITY CLAIMS, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCOUNTING FOR A LANGUAGE PROBLEM (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) NUMBER LANGUAGE PROBLEM OF INJURIES (%) Yes 0 (0.0) No 16 (100) TOTAL 16 (100) - 1 03 - 3.A.D. Discussion of the Results of a Review of Alberta W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e P a r t i -^Discussion of General Results Figure 3.A.3 i l l u s t r a t e s the re la t ion between the rate of eye i n ju r i e s in each occurrence c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by the insurance premium (per $100 pay ro l l ) , an assessment rate which re f l ec t s the overal l in jury experience of indus- t r i e s with in the classes. The points on the graph are widely dispersed and the regression analysis of r = +.06 indicates l i t t l e re la t i on to the regression equation of y = 2.29 + .29X. There appears to be l i t t l e r e l a - t ion between W.C.B. insurance premiums and the rate of eye i n ju r i e s per occurrence c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . In 1976, the number of i n ju r i e s was lower in the winter months and higher in the spring and summer months (Table 3.A.2). This trend may be due to the r e l a t i ve s ize of the workforce during these periods of the year, including the use of student labour during the summer months. As the majority of i n ju r i e s occur within bu i ld ings , there i s no c lea r assoc i - at ion with c l imat i c changes. Table 3.A.55, taken from Table 3.A.3, shows a l i s t i n g of the 20 i n - dustry classes with the highest rates of eye i n ju r i e s for 1976. Overall rates fo r sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s and the r a t i o between the l a t t e r two are included. The rates of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n - j u r i e s do not f a l l cons i s tent ly with t he i r respective overa l l rates, but the downward trend is seen for both. L i t t l e re la t ion i s seen (corre lat ion coe f f i c i en t -0.11) between the overal l rate of eye i n ju r i e s and the r a t i o of sever i ty #1 to sever i ty #2 eye i n j u r i e s . The average company s ize varies great ly and no re la t i on can be seen between the average industry s i ze (below an average of 200 man years in s ize) and the rate of eye i n - j u r i e s . The majority of these high eye injury rate industry classes i n - - 104 - FIGURE 3.A.3 THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE RATE OF EYE INJURIES (PER 100 MAN YEARS) IN EACH ALBERTA W.C.B. OCCURRENCE CLASS AND THE INSURANCE ASSESSMENT (IN DOLLARS) PAID BY INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE OCCURRENCE CLASSES Tt) i t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W.C.B. INSURANCE ASSESSMENT (DOLLARS) TABLE 3.A.55 LISTING OF THE 20 INDUSTRY CLASSES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) I INDUSTRY CLASS DESCRIPTION O VE RA LL  E Y E IN JU RY  RA TE  (P ER  1 00  M AN  Y EA RS ) RA TE  O F SE VE RI TY  #V  EY E IN JU R IE S (P ER  1 00  M AN  Y EA RS ) RA TE  O F SE VE RI TY  #2  EY E IN JU R IE S (P ER  1 00  M AN  Y EA RS ) RA TI O : SE V #1 /S EV  # 2 IN JU R IE S AV ER AG E SI Z E  O F T H E CO MP AN Y W IT H IN  T H E IN DU ST RY  CL AS S.  NU MB ER  O F CO M PA NI ES  W IT H IN  IN DU ST RY  CL AS S 20.6 14.1 6.5 0.46 2.6 no 16.7 12.9 3.8 0.29 2.5 772 16.3 10.8 5.3 0.49 42.0 43 15.5 11.5 3.9 0.25 34.0 9 13.0 9.8 3.2 0.33 19.0 129 12.8 10.6 2.1 0.16 47.0 2 12.0 9.0 2.9 0.32 98.0 13 10.5 8.0 2.4 0.23 13.0 282 10.0 6.2 3.8 0.61 49.0 6 9.9 6.6 3.1 0.47 24.0 21 9.0 6.3 2.8 0.44 27.0 15 8.3 6.7 1.7 0.25 5.0 13 8.1 6.1 2.1 0.34 5.0 948 7.7 5.4 2.3 0.43 12.0 225 7.5 6.0 1.5 0.25 29.0 9 7.4 5.6 1.9 0.34 7.0 7 7.2 6.2 1.0 0.16 11.0 9 7.1 4.4 2.8 0.64 31.0 44 6.7 4.1 2.6 0.63 180.0 3 6.0 4.2 1.8 0.43 134.0 8 301 894 302 323 324 343 291 308 307 311 336 328 658 303 264 098 297 347 252 292 of of of Boiler and Plate Works Blacksmith and Welding Operations Fabrication of Structural Steel Mfg. of Vehicles Trailers, Trucks and Campers Lime Steel Shops Furnaces and Registers Farm Implements Generators and other Electrical Equip. Fiberglass Boats Repair and Unloading of Doors and Windows of Metal Office Furniture and Installation Diamond Drilling Foundries - Brass, Bronze and Lead Mfg. of Concrete Products Mfg. of Plywood Mfg. of Steel Pipe Mfg. Mfg. Mfg. Machine Mfg. of Mfg. Mfg. Mfg. Auto Mfg. Mfg. of of of - 106 - volve the manufacture or processing of metals or metal products. Industry classes which have shown a consistent increase in the ab- solute number of eye i n ju r ie s from 1974 to 1976 are shown in Table 3.A.56. Even though rates cannot be applied to these absolute f i gures , i t i s s t i l l s i gn i f i c an t to note that an absolute increase did occur. Table 3.A.57 shows the industry classes which have shown consistent decreases in the absolute number of eye i n ju r i e s over the same time period. These tables show no noticeable patterns, e i ther in industry type or s i ze . In 1976, over 96% of the injured workers were males (Table 3.A.4). This i s not an unusual f ind ing as a majority of workers in high eye hazard industr ies (those which manufacture metals or metal products) are male. From 1974 to 1976, the proportion of i n ju r i e s among women increased from 3.0 to 3.3 percent; however th i s i s l i k e l y due to an increase in the f e - male workforce during th i s period. The results of th i s study show that a majority (69% - 72%) of eye i n ju r i e s between 1974 and 1976 occurred among workers less than 35 years of age. Forty percent of reported eye i n ju r ie s occurred among workers who were 25 years of age or less . I t appears, then, that a high propor- t ion of i n ju r i e s occur among young workers. Because data concerning the injured workers' length of employment (Table 3.A.6) was reported infrequent ly, i t was d i f f i c u l t to judge the e f fect of experience on eye i n j u r i e s . 62% - 65% of injury claims that included th i s information in 1974-76 concerned workers with less than one year of work experience. Although th i s suggests a re la t ion between ex- perience and eye i n ju r y , the f indings could be explained also by rapid turnover or se lect ive reporting of th i s information for those with l i t t l e time with the company. - 107 - TABLE 3.A.56 LISTING OF THE INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, THAT HAVE SHOWN A CONSISTENT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES OVER THE YEARS 1974, 1975 AND 1976 (INDEPENDENT OF VARIATIONS IN WORKFORCE SIZE) (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) oo LU QC NO . O F  CO M PA NI ES  IN  1 9 7 6  AV ER AG E SI Z E INDUSTRY CLASS DESCRIPTION W OR KF OR C IN  1 97 6  (M AN  Y E A  NO . O F  CO M PA NI ES  IN  1 9 7 6  AV ER AG E SI Z E 061 096 101 124 139 145 303 323 324 341 347 359 404 421 875 894 931 Coal Mines Drill ing for Petroleum Slaughtering Flour Mills Misc. Food Industries Breweries Ornamental Metal Industry Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Truck Body and Trailer Manufacturer Cement Manufacturer Concrete Products Manufacturer Other Non-metallic Mineral Indust. Building Construction Special Trade Contractors Hotels - Restaurants Blacksmithing and Welding Shops Provincial Administration 3130 5205 5821 585 627 720 2607 304 2405 650 1344 1025 37711 36548 38124 1857 149 26 69 146 8 11 7 12 9 129 8 44 1 6421 7003 3055 772 44 120 75 40 73 57 103 225 34 19 81 31 1025 6 5 12 2.4 3 - 108 - TABLE 3.A. 57 LISTING OF THE INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, THAT HAVE SHOWN A CONSISTENT DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES OVER THE YEARS 1974, 1975 AND 1976 (INDEPENDENT OF VARIATIONS IN WORKFORCE SIZE) (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) W OR KF OR CE  IN  1 9 7 6  (M AN  YE AR S)  NO . O F  CO M PA NI ES  IN  1 9 7 6  AV ER AG E SI Z E INDUSTRY' CLASS DESCRIPTION W OR KF OR CE  IN  1 9 7 6  (M AN  YE AR S)  NO . O F  CO M PA NI ES  IN  1 9 7 6  AV ER AG E SI Z E 063 112 251 259 308 352 378 397 608 622 654 999 Petroleum and Gas Wells Fruit and Vegetable Canners Sawmills Misc. Wood Industries Machine Shops Refractories Manufacturers Industrial Chemicals Manufacturer Signs and Displays Industry Wholesalers of Petroleum Products Wholesalers of Machinery Gasoline Service Stations Unspecified or Undefined 16639 363 2174 300 3702 325 2033 347 1366 5354 7633 3159 638 5 310 31 282 3 36 31 495 496 1716 315 26 72 7 10 13 108 56 11 3 11 4.4 10 - 109 - Table 3.A.58 gives a l i s t i n g of the occupations with the highest occurrence of reported eye in ju r ie s in 1975 (greater than 5.9 i n ju r i e s per 100 man years). Most are occupations involv ing work with metals or metal products ( including mechanics) or the construction industry, where there are constant hazards from f l y i ng pa r t i c l e s . The results show (Table 3.A.8) that 81% of the workers who incurred eye i n ju r ie s in 1976 worked an eight hour s h i f t . F i f ten percent of the workers who incurred eye i n ju r ie s worked greater than eight hours per day. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to estab l i sh any re la t ion between the length of s h i f t (and possibly fatigue) and eye injury as i t i s not possible to know the pro- portion of the workforce who work these s h i f t s . Figure 3.A.4 (from Table 3.A.9) shows how the incidence of reported eye i n ju r ie s in 1976 varies with the time of day. The majority of a c c i - dents occurred during normal working hours, consistent with the working patterns of the workforce. The graph shows a peak at mid-morning, de- c l i n i n g at the lunch hour, and returning to an even higher peak in mid- afternoon, then decl in ing again in the late afternoon. Figure 3.A.5 shows the incidence of reported eye i n ju r ie s in 1976 (from Table 3.A.10) r e l a t i ve to the number of hours the person had worked p r i o r to the accident. The results show a peak a f te r 2 to 3 hours of work, decl in ing in the 4th hour, which i s usual ly a lunch Deriod, and r i s i ng again to the highest i n - cidence of eye i n ju r i e s in the 6th hour of work. The proportion of eye i n ju r i e s declines rapid ly in the 9th hour as a majority of the workforce have completed t h e i r s h i f t s . The findings in Figures 3.A.4 and 3.A.5 fol low the normal patterns of i n ju r y , r e l a t i ve to time, reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . One can speculate from these f indings that boredom and fatigue contribute to the incidence of eye i n ju r i e s in industry. - no - TABLE 3.A.58 THE INCIDENCE OF EYE INJURIES REPORTED TO THE W.C.B. IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY SELECTED OCCUPATION (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) RATE OF STANDARD ALBERTA EYE INJURIES OCCUP. WORKFORCE PER 100 RATING "CODE OCCUPATION DESCRIPTION (1976) WORKERS 1 8337 Boiler Makers, Platers and Structural Metal Workers 280 32.50 • 2 8335 Welding and Flame Cutting 4910 30.80 3 8393 Metal Shaping and Forming 260 24.60 4 8333 Sheet Metal Workers 1480 20.70 5 8793 Structural Metal Erectors 630 20.50 6 8313 Machinist and Machine Tool Setting Up 1355 15.40 7 8791 Pipefitting, Plumbing and Related Occupations 4275 14.90 8 8590 Foreman: Product Fabricating Assembling and Repairing 205 13.20 9 8379 Clay, Glass, Stone and Related Meterials Making 75 12.00 10.' 8228 Laboring and Other Elemental Work; Food and Beverage 750 9.70 11 9918 Laboring and Elemental Work NEC 7780 9.60 12 8733 Construction Electricians 3780 9.20 13 8529 Fabricating Occupations; Metal Products, NEC 215 8.80 14 8581 Motor Vehicle Mechanics and Repairmen 9915 7.60 15 8548 Occupations in Laboring, Fabricating, Assembling and Repairing; Wood Products 80 7.50 16 8798 Occupations in Laboring, Other Construction 6675 7.28 17 8786 Insulating Occupations - Construction 495 6.87 18 8583 Rail Transport Equipment, Mechanics and Repairmen 630 6.19 19 8339 Other Metal Shaping and Forming Occupations Except Machining 65 6.15 20 8137 Moulding, Coremaking and Metal Casting 185 5.95 21 8782 Brick and Stone Masons and Tile Setters and Related Occup. 875 5.94 22 8571 Bonding and Cementing Occup. Rubber, Plastic, Etc. 525 5.90 23 8781 Carpenters and Related Occupations 8515 5.58 NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified FIGURE 3.A.4 16 - 15 - 14 13 12 w 11 Distribution (in percent) of the Reported Eye Injuries, in Alberta, in 1976, by the Time of the Accident (on a 24 hour scale) Alberta W.C.B. Statistical Master Files n n n n , n 111 JL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time of the Accident (on a 24 hour scale) 16 15 14 13 12 CO cu 11 •r— •| 101 9 8 7 6 I 5 i- O A D- H O i. o- 3 cu >> ra 4-> O <4- O FIGURE 3.A.5 Distribution (in percent) of the Reported Eye Injuries, in Alberta, in 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident Occurred (Alberta W.C.B. Statistical Master Files) ro i H • CL 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Number of Hours Worked Before the Accident Occurred 11 12 - 113 - A great proportion of eye i n j u r i e s (77%) do not re su l t in l o s t work time and only require medical a id . In the years 1974, 1975 and 1976, 23% of the i n j u r i e s cons i s tent ly involved the payment of compensation fo r l o s t work time. In 1974 and 1975 there were 40 and 51 permanent d i s a b i l i t y awards re spect i ve l y , whereas only 7 were recorded in the W.C.B. S t a t i s - t i c a l Master F i l e f o r 1976. Although there may be some trend toward a s l i g h t reduction in these c la ims, as ind icated by the 1974 and 1975 f i - gures, the very low f igure in 1976 i s due to the fact that settlement of permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims takes some time and many had not yet been f i n a l i z e d . Fortunately, the number of permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims i s very low r e l a t i ve to the number of l o s t time and medical-a id-only claims. One could speculate, in l i n e with the l i t e r a t u r e , that a reduction in sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s would also bring a reduction in the number of permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims. I t i s i n te res t ing to note that 9 in jury sources are responsible fo r 91% of the reported eye i n ju r i e s in 1976 (Table 3.A.12). These are: Source Proportion of Injur ies (%) Pa r t i c l e s (un ident i f ied) 48. ,9 Metal chips and pa r t i c l e s 21. .1 Welding Equipment, E l e c t r i c Arc 8. .1 Misc. Chemicals 3. .7 Wood s l i v e r s and s p l i n t e r s , e tc . 3. 2 Acids 1. .5 Glass items 1. .5 Hand tools 1. 5 This i s due pr imar i l y to the gross c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system that i s used at the W.C.B., but the resu lts do show that the majority of i n j u r i e s re - - 114 - s u i t from metal, wood and other foreign bodies, with chemicals and rad ia - t ion (pr imar i ly u l t r a - v i o l e t ) contr ibut ing to about 13% of the reported i n j u r i e s . Over the time period 1974 to 1976, the absolute frequency of a majority of the in jury sources has not a l tered s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Table 3.A.59 shows those in jury sources that have increased in number from 1974 to 1976 while Table 3.A.60 shows those sources of injury that have consis- tent l y decreased. Over the three year period 1974 to 1976, scratches or abrasions have grown in proportion to represent nearly 80% of a l l the reported eye i n - j u r i e s . A substantial proportion of the remaining 20% involve chemical burns, radiat ion effects.and contusions. Table 3.A.61 gives a comparison of the nature of l o s t time eye i n ju r i e s reported to the Workers' Compen- sation Board in Alberta in 1976, and in B.C. in 1976, as reported in the l i t e r a t u r e . Although the overal l rates of eye i n ju r i e s are quite d i f f e ren t , the re l a t i ve proportions of the d i f fe rent kinds cf i n ju r ie s are remarkably s im i l a r . These s t a t i s t i c s suggest the presence of common in jury denomi- nators and, thus, predictable and perhaps cont ro l lab le causes of in jury. I t is. d i f f i c u l t to assess the provis ion of f i r s t aid in re lat ion to eye i n j u r i e s , as i t i s not known how many of the eye i n ju r ie s studied re- quired i t . In add i t ion, the non-response rate to th i s question (Table 3.A.16) was high (29% in 1976). There has been concern registered by occu- pational health personnel where workers are providing t he i r own f i r s t a id , often to the detriment of t he i r eyes. A notable example i s where welders apply top ica l anaesthetic to t h e i r eyes a f ter an arc f l a sh . The proportion of eye i n ju r i e s that had some communication problem associated with them (0.6%) appears unnecessarily high. This exposes the need for proper employee or ientat ion and the use of appropriate signals i f noise or language prevent verbal communication. - 115 - TABLE 3.A.59 LISTING OF EYE INJURY SOURCES THAT HAVE BECOME MORE PREVALENT OVER THE YEARS 1974 TO 1976, IN ALBERTA (FROM TABLE 3.A.12) INJURY SOURCE DESCRIPTION 0901 Acids 0999 Chemicals, NEC 4101 Nails, Spikes and Tacks 4103 Nails and Staples (From Power Actuated Tools) 4129 Pipe, NEC 5070 Welding equipment, Electric Arc 5708 Slivers and Splinters; Wood NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified TABLE 3.A.60 LISTING OF EYE INJURY SOURCES THAT HAVE BECOME LESS PREVALENT OVER THE YEARS 1974 TO 1976, IN ALBERTA (FROM TABLE 3.A.12) INJURY SOURCE DESCRIPTION 250 Insects 630 Boxes and Crates 965 Cement or Calcium Compounds 970 Chlorine and Chlorine Compounds 1180 Sulphur and Sulpher Compounds 1190 Petroleum Asphalts and Road Oils 1199 Coal and Petroleum Products 2230 Hammer, Sledge or Mallet 4399 Non-Metallic Mineral Items 5090 Laser Equipment 5799 Wood Items, NEC 5900 Concrete Items, NEC 8800 Miscellaneous, NEC 9800 Unknown, Unidentified (Other than Particles) NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified - 116 - TABLE 3.A.61 A COMPARISON OF THE NATURE OF LOST TIME EYE INJURIES REPORTED IN ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA; IN 1976 NATURE OF INJURY NUMBER OF INJURIES ALBERTA B.C. NUMBER (%) NUMBER (%) Unclassified 15 (0.6) 34 (1.4) Radiation Effects 367 (12.8) 194 (8.0) Conjunctivitis - - 67 (2.8) Chemical Burn 202 (7.1) 197 (8.1) Scratches, Abrasions 2105 (73.8) 1693 (69.7) Cuts, Lacerations 40 (1.4) 97 (4.0) Contusions, Bruises 70 (2.5) 82 (3.4) Heat Burn 53 (1.9) 63 (2.6) Electric Burn 1 (0.0) - - Enucleation 1 (0.0) - - Multiple - — 2 (0.1) TOTAL 2854 (100%) 2429 (100%) -117 - Part 2 - Discussion of the Detai led Results of a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes The f i f t e e n industr ies l i s t e d i n Tables 3.A.19 to 3.A.40 contribute 2.73% of the Alberta workforce ( in man years) , but in 1976 accounted for 17.57% of the to ta l number of reported eye i n j u r i e s , 20.4% of the sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s and 16.6% of the sever i ty #1 eye i n j u r i e s . This substant i - ates the fact that a disproportionate number of eye i n j u r i e s occur in spec i - f i c industry classes related to metals and metal products. I t i s apparent that a substantial decrease in the to ta l number of eye i n ju r i e s could be rea l i zed by concentrating l e g i s l a t i v e and educational programs on a r e l a - t i v e l y small Droportion of the i ndus t r i a l population. Because of the predominance of th i s data in the overal l number of eye i n ju r i e s in Alberta in 1976, the results from th i s section (Part II) show much the same findings as in Part I. There are, however, a few notable additions to the discuss ion. The incidence of sever i ty #1 and sever ity #2 i n ju r i e s in re lat ion to time are very consistent. I t i s in terest ing to note in Tables 3.A.23 and 3.A.34, however, that steel foundries, heating equipment manufacturers, and welding shops showed sever i ty #2 Deaks in the morning that were one hour l a t e r than the sever i ty #1 peak. This may indicate the p o s s i b i l i t y of more serious i n ju r i e s with the onset of fat igue. This r e l a t i o n , however, did not ex i s t in the afternoon. Table 3.A.62 shows the time during the workers' s h i f t in which the ma- j o r i t y of eye i n ju r i e s occurred. The f i r s t peak, which would usually corres- pond to the morning peak, i s not as dominant as the second peak. With the exception of holiday t r a i l e r manufacturers, industr ies show an increasing trend in the number of eye i n ju r i e s toward the end of the workers' s h i f t . - 118 - TABLE 3.A.62 LISTING OF THE TIMES DURING THE WORKER'S SHIFT IN WHICH THERE WERE PEAKS IN THE OCCURRENCE OF ALL TYPES OF EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, FOR EACH OF THE SELECTED HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) INDUSTRY FIRST SECOND CLASS DESCRIPTION PEAK PEAK 31100 Mfg. of Agricultural Implements 3 7 30700 Mfg. of Heating Equipment No Peak 5 30800 Automotive Machine Shops 5 7 30801 Machine Shops No Peak 7 29100 Mfg. of Steel No Peak. 6 29102 Foundry - Iron and Steel No Peak 7 34300 Mfg. of Lime - - 32400 Mfg. of Holiday Trailers and Campers 3 No Peak 32401 Mfg. of Truck Bodies and Cabs 2 6 32403 Mfg. of Wooden Truck Boxes - 32300 Mfg. of Vehicles 2 7 30200 Fabrication of Structural Steel 3 6 89400 Blacksmith Shop » - 89401 Welding Shop 3 7 30100 Mfg., Fab. and Repair of Metal Products 3 7 - 119 - Fatigue and boredom factors should be considered in the et io logy of these i n j u r i e s . In both sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , i t appears that the lower proportion or absence of metal chips and pa r t i c l e s (Tables 3.A.25 and 3.A.36) i s due, in some cases, to the absence of operations (such as hand grinding) which create metal p a r t i c l e s . A high proportion of sever ity #1 and sever i ty #2 i n ju r ie s are caused by injury sources c l a s s i f i e d as un ident i f ied p a r t i c l e s . In most industry classes th i s prooortion i s less f o r sever ity #2 i n j u r i e s . This may be due to the greater required attention that i s demanded i n completing forms i f compensation i s to be pa id, or the fact that compens- able i n j u r i e s ar ise from more s i g n i f i c an t (recognizable) causes. Severity #1 i n ju r i e s from chemical sources are uncommon in the industry classes with the exception of lime manufacturing. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , chemicals ( including acids) account for 17% of the sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s in automotive machine shops and 100% of the sever ity #2 i n ju r i e s in lime manufacturing industr ies. Severity #1 eye i n ju r i e s due to welding equipment (radiat ion) f igure pro- minently in the majority of industry classes with the exception of foundries, lime manufacturers, t r a i l e r manufacturers, and blacksmith shops. The same s i tua t i on i s apparent respecting sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s although, in general, welding equipment contributes to a higher proportion of the i n j u r i e s . - 1 2 0 - CHAPTER 3 SECTION B METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF A REVIEW OF SELECTED W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES - 121 - .3.B.M. Methoddlogy-Revi ew of Alberta W.C.B. Personal Medical Fi1es Rationale Questions asked in the VI.C.B. accident reporting forms emphasize the type of information that i s required to pay a claim rather than that needed fo r research i n accident prevention research. The v a l i d i t y of the information recorded on the forms, and the manner i n which i t i s extracted and coded into the computer f i l e s may also be questioned . To examine the information reported to the W.C.B. from a preventive point of view and to provide a check against the W.C.B. data stored in the computer f i l e s , a number of the personal f i l e s stored in the W.C.B. o f f i c e in Edmonton were examined. Access to Information In December of 1977 th i s researcher approached the Alberta W.C.B. through t he i r Director of S t a t i s t i c s and Research, to obtain permission to examine a number of claim f i l e s . In January of 1978 the permission was ob- ta ined, provided the f i l e s were kept in the W.C.B. o f f i ce s and those examin- ing the f i l e s signed a statement of c on f i den t i a l i t y . Population A l l claims that were within the high eye in ju ry r i sk Standard Indus- t r i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , i d en t i f i ed f o r further study i n Part A, were selected. This included 1581 claims that required medical-a id-only, and 584 claims that involved compensation for l o s t time or permanent d i s a b i l i t y . A l l compens- able in jury f i l e s were examined because of t h e i r r e l a t i v e seriousness. Only a sample of the to ta l number of medical-aid-only f i l e s were selected because of more common and ea s i l y recognized e t i o log ie s . A s t r a t i f i e d (by indus- t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) random sampling technique was used to se lect a 37% - 122 - sample of the medical-a id-only claims (586). The Instrument The data was taken from the W.C.B. reporting forms which appear in Appendix I. A data r e t r i e v a l form was designed to record s pec i f i c i n f o r - mation and, thereby, to obtain the information in a usable format. Data Content Figure 3.B.1 l i s t s the information (var iables) that were extracted from the medical f i l e s . Most of the var iables are s im i l a r to those extrac- ted from the W.C.B. Computer f i l e s , with the exception that they are coded in much greater de ta i l and with a preventive reporting o r ientat ion . Method of Data Co l lect ion In order to i den t i f y the medical f i l e s to be examined, the claim num- ber of each accident case was obtained and categorized according to the standard i ndus t r i a l c lass in which the accident occurred. A research a s s i s - tant was appointed and tra ined to extract the information from the medical f i l e s . The information was coded by hand onto data sheets. The completed sheets were sent to the Alberta Labour administrat ion o f f i ce s fo r key pun- ching and t rans fer onto the computer. Possible Bias This data suffers from the same poss ible biases as the data in Part A. It was, of course, impossible to remove bias that may have occurred p r i o r to the data extract ion and coding. Method Analysis The data was processed using the SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l Programming Package on an I.B.M. 370 Computer. In addit ion to the computerized information, the research ass i stant was instructed to make specia l deta i led notes on any - 123 - FIGURE 3.B.I REVIEW OF W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES VARIABLES Occurrence Class Type of Industry Workers Occupation Month of Injury Language Problem Cause of Injury Detailed Source of Injury Eye Protection Eye Involved Machine, Tool or Equipment Used by the Worker Work for the purpose of Business Part of Workers Regular Work First Aid When was Accident Reported to the Employer To Whom was the Accident Reported Location of Accident Prior Similar Disability Time and Type of Previous Claims Detailed Nature of Injury Treatment Physician who Rendered Treatment Chance of Permanent Disability Mis-representation or Concealment Length of Hospitalization Was Operation Performed Estimated Time off Work Real Length of Time off Work Workers Wages per Week Cost of Physicians Services Cost of Hospitalization - 124 - medical f i l e where the injury appeared to have an uncommon etiology, or an injury that was particularly serious. - 1 2 5 - 3.B.R. Results of a Review of Selected W.C.B. Personal Medical F i l e s Table 3.B.1 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s by industry c las s . In addit ion to the f i v e d i g i t standard indus- t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , two extra d i g i t s have been added to define the oper- ation with in the c las s . The f indings show the presence of the major ity of i n ju r i e s in metal re lated work environments. Among these industry classes there i s a marked va r i a t i on in the r a t i o of sever i ty #1 to sever i ty #2 i n - j u r i e s , some being greater than one, and others less than one. Table 3.B.2 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s by the W.C.B. occurrence class in which they occurred. The premiums paid in each occurrence class are included fo r reference. The ma- j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s are with in classes which contain companies concerned with manufacturing and repair ing metal and wood oroducts. Table 3.B.3 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of selected eye in jury claims accor- ding to the month in which the in jury occurred. There i s l i t t l e va r i a t i on in the number of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s over the months of the year. Table 3.B.4 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of selected eye in jury claims accor- ding to whether the work performed at the time of the accident was f o r nor- mal business purposes. The great major ity of eye i n ju r i e s occurred as a re - su l t of work re lated a c t i v i t i e s , although two sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s occurred while workers were attending apprentice c lasses. Table 3.B.5 shows the number of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n - j u r i e s according to whether the a c t i v i t y at the time of the in jury was a regular part of the person's work. The great majority of eye i n ju r i e s occurred while the person was engaged in his regular work. One sever i ty #2 eye in jury occurred as a resu l t of a worker engaging in extra duties. - 126 - TABLE 3.B.1 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES. IN ALBERTA. IN 1976, BY THE INDUSTRY CLASS IN WHICH THE INJURED PERSON WORKED (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) INDUSTRY CLASS SEVERITY #1 INJURIES SEVERITY #2 INJURIES 2910002 - 2910201 - 2910202 - 2910203 - 2910214 - 3010001 - 3010002 - 3010006 - 3010011 - 3010012 - 3010013 - 3010014 - 3010018 - 3010019 - 3010020 - 3010021 - 3010022 - 3010023 - 3010024 - 3010025 - 3010026 - 3020001 - 3020002 - 3020003 - 3020008 - 3020013 - 3020014 - 3070001 - 3070004 - 3070005 - 3080001 - 3080011 - 3080014 - 3080101 - 3080102 - 3080112 - 3080113 - 3080114 - 3080119 - 3110001 - 3230001 - 3230007 - 3240001 - 3240009 - 3240029 - 3240031 - 3240032 - 3240101 - 3240129 - 3240130 - 3240301 - 3430001 - 3430028 - 8940001 - 8940101 - 8940102 - 8940112 • 8940113 • 8940114 - 8940115 • 8940116 • MANUFACTURER OF STEEL: STEEL FOUNDRY FOUNDRY IRON OR STEEL: NON-SPECIFIC STEEL FOUNDRY IRON FOUNDRY FOUNDRY IRON OR STEEL: MANUFACTURING FABRICATION, MANUFACTURING 4 REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS: NON-SPECIFIC FABRICATION, MANUFACTURING & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS: STEEL INDUSTRY FARM MACHINERY MANUFACTURER MACHINE SHOP, WELDING SHOP OILFIELD MAINTENANCE AND MANUFACTURER METAL FABRICATION MANUFACTURING METAL PRODUCTS IRON WORKS COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE METAL WORKS CRANE MANUFACTURER STEEL TANK FABRICATION CONSTRUCTION AND MANUFACTURING: IRON AND METAL WORKS METAL PIPE FABRICATION METAL TANK FABRICATION METAL FABRICATION ANO MANUFACTURING HEAVY EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL: NON-SPECIFIC FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL: STEEL FOUNDRY, STEEL INDUSTRY FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL & IRON FOUNDRY TRAVEL TRAILER, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE MANUFACTURER FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL: OTHER METAL FABRICATION FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL, MANUFACTURING MANUFACTURING HEATING COOLING EQUIPMENT AIR CONDITIONER AND HEATING PRODUCTION FURNACE PRODUCTION AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP, WELDING SHOP AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP, MANUFACTURER MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP, STEEL INDUSTRY MACHINE SHOP, OILFIELD MAINTENANCE, MANUFACTURER MACHINE SHOP, METAL FABRICATION MACHINE SHOP, MANUFACTURING MACHINE SHOP. AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURER OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS MANUFACTURER OF VEHICLES TRUCK BODY AND TRUCK EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER MANUFACTURER OF HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS PRE-FABRICATED HOME MANUFACTURER BODY SHOP: HOLIDAY TRAILERS. CAMPERS AUTOMOTIVE REBUILOER: HOLIDAY TRAILERS. CAMPERS TRAILER REPAIRS MANUFACTURER TRUCK BODIES, CABS, TRAILERS BODY SHOP: TRUCK BODIES, CABS, TRAILERS HEAVY EQUIPMENT SALES AND SERVICE MANUFACTURER OF WOODEN TRUCK BOXES MANUFACTURER OF LIME MINING LIME BLACKSMITH SHOP WELDING WELDING: STEEL FOUNDRY, STEEL INDUSTRY WELDING: OILFIELD MAINTENANCE WELDING: METAL FABRICATION WELDING: MANUFACTURING WELDING: CONSTRUCTION WELDING: CAST IRON REPAIR COMPANY TOTAL 34 6 7 31 6 35 2 9 7 20 13 7 2 1 1 12 7 1 3 15 40 12 2 43 5 2 34 34 46 44 37 586 (5.8) (1.0) 8:8 (1.0) (6.0) (0.3) (1*5) (1.2) (3.4) (2.2) (0*5) (1.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (2.0) (1.2) (0.2 28 (4.8) (0.5) (2.6) (6*9) (2.0) (0.3) (7.3) (0.9) (0.4) (5.8) (5.8) (0.2) (7.9) (0~2) (0.2) (0.3) (7.6) (0.7) (0.2) (0.5) (1.5) (0.2) (0.2 (6.4) (0*7) (1.2) (0.2 (0.2 2 (0.3) 13 (2.2) 16 2.7 4 (0.7) 20 18 1 11 17 66 34 1 2 1 1 1 10 1 6 13 2 71 5 5 3 3 43 29 (5.0) 5 (0.9) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 4 (0.7) 16 2.8) 11 1.9) 1 0.2) 3 0.5) 1 0.2) 49 (8.4) 52 7 2 4 2 1 584 - 127 - TABLE 3.B.2 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE OCCURRENCE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INDUSTRY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 INSURANCE OCCURRENCE CLASS INJURIES INJURIES PREMIUM # (%) # (%) 05-01 55 (9.4) 13 (2.2) $1.45 06-02 18 (3.1) 11 (1.9) $2.50 06-08 3 (0.3) 1 (0.2) $8.25 08-02 246 (42.0) 396 (67.8) $3.00 08-03 117 (20.0) 99 (17.0) $2.20 08-04 53 (9.0) 26 (4.5) $3.25 08-05 85 (14.5) 34 (5.8) $3.60 19-02 10 (1-7) 1 (0.2) $0.50 - $7.50 Unknown - 3 (0.5) Unknown TOTAL 586 (100%) 584 (100%) - 128 - TABLE 3.B.3 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 BY THE MONTH IN WHICH THE INJURY OCCURRED (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) MONTH OF INJURY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) # (%) January 52 (8.9) 47 (8.0) February 41 (7.0) 40 (6.8) March 58 (9.9) 57 (9.8) Apri l 43 (7.3) 49 (8.4) May 53 (9.0) 56 (9.6) June 45 (7.7) 41 (7.0) July 55 (9.4) 65 (11.1) August 51 (8.7) 62 (10.6) September 55 (9.4) 63 (10.8) October 49 (8.4) 44 (7.5) November 45 (7.7) 31 (5.3) December 39 (6.7) 28 (4.8) Unknown - - 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 (100%) 584 (100%) - 129 - TABLE 3.B.4 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A.REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE WORK PERFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WAS FOR NORMAL BUSINESS PURPOSES (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) WORK FOR SEVERITY #1 1 INJURIES SEVERITY #2 INJURIES BUSINESS # (%) # (%) No Response Yes During Lunch Worker Attend- ing SAIT Personal Business 92 (15.7) 491 (83.8) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 13 (2.2) 570 (97.6) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 TABLE 3.B.5 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES,. FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE WORK ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE EYE INJURY WAS A REGULAR PART OF THE PERSONS WORK (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) PART OF REGULAR WORK SEVERITY #1 INJURIES SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) # (%) No Response Yes Apprentice Class Personal Work Extra Duty 92 (15.7) 491 (83.8) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 13 (2.2) 570 (97.6) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 1 30 - Table 3.B.6 gives the d i s t r i bu t i on of selected sever ity #1 and sever- i t y #2 eye i n ju r i e s by the occupation of the injured worker. The standard •four d i g i t Canadian c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of occupations i s used in addition to two extra d i g i t s which are used to c l a r i f y the a c t i v i t y or status of the tradesman. The greatest number of sever ity #1 and sever ity #2 i n j u r i e s , in the industry classes studied, occur among machinists, welders, mechanics, plumbers and p i pe f i t t e r s and labouring occupations. In the case of severity #1 i n j u r i e s , i t i s in terest ing to note that 11.1% of the injured welders were apprentices, while 3.3% were welders ' helpers. 14% of the severity #1 i n ju r i e s among plumbers and p i pe f i t t e r s were shared equally by apprentices and helpers. In the case of sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , 5.4% of the tota l num- ber of i n ju r i e s incurred by machinists were incurred by apprentices. Forty of the 295 (14%) sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s incurred by welders happened to apprentices, while a further 3.1% of the to ta l number of i n ju r ie s to wel- ders were incurred by welders ' helpers. Table 3.B.7 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of selected eye i n ju r i e s by the cause of the in jury. A large proportion of the sever i ty #1 and severity #2 eye i n ju r i e s studied in th i s section were caused by a f l y i n g piece of metal which usually came in the form of a spark from a grinder. Non-specif ic f o r - eign bodies contributed to 12% of the sever ity #1 i n j u r i e s , but only 4% of the sever i ty #2. i n j u r i e s . In t o t a l , 85% of the sever i ty #:1 i n ju r ie s and 72% of the sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s were caused by a foreign body in the eye. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , radiat ion (from welding operations) contributed to 9% of the sever i ty #1 i n ju r i e s and 21% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . The majority of other causes of eye i n ju r i e s re late to meta l l i c or non-metall ic pa r t i c le s or fragments. Chemicals contribute only to about 2% of the i n ju r ie s in e i ther category. Compressed a i r and/or wind are responsible fo r 6% of the - 1 3 1 - TABLE 3.B.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 ANO SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES. FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 BY THE OCCUPATION OF THE INJURED WORKER (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 OCCUPATION INJURIES INJURIES # (*) f W OOOOOO _ NO CLASSIFICATION 63 (10.8) 13 fell 415301 - SHIPPING AND RECIEVING CLERKS 2 (0.3) 1 415701 - WEIGHERS . 1 (0.2) 513501 - SALESMEN 1 (0*2) - -611138 - FIRE-FIGHTERS: KILN FIREMANS HELPER 1 (0.2) - -619101 - JANITORS 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 771001 - SUPERVISORS; DRILLING OPERATIONS 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 771140 - ROTARY WELL-DRILLING 1 (0.2) -771901 - OIL AND GAS FIELD OCCUPATIONS - 1 (o'.z) 811101 - CRUSHING AND GRINDING OCCUPATIONS 1 (0?2) . 813701 - METAL CASTING 3 (0.5) 2 (0*3) 813702 - METAL CASTING: CUPOLA OPERATOR - 1 (0.2) 813716 - METAL CASTING: STEEL WORKER 1 (0?2j -813747 - METAL CASTING: COREMAKER 1 (0.2) - -814301 - PLATING, METAL OCCUPATIONS 1 (0.2) -814801 - LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING 2 (0.3) -814822 - LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - 1 (0.2) 814901 - METAL PROCESSING 1 (0T2) -814927 - METAL PROCESSING: METAL TRADESMAN 1 (o'.z) 817103 - CRUSHING AND GRINDING CHEMICALS . - 1 (0.2) 817813 - LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM: BULK LOADER, BAGGER 2 (0.3) -817835 - LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM: MAINTENANCE 1 (0.2) _ -817838 - LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM: KILN FIREMANS HELPER 2 (0.3 831001 FOREMAN; MACHINING OPERATIONS 2 (0.3) -831301 - MACHINIST 48 (8.2) 35 (6.0) 831303 - MACHINIST: GRINDER 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 831314 - MACHINIST: MACHINIST HELPER 1 (0.2) _ 831315 - MACHINIST: APPRENTICE 1 (0.2) 2 (0*3) 831322 - MACHINIST: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - 1 (0.2) 831516 - MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING: STEEL WORKER - 1 (0.2) 831522 - MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - - 1 (0.2) 831901 - METAL MACHINING - - 1 (0.2) 833001 - FOREMAN; METAL SHAPING AND FORMING 6 (1.1) 2 (0.3) 833301 - SHEET-METAL WORKERS 1 (0-2) 11 (1.9) 833304 - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: WELDER . 1 (0.2) 833305 - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: ASSEMBLER/PRODUCTION WORKER 1 (0*2) . 833310 - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: TINSMITH - 1 (0?2) 833316 - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: STEEL WORKER - - 1 (0.2) 833401 - METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS - - 1 (0.2) 833422 - METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - - 1 (0.2) 833426 - METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS: SHEAR HELPER - - 1 (0.2) 833501 - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS 173 (29.6) 242 (41.4) 833503 - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER - 1 (0.2) 833515 - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: APPRENTICE 23 (3~9) 40 (6-8) 833517 WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: PIPEFITTER 3 (0.5) -833518 - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: WELDERS HELPER 8 (1.4) 10 (1*7) 833524 - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: PRESSURE WELDER - 1 (0.2) 833529 WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: MACHINIST . 1 (0.2) 833548 - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: WELDING FOREMAN 1 (0.2) _ 833601 - INSPECTING, METAL SHAPING AND FORMING 1 (0.2) -833701 - BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS 2 (0.4) 1 (0.2) 833716 - BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS: STEEL WORKER - 1 (0.2) 833915 - METAL SHAPING AND FORMING OCCUPATIONS: APPRENTICE - _ 1 (0.2) 833943 - METAL SHAPING AND FORMING OCCUPATIONS: CASTING OPERATOR 1 (0.2) -839301 - FILING, GRINDING AND BUFFING OCCUPATIONS 4 (0.7) 8 (1*4) 839303 - FILING, GRINDING AND BUFFING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER 15 (2-6) 2 (0.3) 851309 _ MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING: PUNCH MACHINE OPERATOR - 1 (0.2) 851319 MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING: FABRICATOR 1 (0*2) _ 852903 - OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER . . 1 (0*2) 853101 - ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FABRICATING ANO ASSEMBLING 1 (o'.z) 853801 - LABOURING IN FABRICATING. ASSEMBLING. INSTALLING I REPAIRING 1 (0.2) - -ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 854801 - LABOURING IN FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING WOOD PRODUCTS - - 1 (0.2) 858101 - MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS 20 (3.4) 15 2.6) 858112 - MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: SHOP FOREMAN - 1 (0.2) 858123 - MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: MILLWRIGHT 2 -858136 - MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: MECHANICS HELPER 1 (0.2) -858145 - MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: BODY MECHANIC 2 (0.3) 848401 - HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS 13 (2.2) 12 (2.1) 858403 HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS: GRINDER 1 (0.2) - 132 - TABLE 3.B.6 - Continued OCCUPATION SEVERITY #1 INJURIES (X) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES U) 858415 858423 858901 859001 859801 859803 859805 859811 859816 859841 871139 871922 873301 873601 878001 878101 878501 878531 • 879101 • 879103 • 879115 • 879117 • 879133 • 879134 • 879301 • 879304 • 879321 • 879801 • 879803 • 879805 • 917501 • 931101 • 831144 • 931501 • 931522 • 931525 . 931544 • 931801 • 931913 • 991601 • 991801 • 991802 - 991803 • 991804 • 991805 - 991806 • 991807 • 991808 • 991813 - 991814 • 991815 - 991816 - 991817 • 991818 - 991819 • 991827 • 991828 • 991830 • 991833 • 991835 • 991836 • 991837 - 991842 • 991846 - 991849 • HEAVY. DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS: APPRENTICE HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS: MILLWRIGHT OTHER MECHANICS FOREMAN: PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING: GRINDER LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING: ASSEMBLER/PRODUCTION WORKER LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING ANO REPAIRING: WOODWORKER LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING: STEEL WORKER LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING: TRUCK BODY BUILDER EXCAVATING, GRADING: SCRAPER OPERATOR EXCAVATING, GRADING, PAVING: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS INSPECTING AND TESTING: ELECTRICAL POWER, WIRE COMMUNICATIONS FOREMAN: OTHER CONSTRUCTION TRADES CARPENTERS PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS: PAINTERS HELPER PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING PIPEFITTING, PIPEFITTING, PIPEFITTING, PIPEFITTING, PIPEFITTING, GRINDER APPRENTICE PIPEFITTER FITTERS HELPER BOILERMAKER PLUMBING: PLUMBING: PLUMBING: PLUMBING: PLUMBING: STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS: STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS: LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION: LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION: TRUCK DRIVERS HOISTING OCCUPATIONS HOISTING OCCUPATIONS: CRANE OPERATOR MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS LABOURING IN MATERIAL-HANDLING OTHER MATERIAL-HANDLING OCCUPATIONS: BULK LOADER, BAGGER INSPECTING, TESTING, GRADING, AND SAMPLING OCCUPATIONS WELDER IRON WORKER GRINDER ASSEMBLER/PRODUCTION WORKER EQUIPMENT OPERATOR FORK LIFT OPERATOR CRANE OPERATOR LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: NON-SPECIFIC CUPOLA OPERATOR GRINDER WELDER ASSEMBLER - PRODUCTION WORKER DRILLER STEAM CLEANER ENGINE TESTER BULK LOADER/BAGGER MACHINIST HELPER APPRENTICE STEEL WORKER PIPEFITTER WELDERS HELPER FABRICATOR METAL TRADESMAN BRAKE HELPER SWAMPER FITTERS HELPER MAINTENANCE WORKER MECHANICS HELPER SHOP ASSISTANT HELPER, FURNACE SINGLE PUNCH OPERATOR RIGGER TOTAL 1 3 5 32 2 16 1 35 1 8 6 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 586 (0.2) (0.5) (0~9) (5.5) (0.3) (2.7) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.9) (0~.Z) (1.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.9) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) 1 (0.2) (0.2) (6.0) (0.2) (1.4) (0~3) 1 (0.2) (1.0) (0*4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) 2 1 2 17 4 6 1 1 5 2 2 21 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 24 16 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (2.9) (0.7) (1.0) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.9) (0.3) (0.3) (3.6) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.5) (0.2) (0.4) (0.2) (0~5) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0*4) (0.2) (0.2) (4.1) (2~7) (0.7) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (1.2) (0.2) 0.2) 0.2) (0.2) 1 (0.2) 584 - 133 - TABLE 3.B.7 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) CAUSE OF INJURY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) # (%) Unknown 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) Foreign Body; Non-Specific 72 (12.3) 25 (4.3) Flying Spark/Piece of Metal 327 (55.8) 353 (60.4) Welding Flash/Radiation 55 (9.4) 120 (20.5) Foreign Body; Non-Metallic 58 (9.9) 26 (4-5) Electrical Flash - - 1 (0.2) Hot Metal Splatter 12 (2.0) - -Sharp Object 2 (0.3) 5 (0.9) Harmful Liquids & Corrosives 10 (1.7) 13 (2.2) Welding Injury 4 (0.7) 5 (0.9) Flying Fragment or Object 14 (2.4) 13 (2.2) Welding Flash and Metallic Foreign Body - - 7 (1.2) Wind Blew Foreign Body into Eye 24 (4.1) 11 (1.9) Blunt Object 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 134 - sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s , but only 2% of the sever ity #2 i n j u r i e s . Table 3.B.S shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of sever i ty #1 and severity #2 •eye i n ju r i e s by the source of the in jury . This information represents a more deta i led look at the cause of i n ju r ie s shown in Table 3.B.7. A l - though the type of meta l l i c foreign body was not defined in most cases, a high proportion that v/ere defined were found to be s t ee l . Although steel was responsible for a subs tant ia l l y greater proportion of severity #2 than sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s , t h i s may be due to reporting anomalies. S imi lar num- bers of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 i n ju r ie s were caused by non-specified hot metal substances. Out of nine lime dust i n j u r i e s , 78% resulted in compensation fo r lo s t work time. Table 3.B.9 gives the d i s t r i bu t i on of eye i n ju r i e s according to the nature of the in jury. Approximately 55% of the eye i n ju r i e s studied re - sulted in corneal abrasions. The results show a multitude of spec ia l ized incidents which cannot be well categorized. Table 3.B.10 records the d i s t r i bu t i on of sever ity #1 and sever ity #2 eye i n ju r i e s according to whether eye protection was worn at the time of the accident. An extremely large number of the personal medical f i l e s that were surveyed did not o f fe r any information on whether eye protection was worn at the time of the accident (83% for sever i ty #1, 73% for sever ity #2). Of those who reported the information, 13% of sever i ty #1 i n ju r i e s and 28% of sever i ty #2 did not use any eye protect ion. Safety glasses were used in 42% of the sever i ty #1 cases and 31% of the sever i ty #2 cases. In- j u r i e s occurred while goggles were being worn in 12% of the sever ity #1 cases and 4% of the sever i ty #2 cases. The remaining cases where eye pro- tect ion was worn are highly var ied. Table 3.B.11 reports whether the r i gh t , l e f t or both eyes were i n - volved in the selected eye i n j u r i e s . Severity #1 i n ju r i e s occurred in the -135 - TABLE 3.B.8 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERTIY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 BY THE SOURCE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 SOURCE OF INJURY INJURIES INJURIES # (5!) # (2) Not Classified 2 (0.3) 5 (0.9) foreign body; non-specific 80 (13.7) 24 (4.1) metallic foreign body; non-specific 218 (37.2) 157 (26.9) steel 88 (15.0) 155 (26.5) iron 7 (1.2) 15 (2.6) manganese - - 1 (0.2) rust 1 (0.2) 5 (0.9) hot metal; non-specific 19 (3.2) 14 (2.4) copper - - 1 (0.2) rivet, nut - - 2 (0.3) 'gumdoll 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) sand 6 (1.0) 5 (0.9) electrical; non-specific - 1 (0.2) piece of plastic - - 2 (0.3) ultraviolet radiation 54 (9.2) 119 (20.4) degreaser - 1 (0.2) sulphuric acid - 1 (0.2) staples - - 1 (0.2) dirt, dust 44 (7.5) 18 (3.1) hot water, steam with detergent - 1 (0.2) chromic acid - - 1 (0.2) hot cinder 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) wood (fiber, chip, splinter, sawdust) 21 (3.6) 7 (1.2) chemically treated tar chip - 1 (0.2) fiberglass 5 (0*9) 4 (0.7) glass 1 (0.2) 3 (0.5) air hose nozzle 1 (0.2) " 1 (0.2) aluminum 4 (0.7) 4 (0.7) lime dust 7 (1.2) 2 (0.3) dirty oil . 1 (0.2) lead 1 (0~2) 1 (0.2) caustic soda 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) drill bit - 1 (0.2) ultraviolet radiation and metallic FB - 7 (1.2) hot welding rod - - 2 (0.3) sulphur dust - - 1 (0.2) ultraviolet radiation & hot welding rod - - 1 (0.2) wrench handle 1 : (0.2) 1 (0.2) paint 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) hot steel - - 3 (0.5) nitrogen - - 1 (0.2) coal dust 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) hot zinc cone 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) cardboard box flap' - 1 (0.2) hot steel bar 1 (0.2) dust and iron filings - - 1 (0.2) dry paint chip 1 (0.2) screwdriver 1 (0.2) _ _ Liquid metal conditioner acid 1 (0.2) _ _ brass 1 (0.2) _ _ wood panel 1 (0.2) -copper tubing 1 (0.2) _ hot sand 1 (0.2) - -pliers 1 (0.2) - -piece of cement 1 1 (0.2) _ query ultraviolet radiation • - 2 (0.3) piece of carbon j 1 (0.2) - -136 - TABLE 3.B.8 (Continued) SOURCE OF INJURY J 1 SEVERITY #1 INJURIES SEVERITY iZ INJURIES i (*). # <*) metal dust hot metal wire paint thinner metal chain solvent 1 (0.2) 1 0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0*2) 2 (0.3) TOTAL | 586 584 - 137 - TABLE 3.B.9 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY iZ EYE INJURIES. FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA. IN 1976, BY THE NATURE OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) NATURE OF INJURY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES (*) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES (X) NOT KNOWN CORNEAL ABRASION , CORNEAL ABRASION-CORNEAL EDEMA CORNEAL ABRASION-RUST RING DEEP CORNEAL ABRASION CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS REDDENED CONJUNCTIVA SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE CONJUNCTIVAL SCRATCH CORNEAL ABRASION (STROMA)-ORBITAL CONTUSION CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVAL LACERATION CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS-ULCERATION INTRACONJUNCTIVAL FOREIGN BODY WITH INFLAMMATION SCRATCH ON EYELID CORNEAL ABRASION-RUST RING-CONJUNCTIVITIS KERATITIS-SUBEPITHELIAL SCAR-CONJUNCTIVITIS CONJUNCTIVITIS-MILD CONTUSION TO LIDS IRITIS-CORNEAL ABRASION DEEP CORNEAL ABRASION-IRITIS-RUST RING MULTIPLE CORNEAL ABRASIONS CONTUSION-CORNEAL ABRASION & EROSION-CONJUNCTIVAL & CILIARY INJECTION- ECCHYMOSIS OF EYELIDS CONJUNCTIVAL ERYTHEMA-SCLERAL LACERATION CORNEAL ABRASION-MINIMAL IRITIS CHANGES CORNEAL ABRASION-ULCER ACUTE CORNEAL ULCER ASSOCIATED WITH CORNEAL ABRASION EYE IRRITATION RUST RING FOREIGN BOOY: EDGE OF IRIS CORNEAL ABRASION-CELLULITIS UPPER EYELID-CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ULCER-DEEP RUST RING WITH STROMAL EDEMA FOREIGN BODY: DEEP IN STROMA FOREIGN BODY: CONJUNCTIVA ' - CORNEAL FOREIGN BODY CORNEAL ULCER WITH EPITHELIAL EDEMA CONJUNCTIVAL FOREIGN BODY-CORNEAL ABRASIONS-RUST RING DEEP CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS POST-TRAUMATIC RETINAL TEAR WITH SECONDARY VITREOUS HEMORRHAGE CORNEAL FOREIGN BODY-LACERATION RUST SPOT ON CORNEA-RECURRENT ULCERATION SMALL EROSION UNDER UPPER LID-CONJUNCTIVAL INJECTION SCLERAL FOREIGN BODY SWOLLEN EYELID-CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ABRASION-SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE CORNEAL ABRASION-CORNEAL EDEMA-CONJUNCTIVITIS LACERATION OF EYELIDS-HAEMATOMA PENETRATING CORNEAL LACERATION LACERATION OF EYELID-HYPHEMA 15 246 1 39 21 2 3 1 (2.6) (42.0) (0.2) (6.7) (3.6) (0.3) (0.5) (0.2) 39 (6.7) 4 (0.7) 14 (2.4) 1 6 13 2 1 11 20 (0.2) (1.0) (2.2) (0.3) (0.2) (1.9) (3.4) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 7 173 3 84 3 38 2 1 3 1 1 21 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 14 1 30 (1.2) (29.6) (0.5) (14.4) (0.5) (6.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (3.6) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (1.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (2.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (1.2) (0.2) (5.1) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (1.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) - 138 - TABLE 3.B.9 - Continued NATURE OF INJURY MULTIPLE CORNEAL ULCERS-RUST RING NO INJURY NOTED SULFURIC ACID BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA CHROMIC ACID BURNS TO CORNEA ANO CONJUNCTIVA LIME BURNS LIME 8URNS-CHEMICAL SCLERITIS CAUSTIC SODA BURNS-EPITHELIAL BREAKDOWN-BLEPHAROSPASM CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO NITROGEN SPLASH CHEMICAL CONJUNCTIVITIS-SULPHUR DUST BILATERAL CORNEAL ABRASIONS AND CONJUNCTIVITIS FROM PAINT CONJUNCTIVAL ABRASION MARKED PURULENT CONJUNCTIVITIS WITH SMALL ABCESS ON LID ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CILIARY SPASM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA, CONJUNCTIVA AND EYELIDS CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS: NON-SPECIFIC CONJUNCTIVITIS & PHOTOPHOBIA DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN IRITIS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BLEPHARITIS OF UPPER AND LOWER EYELIDS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS SWELLING OF EYELIDS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH BLEPHAROSPASM QUERY: ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS CONJUNCTIVAL BURN FROM HOT METAL CORNEAL AND CONJUNCTIVAL BURNS FROM HOT METAL SECOND DEGREE BURN OF SKIN NEAR INNER CANTHUS SECOND DEGREE BURN OF EYELIDS WITH SECONDARY INFECTION CORNEAL BURN DEEP BURNS TO INNER ENDS OF UPPER AND LOWER EYELIDS AND ON THE CARUNCLE BURN TO MEDIAL CANTHUS HEAT BURNS TO EYELIDS HEAT BURN TO SCLERA HEAT BURN TO UPPER EYELID HEAT BURN TO INNER CANTHUS AND CONJUNCTIVA CORNEAL ABRASION WITH BURN INVOLVEMENT CHEMICAL BURN-SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE-CORNEAL ABRASION ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CORNEAL ABRASION AND RUST RING ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CORNEAL ABRASION ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS-CORNEAL ABRASION WITH RUST RING AND STROMAL EOEMA-SECONDARY IRITIS ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS WITH ASSOCIATED HEAT BURNS TO UPPER LID- CONTUSION OF THE GLOBE CONJUNCTIVITIS FROM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS-CORNEAL ABRASION- CONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE TOTAL SEVERITY #1 INJURIES 6 (1.0) 41 (7.0) (1.5) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.7) W 586 36 2 29 2 (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (6.2) (0.3) (5.0) (0.3) (4.3) (2.1) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) 10 1 2 5 1 2 2 (1.7) (0.2) (0.3) (0.9) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) 584 -139 - TABLE 3.B.10 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY*! AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER EYE PROTECTION WAS WORN AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 EYE PROTECTION INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # (%) Not Discussed 488 424 No 13 (13.3) 45 (28.1) Yes; non-specific - - 1 (0.6) Yes; improper f i t - 3 (1.9) Goggles; flexible type (poor f i t ) 4 (4.1) 1 (0.6) Yes; blown off by force - - 1 (0.6) Face shield 7 (7.1) 7 (4.4) Street glasses - - 4 (2.5) Safety glasses 42 (42.9) 50 (31.3) Helmet 9 (9.2) 13 (8.1) Helmet and safety glasses - - 3 (1.9) Helmet; glass broke on impact - - 3 (1.9) Glasses; non-specific • - - 1 (0.6) Mono-goggles - - 1 Helmet; improper shade of glass - - 2 (1.3) Helmet; foreign body in helmet 2 (2.0) 3 (1.9) Worker had just l i fted helmet 2 (2.0) 5 (3.1) Goggles 12 (12.2) 7 (4.4) Helmet shield not completly down 1 (1.0) 2 (1.3) Face shield and safety glasses 1 (1.0) 6 (3.8) Goggles; had just been removed 11 (i.o) 2 (1.3) Face shield; had just been l ifted 1 (i.o) - -Goggles; not properly worn 1 (1.0) - - Goggles; had holes in them 1 (1.0) ff - "Dark" safety glasses 1 (1.0) TOTAL 586 584 - 140 - TABLE 3.B.11 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERTIY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE EYE INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) EYE INVOLVED SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Not Classified Right Left Both 2 (0.3) 237 (40.4) 283 (48.3) 64 (10.9) 3 CO,5) 233 (39.9) 216 (37.0) 132 (22.6) TOTAL 586 584 - 141 - right eye only in 40% of the cases, in the left eye in 48% of the cases, and in both eyes in 10% of the cases. The occurrence of severity #2 in- juries is closely divided between the right and left eyes, although both eyes were affected in 23% of the cases. Table 3.B.12 shows a distribution of selected severity #1 and sever- ity #2 eye injuries by the type of implement or tool that was used at the time of the injury. The eye injuries studied were caused by a wide variety of implements or machines. Grinders and welders dominate, however, accoun- ting for 35% of the severity #2 injuries and 47% of the severity #1 injur- ies. These implements, in addition to hand tools,were responsible for a greater proportion of the severity #2 accidents than the severity #1. It is important to note, however, that 16.4% and 21.2% of the persons with severity #1 and severity #2 eye injuries respectively were not using any implement or machine at the time of the accident. Table 3.B.13 gives the distribution of eye injuries in relation to the provision of first aid and who rendered i t , while Table 3.B.14 indi- cates the time at which these injuries were reported. Table 3.B.15 notes the personnel to whom the injuries were reported. Table 3.B.13 shows that no first aid was rendered in 79.5% of the severity #1 cases and 81.7% of the severity #2 cases. It is speculated that the non-response rate is largely no first aid cases; therefore the proportion of no first aid cases could be as high as 83.0% and 82.1% res- pectively. The provider of first aid is not listed in a majority of cases while first aid attendants and occupational health nurses aided in aporoximately the same number of severity #1 as severity #2 injuries. Table 3.B.14 shows that 54% of the severity #1 accidents and 38% of the severity #2 accidents were reported within five minutes of the acci- - 142 - TABLE 3.B.12 DISBRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE IMPLEMENT USED AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY §2 TYPE OF IMPLEMENT USED INJURIES INJURIES # (*) # (X) Unknown 16 (2.7) 6 (1.0) Non-specific 83 (14.2) 47 (8.0) Not using implement 39 (6.7) 39 (6.7) Not using implement; standing, walking by 8 (1.4) 9 (1.5) Cupola - - 1 (0.2) Grinder 145 (24.7) 159 (27.2) Schecker - - 1 (0.2) Refractory patching gun - - 1 (0.2) Chisel 1 (0.2) 5 (0.9) Crane 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) Welder 66 (11.3) 115 (19.7) Propane torch - - 1 (0.2) Wrench; power impact wrench 1 (0.2) 3 (0.5) Soldering iron - - 1 (0.2) Pop rivet gun 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) Press machine - - 1 (0.2) Drill; power drill 27 (4.6) 16 (2.7) Degreaser tank - - 1 (0.2) Air hose 16 (2.7) 16 (2.7) Stapler 1 (0.2) -Sand blaster (third party using) 2 (0.3 3 (0.5) Furnace 4 0.7) 1 (0.2) Cutting torch 12 (2.0) 7 (1.2) Hammer 8 1.4) 6 (1 .0) Compression tester 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Hand tools; non-specific 20 (3.4) 24 (4.1) Punch machine - - 1 (0.2) Router 3 (0.5) 3 (0.5) Screwdriver - 1 (0.2) Electric Sander - o T s ) 2 (0-3) A1r hacksaw, power saw, ski 1 saw 9 6 ( i . o ) Air drill - - 5 (0.9) Impact gun 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Acetelene torch 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Welder (third party using) 22 (3.8) 45 (7.7) Grinder (third party using) 19 (3.2) 27 (4.6) Air Tools; air gun 3 (0.5) 2 (0.3) Fertilizer spreader - - 1 (0.2) Power brush - - 2 (0.3) Sand blaster 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Grease gun - - 1 (0.2) Machining equipment; non-specific - - 1 (0.2) Lathe 8 (1.4) 14 (2.4) Axe - - 1 (0.2) Air hose (third p'arty using) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Metal Cutter (third party using) 1 (0.2) - -Welder arc gouger 1 (0.2) - -Electric buffer 6 (1.0) - -Wire brush 1 (0.2) - -Steamer 1 (0.2) - -Belt polisher 1 (0.2) - -Brake drum turning machine 1 (0.2) - -Boring bar 2 (0.3) - -Drill press 1 (0.2) - -Water hose 1 (0.2) - -Shovel 1 (0.2) - -Loader; loading bulk cars 3 (0.5) - -Straightener 1 (0.2) - -Skimmer 1 (0.2) - - - 143 - TABLE 3.B.12 (Continued) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 TYPE OF IMPLEMENT USED INJURIES INJURIES # W # (%) Impact Tool 27 (4.6) - Crowbar 1 0.2) -Crane (third party using) 1 (0.2) -File 1 (0.2) -Paint brush (0.3) -Milling machine 1 (0.2) -Knife :o.3) -Sand muller 1 ;o.2) -Spray paint gun 1 :o.2) -Pliers 1 ;o.2) -Jack hammer 1 (0.2) -Drill (third party using) 1 :o.2) -Blade Sharpener 1 (0.2) -Impact Tool (third party using) 1 [0.2) -Shot blast machine 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 144 - TABLE 3.B.13 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER FIRST AID WAS RENDERED AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 FIRST AID INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # Not Classified 93 13 Yes; non-specific 53 (10.8) 53 (9.2) No 392 (79.5) 467 (81.7) First aid attendant 34 (6.9) 37 (6.5) Occupational health nurse 12 (2.4) 9 (1.6) Fellow employee 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) Foreman - - 2 (0.4) Self - - 1 (0.2) Physician 1 (0.2) - - TOTAL 586 584 - 145 - TABLE 3.B.14 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE LENGTH OF TIME AFTER THE ACCIDENT THAT THE INJURY WAS REPORTED (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 REPORT OF ACCIDENT INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # (%) Immediately; within 5 minutes 261 (54.4) 218 (38.1) Within 1 hour 15 (3.1) 15 (2.6) Within 4 hours 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Same day 63 (13.2) 55 (9.6) Next day 80 (16.7) 221 (38.6) 2 days later 13 (2.7) 25 (4.4) 3 days later 18 (3.1) 17 (3.0) 4 days later 4 (0.7) 11 (1.9) 5 days later 3 (0.6) 5 (0.9) 6 days later 5 (1.0) 1 (0.2) 7 days later 2 (0.4) - - 8 days later 1 (0.2) - - 10 days later 3 (0.6) - - 11 days later 1 (0.2) - - 14 days later - - 1 (0.2) 15 days later 2 (0.4) - - 21 days later 1 (0.2) - - 25 days later - - 1 (0.2) One month or longer 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Not Reported 5 (0.9) - - Unknown 107 (18.3) 12 (2.1) TOTAL 586 584 - 146 - TABLE 3.B.15 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHOM THE EYE INJURY WAS REPORTED (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) WHOM THE INJURY WAS REPORTED TO SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Not Classified Non-specific Purchasing agent Employer, boss, owner Foreman Fellow worker Production manager Office manager, shop manager Bookeeper, secretary Personnel manager, office manager Safety co-ordinator First aid attendant Company nurse Shipper Superintendent, supervisor Company manager Parts manager Sales manager Service manager Worker self-employed Maintenance staff Inspector Lead hand Time keeper Welder inspector Purchasing agent Injury not reported 96 (16.4) 191 (32.6) 23 (3.9) 147 (25.1) 1 (0.2) 32 (5.5) 4 (0.7) 7 (1.2) 25 (4.3) 8 (1.4) 6 (1.0) 19 (3.2) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 1 (0,2) 11 0 ~ 9 ) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 5 (0.9) 22 (3.8) 76 (13.0) 1 (0.2) 49 (8.4) 237 (40.6) 2 (0.3) 8 (1.4) 5 (0.9) 16 (2.7) 11 (1.9) 5 (0.9) 41 (7.0) 7 (1.2) 9 (1.5) 44 (7.5) 23 (3.9) 7 (1.2) 1 (0.2) 7 (1.2) 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 3 (0.5) 5 (0.9) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 147 - dent. In t o t a l , 71% and 50% respect ive ly were reported the same day of the accident. A further 17% of the sever i ty #1 accidents and 39% of the sever i ty #2 accidents were reported the next day. Table 3.B.15 shows that 25% of the sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s and 41% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s were reDorted to the foreman ( f i r s t l i n e super- v i s o r ) . The employer was no t i f i e d in 4% of sever i ty #1 cases and 8% of the sever i ty #2 cases, while 6% and 1% respect ive ly were reported to the shop manager. In 49% of sever i ty #1 cases and 21% of the sever i ty #2 cases, there was a non-speci f ic or missing response to the question. Injur ies were i n i t i a l l y reported to a nurse or f i r s t a id attendant in only 5.7% of the sever i ty #1 cases and 9.1% of the sever i ty #2 cases. Table 3.B.16 shows the number of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s that occurred on the employers' premises and, i f poss ib le, the locat ion with in the premises. A high proportion of the in ju ry claims (69% of sever i ty # 1 , 58% of sever i ty #2) did not ind icate where the accident took place in the employers' premises. 3.1% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s and 1.4% of the sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s occurred on a job s i t e , while 2.6% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s occurred in the yard outside the plant. Most i n j u r i e s , therefore, occurred in defined spaces, general ly where metals were being handled or processed. Table 3.B.17 shows that 41% of the persons who incurred sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s had a s im i l a r type of in jury previous ly. Although there were a large number of non-responses to t h i s question in the sever i ty #1 cate- gory, 55% of those who responded had a s im i l a r type of in jury previously. The high proportion of sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s i s l og i ca l although both rates are amazingly high. I t i s l i k e l y that a large number of the persons who had s im i l a r d i s a b i l i t i e s in the sever i ty #2 category were welders. On - 148 - TABLE 3.B.16 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 WHERE ACCIDENT OCCURRED INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # (%) Unknown 92 (15.5) 14 (2.4) Yes; non-specific Not on employer's premises; non-specific 312 (53.2) 327 (56.0) 2 (0.3) - -Millroom of plant 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) Paint shop 8 (1.4) 5 (0.9) Grinding room 42 (7.2) 25 (4.3) Welding booth, room, shop 35 (6.0) 86 (14.7) Mould department - 1 (0.2) Furnace room 6 (1.0) 2 (0.3) Cupola room - 1 (0.2) Factory; non-specific - - 1 (0.2) Assembly line, production line 8 (1.4) 5 (0.9) Drilling bench - - 1 (0.2) Steam bay 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) Machine shop 17 (2.9) 22 (3.8) Shipping department - 2 (0.3) Chrome plating room - - 1 (0.2) Test track - - 1 (0.2) In a mobile home, trailer 1 (0.2) 9 (1.5) Cabinet department - 1 (0.2) Trailer shop - - 1 (0.2) At construction site - - 4 (0.7) Valve bay - - 1 (0.2) At caustic soda tank 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) Mechanics bay 3 (0.5) 3 (0.5) Engine room - - 1 (0.2) At job site 8 (1.4) 12 (2.1) Outside in yard; non-specific 12 (2.0) 15 (2.6) Inside large pipe or tank 3 (0.5) 11 (1.9) On oilfield - - 2 (0.3) Under vehicle 16 (2.7) 1 (0.2) Fabrication shop 4 (0.7) 12 (2.1) Inside shell - - 1 (0.2) Pipe fitting table - - 4 (0.7) Compressor assembly shop - - 1 (0.2) Axle department - - 1 (0.2) Repair shop - - 3 (0.5) Structural shop - - 2 (0.3) Apprentice classes 2 (0.3) - -Melt shop 1 (0.2) - -Confined area; non-specific 3 (0.5) - -Laminating Room 1 (0.2) - -Plumbing department 1 (0.2) - -Shipping department 1 (0.2) - -Sand mixing area 1 (0.2) - -Sheet metal shop (0.5) - -Service shop 1 (0.2) - -By fuse box 1 (0.2) - -Boiler room 1 (0.2) - -Shot blast room 1 (0.2) — — TOTAL 586 584 - 149 - TABLE 3.B.17 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE INJURED WORKER HAD PREVIOUSLY INCURRED A SIMILAR TYPE OF INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SIMILAR INJURY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Not Classified Yes; non-specific No similar injury previously Same injury; same eye Same injury; other eye Same eye; injury non-specific Other eye; injury non-specific Same injury; both eyes Multiple corneal scars both eyes (as noted by physician) 174 149 (36.2) 186 (45.1) 49 (11.9) 22 (5.3) 5 (1.2) 1 (0.3) 14 156 (27.4) 330 (57.9) 56 (9.8) 8 (1.4) 5 (0.9) 2 (0.4) 12 (2.0) 1 (6.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 150 - the other hand, Table 3.A.18 shows the proportion of injured workers who had previously submitted a claim fo r any type of i n ju ry . 66% of the sever i ty #1 claims and 69% of the sever i ty #2 claims were in t h i s category. The majority of i n j u r i e s involved the eye, and from the claims that th i s type of information was given, i t was found that 50% of the previous sever i ty #1 eye in jury claims and 54% of the previous sever i ty #2 eye i n - jury claims had occurred wi th in one year. Three sever i ty #2 claims showed that the workers had claimed compensation for a s im i l a r in jury one week previous. Twenty-six percent of the claims fo r sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 indicated previous in jury to another part of the body. These included the back, legs, r i b s , shoulders and head. Table 3.B.19 gives the d i s t r i b u t i on of selected sever i ty #1 and sev- e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s in l i g h t of the p o s s i b i l i t y of a permanent d i s a b i l i t y ( sever i ty #3). Six in jury claims were c l a s s i f i e d in th i s way. Table 3.B.20 records the p o s s i b i l i t y o f any concealment by the worker or employer o f aspects o f the in jury as indicated by the physic ian. One case i n each o f the s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 grouDS was t h o u g h t t o i n v o l v e the concealment o f f a c t s r e l a t e d tc the a c c i d e n t . Table 3.B.21 records that in one case, there was the possible invo lve- ment of a language Droblem in the i n ju ry . Table 3.B.22 gives the d i s t r i b u t i on of sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s according to the phys ic ian ' s estimate of the length of time the injured person would be of f work. Table 3.B.23 gives the actual time that was l o s t by each worker as.a re su l t of the eye i n j u r y , as reported by the W.C.B. compensation accounting forms. I n i t i a l l y , physicians noted that 40.2% of c la ims, coded as sever i ty #1, would involve some l o s t time, somewhere between one and s ix days in duration. Table 3.B.23 shows that - 1 5 1 - TABLE 3.B.18 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 ACCORDING TO A HISTORY OF PREVIOUS INJURY CLAIMS OF ANY TYPE AND THEIR TIME OF OCCURRENCE (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) PREVIOUS CLAIMS DATE SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Unclassified Type of injury unknown No previous claims Eye injury Back injury Leg-Foot injury Rib injury Hip injury Arm-Shoulder injury Face injury Hand-Finger injury Head injury Fumes Neck injury Hernia non-specific within 1 week within 1 mth within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific within 1 week within 1 mth within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific within 1 day within 1 mth within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific within 1 week within 1 mth within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific within 1 yr non-specific within 1 yr >1 yr within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific within 1 week within 1 mth within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific non-specific within 1 yr >1 yr non-specific 16 5 1 1 3 4 197 88 7 53 60 21 1 3 3 4 19 1 8 4 1 1 2 2 2 53 1 6 10 14 1 (2.7) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.7) (33.6) (15.0) (1*2) (9.0) (10.2) (3.6) (0.2) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (3.2) (0.2) (1~4) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (9.0) (0.2) (i"o) (1.7) (2.4) (0.2) 1 (0.2) 10 (1.7) 5 (0.9) 1 (0~2) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 181 (31.0) 65 (ll.D 3 (0.5) 15 (2.6) 72 (12.3) 76 (13.0) 10 (1.7) 2 (0.3) 5 (0.9) 9 (1.5) 10 (1.7) 2 (0.3) 10 (1.7) 14 (2.4) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0~3) 3 (0~5) 3 (0.5) 1 (0*2) 33 (5.7) 2 (0~3) 15 (2.6) 17 (2.9) 5 (0.9) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 593 584 - 152 - TABLE 3.B.19 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A PERMANENT DISABILITY IN THE FUTURE (ALBERT W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) POSSIBILITY OF PERMANENT DISABILITY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Yes No Not Discussed Uncertain but probable Worker left with corneal scar 570 (97.3) 15 (2,6) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 492 (84.2) 85 (14,6) 5 (0.9) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 153 - TABLE 3.B.20 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IM 1976, ACCORDING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCEALMENT IN THE CLAIM (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) CONCEALMENT SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (X) Not discussed No Yes 289 (49.3) 296 (50.5) 1 (0.2) 253 (43.4) 330 (56.5) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 TABLE 3.B.21 DISBTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF A LANGUAGE PROBLEM IN THE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) LANGUAGE PROBLEM SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (X) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Unknown Yes No 586 (100) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 581 (99.5) TOTAL 586 584 - 154 - TABLE 3.B.22 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO THE PHYSICIAN'S ESTIMATE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THE INJURED WORKER WILL BE OFF WORK (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 ESTIMATED TIME OFF WORK INJURIES INJURIES # (X) # (X) 1 day 93 (15.9) 94 (16.1) 2 days 40 (6.8) 92 (15.8) 3 days 11 (1.9) 50 (8.6) 4 days 4 (0.7) 19 (3.3) 5 days 1 (0.2) 10 (1.7) 6 days - - 6 (1.0) 7 days - - 6 (1.0) 8 days - - 3 (0.5) 9 days - - 1 (0.2) 10 days - - 1 (0.2) 11 days - - 1 CO. 2) 13 days 1 (0.2) 14 days - - 1 (0.2) No lay off 281 (47.9) 31 (5.3) Less than 7 days 84 (14.3) 208 (35.6) 7 - 14 days 2 (0.3) 17 (2.9) One month or longer - - 1 (0.2) Not Discussed 70 (11.9) 42 (7.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 155 - TABLE 3.B.23 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE ACTUAL TIME LOST BY THE WORKER AS A RESULT OF THE EYE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 REAL TIME OFF INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # (%) No lost time 577 (98.5) 40 (6.8) 1 day 4 (0.7) 234 (40.1) 2 days 2 (0.3) 145 (24.8) 3 days 1 (0.2) 64 ( n . o ) 4 days - 40 (6.8) 5 days - 21 (3.6) 6 days - - 12 (2.1) 7 days 1 (0.2) 6 (1.0) 8 days - - 5 (0.9) 9 days - - 8 (1.4) 13 days - - 3 (0.5) 14 days - - 1 (0.2) 15 days - - 1 (0.2) 19 days - - 1 (0.2) 22 days - - 1 (0.2) 61 days - - 1 (0.2) 69 days - 1 (0.2) 164 days 1 (0.2) - - TOTAL 586 584 - 156 - only 1.6% f i n a l l y required compensation, as evidenced by f i n a l compensation reports. Table 3.B.22 shows that , fo r i n j u r i e s classed as sever i ty #2, physicians i n i t i a l l y indicated no time o f f fo r 3.8%, time loss of less than one week fo r 83.4% of the cases, time loss of greater than seven days fo r 5.6%, and did not discuss the matter in 7.2% of the sever i ty #2 cases. As i t f i n a l l y turned out, 6.8% did not involve l o s t t ime, 88.7% involved time loss of one to s i x days, and the remaining 5.0% involved compensation of greater than seven days. 65% of the cases involved compensation of between one and two days. Table 3.B.24 gives a d i s t r i bu t i on of eye i n ju r i e s according to the need f o r ho sp i t a l i za t i on as a re su l t of the i n ju ry . Eight sever i ty #2 and one sever i ty #1 cases were in t h i s category. Table 3.B.25 gives the to ta l costs of the ho sp i t a l i z a t i on ( inc luding emergency outpatient services) while Table 3.B.26 reports the cost of a l l phys ic ians ' services incurred in t reat ing the reported eye i n j u r i e s . Table 3.B.27 shows a d i s t r i b u t i on of eye i n ju r i e s in re l a t i on to the weekly wage of the worker who received com- pensation. This can be related to the number of days the person was unable to work. Table 3.B.28 gives a l i s t i n g of selected serious or unusual events causing eye i n ju r i e s that were noted while examining the selected sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 personal medical f i l e s . Very few unusual events caused eye i n j u r i e s i n comparison to the number of i n j u r i e s that were studied (1070). These unusual or serious events, however, are var ied and involve the spectrum of hazards. A few i n j u r i e s were due to worker negligence and equipment design but most resulted simDly from a more severe form of the common hazards. - 157 - TABLE 3.B.24 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY ANY HOSPITALIZATION THAT OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE EYE INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) HOSPITALIZATION SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (35). 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days No Hospitalization 2 (0.3) 584 (99.7) 3 (0.5) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 576 (98.6) TOTAL 586 584 - 158 - TABLE 3.B.25 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO THE COSTS OF HOSPITAL SERVICES* FOR TREATING THE INJURIES (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) COSTS OF HOSPITAL SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 SERVICES (DOLLARS) INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # (%) No Costs 215 (36.7) 181 (31.0) $ 3.00 96 (16.4) 70 (12.0) 4.00 74 (12.6) 43 (7.4) 5.00 20 (3.4) 22 (3.8) 6.00 16 (2.7) 21 (3.6) 7.00 54 (9.2) 54 (9.2) 8.00 38 (6.5) 49 (8.4) 9.00 16 (2.7) 16 (2.7) 10.00 13 (2.2) 14 (2.4) 11.00 7 (1.2) 12 (2.1) 12.00 6 (1.0) 6 (1.0) 13.00 5 (0.9) 8 (1.4) 14.00 4 (0.7) 10 (1.7) 15.00 3 (0.5) 5 (0.9) 16.00 1 (0.2) 9 (1.5) 17.00 3 (0.5) 11 (1.9) 18.00 1 (0.2) 6 (1.0) 19.00 1 (0.2) 4 (0.7) 20.00 - - 2 (0.3) 21.00 - - 4 (0.7) 22.00 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 23.00 - - 2 (0.3) 24.00 2 (0.3) 5 (0.9) 26.00 3 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 27.00 1 (0.2) - - 28.00 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 29.00 - 2 (0.3) 30.00 - - 4 (0.7) •31.00 - - 2 (0.3) 35.00 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 39.00 - - 1 (0.2) 41.00 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 42.00 - - 1 (0.2) 44.00 - - 2 (0.3) 50.00 - - 1 (0.2) 54.00 - 1 (0.2) 67.00 - 1 (0.2) 74.00 - - 1 (0.2) 78.00 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 81.00 - - 1 (0.2) 145.00 1 (0.2) - - 198.00 - - 1 (0.2) 238.00 I " 1 (0.2) - 159 - TABLE 3.B.25 (Continued) COSTS OF HOSPITAL SERVICES (DOLLARS) SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES * (X) $284.00 342.00 619.00 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 *This figure includes the costs of prescription drugs - 160 - TABLE 3.B.26 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, ACCORDING TO THE COSTS OF PHYSICIANS' SERVICES IN TREATING THE INJURIES (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) COSTS OF PHYSICIANS' SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 SERVICES (DOLLARS) INJURIES INJURIES # (%) # (%) No Cost 34 (5.8) 19 (3.3) $ 4.00 - - 1 (0.2) 5.00 7 (1.2) - . - 6.00 7 (1.2) 12 (2.1) 7.00 1 (0.2) - - 8.00 - - 1 (0.2) 10.00 19 (3.2) 8 (1.4) 11.00 335 (57.2) 185 (31.7) 12.00 6 (1.0) 14 (2.4) 13.00 8 (1.4) 4 (0.7) 14.00 - 5 (0.9) 15.00 4 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 16.00 8 (1.4) 7 (1.2) 17.00 42 (7.2) 36 (6.2) 18.00 21 (3.6) 33 (5.7) 19.00 4 (0.7) 8 (1.4) 20.00 1 (0.2) 5 (0.9) 21.00 9 (1.5) 6 (i.o) 22.00 22 (3.8) 43 (7.4) 23.00 3 (0.5) 18 (3.1) 24.00 15 (2.6) 27 (4.6) 25.00 1 (0.2) « - 26.00 5 (0.9) 7 (1.2) 27.00 2 (0.3) 6 (1.0) 28.00 6 (1.0) 7 (1.2) 29.00 1 (0.2) 11 (1.9) 30.00 2 (0.3) 7 (1.2) 31.00 7 0.2) 8 (1.4) 32.00 - 2 (0.3) 33.00 4 (0.7) 14 (2.4) 34.00 - - 6 (i.o) 35.00 2 (0.3) 7 (1.2) 36.00 - - 1 (0.2) 37.00 2 (0.3) 6 (i.o) 38.00 - - 3 (0.5) 39.00 1 (0.2) 4 (0.7) 40.00 - - 3 (0.5) 41.00 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 42.00 - - 4 (0.7) 43.00 - - 3 (0.5) 44.00 - - 5 (0.9) 45.00 — 5 (0.9) -161 - TABLE 3.B.26 (Continued) COSTS OF PHYSICIANS' SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 SERVICES (DOLLARS) INJURIES INJURIES # (X) # (%) 46.00 - — 7 (1-2) 47.00 - - 4 (0.7) 48.00 1 (0.2) 4 (0.7) 49.00 - - 3 (0.5) 50.00 - - 1 (0.2) 52.00 - - 3 (0.5) 53.00 1 (0.2) - -56.00 - - 1 (0.2) 58.00 - - - -59.00 1 (0.2) - - 61.00 1 (0.2) - -63.00 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 65.00 - - 1 (0.2) 66.00 - - 2 (0.3) 68.00 - - 1 (0.2) 70.00 - - 1 (0.2) 72.00 - - 1 (0.2) 73.00 - - 1 (0.2) 75.00 - - 1 (0.2) 76.00 - - 1 (0.2) 78.00 - - 1 (0.2) 82.00 - - 1 (0.2) 88.00 1 (0.2) - - 171.00 - - 1 (0.2) • 179.00 - - 1 (0.2) 238.00 — — 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 162 - TABLE 3.B.27 DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED SEVERITY #1 AND SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES IN ALBERTA, IN 1976, BY THE WEEKLY WAGE OF THE INJURED WORKER WHO INCURRED A LOST WORK TIME INJURY (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) WEEKLY WAGE OF WORKER WITH A LOST TIME INJURY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) Not classified 579 (98.6) 40 (6.8) $ 90. 00 - 1 (0.2) 93. 00 - - 2 (0.3) 99. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 105. 00 - - 4 (0.7) 110. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 111. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 112. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 113. 00 - - 2 (0.3) 118. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 120. 00 - - 11 (1.9) 123. 00 - - 2 (0.3) 124. 00 _ - 2 (0.3) 125. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 126. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 128. 00 - - 4 (0.7) 129. 00 - - 3 (0.5) 130. 00 - - 1 (0.2) 131. 00 - - 4 (0.7) , 132. 00 - - 3 (0.5) 133 .00 - - 2 (0.3) 134. .00 - 1 (0.2) 135. .00 6 (1.0) 136 .00 _ - 1 (0.2) 137 .00 - - 3 (0.5) 138 .00 — - 2 (0.3) 139 .00 _ - 2 (0.3) 140 .00 - - 6 (1.0) 141 .00 . - 3 (0.5) 142 .00 - - 1 (0.2) 143 .00 1 (0.2) 9 (1.5) 144 .00 - - 2 (0.3) 145 .00 - - 6 (1.0) 146 .00 - - 1 (0.2) 148 .00 - - 2 (0.3) 149 .00 - - 4 (0.7) 150 .00 - - 9 (1.5) 151 .00 - - 2 (0.3) 152 .00 - - 4 (0.7) 153 .00 _ - 5 (0.9) 155 .00 - - 4 (0.7) 156 .00 - - 8 (1.4) - 163 - TABLE 3.B.27 (Continued) WEEKLY WAGE OF SEVERITY #1 SEVERITY #2 WORKER WITH A INJURIES INJURIES LOST TIME INJURY # (%) # (%) $157.00 2 (0.3) 158.00 8 (1.4) 8 (1.4) 159.00 • - 2 (0.3) 160.00 - - 6 (1.0) 161.00 - - 3 (0.5) 162.00 - - 3 (0.5) 163.00 - - 3 (0.5) 164.00 - - 4 (0.7) 165.00 - - 12 (2.1) 166.00 - - 3 (0.5) 167.00 - - 2 (0.3) 168.00 - - 8 (1.4) 169.00 1 (0.2) 3 (0.5) 171.00 - - 7 (1.2) 172.00 - - 2 (0.3) 173.00 - - 4 (0.7) 174.00 -' - 2 (0.3) 175.00 - 3 (0.5) 176.00 - - 3 (0.5) 177.00 - - 4 (0.7) 178.00 - 2 (0.3) 179.00 - - 4 (0.7) 180.00 - - 13 (2,2) 182.00 1 (0.2) 9 (1,5) 183.00 - - 5 (0,9) 184.00 - - 1 (0,2) 185.00 - - 7 (1.2) 186.00 - - 3 (0.5) 187.00 - — 121 (20.7) 188.00 - - 5 (0.9) 189.00 - - 4 (0.7) 190.00 - - 1 (0.2) 191.00 1 (0.2) 2 (0,3) 192.00 - - 2 (0.3) 193,00 - - 1 (0,2) 194.00 - - 1 (0.2) 195.00 - - 2 (0.3) 196,00 - - 3 (0.5) 197.00 - 1 (0.2) 198.00 - - 4 (0.7) 199,00 - ... 3 (0.5) 201.00 - 2 (0.3) 202.00 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 204.00 - - 2 (0.3) 206.00 - - 2 (0.3) - 164 - TABLE 3.B.27 (Continued) WEEKLY WAGE OF WORKER WITH A LOST TIME INJURY SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (X) SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) $207.00 208.00 209.00 255.00 287.00 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3) 6 (1.0) 119 (20.4) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) TOTAL 586 584 - 165 - TABLE 3.B.28 LISTING OF SELECTED SERIOUS OR UNUSUAL EVENTS CAUSING EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) INJURY EVENT 1. Foreign bodies in eye Worker wore goggles but had drilled small holes in them to prevent fogging. 30-40 pieces of grindings were removed from eyes. 2. Burns to eyelids Worker was using a lathe when hot metal entered the left eye. 3. Steel foreign bodies (causing deep corneal lacerations) Machinist was working at milling machine when foreign bodies entered eyes. 4. Corneal abrasions Worker was drilling metal when flying chip of steel hit glasses breaking them. 5. Deep corneal abrasions and ulceration Worker was wearing helmet and safety glasses. Foreign body entered helmet and fell behind safety glasses as helmet was being removed. 6. Severe corneal laceration Welder was grinding brace. Had been wearing a helmet but removed it as he could not see well. 7. Radiation burn as well as burn from hot welding rod Injury occurred just as helmet was being raised 8. Inner eye hemorrhage Worker was welding when he was hit from the side by an unspecified blunt object. 9. Corneal abrasion Worker was standing about 40 feet from grinder changing his safety glasses for a face shield when metallic foreign body flew into right eye. 10. Corneal abrasion Worker was walking by grinder when foreign body entered eye. Employer did not think language problem was a contributing factor although i t was suspected. 11. Foreign body causing deep corneal abrasions Welder was wearing a helmet and had just lifted i t up when material flew into his eye from a grinder beside him. 12. Laceration of eyelid with hemorrhage Inside the eye Welder was hit with hook on a chain that was used to move beams in place for welding. Worker did not speak english. 13. Corneal abrasion and conjunctivitis Worker was chopping wood with an axe when a piece flew up and hit him in the side of the head and 1n his eye. 14. Corneal laceration Worker was checking the bit of a power drill when the drill whipped up striking the side of the eye. 15. Ultraviolet radiation burns The injured worker was explaining the job to another welder (who did not understand english) who began welding before eye protection could be put on. 16. Laceration of eyelid Worker was hit in the eye with the handle of a wrench. 17. Chemical burns to cornea and conjunctiva Worker was transferring chromic acid when i t splashed into the eyes. 18. Glass fragment causing corneal abrasion Worker was grinding a welded pipe joint when the grinding disc broke apart shattering the glass protective lens in the welding helmet. 19. Caustic burns to eyes Caustic soda tank exploded. 20. Corneal abrasions Worker struck in eye with part of a pop rivet. - 166 - 3.B.D. Discussion of the Results of a Review of W.C.B. Personal Medical Fi 1 es This section i s concerned with the discussion of the resu lts of the study of 1070 personal medical f i l e s of workers who reported eye i n ju r i e s to the W.C.B. in 1976. This analys is concerns i n j u r i e s with in the same high r i s k industry classes that were discussed in Section 3.A., Part 2. The puroose of th i s analysis was th reefo ld : f i r s t , to look at these f i l e s in greater d e t a i l , e spec ia l l y in noting sources and natures of i n ju r y ; second, to ret r ieve information concerning prevention that the W.C.B. s t a t - i s t i c a l master f i l e did not have, notably, concerning the use of eye pro- t e c t i o n , the implement used at the time of the i n j u r y , i f the p r inc ipa l worker in the job task was injured,and the cost of the l o s t time accident; and, t h i r d , to examine th i s information in deta i l and v a l i d i t y in r e l a t i on , to the same port ion of the W.C.B. s t a t i s t i c a l master f i l e . The presentation of resu l t s according to industry classes shows much the same f indings as in the previous sect ion. It i s i n te res t ing to note, however, the va r i a t i on in sever i ty #2 to sever i ty #1 i n ju r i e s in these de- t a i l e d classes. I t may be speculated that a preponderance of sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s over sever i ty #1 may be due to the nature of the hazards in the p lant , or that eye protect ion which could minimize an in jury i s not issued. I t i s s i g n i f i c an t to note that a majority of the i n ju r i e s studied occurred among a few occupational groups. Age and experience may account f o r the fact that apprentices and helpers were frequently involved. A number of the occupations (e.g. welding) re ly on teamwork where a lack of communication could ea s i l y resu l t in an accident. In that so few groups are involved to any degree, i t i s i n te res t ing to speculate on the e f f e c t of s p e c i f i c occupational, educational programs. - 1 6 7 - The resu l t s of th i s study (Section B, Table 3.B.7)indicate that the T majority of eye i n j u r i e s are caused by foreign bodies or welding rad ia t ion . Foreign bodies cause more seyer i ty #1 i n j u r i e s than sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s as would be expected. Welding rad iat ion caused twice the proportion of sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s than sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s because most rad iat ion burns require 24 to 48 hours of convalescence. However, there i s probably gross under reporting in th i s area because rad iat ion (arc eye) i n j u r i e s are often considered a part of the job , and se l f -admin i s t ra t ion of top ica l anaesthetics is common. The study of the nature of the in jury (Table 3.B.9)shows that uncompli- cated corneal abrasions occur in more sever i ty #1 accidents,while corneal abrasions that are complicated by rust and con junc t i v i t i s involve compen- sation f o r l o s t time. In general, the nature of the eye in jury in sever i ty #1 cases i s more well defined, p r imar i l y because of the s i m p l i c i t y of the causes. The nature of sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s i s s im i l a r in causation (ex- cepting chemical and radiat ion burns which are more prevalent as sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s ) but general ly involve complications. This i s a s i tua t i on where prompt recognit ion and f i r s t aid of the in jury could reduce compensation claims. Information that was obtained on the use of eye protect ion at the time of the accident was volunteered as the accident reporting forms do not ask th i s question. Of those who reported on th i s aspect of t h e i r accident, i t was found that 13% of the sever i ty #1 accidents and 28% of the sever i ty #2 accidents did not involve the use of eye protect ion. These f igures are very low in r e l a t i on to a general rate of 59% in the l i t e r a t u r e . There i s reason to be l ieve, therefore, that many non-respondents were not wearing eye protect ion as w e l l . - 168 - In both sever i ty #1 and sever ity #2 i n j u r i e s , the majority of res- pondents, 43% and 31% respect ive ly, were wearing safety glasses only. No ind icat ion was given concerning the use of s ide.shie lds on the safety glasses. There are cases of improper f i t in addit ion to improper use of the protect ion. It i s s i gn i f i can t to note that only three cases involve a physical f a i l u r e of the protect ion. Each of these cases involved the im- pact resistance of the glass plate in welding helmets. I t i s l i k e l y that a great proportion of the eye i n ju r i e s that occurred while protection was worn could be prevented by the proper se lect ion of a protector and proper f i t t i n g . Right hand dominance could be responsible for the high proportion of sever i ty #1 i n ju r i e s to the l e f t eye (Table 3.B.11). The low incidence of i n ju r i e s to both eyes follows from the low incidence of chemical and r ad i - at ion burns in t h i s category, and a preponderance of i so lated f l y i n g par- t i c l e s . The presence of nearly equal proportions of sever ity #2 eye i n - j u r i e s fo r each eye suggests a random select ion procedure in cases where the in jury source i s severe enough to resu l t in l o s t time. The higher pro- portion of sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s to both eyes suggests the presence of a greater proportion of chemical and radiat ion i n j u r i e s . The results of th i s section (Table 3.B.12) show that welding machines, grinders and handtools are responsible for the majority of eye i n j u r i e s . Workers were involved also who were helping on the job or walking by with inadequate protect ion. It i s apparent that carelessness and lack of con- cern, in addit ion to non-compliance in the use of eye protect ion, may be responsible for a large number of these common i n j u r i e s . In re la t i on to the results shown in Table 3.B.14 i t i s l og ica l that a greater proportion of severity #2 accidents than sever i ty #1 accidents would be reported the next day (e.g. radiat ion burns, which are generally sever ity - 169 - #2 i n j u r i e s , take four to s ix hours to manifest) but the overal l high rate of reporting the next day i s not consistent with the type of i n ju r i e s where th i s would be expected. It i s possible that prompt reporting and f i r s t aid treatment could reduce or el iminate many of the sequellae of these i n j u r i e s that re su l t in l o s t time. Table 3.A.15 shows that eye i n ju r i e s are reported to a su rp r i s i ng l y diverse group of people, the major ity without t r a i n i ng in f i r s t a id . This i s of concern e spec ia l l y in the case of sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , where prompt f i r s t a id could reduce the seriousness of a sever i ty #2 c la im. A high proportion of the sever i ty #2 accidents are reported to personnel with in the company o f f i c e , j u s t as one might phone in s i ck . This proportion i s , how- ever, f a r higher than i s indicated by the number of people that reported i n ju r i e s the next day. Injur ies should be reported to designated personnel and regulations should be developed to ensure prompt report ing. A large proportion of the i n j u r i e s studied in th i s section involved workers who had incurred s im i l a r or other tyDes of i n j u r i e s in the past. . Although i t may be speculated that th i s represents accident proneness, one must consider the worker 's occupation, or the r i sk fac tor . The recurrence of in jury may be ca l l ed job carelessness more accurately where education could be of great benef i t in reducing eye i n j u r i e s . Table 3.B.19 sever i ty #1 and sever i ty #2 cases are c l a s s i f i e d accor- ding to the p o s s i b i l i t y of permanent d i s a b i l i t y . This aspect of accident reporting was discussed in Part 3.A where many sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s were eventual ly found to be permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims. In th i s sect ion , s i x sever i ty #2 claims were c l a s s i f i e d in th i s way. I f th i s proportion of i n - j u r i e s were extrapolated over the ent i re number of sever i ty #2 claims in 1976 (2,854), one might expect to see about 30 claims c l a s s i f i e d in th i s way. - 170 - This, in addit ion to the seven cases already c l a s s i f i e d as sever i ty #3, brings the to ta l f o r expected sever i ty #3 claims to 37, which i s close to the number of permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims in 1975 (Table 3.A.11). Tables 3.A.22 and 3.A.23 show that physicians tended to over-estimate the need fo r compensation (days o f f work). This i s e spec ia l l y evident where many i n ju r i e s estimated i n i t i a l l y to require time of f work did not require compensation at a l l . I t i s evident that physicians are attempting to act in the best in terest s of t he i r patients and in doing so, are extra cautious. The to ta l d i rec t cost of the sever i ty #2 eye i n j u r i e s was ca lcu lated by adding the costs of h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n , phys ic ians ' services and compen- sation f o r l o s t time. Table 3.B.29 categorizes the magnitude of the to ta l costs per pat ient. 45% of the claims cost $75 or l e s s , nearly 75% of the claims cost $125 or l e s s , and 90% of the claims cost $200 or le s s . The to ta l d i rect cost of 584 sever i ty #2 eye i n j u r i e s was $69,513, or $119 per person on average. The l i t e r a t u r e notes a hidden to d i r ec t cost of 4:1 ($69,513 x 4 ) , bringing the to ta l cost of these eye i n ju r i e s to $347,565.00, or $595.15 per person. The determination of the costs of sever i ty #1 i n - j u r i e s was not approached in t h i s d e t a i l , but the t o t a l cost of 586 i n - j u r i e s (minus the cost of any reported loss in wages, which by d e f i n i t i o n , should be a sever i ty #2 in jury) was $10,683 for an average cost of $18.23 per person. The same i nd i r ec t to d i rec t cost r a t i o does not s t r i c t l y apply, but one must consider the hidden costs of product iv i ty l o s s , time o f f the job fo r treatment, etc . To es tab l i sh re lat ionsh ips between some of the selected var iables that have been discussed prev ious ly, several cross-tabulat ions were performed. Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.30 shows the co r re la t i on between the type - 171 - TABLE 3.B.29 DISTRIBUTION OF THE DIRECT COSTS* OF 584 EYE INJURIES, SELECTED THROUGH A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) NUMBER OF CUMULATIVE COST CLAIMS (%) FREQUENCY (%) $ 0. _ $ 25. 37 (6.3) rnmrnt $ 26. - $ 50. 76 (13.0) 19.3 $ 51. - $ 75. 152 (26.0) 45.3 $ 76. - $100. 96 (16.4) 61.7 $ 101. - $125. 74 (12.7) 74.4 $ 126. - $150. 41 (7.0) 81.4 $ 151. - $175. 24 (4.1) 85.5 $ 176. - $200. 22 (3.8) 89.3 $ 201. - $225. 14 (2.4) 91.7 $ 226. - $250. 10 (1-7) 93.4 $ 251. - $275. 3 (0.5) 93.9 $ 276. - $300. 8 (1.4) 95.3 $ 301. - $325. 4 (0.7) 96.0 $ 326. - $350. 3 (0.5) 96.5 $ 351. - $375. 3 (0.5) 97.0 $ 376. - $400. 3 (0.5) 97.5 $ 401. - $425. 2 (0.3) 97.8 $ 426. - $450. 1 (0.2) 98.0 $ 451. - $475. 1 (0.2) 98.2 $ 476. - $500. 0 (0.0) -- $ 501. - $600. 2 (0.3) 98.5 $ 601. - $700. 1 (0.2) 98.7 $ 701. - $800. 1 (0.2) 98.9 $ 801. - $900. 3 (0.5) 99.4 $ 930. 1 (0.2) 99.6 $2870. 1 (0.2) 99.8 $3140. 1 (0.2) 100.0 TOTAL 584 *DIRECT COST OF INJURY = COST OF PHYSICIANS SERVICES + COST OF HOSPITAL SERVICES (WEEKLY WAGE * 5) X DAYS OF LOST TIME TABLE 3.B.30 CROSSTABULATION OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES WITH THE CAUSES OF INJURY, FOR 586 SEVERITY #1 INJURIES PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) C A U S E O F I N J U R Y Not  C la ss if ie d Fo re ig n Bo dy  no n- sp ec if ic Fl yi ng sp ar k- pi ec e of  me ta l We ld in g fl as h ra di at io n Fo re ig n bo dy  no n- me ta ll ic  Ai r bl ew  FB  in to ey e Hot  m et al sp la tt er Sh ar p ob je ct  Ha rm fu l li qu id s an d co rr os iv es Wo rk er ru bb ed ey es  fl yi ng  f ra gm en t or ob je ct  wi nd bl ew FB  in to ey e Bl un t ob je ct  Row  T ota l ROW 1 INDUSTRY CLASS T Q ^ " * Not  C la ss if ie d Fo re ig n Bo dy  no n- sp ec if ic Fl yi ng sp ar k- pi ec e of  me ta l We ld in g fl as h ra di at io n Fo re ig n bo dy  no n- me ta ll ic  Ai r bl ew  FB  in to ey e Hot  m et al sp la tt er Sh ar p ob je ct  Ha rm fu l li qu id s an d co rr os iv es Wo rk er ru bb ed ey es  fl yi ng  f ra gm en t or ob je ct  wi nd bl ew FB  in to ey e Bl un t ob je ct  Row  T ota l MFG OF STEEL 16 (0.9) 49 (2.9) 5 (0.3) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 18 ( i.o) 100 (5.9) FOUNDRY: IRON OR STEEL 5 (0.5) 73 (6.4) 5 (0.4) 13 (1.1) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 100 (8̂ 81 FAB.MFG,REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS 16 (2.7) 55 (9.0) 12 (1.9) 8 (1.3) 4 (0.7) (0.2) 4 (0.6) 100 (16.4) FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 9 (0.7) 76 (6.3) 6 (0.5) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 4 (0.4) TOO "' (8.3) MFG HEATING COOLING EQUIPMENT 16 (0.5) 58 (1.8) 10 (0.3) 10 (0.3) 2 (0.2) 100 (3.1) AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 15 (1.4 56 (5.2) 18 (1.7) 5 (0.5) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) (0.2) 100 (9.4) MACHINE SHOP 23 (1.9) 56 (4.7) 15 (1.2) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 100 (8.4) MFG OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 11 (0.6) 52 (3.0) 19 (1.1) 9' (0.5) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 100 (5.8). MFG OF VEHICLES 7 (0.4) 54 (3.3) 11 (0.7) 15 (0.9) 3 (0.2) 5 (0.3) 5 (0.3) 100 (6.1) MFG OF HOLIDAY TRAILERS,CAMPERS 4 (0.3) 18 (1.6) 34 (3.0) 21 (1.8) 2 (0.2) 16 (1.4) 5 (0-4) 100 (8.7) MFG OF TRUCK BODIES,CABS.TRAILERS 5 (0.4) 40 (3.4) 22 (1.9) 15 (1.3) 2 (0.2) 5 (0.4) 2 (0.2) 7 (0.6) (0.2) 100 (8.6) MFG OF WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 60 (0.3) 40 (0.2) 100 (0.5) MFG OF LIME 12 (0.2) 12 (0.2) 52 (0.9) 12 (0.2) 12 (0.2) 100 (1.7) BLACKSMITH SHOP 100 (0.2) 100 (0.2) WELDING 31 (2.5) 44 (3.6) 15 (1.2) 4 (0.3) 4 IS-?! 2 (0.2) 100 (8.1) TOTAL (0.3) 1(11.6)1(52.2) 01.95 (10.7) (2.5) (0.9) (0.4) (1.9) (0.8) (2.5) (4.1) 10.2) (100) - 173 - of industry and the cause of the in jury f o r sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s . On the whole, the proportion of in jury causes per industry class remains f a i r l y consistent among the various industry c lasses, with f l y i n g spark/piece of metal f i r s t , fo l lowing by welding f la sh or r ad i a t i on , and foreign body non-spec i f ic . There are some notable exceptions. In the foundry and s t ructura l s teel f ab r i ca t i on i ndus t r i e s , there i s a higher proportion of i n j u r i e s due to pieces of metal from f l y i n g sparks (grinding) and sub- s t a n t i a l l y less i n j u r i e s due to welding f l a s h . T r a i l e r and camper manu- facturers show a low proportion of i n j u r i e s due to f l y i n g sparks and an absence of i n j u r i e s due to rad ia t ion . In th i s industry, however, there i s a preponderance of i n j u r i e s due to large and small non-metal l ic bodies, notably wood. Welding shops also report a low proportion of i n j u r i e s due to f l y i n g sparks (pieces of metal) but, na tu ra l l y , th i s i s compensated by a very high incidence of i n j u r i e s due to welding f l a s h . For sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s (Cross-tabulat ion Table 3.B.31) the pattern of in jury causes among industry classes i s not as consistent as i t was fo r sever i ty #1. About 80% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s in the foundry and heating industr ies were caused by f l y i n g sparks (probably due to gr inding). T r a i l e r and camper manufacturers and vehic le manufacturers report a lower than average proportion of i n j u r i e s due to f l y i n g sparks. However, 76% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s in the vehic le manufacturing industry are due to welding f l a s h . The majority of claims (48%) in the t r a i l e r and camper industry are due to non-metal l ic foreign bodies. These resu l t s show log ica l increases in s p e c i f i c types of eye i n ju r i e s in the industr ies where the respective hazards are present that cause them. Cross-tabulat ion Table 3.B.32 shows the re l a t i on between the injured workers' occupation and the cause of i n j u r y , fo r sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s . A TABLE 3.B.31 CROSSTABULATION OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES WITH THE CAUSES OF INJURY, FOR 584 SEVERITY #2 INJURIES PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) C A U S E OF I N J U R Y No t Cl as si fi ed  Fo re ig n Bo dy no n- sp ec if ic  Fl yi ng  s pa rk  pi ec e of  me ta l We ld in g fl as h ra di at io n Fo re ig n bo dy no n- me ta ll  ic  El ec tr ic al  Fl as h Ho t me ta l sp la tt er  Sh ar p ob je ct  Ha rm fu l li qu id an d co rr os iv e We ld in g in ju ry Fl yi ng  f ra g- me nt : ob je ct  We ld in g fl as h me ta ll ic  FB  Wi nd  b le w F B in to  ey e Bl un t ob je ct  TO TA L RO W %  INDUSTRY CLASS JQj0^ % No t Cl as si fi ed  Fo re ig n Bo dy no n- sp ec if ic  Fl yi ng  s pa rk  pi ec e of  me ta l We ld in g fl as h ra di at io n Fo re ig n bo dy no n- me ta ll  ic  El ec tr ic al  Fl as h Ho t me ta l sp la tt er  Sh ar p ob je ct  Ha rm fu l li qu id an d co rr os iv e We ld in g in ju ry Fl yi ng  f ra g- me nt : ob je ct  We ld in g fl as h me ta ll ic  FB  Wi nd  b le w F B in to  ey e Bl un t ob je ct  TO TA L RO W %  MFG OF STEEL 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 100 (0.4) FOUNDRY: STEEL OR IRON 5 (0.3) 80 (4.5) 7 (0.4) 4 (0.2) 4 (0.2) 100 (5.6) FAB,MFG,REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS 5 (1.5) 58 (18.7) 25 (7.7) 2 (0.7) (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 3 (0.8) (0.4) 2 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 100 31.5) FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL 1 (0.2) 4 (0.7) 59 (9.7) 22 (3.5) 3 (0.5) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.4) 5 (0.9) 100 16.5) MFG HEATING COOLING EQUIPMENT 78 11 (0.2) 11 (0.2) g loo 11(1.9) AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP 24 (0.5) 43 (0.9) 33 (0.7) 100 (2.1) MACHINE SHOP 2 (0.2) 68 (8.3) 14 (V) 6 (0-7) 3 (0.4) 3 (0.4) 4 (0.5) 100 [12.2) MFG OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS 11 (0.3) 57 (1.6) 25 (0.7) 7 (0.2) 100 (2-8) MFG OF VEHICLES 10 (0.2) 14 (0.3) 66 (M> 10 (0-2) too (2.1) MFG OF HOLIDAY TRAILERS,CAMPERS 5 (0.2) 27 (1.2) 5 (0.2) 47 (2.1) 11 (0.5) 5 (0.2) 100 (4.4) MFG OF TRUCK BODIES,CABS,TRAILERS 69 (5.7) 27 (2.2) 4 (0.3) 100 (8.2) MFG OF WOODEN TRUCK BOXES 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 100 (0.4) MFG OF LIME 100 (0.3) 100 (0.3) WELDING | 4 (0.5) 63 (7.4) 22 (2.5) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 4 (0.5) 3 (0.3) 100 11.6) TOTAL (0.2) (4.4) (60.0) (20.3) (4.6) (0.2) (0.6) (0.9) (2.3) (0.9) (2.2) (1.3) (1.9) (0.2) 100 - 175 - TABLE 3.B.32 •  CR0SSTA8ULATI0N OF THE OCCUPATION OF THE INJURED WORKER WITH THE CAUSES OF INJURY, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, FOR 586 SEVERITY 1 INJURIES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) CAUSE OF INJURY LU >- CO O C/J M LU ZZt > err •—i LU >- to LU O r - >• i_> ZC to OC LU < o r- Q «C LU JZ CD LU WW CJ CO n_ r— <_> eo ^ < £ NG  F L;  A TI O N ) GN  B O f IE TA LL 1 LU : U L LI I :O RR OS  CO >- ZK LU on <J~1 L i . NG  F L;  A TI O N ) GN  B O f IE TA LL 1 ES SE  ro  1 _ j <c a: ~~) CD : U L LI I :O RR OS  CC LO U- CJ LU LU CO o <. ID D_ O co NG  F L;  A TI O N ) GN  B O f IE TA LL 1 ES SE  ro  1 r~ UJ UJ I- O : U L LI I :O RR OS  CC Q FL YI N G  OR  0 B JI  CD LU o OCCUPATION TOTAL PCT ROW PCT FO R EI  N O N -S  FL Y IN  PI EC E W EL D I (R A O I FO R EI  NO N- M  CO M PR  BL EW  HO T M  SP LA T c DC <C ZC CO HA RM f AN D C W 0R KE  W IT H FL YI N G  OR  0 B JI  W IN D IN TO  z: ZD CO 1— *—- 3 —• O CC SHIPPING - RECEIVING CLERKS 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 0.4 SALESPERSON 100 (0.2) 0.2 FIRE-FIGHTING 100 (0.2) 0.2 JANITORS 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 0.4 FOREMEN, MINING: GAS FIELD 50 (0.2) 50 ;o.2) 0.4 CRUSHING, GRINDING 100 (0.2) 0.2 MOULDING, METAL CASTING 56 (0.5) 22 (0.2) 22 [0.2) 0.9 PLATING METAL OCCUPATIONS 100 (0.2) 0.2 LABOURING IN METAL OCCUPATIONS 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 0.4 METAL PROCESSING 100 (0.2) 0.2 LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM 78 (0.7) 22 (0.2) 0.9 FOREMEN: MACHINING OPERATIONS 50 (0.2) 50 :o.2) 0.4 MECHINIST 16 (1.4) 58 (5.0) 20 (1.7) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 2 (0.2) 8.7 FOREMEN: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING 100 (0.2) 0.2 SHEET METAL WORKERS 85 ( l . D 15 (0.2) 1.3 WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING 7 (3.2) 69 (31.0) 14 (5.8) 6 (2.5) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.2) 0 (0.2) 2 (1.1) 0 0.2) 45.3 INSPECTING, METAL SHAPING AND FORMING 100 (0.2) 0.2 BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS 100 (0.2) 0.2 METAL SHAPING AND* FORMING OCCUPATIONS NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 100 (0.2) 0.2 METAL SHAPING AND FORMING 100 (0.2) 0.2 FILING, GRINDING, BUFFING OCCUPATIONS 6 (0-2) 88 (2.8) 6 (0.2) 3.2 MOTOR-VEHICLE FABRICATING 100 (0.2) 0.2 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING 100 (0.2) 0.2 - 176 - TABLE 3.B.32 (Continued) CAUSE OF INJURY IG N  BO D Y S P E C IF IC  4G  SP A R K / E O F  M ET A L IN G  F LA SH  IA T IO N ) IG N  BO D Y M E T A L L IC  R E SS E D  A IR  FB  IN T O  E Y E  <c ce h - U J £ t P  O B JE C T  IF U L L IQ U ID S  C O R R O SI V E S :E R  R U B B E D  E Y E  1 D U ST Y  H A N D S [N G  FR A G M EN T  IB JE C T  ) BL EW  F B  1 E Y E  IT  O B JE C T  T O T A LS  (* ) OCCUPATION TOTAL PCT ROW PCT F O RE 1 N 0N -!  F L Y II  P IE C I W EL D  (R A D  FO R E N O N -1  CO M PI  BL EW  H O T 1  SP LA  oc S-o S t cc t— O — ' as zm — w >- —1 OC u. O z g => — j 0 0 3 O CC LABOURING IN FABRICATING, ASS INSTALLING ANO REPAIRING ELEC EQUIPMENT EMBLING. TRICAL 100 (0.2) 0.2 MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS 26 (1.1) 49 (2.0) 9 (0.4) 4 (0-2) 4 (0.2) 4 (0.2 4 (0.2) 4.3 HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS 20 (0.6) 46 (1.4) 17 (0.5) 7 (0.2) 10 (0.3) 3.0 FOREMEN: PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING 29 (0.2) 71 (0.5) 0.7 LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING. ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING - NEC 100 (0.2) 0.2 LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING 6 (0.5) 47 (3.6) 9 (0.7) 23 (1.8) 6 (0.5) 9 (0.7) 7.8 EXCAVATING, GRADING 100 (0.2) 0.2 ELECTRICAL POWER LINEMEN 100 (0.2) 0.2 CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS 100 (0.3) 0.3 INSPECTION AND TESTING ELECTRICAL POWER WIRE COMMUNICATIONS 100 (0.2) 0.2 FOREMEN: OTHER CONSTRUCTION TRADES 100 (0.2) 0.2 CARPENTERS 100 (0.2) 0.2 PAINTERS PAPERHANGERS 71 (0.5) 29 (0.2) 0.7 PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING 14 (0.4) 65 (1.8) (0.2) 14 (0.4) 2.8 STRUCTURAL METAL ERECTORS 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 0.4 LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION 23 (0.3) 47 (0.6) 15 (0.2) 15 :o.2) 1.3 HOISTING OCCUPATIONS 25 (0.2) 25 (0.2) 25 (0.2) 25 (0.2) 0.8 MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 0.4 INSPECTING. TESTING, GRADING, AND SAMPLING OCCUPATIONS 100 (0.2) 0.2 LABOURING OCCUPATIONS 12 (1.3) 59 (6.7) 11 (1.2) 6 (0.7) 2 (0.2) 2 :o.2) 6 (0.7) 2 (0.2) 11.2 COLUMN TOTALS ( i ) 10.4 61.0 8.7 8.8 1.9 0.9 0.2 1.7 0.6 2.2 3.2 0.4 100 - 177 - few occupations incur the majority of i n j u r i e s where f l y i n g sparks re - su l t i ng in a piece of metal are the most common causes machinists, sheet metal workers, metal shapers and formers incurred; and re lated occupations incur very few radiat ion i n j u r i e s but tend toward i n ju r i e s caused by f l y - ing metal pa r t i c l e s and non-metal l ic p a r t i c l e s . General ly, the more spec ia l i zed types of eye in jury causes occur among occupations where a high population allow t h e i r occurrence by chance. I t i s notable, however, that welders i n c u r a l a r g e number of i n j u r i e s from D a r t i c l e s b e i n g blown i n the eyes. Cross-tabulation Table 3.3.33 shows the same re la t i on fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . Severity #2 in jury causes appear to be more concentrated around s pec i f i c causations. F ly ing sparks/pieces of metal (from grinders pr imar i l y ) dominate in a l l occupations containing more than four i n j u r i e s . Injur ies due to welding f lash are common in the sheet metal working, welding and labouring trades. Greater than one in jury due to chemicals occurred in the labour ing, paint ing and machinists occupations. Non- meta l l i c foreign bodies play a le s ser role in causing sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . Cross-tabulat ion Table 3.B.34 shows the re l a t i on between the cause of sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s and the re su l t i ng nature of the i n ju ry . 29% of the sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s were caused by f l y i n g sparks which resulted in corneal abrasions. A high proportion of the remaining i n j u r i e s (10%) were due to th i s cause and resulted in various more serious corneal abrasions or con- junc t i va l problems. A majority of the welding flashes (95% of the tota l number of i n j u r i e s ) resulted in corneal burns or conjunctival i r r i t a t i o n . Cross-tabulat ion Table 3.B.35 indicates that the cause-nature re la t ionsh ip fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s tends to be more dispersed with fewer c e l l s show- ing high proportions. This i s because more sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s of the common causations ( i . e . pa r t i c l e s and welding f lash) become complicated - 178 - TABLE 3.B.33 CROSSTABULATION OF THE OCCUPATION OF THE INJURED WORKER WITH THE'CAUSES OF INJURY, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, FOR 584 SEVERITY 2 INJURIES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL F ILES) OCCUPATION TOTAL PCT ROW PCT CAUSE OF INJURY >- o O Li- e s *-« 55 Lu O o o —I <c LU OC OC z o o L L . Z —I cc zz* o U_ O IE CC o <c z zc <. St-LU C J LU z c n _ © Z _ J CQ LU O O 100 (0.2) 66 (0.4) 100 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 100 . (0.2) 72 (4.8) 4 (0.3) 100 (0.4) 100 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 54 (1.4) 31 (0.8) 66 (0.4) 33 (0.2) 57 28.9) 30 (15.4) 50 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 100 (1.7) 100 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 61 (1.7) 18 (0.5) SHIPPING CLERKS WEIGHERS JANITORS SUPERVISORS: DRILLING OPERATION: OIL AND GAS FEILD OCCUPATIONS METAL CASTING LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING METAL PROCESSING CRUSHING AND GRINDING CHEMICALS MACHINIST MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING METAL MACHINING FOREMEN: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING SHEET METAL WORKERS METALW0RKING AND MACHINE OPERATORS WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS METAL SHAPING AND FORMING F IL ING, GRINDING, BUFFING MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS LABOURING IN FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING WOOD PRODUCTS MOTOR-VEHICLE MACHANICS 3 0 .2 ) 8 0.2) 1(1.6) 100 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 33 (0.2)! 4 (0.3)1 2 (0.9) 7 (0 .2 100 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 10 (0.7) 5 (0.2) 2 1(0.9) 50 (0.2)1 7 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 100 (0 .2 ) (0.2) 2 (0 .9 ) 8 K0.2) 2 (0.9)! 2 1(1.2) 1(0.2) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 6.7 0.4 0.2 0.4 2.6 0.6 150.9 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.8 - 179 - TABLE 3.B.33 (Continued). OCCUPATION TOTAL PCT ROM PCT CAUSE OF INJURY 5? 2 OC Ui I " . t_> >> UJ — J • u_ a. u. o O P z «c o a UJ S 35 —1 CO r— UJ o LU r— X 1 - a . •a; ac o a . s — t/1 IS) o - « ~ <-• on - J O u. u I 9 5 LD 3= CO O o — SE — J I CO LU a o HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS OTHER MECHANICS FOREMEN: PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING EXCAVATING, GRADING, PAVING CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS CARPENTERS PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION TRUCK DRIVER HOISTING OCCUPATIONS MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS LABOURING IN MATERIAL- HANDLING OTHER MATERIAL-HANDLING OCCUPATIONS INSPECTING, TESTING, GRADING AND SAMPLING OCCUPATIONS LABOURING OCCUPATIONS 4 (0.2) 11 (0.6) 25 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 50 (0.2) (0.3) 85 (2.3) 50 (0.2) 55 (2-7) 100 (0.2) 63 (0.5) 50 (0.3) 67 (3.6) 66 (0.4) 50 (0.4) 50 (0.2) 50 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 64 (7.5) 7 1(0.2) 50 (0.2) 4 (0.2) 24 (1-2) 50 (0.2) 27 (0.3) 7 (0.4) 4 (0.2) 18 (2.1) 7 (0.8)1 6 (0.3) 50 (0.2) 25 (0.2) 50 (0.2) (0.2)1 50 (0.3) 100 (0.2) 3 (0.4)1 100 (0.2)1 6 (0.3)1 4 (0.2)1 7 (o.4: 2 (0.2; 1(0.2)1 33 (0.2)1 (0.2)1 COLUMN TOTALS (%) 3.9 60.4 20.5 4.5 0.2 0.6 0.9 2.2 0.9 2.4 1.3 2.0 0.2 - 180 - TABLE 3.B.34 CROSSTABULATION OF THE CAUSE OF INJURY BY THE RESULTING NATURE OF INJURY. FROM A REVIEW OF IS HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, FOR 586 SEVERITY #1 INJURIES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) CAUSE OF INJURY Ui >-cc ui a «/> UJ o y-ac o UJ to Ul cc =3 >- CJ Wt ZC to < o i — sis LU ZC o U. CJ £ uj t- ae x O Lw CO o «c X o. t/i u. 52 u. o CD P zc «c o ZJ CO 1 z f o z UJ to «E OC UJ —1 g to -J2 CO >- cc to 2 O UJ r- UJ CO o u. ° iSt j •< r— s Z Ui CD CL »in o CB Z UJ t3 UJ Ui u. cc £| a. £8 ocE LU 23 CO a I O t— NATURE OF INJURY TOTAL X g UJ ) g g U- 3E — i_l 3- UJ _J u. tx a o jju WW UJ l eg CL. 3C 82 CJ CO - 3 OO- 2C 1/1 OC 3 to S5 oc r- §5 £ g z o 31 m ZZ) _ j CO 2 O cc NOT SPECIFIED CORNEAL ABRASION CORNEAL ABRASION-CORNEAL EDEMA CORNEAL ABRASION-RUST RING CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS REDDENED CONJUNCTIVA SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE CONJUNCTIVAL SCRATCH CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ABRASION-RUST RING-CONJUNCTIVITIS MULTIPLE CORNEAL ABRASIONS CORNEAL ABRASION-ULCER ACUTE CORNEAL ULCER ASSOCIATED WITH CORNEAL ABRASION EYE IRRITATION RUST RING FOREIGN BODY: DEEP IN STROMA FOREIGN BODY: CONJUNCTIVA CORNEAL FOREIGN BODY CORNEAL FOREIGN BODY-LACERATION CORNEAL ABRASION-SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE MILD TRAUMATIC IRITIS SUBTARSAL FOREIGN BODY CONJUNCTIVAL LACERATION CORNEAL ULCER WITH MIDSTROMAL OPACITY FOREIGN BODY: EYELID VITREOUS HEMORRHAGE CONJUNCTIVAL FOREIGN BODY-CORNEAL ABRASION PIGMENT SPOT ON IRIS CONTUSION: EYELID AND CONJUNCTIVA PUNCTURE UPPER LID-CORNEAL ULCER PIGMENT SPOTS ON LENS AND IRIS BLEPHARITIS BOIL ON EYE LID ACUTE IRITIS LACERATION ABOVE EYE CORNEAL ABRASION-SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE OLD RUST RING DEEP IN CORNEA: OLD INJURY CORNEAL ABRASION-TRICHIASIS PRESENT NO INJURY NOTED CONJUNCTIVITIS-POSSIBLE IRITIS CONJUNCTIVITIS REACTIVE SCLERITIS BLEPHAROSPASM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS: NONSPECIFIC QUERY: ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION CONJUNCTIVAL BURN FROM HOT METAL CORNEAL & CONJUNCTIVAL BURNS FROM HOT METAL BURNS TO EYELIDS BURN TO SCLERA-MARKED REACTIVE CONJUNCTIVITIS BURN TO UPPER EYELID INNER CANTHUS » CONJUNCTIVAL BURN CORNEAL ABRASION FROM HOT METAL PARTICLES: BURN INVOLVEMENT AS WELL 0.2 0.2 4.7 0.3 0.2 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.2 29.1 0.2 6.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.5 1.9 0.2 0.2 1.5 2.1 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 6.7 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 3.8 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 15 246 1 2.6 41.8 0.2 6.6 3.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 6.6 0.7 2.4 0.2 1.0 5.2 0.4 0.2 1.9 3.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.9 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2" 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 6.8 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 NUMBER OF INJURIES 2 71 324 55 57 13 5 2 11 4 16 25 1 586 | COLUMN TOTALS (X) 0.4 12.0 SS. l 9.4 10.0 2.2 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.7 2.7 4.3 0.2 | 100X 181- TABLE 3.B.35 CROSSTABULATION OF THE CAUSE OF INJURY BY THE RESULTING NATURE OF INJURY. FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, FOR 584 SEVERITY #2 INJURIES. PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL F ILES) NATURE OF INJURY TOTAL PCT NOT KNOWN CORNEAL ABRASION CORNEAL ABRASION-CORNEAL EDEMA CORNEAL AERASION-RUST RING DEEP CORNEAL ABRASION CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS REDDENED CONJUNCTIVA SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE CONJUNCTIVAL SCRATCH CORNEAL ABRASION (STROMA)-ORBITAL CONTUSION CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVAL LACERATION CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS-ULCERATION INTRACONJUNCTIVAL FOREIGN BODY WITH INFLAMMATION SCRATCH ON EYELID CORNEAL ABRASION-RUST RING-CONJUNCTIVITIS KERATITIS-SUBEPITHELIAL SCAR-CONJUNCTIVITIS CONJUNCTIVITIS-MILD CONTUSION TO LIDS IRITIS-CORNEAL ABRASION DEEP CORNEAL ABRASION-IRITIS-RUST RING MULTIPLE CORNEAL ABRASIONS CONTUSION-CORHEAL ABRASION & EROSION-CONJUNCTIVAL & CIL IARY INJECTION-ECCHYMOSIS OF EYELIDS CONJUNCTIVAL ERYTHEMA-SCLERAL LACERATION CORNEAL ABRASION-MINIMAL IRITIS CHANGES CORNEAL ABRASION-ULCER ACUTE CORNEAL ULCER ASSOCIATED WITH CORNEAL ABRASION EYE IRRITATION RUST RING FOREIGN BODY: EDGE OF IR IS CORNEAL ABRASION-CELLULITIS UPPER EYELID-CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ULCER-DEEP RUST RING WITH STROMAL EDEMA FOREIGN BODY: DEEP IN STROMA FOREIGN BODY: CONJUNCTIVA CORNEAL FOREIGN BOOY CORNEAL ULCER WITH EPITHELIAL EDEMA CONJUNCTIVAL FOREIGN BODY-CORNEAL ABRASIONS-RUST RING DEEP CORNEAL ABRASION-CONJUNCTIVITIS POST-TRAUMATIC RETINAL TEAR WITH SECONDARY VITREOUS HEMORRHAGE CORNEAL FOREIGN BODY-LACERATION RUST SFOT ON CORNEA-RECURRENT ULCERATION SMALL EROSION UNDER UPPER LID-CONJUNCTIVAL INJECTION SCLERAL FOREIGN BODY SWOLLEN EYELID-CONJUNCTIVITIS CORNEAL ABRASION-SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE CORNEAL ABRASION-CORNEAL EDEMA-CONJUNCTIVITIS LACERATION OF EYELIDS-KAEMATOMA PENETRATING CORNEAL LACERATION LACERATION OF EYELID-HYPHEMA HULTIPLE CORNEAL ULCERS-RUST RING NO INJURY NOTED SULFURIC ACID BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA CHROMIC ACID BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA LIME BURNS LIME BURNS-CHEMICAL SCLERITIS CAUSTIC SODA BURNS-EPITHELIAL BREAKDOKN-BLEPHAROSPASM CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO NITROGEN SPLASH CHEMICAL CONJUNCTIVITIS-SULPHUR DUST BILATERAL CORNEAL ABRASIONS AND CONJUNCTIVITIS FROM PAINT CONJUNCTIVAL ABRASION MARKED PURULENT CONJUNCTIVITIS WITH SMALL ABCESS ON LID ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CIL IARY SPASM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA. CONJUNCTIVA AND EYELIDS CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS: NON-SPECIFIC CONJUNCTIVITIS & PHOTOPHOBIA DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN IR IT IS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BLEPHARITIS OF UPPER AND LOWER EYELIDS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS SWELLING OF EYELIDS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH BLEPHAROSPASM QUERY: ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS CONJUNCTIVAL BURN FROM HOT METAL CORNEAL AND CONJUNCTIVAL BURNS FROM HOT METAL SECOND DEGREE BURN OF SKIN NEAR INNER CANTHUS SECOND DEGREE BURN OF EYELIDS WITH SECONDARY INFECTION CORNEAL BURN DEEP BURNS TO INNER ENDS OF UPPER AND LOWER EYELIDS AND ON THE CARUNCLE BURN TO MEDIAL CANTHUS BURNS TO EYELIDS CORNEAL ABRASION WITH BURN INVOLVEMENT CHEMICAL BURN-SUBCONJUNCTIYAL HEMORRKAGE-CORNEAL ABRASION ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CORNEAL ABRASION AND RUST RING ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CORNEAL ABRASION ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS-CORNEAL ABRASION WITH RUST RING AND STROMAL EDEMA-SECONDARY IRITIS ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS WITH ASSOCIATED HEAT BURNS TO UPPER LID-CONTUSION OF THE GLOBE CONJUNCTIVITIS FROM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS-CORNEAL ABRASICH-CONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE CAUSE OF INJURY o u-ca — 0.2 N U M B E R O F I N J U R I E S C O L U M N T O T A L S (T . ) 0.2 2.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0 .2 0.2 0.2 cr UJ < XL 0.2 24 3 0.3 13 9 0.5 5.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0 .2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 25 3S3 4.3 60.4 21 h- — 'X o •— —i o L U <% O _ J 0.2 0.2 6.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 20. S 0.2 2.1 0.2 0 .3 0.2 1.2 0.2 26 4.5 LU < 0.2 0.2 0 .2 0.5 0 .2 0 .2 0 .2 0.2 0 .2 0 .2 0.2 H AR M FU L L IQ U ID S A N D  C O R R O SI V E S >- OC ID C3 2C a - j LU DC F L Y IN G  FR AG M EN T OR  O B JE C T  W EL D IN G  FL A SH  A N D  M E T A LL IC  FO R EI G N  BO D Y!  s UJ or u i O >- U. UJ O UJ r~ —1 Z CO i—i O >-=: o 3 g B LU N T  O B JE C T  RO W T O T A LS  (X ) N U M BE R O F IN JU R IE S  1.2 7 0.3 0.5 29.6 113 0.2 0.5 3 0.2 14.4 84 0.5 3 0.2 6.5 38 0.3 2 0.2 1 0.5 3 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 3.6 21 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 1.4 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0 .2 1 0.2 1 0.2 i 2.4 14 0.2 i ! i 0.2 1 j 0.2 1 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.2 1 0.3 0.5 2.2 13 0.3 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 i 0.2 1 ! 0.2 1 0.2 i 0.2 1 ft 0.2 1 If 1 . 4 i o.'z" j - 0.2 1 0.3 z 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.3 2 ' 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.3 0.2 1 0 .2 1 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.3 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0 .2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 6.2 36 0.3 2 5.0 29 0.3 2 4.3 25 2.1 12 0.5 3 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.7 4 0 .2 1 0.2 0.3 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 ! 0.2 ; 1 0.3 0.2 1.7 10 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 0.3 2 0.5 0.9 5 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 0.3 2 0.2 0.2 1 0.9 13 2.2 I 0.9 13 2.2 I 1.2 1.9 0.2 564 100 I i C O I - 182 - i n j u r i e s which, in tu rn , are coded separately. Welding flashes resulted in a var iety of corneal and conjunctival i n j u r i e s accounting fo r 18.7% of the t o t a l . Nearly 49% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s were caused by f l y i n g sparks which resulted in corneal abrasions. Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.36 shows the re l a t i on between the implement used at the time of the in jury and the cause of the i n j u r y , fo r the sever- i t y #1 category. 22% of the f l y i n g sparks, which resulted in i n j u r i e s , were caused by gr inders, 3.8% were caused by welding machines,3.4% by d r i l l s , 2.7% by grinders that the injured worker was not using, and 3.8% by impact too l s . I t i s i n te res t ing to note that 1.7% of the i n j u r i e s were due to foreign bodies blown into the eye, while the worker was not using any machine. This provides adequate rat iona le for the use of eye protect ion at a l l times and not only when performing a task. Cutting torches and hand tools were responsible also for a proportion of the f l y i n g sparks which lead to i n j u r i e s . Cross-tabulat ion Table 3.B.37 shows that the majority of sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s are concentrated in a fewer number of implement- causation re lat ionsh ips than in sever i ty #1 i n j u r i e s . The majority of i n - j u r i e s occur from welders and grinders which resu l t in f l y i n g sparks (pieces of metal). 20% of the sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s were caused by welding machines which resulted in a rad iat ion f l a sh . Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.38 shows the re l a t i on between the use of eye protect ion and the cause of the i n ju ry . A majority of the sever i ty #1 injury c la ims, however, did not report on the use of eye protect ion. About 38% of the sever i ty #1 c la ims, that reported on the use of eye pro- t e c t i on , indicated that the person was wearing safety glasses when a f l y - ing spark entered the eye. The use of side shields was not discussed. 11.6% were wearing goggles when a f l y i n g spark entered the eye. This f i - gure i s i r r egu l a r unless the goggles were poorly f i t t e d or were vented - 183 - TABLE 3.1.36 CROSSTABULATIOH OF THE IMPLEMENT USED AT THE TIME Of THE INJURY BY THE CAUSE OF THE IMJUftY. FRCt! A REVIEW Of 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, FOR S8« SEVERITY #1 INJURIES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) UNKNOWN NON-SPECIFIC NOT USING MACHINE NOT USING MACHINE-WALKING BYj GRINDER CHISEL WELDER WRENCH RIVETING GUN DRILL A AIR HOSE STAPLER SAND BLASTER-THIRD PARTY INJURY FURNACE CUTTING TORCH HAMMER COMPRESSION TESTER HANO TOOLS (NON-SPECIFIC) ROUTER AIR HACKSAW-POWER SAW IMPACT SUN ACETELENE TORCH WELDER-THIRD PARTY INJURY GRINDER-THIRD PARTY INJURY AIR TOOLS SAND BLASTER LATHE AIR HOSE-THIRD PARTY INJURY CRANE METAL CUTTER-THIRD PARTY INJURY WELOER ARC GOUGER ELECTRIC BUFFER WIRE BRUSH STEAMER BELT POLISHER BRAKE DRUM TURNING MACHINE BORING BAR DRILL PRESS WATER HOSE SHOVEL LOADING BULK CARS STRAIGHTENER SKIMMER IMPACT TOOLS CROWBAR CRANE-WORKER OBSERVING FILE PAINT BRUSH MILLING MACHINE KNIFE SAND MULLER SPRAY PAINT GUN PLIERS JACK HAMMER DRILL-THIRD PARTY INJURY BLADE SHARPENER IMPACT TOOL-THIRO PARTY INJURY SHOT BLAST MACHINE CAUSE OF INJURY 0.3 COLUMN TOTALS (J) (NUMBER OF INJURIES) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.0 6.0 0.9 0.3 22.0 0.2 3.8 0.3 3.4 1.0 0.5 1.7 0.9 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.7 3 = X mt o o nt 5 0.2 5.6 3.1 327 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 58 2.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.7 IS o i UJ X St g 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 1.7 0.3 0.2 2.7 |14.0 6.6 1.4 124.7 0.2 111.1 0.2 0.3 4.6 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4 14 0.2 4.1 - 184 - TABLE 3.B.37 CROSSTABULATION OF THE IMPLEMENT USED AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY BY THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES FOR 584 SEVERITY #2 INJURIES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) TOTAL PCT IMPLEMENT USED UNKNOWN NON-SPECIFIC NOT USING MACHINE WALKING BY MACHINE— (NOT USING) CUPOLA GRINDER SCHECKER REFRACTORY PATCHING GUN CHISEL CRANE WELDER PROPANE TORCH WRENCH SOLDERING IRON RIVETING GUN PRESS MACHINE DRILL DEGREASER TANK AIR HOSE SAND BLASTER-THIRD PARTY INJURY FURNACE CUTTING TORCH HAMMER COMPRESSION TESTER HAND TOOLS (NON- SPECIFIC) PUNCH MACHINE ROUTER SCREWDRIVER ELECTRIC SANDER AIR HACKSAW AIR DRILL IMPACT GUN ACETELENE TORCH WELDER-THIRD PARTY INJURY GRINDER-THIRD PARTY INJURY AIR TOOLS FERTILIZER SPREADER POWER BRUSH SAND BLASTER GREASE GUN MACHINING EQUIPMENT- (NON-SPECIFIC) LATHE AXE AIR HOSE CRANE 0.2 COLUMN TOTALS (%) (NUMBER OF INJURIES) CAUSE OF INJURY 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 4. 25 .5 7 1 0 0.2 .2 0.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1 1.7 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.7 4.5 0.3 0.2 2.2 0.2 _-I Z u. o 0.3 2Z 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.2 I — ztz CJ 1/1 UJ <C 0.2 3.0 0.2 7.0 0.2 60.4 353 20.5 120 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 4.5 26 0.2 0. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 j o 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.9 1 3 ~ Z • • J 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.2 13 C D UJ o o 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.0 8.0 6.7 1.5 0.2 27.2 0.2 0.2 0. 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 7 2 ,5 .2 .3 .2 2.7 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 4.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 7.7 4.6 0.3 0.2 0. 0.2 0.2 0. 2.4 0. 0.2 0. 1.9 0.2 11 TABLE 3.B.38 CROSSTABULATION OF INFORMATION REGARDING THE USE OF EYE PROTECTION AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WITH THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES. FOR 586 SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES. PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. 1976, (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) EYE PROTECTION WORN COL PCT TOTAL PCT CAUSE OF INJURY >» -J u. u. o a- ZZt U l a. o X OC OC at «c o zc o e NOT DISCUSSED NO GOGGLES: FLEXIBLE TYPE - POOR FIT FACE SHIELD SAFETY GLASSES HELMET HELMET: FOREIGN BODY IN HELMET WORKER JUST LIFTED HELMET GOGGLES HELMET: SHIELD NOT COMPLETELY LOWERED FACE SHIELO AND SAFETY GLASSES GOGGLES: WORKER HAD JUST REMOVED WORKER HAD JUST LIFTED FACE SHIELO GOGGLES NOT DOWN GOGGLES HAD HOLES IN THEM 'DARK1 SAFETY GLASSES (100) 0.3 (84) 10.4 (5) 0.7 (7) 0.9 (2) 0.2 (2) 0.2 TOTALS (X) (100) 0.3 TToo) 12.3 (77) 44.2 (1) 0.2 (1) 0.5 (2) 1.0 (9) 5.5 1.4 (1) .3 (1) 0.2 (3) 1.7 (1) 0.2 (1) 0.2 0) 0.2 (1) 0.2 (1) 0.2 (89) 8.4 (7) 0.7 TTobT 55.7 0.2 (2) 0.2 [100) 9.4 (84) 8.4 (2) 0.2 (2) 0.2 (2) 0.2 (6) 0.7 o!i l (2) 0.2 (100) 9.9 (90) 1.9 (10) 0.2 (100) 0.9 (100) 0.3 (100) 2.1 (100) 0.9 (100) 0.3 (100) 1.7 (100) 0.7 (91) 2.2 (9) 0.2 (92) 3.8 (4) 0.2 (4) 0.2 (100)| 0.2 (100) 1.7 (100) 0.7 (100) 2.4 (100) 4.1 (100) 0.2 - 186 - i n co r rec t l y , or the pa r t i c l e dropped into the eye when the protection was being removed. Nearly 10% of the respondents were wearing welding helmets at the time of the in jury. Even face shields were inadequate in pro- tect ing against f l y i n g sparks in 7% of the cases. Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.39 shows that much the same s i tua t i on ex i s t s fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s , with the exception that more compensable i n ju r ie s were caused by large f l y i n g fragments, even when protect ion was being worn. These occurred in two cases because of the f i t of the protection and the impact resistance. These results indicate the need to examine the design of eye protection and the way in which workers use i t , e spec ia l l y upon removal. Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.40 reports the re lat ion between the l oca - t ion of the accident and the implement used, for sever ity #1 i n j u r i e s . Most claims were non-specif ic as to the location of the accident on the employers' premises; but of those that did spec i fy , i t appears that i n - j u r i e s did not take place in unusual surroundings ( i . e . grinders were in grinding booths, welders were in welding booths). I t i s interest ing to note that a substantial number of i n ju r i e s occurred under vehicles while using hand too l s . Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.41 shows the same s i tuat ion fo r sever i ty #2 i n j u r i e s . Once again a majority of the reports did not specify where the accident occurred. The corre lat ions between location of accident and the implement used are diverse and less concentrated in com- parison to sever ity #1 i n j u r i e s . The same basic re lat ions ex i s t however. I t i s notable that a substantial number of sever ity #2 i n ju r ie s occurred while using a grinder in large pipes or tanks. Several other in jur ies were caused while using welding equipment in open spaces outdoors. Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.42 shows the re la t ion between the worktime loss due to sever i ty #2 i n ju r i e s and the occupation of the injured person. TABLE 3.B.39 CAUSE OF INJURY USE OF EYE PROTECTION AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WITH THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, FROM A REVIEW OF 14 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRIAL CLASSES, FOR 584 SEVERITY «2 EYE INJURIES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE) EI G N  B O D Y:  l- S P E C IF IC  IN G  S PA R K/  CE  O F M ET AL  X 51 CO h-ac «£ O Q IE IG N  B OD Y l-H ET A LL IC  [C TR IC A L IS H  HO T M ET AL  SP LA TT ER  SH AR P O B JE C T HA RM FU L LI O U ID S  AN D CO R R O SI VE S W EL D IN G  IN JU R Y t - Z U l s UJ —' o W EL D IN G  F LA SH  &  H ET A LL IC  FB  KD  BL EW  F B  ro  E Y E JN T O B JE C T RO W  T O TA LS  (t ) EYE PROTECTION WORN * - UJ c ! E SS u. z: _j _ J LU Lw HOT  M ET AL  SP LA TT ER  SH AR P O B JE C T HA RM FU L LI O U ID S  AN D CO R R O SI VE S W EL D IN G  IN JU R Y £ g W EL D IN G  F LA SH  &  H ET A LL IC  FB  — a: CO RO W  T O TA LS  (t ) UNKNOWN NOT DISCUSSED NO 100 (0.2) 5 (0.2) 76 (3.3) 12 (0.5) 66 (425) 4 (2.6) 82 06.5) 11 12.2) 59 (2.6) 29 (1.4) 100 (0.2) 100 (0.5) 38 (0.3) 38 (0.3) 91 (2.1) 9 (0.2) 56 (0.5) 22 (0.2) 64 (1.5) 100 (1.2) 55 (1.0) 17 (0.3) 100 (0.2) (0.3) (72.3) (7.7) YES: NON-SPECIFIC 1 (0.2) (0.2) IMPROPER FIT (0.5) (0.5) GOGGLES: FLEXIBLE TYPE-IMPROPER FIT 1 (0.2) (0.2) YES: BLOWN OFF BY FORCE OF INJURY 10.2) (0.2) FACE SHIELD STREET GLASSES 2 (1.2) (0.3) 1 (0.2) 24 (0.2) 9 (0.2) 17 10.3) (1.2) (0.7) SAFETY GLASSES 7 (0.3) 11 (7.5) (0.2) (8.6) HELHET 3 (1.9) (0.3) 11 (0.2) (2.2) HELMET AND SAFETY GLASSES 1 10.3) (0.5) HELMET: GLASS BROKEN BY IMPACT 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 9 (0.2) (0.5) GLASSES: NON-SPECIFIC (0.2) (0.2) MONO-GOGGLES 1 (0.2) (0.2) HELMET WORN: IMPROPER SHADE OF GLASS 1 (0.3) (0.3) HELMET: FOREIGN BODY IN HELMET WORKER HAD JUST LIFTED HELMET 1 10.5) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.3) 22 (0.2) 9 (0.2) (0.5) (0.9) GOGGLES 2 (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (1.2) HELMET: SHIELD NOT LOWERED (0.3) (0.3) FACE SHIELD AND SAFETY GLASSES 2 (0.9) 4 10.2) (1.0) GOGGLES: WORKER HAD JUST REMOVED 1 (0.3) (0.3) COLUMN TOTALS (X) (0.2) (4.3) (60-3) (205) (4.5) (0.2) (0.5) (0.9) (2.2) (0.9) (2.2) (1.2) (1.9) (0.2) 100* 00 - 188 - TABLE 3.B.40 CROSSTABULATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT BY THE IMPLEMENT USED WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED. FOR 586 SEVERITY #1 EYE INJURIES. FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES. PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) IMPLEMENT USED TOTAL PCTl LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT 2 s UNKNOWN flON-SPECIFIC NOT USING MACHINE NOT USING MACHINE: WALKING BY GRINDER CHISEL HELOER WRENCH RIVET GUN DRILL AIR HOSE STAPLER SAND BLASTER (THIRD PARTY USING! FURNACE CUTTING TORCH HAMMER COMPRESSION TESTER HAND TOOLS (NON-SPECIFIC) ROUTER JAIR HACKSAW, POWER SAW IMPACT GUN KCETELENE TORCH •ELDER (THIRD PARTY USING) ERINDER (THIRD PARTY USING) MR TOOLS SAND BLASTER LATHE MR HOSE (THIRD PARTY USING) :RANE (ETAL CUTTER (THIRD PARTY USING 'ELDER ARC GOUGER ELECTRIC BUFFER (IRE BRUSH STEAMER JELT POLISHER iRAKE DRUM TURNING MACHINE SORING BAR DRILL PRESS ttTER HOSE SHOVEL LOADER (LOADING BULK CARS) 5TRAIGHTENER SKIMMER IMPACT TOOL CROWBAR CRANE (WORKER OBSERVING) •ILE >AINT BRUSH BILLING MACHINE KNIFE SAND MULLER SPRAY PAINT GUN PLIERS JACK HAMMER DRILL (THIRD PARTY USING) BLADE SHARPENER SHOT BLAST MACHINE 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 |10.9 7.4 1.5 126.9 0.2 110.1 0.2 0.3 5.0 3.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 2.2 1.5 0.2 4.1 0.6 1.8 0.2 0.2 3.1 3.9 0.5 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 10.21 0.2 COLUMN TOTALS ( J ) 1.1 1.7 0.2 1.7 2-4' 0.2 0.6 0.2h 0.2 1 TABLE 3.B.41 IMPLEMENT NOT KNOWN NON-SPECIFIC NOT USING MACHINE NOT USING MACHINE: WALKING BY CUPOLA GRINDER SCMECKER REFRACTORY PATCHING GUN CHISEL CRANE WELDER PROPANE TORCH WRENCH SOLDERING IRON RIVETING GUN PRESS MACHINE DRILL DECREASER TANK AIR HOSE SANO BLASTER (THIRD PARTY USING) FURNACE CUTTING TORCH HAMMER COMPRESSION TESTER HAND TOOLS (NON-SPECIFIC) PUNCH MACHINE ROUTER SCREWDRIVER ELECTRIC SANDER AIR HACKSAW, POWER SAW AIR DRILL IMPACT GUN ACETELENE TORCH WELDER (THIRD PARTY USING) GRINDER (THIRD PARTY USING) AIR TOOLS FERTILIZER SPREADER POWER BRUSH SANO BLASTER GREASE GUN MACHINING EQUIPMENT: NON-SPECIFIC LATHE UE AIR HOSE (THIRD PARTY USING) CRANE NUMBER OF INJURIES COLUMN TOTALS ( I ) CROSSTABULATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT BY THE IMPLEMENT USED WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED. FOR 584 SEVERITY 12 EYE INJURIES, FROM A REVIEW OF IS HIGH EYE INJURY RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES, PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) ;O.S LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT 0.2 0.2 327 0.3 2.4 5 0 0.3 0.7 4.3 0.) 3.9 0.1 25 0,1 0.2 85 0.2 ' 7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2! 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 3.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 O . t 0.2 0.2 0.2 s 11 a. a. ta ta Ui a 5 2 ] £5 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.0 I I 0.2 0.2 I 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 110.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.21 o.i 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 [115 1. 8.0 6.7 1.5 0.2 l?7. 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 119.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 2. 0.2 2.7 0.5 0.2 1. 1.0 0.2 4.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 7.7 4.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 1? J»584 0.5 0.2 2.6 1.9 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.7 0.210.21' TABLE 3 .E .42 ,«.,«S1.,MJURIES- I N ALBERTA. IN 1976 L L A i 5 E S ' (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL F I L E S ) - 190 OCCUPATIONS COLUMN TOTAL Not Known S h i p p i n g C l e r k s We i ghe r s J a n i t o r s S u p e r v i s o r s , D r i l l i n g O p e r a t i o n s O i l 4 Gas F i e l d Occup. M e t a l C a s t i n g L a b o u r i n g i n M e t a l P r o c e s s i n g M e t a l P r o c e s s i n g C r u s h i n g & G r i n d i n g C h e m i c a l s Machinist M a c h i n e - T o o l O p e r a t i n g M e t a l M a c h i n i n g Fo remen: M e t a l S h a p i n g and F o r m i n g S h e e t - M e t a l Worke r s M e t a l w o r k i n g - M a c h i n e O p e r a t o r s W e l d i n g I F l a m e c u t t i n g B o i l e r m a k e r s - P l a t e r s M e t a l S hap i n g and F o r m i n g F i l i n g , G r i n d i n g , B u f f i n g Mo to r V e h i c l e F a b r i c a t i n g O the r F a b r i c a t i n g & A s s e m b l i n g O c c u p . L a b o u r i n g i n F a b . , A s s e m b l i n g & R e p a i r i n g Wood P r o d u c t s M o t o r - V e h i c l e M e c h a n i c s Heavy Du ty M e c h a n i c s O the r M e c h a n i c s Foremen: P r o d u c t F a b . , Assemb. & R e p a i r L a b o u r i n g i n P r o d u c t F a b r i c a t i n g , A s semb. , and R e p a i r i n g E x c a v a t i n g , G r a d i n g , P a v i n g C o n s t . E l e c t r i c i a n . C a r p e n t e r s P a i n t e r s - P a p e r h a n g e r s P i p e f i t t i n g - P l u m b i n g S t r u c t u r a l - M e t a l E r e c t o r s L a b o u r i n g i n C o n s t . T r u c k D r i v e r s H o i s t i n g O c c u p a t i o n s M a t e r i a l - H a n d l i n g E q u i p . O p e r a t o r s L a b o u r i n g i n M a t e r i a l H a n d l i n g O the r M a t e r i a l H a n d l i n g O c c u p a t i o n s I n s p e c t i n g , T e s t i n g , G r a d i n g i S a m p l i n g O c c u p a t i o n s L a b o u r i n g O c c u p a t i o n s ROW TOTALS ( t ) LO o - 191 - Welders and flame cutters are responsible fo r over 50.5% of the l o s t work days due to sever i ty #2 eye i n j u r i e s , as well as incurr ing the most lengthy time loss accidents. There did not, however, appear to be any one occu- pation with a majority of unduly long or short l o s t time accidents. As the incidence of i n j u r i e s with in an occupational category increased, so did the range of time in which workers are o f f work. Table 3.B.43 shows a graphical representation of the l o s t days of work time among selected occupations with a high incidence of sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s (these occupations represent 88% of the to ta l number of i n j u r i e s studied). Sheet metal workers, welders, and i ndus t r i a l and farm machinery mechanics incurred the greatest oroportion of i n j u r i e s involv ing only one or two days of l o s t work time. On the other hand, metal shapers and f o r - mers and motor vehic le mechanics incurred the greatest proportions of i n - j u r i e s involv ing three or more days of l o s t work time. Although these l a t t e r occupations do not represent a high proportion of the t o t a l number of i n j u r i e s , these workers seem to incur the more serious i n j u r i e s . Cross-tabulat ion Table 3.B.44 shows the re l a t i on between the length of time the injured person was o f f work and. the cause of the in ju ry . Table 3.B.45 shows a graphical representation of th i s data. 65% of the i n j u r i e s that were caused by f l y i n g sparks/pieces of metal, involved two or less days o f f work, while 73% of the i n j u r i e s due to welding f lashes were in th i s same category. Although persons injured with non-metal l ic foreign bodies were of f work two days or less in 65% of the cases, a much higher proportion were o f f work two days (as compared to one day) than in the f l y i n g spark (metal) category. I t i s notable that 70% of the persons injured by chemicals were of f work three days or greater. This appears to be the only category of in jury causation that does not show a majority of i n j u r i e s with a short - 192 - TABLE 3.B.43 Distribution of the Number of Work Days Lost per Worker Injury (severity #2), for Selected Occupations -from a review of 15 Hiph Eye Injury Risk Industrial Classes, 586 Injuries, In Alberta, in 1976. (Alberta W.C.B. Personal Medical Fi les) (% of total injur ies studied) 6 _ 6 2 ; 5 5 ( K 5 1 > 8 1 > 8 2.7 5.0 5.1 12.0 TABLE 3.B.44 CROSSTABULATION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF LOST WORK TIME OUE TO SEVERITY 12 INJURIES AND THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, FROM A REVIEW OF 15 HIGH EYE RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES (586 INJURIES), IN ALBERTA, IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL FILES) CAUSE OF INJURY Z 3 >- O Q o l i -en t-. <_) OC LU S x l/l Li- St L L . O >- CJ o « O _ l m —i -J < CJ ac r- X CJ CO «f co a co *-« UJ o-»- «-« CO - J O i — z L U I. •a zt: CO 3£ u_ u . t-o L U W CO COLUMN PCT TOTAL PCT O s Z LU co a . »-• co UJ 1 CC z o o u . ac CS CO Z UJ *-» <_J CP P z « a a Z r-CO UJ 1-O- CJ iv L U cc —i cc Z3 O i o CD Z >- OC U. G UJ CO o Z OQ CJ CO »-. Z _J Ul UJ _ J 3- CO UJ CO o t= => —1 a H o REAL TIME OFF o z > ~ L U — J M u_ o_ L U S • oc z o o u . z 35 L U Li- r - _ i o a. X L O L O O -J o '—' o >-—1 oc u . O L U UJ X 3T o o IS o NO LOST TIME 1 DAY 2 DAYS 3 DAYS 4 DAYS 5 DAYS 6 DAYS 7 DAYS 8 DAYS 9 DAYS 13 DAYS 14 DAYS 15 DAYS 19 DAYS 22 DAYS 61 DAYS 69 DAYS 100 (0.2) 16 (0.7) 52 12.2) 20 (0.9) 8 (0.3) 4 (0.2) 7 (4.1) 40 (25.0) 23 (14.0) 12 (7.0) 7 (4.5) 4 (2.2) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 7 (1.4) 40 (8.2) 32 (0.7) 11 (2.4) 5 (1.0) 2 (0.3) 3 (0.5) 4 (0.2) 27 (1.2) 38 (1.7) 4 (0.2) 15 (0.7) 4 (0.2) 4 (0.2) 4 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 33 (0.2) 67 (0.3) 60 (0.5) 20 (0.2) 20 (0.2) 15 (0.3) 15 (0.3) 23 (0.5) 23 (0.5) 8 (0.2) 8 (0.2) 8 (0.2) 60 (0.5) 20 (0.2) 20 (0.2) 39 (0.9) 23 (0.5) 8 (0.2) 8 (0.2) 8 (0.2) 8 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 73 (1.4) 9 (0.2) 9 (0.2) 9 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 70.0 40.0 25.0 11.0 7.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 COLUMN TOTALS (%) 100 (0.2) 100 (4.3) 100 (60.3) 100 (20.5) 100 (4.5) 100 (0.2) 100 (0.5) 100 (0.9) 100 (2.2) 100 (0.9) 100 (2.2) 100 (1.2) 100 (1.9) 100 (0.2) TABLE 3.B.45 Distribution of the Number of Work Days Lost per Worker Injury (Severity #2), by the Cause of the Injury, from a review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industrial Classes, 586 Injuries, In Alberta, In 1976. (Alberta W.C.B. Personal Medical Files) on injuries CAUSE Of INJURY - 195 - time l o s s , increasing in length of time off work as the number of injuries in the category increases. - 196 - CHAPTER 3 SECTION C METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF A SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS - 197 - 3.CM. Methodology - Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Of f icers Rationale The purpose of th i s study was to obtain p r a c t i c a l , informed responses on the state of eye protect ion and the seriousness of eye i n ju r i e s in i n - dustry. The occupational health and safety o f f i c e r (OHSO) i s , general ly speaking, a person who i s well experienced in industry and who has been given special t ra in ing in the recognit ion of occupational health and safety problems. Most OHSO's v i s i t a wide var iety of industr ies and, there- fo re , encounter a majority of the s i g n i f i c an t eye hazards. The OHSO i s also able to assess the presence and effect iveness of any personal pro- tec t i ve program. On t h i s bas is , the inDut of these personnel was f e l t to be e s sen t i a l . Access to Information Permission was obtained from the D i rector of the Inspection Branch of the Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s ion of A lberta Labour to interview a number of occupational health and safety o f f i c e r s . This permission was obtained in ear ly March of 1978, two weeks p r i o r to the interviews. The OHSO's who par t i c ipated were informed that a l l ind iv idua l information would be anonymous and con f i den t i a l . Population I t was o r i g i n a l l y intended to interview a l l the OHSO's in A lbe r ta , who to ta l 47. However th i s was not p r a c t i c a l , and on the basis that most o f f i - cers are highly experienced and constantly exposed to eye hazards, a sample was taken. A to ta l of 38 o f f i c e r s were selected to be interviewed. Of these, i t was possible to interview 31(66%). The Instrument An interview survey instrument was designed to quantify the opinions - 1 9 8 - of the o f f i c e r s in regard to eye i n ju r i e s and eye protect ion, while s t i l l allowing subjective comment. A series of questions were posed and res- ponses requested in accordance with a five-degree L i ker t scale. Abroad range of topics re la t ing to eye i n ju r i e s and eye protection in industry were covered. The interview questionnaire i s shown in Figure 3.C.I. Method of Co l lect ion A research ass istant previously trained and experienced in i n t e r - viewing was commissioned to conduct the interviews. The research ass istant was instructed in the objectives of the interviews and the method of i n t e r - view. This researcher performed four pre-tests in the presence of the research ass istant (the interviewer) and also observed the interviewer carrying out the survey in two addit ional pre-tests . The results were used to modify the instrument s l i g h t l y . The interview, which was arranged with the OHSO by appointment, lasted approximately hal f an hour. The L i ke r t scale questions were asked in a consistent fashion throughout the i n t e r - views,and in every case respondents were encouraged to fol low up the i r scaled response with anecdotal data. The respondent was l e f t with a free hand to answer the more open-ended questions, although guidance was given i f the response was inappropriate. A separate interview booklet was com- pleted fo r each OHSO. Possible Bias Most of the questions were worded to allow objective responses based on t ra ined observation. The OHSO's background, therefore, was compensated for as much as possible. There were a few questions, however, which allowed responses based on personal bias or background. For th i s reason, the OHSO's were cont inual ly reminded to respond on the basis of overal l perceptions gained on the problem in t he i r present pos i t ion. It was d i f f i - c u l t to i s o l a te a response that was based on a recent, ser ious, i so lated - 199 - FIGURE 3.C.1 INSPECTORS SURVEY OK EYE INJURIES AND EYE PP.C7"TI0:: 1. Previous experience and background in industry - jobs, years worked, ere. 2. In which industries are hazards to the eyes most prevalent? 3 . What are the most common types of hazards in these industries? (lead with mechanical, chemical and radiation i f necessary) 4. What are the most potentially serious hazards found in these industries? (lead with mechanical, chemical and radiation i f necessary) Please note: ASK THE INSPECTOR TO RESPOND ON THE BASIS OF HIS GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND EXPERIENCES. - 200 - FIGURE 3.C.1 cont'd S C A L E D Q U E S T I O N S - A s k t h a t t h e p e r s o n r e s p o n d i n l i g h t o f a n o t i c e a b l e t r e n d i n b e h a v i o r o r c o n d i t i o n s a n d n o t b e c a u s e o f s p e c i f i c , o u t s t a n d i n g i n c i d e n t s . A S K T H E R E S P O N D E N T T O R E P L Y A C C O R D I N G T O W H E T H E R H E S T R O N G L Y D I S A G R E E S , D I S - A G R E E S , N E I T H E R A N O R D , A G R E E S , OR S T R O N G L Y A G R E E S W I T H T H E F O L L O W I N G S T A T E M E N T S . E Y E I N J U R I E S O C C U R I N I N D U S T R Y B E C A U S E : 1. E y e p r o t e c t i o n i s n o t b e i n g w o r n . X X X X X 2. T h e p r o p e r t y p e o f e y e p r o t e c t i o n i s n o t b e i n g w o r n ( P i f A o r S A ) X X X X X ( p e r h a p s e x a m p l e s f o r M , C , a n d R h a z a r d s ) 3. T h e d e s i g n o f t h e e y e p r o t e c t i o n i s p o o r , a l l o w i n g a n i n j u r y e v e n X X X X X t h o u g h p r o t e c t i o n i s b e i n g w o r n . ( P i f A o r S A ) 4. T h e w o r k e r d o e s n o t t a k e a d e q u a t e s a f e t y p r e c a u t i o n s . X X X X X 5. A f e l l o w w o r k e r ( i e . w e l d e r ) d o e s n o t t a k e a d e q u a t e s a f e t y X X X X X p r e c a u t i o n s . ( P i f A o r S A ) 6. T h e e q u i p m e n t o r m a c h i n e t h a t i s b e i n g u s e d i s p o o r l y d e s i g n e d f o r s a f e t y a n d a f f o r d s l i t t l e p r o t e c t i o n a t t h e s o u r c e ( P i f - A / S A ) X X X X X 7. T h e w o r k e r d o e s n o t c a r e a b o u t t h e s a f e t y o f h i s e y e s . X X X X X 8 . T h e w o r k e r b e c o m e s f a t i g u e d a n d i s m o r e p r o n e t o i n j u r y . X X X X X 9. C e r t a i n j o b s a r e h a z a r d o u s t o t h e e y e s a n d i n j u r i e s a r e b o u n d X X X X X t o o c c u r . 10. E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s ( s m o k e d u s t , e t c . ) p r o v i d e f o r u n s a f e X X X X X w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s . ( P i f A o r S A ) 11 . P o o r c o n t r a s t , g l a r e , i n a d e q u a t e l i g h t i n g , o r o t h e r v i s u a l p e r - X X X X X f o r m a n c e f a c t o r s c r e a t e a h a z a r d . A d d i t i o n a l c o m m e n t s f o r a n y o f t h e q u e s t i o n s . S p e c i f y q u e s t i o n n u m b e r . - 201 - FIGURE 3.C.1 cont'd P L E A S E R E O U E R T T H A T T H E R E S P O N D E N T R E P L Y ON T H E P .AS IS O F G E N E R A L P R E C E F T T O N S O F T H E F O L L O W I N G S I T U A T I O N S . I N G E N E R A L , M A N Y W O R K E R S DO N O T WEAR E Y E P R O T E C T I O N B E C A U S E : 1. C o m m o n l y t h e r e i s n o e y e p r o t e c t i o n p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e p l a n t . 2. E y e p r o t e c t i o n i s s u p p l i e d w i t h o u t t h e s u p p o r t o f a n e y e p r o t e c t i o n p o l i c y ( i e . n o m e c h a n i s m f o r r e - e n f o r c e m e n t ) X X X X X X X X X X 3 . T h e r e i s a l a c k o f r i g i d e n f o r c e m e n t o f e y e s a f e t y r u l e s b y X X X X X m a n a g e m e n t ( i e . d i s c i p l i n a r y m e a s u r e s ) 4. M a n a g e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g f i r s t l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s , d o n o t s h o w a g o o d X . X X X X e x a m p l e b y w e a r i n g e y e p r o t e c t i o n t h e m s e l v e s w h i l e i n t h e p l a n t . 5 . P e e r p r e s s u r e c a n a f f e c t t h e m o t i v a t i o n o f t h e w o r k e r t o w e a r X X X X X e y e p r o t e c t i o n , ( e x p a n d o n 4 v e a n d - v e a s p e c t s ) 6. T h e r e i s a l a c k o f e d u c a t i o n a b o u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f w e a r i n g X X X X X e y e p r o t e c t i o n ( e x p a n d ) . 7. W o r k e r s a r e v a i n o r s e l f - c o n c i o u s a b o u t w e a r i n g e y e p r o t e c t i o n . X X X X X 8. U n i o n s d o n o t p r o m o t e t h e e y e s a f e t y o f t h e w o r k e r o n t h e j o b . X X X X X 9 . U n i o n s d o l i t t l e t o r e - e n f o r c e t h e e y e p r o t e c t i o n p o l i c y a n d X X X X X p r o g r a m s t h a t h a v e b e e n s e t u p b y m a n a g e m e n t . 10. T h e e y e p r o t e c t i o n i s g e n e r a l l y p o o r l y f i t t e d a n d u n c o m f o r t a b l e . X X X X X 11. E x c e s s i v e h e a t , c o l d , o r d u s t m a k e s w e a r i n g e y e p r o t e c t i o n X X X X X v e r y d i f f i c u l t . 12. I t i n h i b i t s t h e i r w o r k p e r f o r m a n c e ( i e . l a c k o f p e r i p h e r a l v i s i o n ) X X X X X A d d i t i o n a l c o m m e n t s f o r a n y o f t h e q u e s t i o n s . S p e c i f y q u e s t i o n n u m b e r . - 202 - FIGURE 3.C.l cont'd G E N E R A L Q U E S T I O N S 1. M a n a g e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g s a f e t y p e r s o n n e l , a r e a w a r e o f t h e CSA X X X X X S t a n d a r d s f o r e y e p r o t e c t o r s . 2. M a n a g e m e n t , i n c l u d i n g s a f e t y p e r s o n n e l , k n o w w h a t i n d u s t r i a l l y a p p r o v e d e y e p r o t e c t i o n i s a n d h o w t o i d e n t i f y i t . — 3. M a n a g e m e n t s h o u l d s t r i c t l y i n f o r c e t h e w e a r i n g o f e y e p r o t e c t i o n w i t h d i s c i p l i n a r y m e a s u r e s . 4 . M a n a g e m e n t , s a f e t y p e r s o n n e l , a n d w o r k e r s o f t e n t h i n k t h a t s t r e e t f r a m e s w i t h h a r d e n e d l e n s e s r e p r e s e n t i n d u s t r i a l e y e p r o t e c t i o n . 5. L e g i s l a t i o n i s o n e o f t h e b e s t w a y s t o e n s u r e t h a t m a n a g e m e n t p r o v i d e s e y e p r o t e c t i o n f o r i t s w o r k e r s ( e x p a n d o n t h i s , i f D / B D . w h y ? , w h a t a r e o t h e r w a y s ) . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Z.'Z PROTECTION PKOGK.--v-5 1. A r e t h e e y e p r o t e c t i o n p r o g r a m s t h a t a r e b e i n g p r o v i d e d i n i n d u s t r y a d e q u a t e i n y o u r o p i n i o n ? I f y e s , w h y ? I f n o , h o w c a n t h e y b e i m p r o v e d — 2. I f t h e q u e s t i o n h a s n o t b e e n a n s w e r e d i n d i r e c t l y a l r e a d y p l e a s e a s k : A r e a n y o f t h e p r o g r a m s y o u a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h i d e a l i n y o u r o p i n i o n ? I f y e s , h o w a r e t h e y i d e a l ? - 203 - FIGURE 3.C.1 cont'd >- 1 LD LU ZZZ LU <= ca LTV CL. IS> oo LU LU «=c cd LU LU LU LU CC — LU or LD p— cc c <r • LD a: oo «r — LU l_i_J Cd LD <C Csl OO ca >- LU 1 LU (_3 ce Z LD cr <x r—I OS oo OO Q - 204 - i nc ident , although they were cautioned on th i s as w e l l . Method of Analysis The results of the interviews were hand-tabulated. The L i ke r t ques- tions were tabulated on the basis of the degree of agreement with the s ta te - ment, on a scale from 1 to 5. The anecdotal comments from the L i ke r t ques- tions and the open-ended questions were analyzed, using content analys is . In these cases, the recorded responses were corre lated into broad cate- gor ies. - 205 - Part 3.C.R. - Results of a Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Off icers The f i r s t interview question asked the worker's background in industry. This question was asked in order to "break the i c e " and the results are not recorded. Table 3.C.1 shows the most prevalent locations of eye injury hazards in the opinion of the inspection personnel. The men were allowed to give mult ip le answers. Occupational health and safety o f f i ce r s reported that eye i n ju r i e s were most prevalent in machine shops, construction s i tes (which include welding, gr ind ing, woodwork), foundries, metal manufacturing operations, welding and woodwork shops. A number of other industr ies were reported but the majority of these were of a spec ia l i zed nature. Table 3.C.2 shows a frequency d i s t r i bu t i on of the most common types of eye hazards found in the industr ies c i ted in Table 3.C.I. The o f f i ce r s reported that the most common types of hazards in these industr ies are those from machine work operations, welding and chemicals. As a general category, f l y i n g pa r t i c le s and dust was noted. A var iety of other hazards were noted, a majority of which were associated with the construction indus- t r y . Table 3.C.3 gives a frequency d i s t r i bu t i on of what inspection person- nel saw as the most po tent i a l l y serious eye hazards in industry. These were chemicals, laser beams, machining, power-actuated tools and welding operations. Many other hazards were noted but, again, the majority were associated with the construction industry. Table 3.C.4 shows ind iv idual frequency d i s t r ibut ions of responses to the s ix questions pertaining to the occurrence of eye i n ju r i e s in industry. The responses to the questions were given on a L i ke r t scale where a scale 1 response indicates strong disagreement with the question posed by the - 206 - TABLE 3.C.1 DISTRIBUTION OF THE INDUSTRIES IN ALBERTA WHERE HAZARDS TO THE EYES ARE MOST PREVALENT (SURVEY OF 31 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, MARCH, 1978) INDUSTRY FREQUENCY OF OHSO RESPONSE MACHINE SHOPS 13 CONSTRUCTION 12 FOUNDRIES 6 METAL MFG OPERATIONS 6 WELDING SHOPS 4 WOODWORK SHOPS 3 INDUSTRIAL SHOP 3 PETRO-CHEMICAL 3 GLASS INDUSTRY 3 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 2 LUMBERING 2 CONCRETE OPERATIONS 1 HIGH RISE MAINTAINENCE 1 OILFIELD 1 BATTERY SHOP 1 FIGERGLASS MFG 1 RESEARCH LABS 1 GARAGES 1 AIRPORTS 1 PULPING 1 - 207 - TABLE 3.C.2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE HAZARDS LEADING TO THE MOST COMMON EYE INJURIES, IN THE INDUSTRIES NOTED IN TABLE 3.C.I. (SURVEY OF 31 OCCUPATIONSL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, MARCH, 1978) COMMON HAZARDS FREQUENCY OF OHSO REPONSES MACHINING 17 FLYING PARTICLES AND DUST 15 WELDING: RADIATION 14 CHEMICALS, CORROSIVES 9 SAWING 4 JACKHAMMERING 3 SANDING 3 MOLTEN METAL 2 DEMOLITION 2 FUMES 2 POWER ACTUATED TOOLS, EXPLOSIVE ACTUATED TOOLS 2 COMPRESSED AIR HOSE 2 WORKING WITH GLASS 2 LOADING TAR POTS 1 WIND 1 GRAPPLER: ROUGHING UP FLOORS 1 WIPING EYES 1 FUEL 1 - 208 - TABLE 3.C.3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE HAZARDS WHICH LEAD TO THE MOST POTENTIALLY SERIOUS EYE INJURIES, IM THE INDUSTRIES NOTED IN TABLE 3.C.1 (SURVEY OF 31 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, MARCH, 1978) HAZARDS LEADING TO SERIOUS INJURY FREQUENCY OF OHSO RESPONSE CHEMICALS 10 LASER BEAMS 9 MACHINING 6 POWER ACTUATED TOOLS 5 WELDING 4 DUST: FLYING PARTICLES 2 FLYING OBJECTS 3 SAWING 1 COMPRESSED AIR MACHINERY 1 SANDBLASTING 1 MASONRY CUTTING 1 SANDING INRA-RED RADIATION 1 X-RAY 1 CEMENT FINISHERS 1 TAR POTS 1 INADEQUATE LIGHTING 1 BOILER EXPLOSIONS 1 HORSEPLAY 1 UNAWARENESS OF WORKERS 1 TABLE 3.C.4 RESPONSES TO 11 QUESTIONS, ON A FIVE POINT LIKERT SCALE, CONCERNING THE OCCURRENCE OF EYE INJURIES IN INDUSTRY (SURVEY OF 31 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, MARCH, 1978) -~>̂ ___QUESTION NUMBER LIKERT RESPONSE " 1 2 3 4 5 6 | 7 8 9 | 10 11 I <*) » (t) # (*) # (%) # (%) J (*)| # (%) I (*) 1 ( « | * it) # (X) 1. Strongly Disagree 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (13) 0 (0) 2 (5)1 0 (0) 0 (0) 2. Disagree T (3) 2 (5) 10 (32) 1 (3) 1 (3) 12 (39) 18 (58) 12 (39) 19 (63) J 1 (3) 5 (16) 3. Neither 1 nor 5 2 (5) 5 (16) 5 (16) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (13) 0 (0) 2 (7) 2 (5) 1 (3) 4 (13) 4. Agree 10 (32) 18 (58) 12 (39) 11 (35) 16 (52) 8 (26) 6 (19) 15 (48] 8 (27) 20 (65) 13 (41) 5. Strongly Agree 10 (58) 6 (19) 4 (13) 19 (62) 14 (45) 7 (22) 3 (10) 2 (5) 0 (0) 9 (29) 9 (29) | TOTAL 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 1 31 31 QUESTIONS EYE INJURIES OCCUR IN INDUSTRY BECAUSE: 1. Eye protection is not being worn. 2. The proper type of eye protection is not being worn. 3. The design of the eye protection is poor, allowing an Injury even though protection Is being worn. 4. The worker does not take adequate safety precautions. 5. A fellow worker (ie. welder) does not take adequate safety precautions. 6. The equipment or machine that 1s being used is poorly designed for safety and affords little protection at the source. 7. The worker does not care about the safety of his eyes. 8. The worker becomes fatigued and is more prone to injury, 9. Certain jobs are hazardous to the eyes and Injuries are bound to occur. 10. Environmental conditions (smoke,dust,etc.) provide for unsafe working conditions. 11. Poor contrast, glare, Inadequate lighting, or other visual performance factors create a hazard. - 210 - interv iewer, to a scale 5 response ind icat ing strong agreement with the statement. A majority of the o f f i c e r s (90%) agreed with the statement that eye i n ju r i e s were occurring in industry because eye protect ion i s not being worn. 77% of the o f f i ce r s agreed, or strongly agreed, that i n j u r i e s occurred because the proper type of eye protect ion i s not being worn. It was noted by nine o f f i c e r s that side shields on safety glasses were nec- eccary. A majority (52%) of the o f f i c e r s agreed that i n j u r i e s were caused by poor design of equipment, although 32% disagreed with th i s statement. Those who disagreed f e l t that the use of side shields and proper f i t t i n g were more important. Nearly 100% of the o f f i c e r s stated that i n j u r i e s occurred because workers did not take adequate safety precautions, while the same high proportion f e l t that the lack of safety precautions on the part of fe l low workers also contributed to the incidence of i n j u r i e s . In these cases, people helping welders and persons around others who were grinding and chipping were e spec ia l l y vulnerable. 48% of the respondents agreed with the statement that i n j u r i e s occur because of poor implement design and, therefore, poor protect ion at the source. However 39% disagreed with the statement. Inspectors reported that guards on machinery were often removed. Others noted that hand tools and the l i k e are very d i f f i c u l t to guard. It was in teres t ing to note that 71% of the inspectors disagreed with the notion that the workers' lack of concern f o r the health of t h e i r eyes caused i n j u r i e s . 29% of the inspectors agreed with the statement. The o f f i c e r s commented that some workers were not aware of the hazards, while others care but do nothing about i t . S t i l l more would rather "take t he i r chance", while the rest simply don 't care at a l l . The majority of inspectors (55)% agreed that i n j u r i e s can occur be- cause of worker fa t i gue, while 39% did not agree. Three o f f i c e r s noted the - 211 - re l a t i on between fatigue or boredom and accident trends through the wor- king day. .;Nearly 70% of the o f f i ce r s disagreed that i n ju r i e s were inevitable in certa in hazardous jobs. Only 26% of the inspectors thought th i s was the case. Most of the o f f i ce r s f e l t that a majority of hazards can be pre- vented. 94% of the o f f i ce r s agreed that smoke, dust and other factors could resu l t in unsafe working conditions and, therefore, eye i n j u r i e s . Wind and dust were c i ted as the greatest hazards, in addition to smoke and fumes. Excessive heat sometimes caused the worker to remove his protect ion. The o f f i ce r s (71%) agreed that poor l i ght ing and other detrimental v isual per- formance factors caused i n ju r i e s to occur. 16% did not agree. Lighting was noted as the most important v i sual performance factor . Table 3.C.5 shows a frequency d i s t r i bu t i on of L i ke r t scale responses to statements concerning the use of eye protection in industry. 73% of the o f f i c e r s agreed that eye protection i s not worn by workers because there i s no eye protection po l icy establ ished in the company in which they work, while 23% disagreed with the statement. Some o f f i ce r s recommended that the use of eye protection be a condition of employment. A majority (84%) of the o f f i ce r s agreed, however, that eye protection that is supplied is done without the support of a management eye protection po l i cy . Only 16% of the inspectors disagreed with th i s statement. 90% of the o f f i ce r s agreed with the statement that there i s a lack of r i g i d enforcement of eye safety rules by management. The inspection per- sonnel stated the importance of enforcement (and also education) but also noted the reluctance of management to d i s c i p l i ne workers who would be hard to replace. TABLE 3.C.5 RESPONSES TO 12 QUESTIONS, ON A FIVE POINT LIKERT SCALE, CONCERNING ASPECTS OF WORKER COMPLIANCE IN THE WEARING OF EYE PROTECTION IN INDUSTRY (SURVEY OF 31 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, MARCH, 1978) ^JJUESTION NUMBER LIKERT RESPONSE 1 | 2 3 , 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # (X)l # (%) § (%) « (%) # (X) f (%) i (*) # (%) « (X) # (X ) * (X) » (X ) 1. Strongly Disagree 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 2. Disagree 7 (23) 5 (16) 2 (6) 2 (6) 2 (6) 3 (10) 14 (45)J 5 (16) 10 (32) 11 (35) 5 i (16) 17 (55) 3. Neither 1 nor 5 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 2 (6) 5 (16) 0 (0) 1 (3) 6 (19) 5 (16) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4. Agree 13 (42) 11 (35) 10 (32) 8 (26) 15 (48) 9 (29) l l O (32) 15 (48) 14 (45) 11 (35) 13 (42) 10 (32) 5. Strongly Agree 11 (35) 15 (49) 18 (58) 19 (61) 9 (29) |19 (61)1 6 (20) 4 (13) 1 (3) 9 (30) 13 (42) 3 (10) | TOTAL 31 31 31 31 31 131 ||31 31 1131 31 31 31 QUESTIONS: IN GENERAL, MANY WORKERS DO HOT WEAR EYE PROECTION BECAUSE: 1. Commonly there Is no eye protection policy established In the plant. 2. Eye protection 1s supplied without the support of an eye protection policy (le. no mechanism for re-enforcement). 3. There Is a lack of rigid enforcement of eye safety rules by management (1e. disciplinary measures). 4. Management, Including first Une supervisors, do not show a good example by wearing eye protection themselves while In the plant. 5. Peer pressure can affect the motivation of the worker to wear eye protection (expand on positive and negative aspects). 6. There 1s a lack of education about the importance of wearing eye protection (expand). 7. Workers are vain or self-conscious about wearing eye protection. 8. Unions do not promote the eye safety of the worker on the job. 9. Unions do l i t t l e to re-enforce the eye protection policy and programs that have been set up by management. 10. The eye protection 1s generally poorly fitted and uncomfortable. 11. Excessive heat, cold, or dust makes wearing eye protection very difficult. 12. It inhibits their work performance (le. lack of peripheral vision). - 213 - In general (87%), the o f f i c e r s agreed that many workers do not wear eye protect ion because management does not show a good example by wearing eye protect ion themselves while in the plant. A major ity (77%) agreed also that peer pressure can a f fec t the motivation of the worker to wear eye protect ion. Of those who answered a f f i rma t i v e l y , 50% thought the e f f ec t was pos i t i ve . In the opinion of 90% of the o f f i c e r s , many workers do not wear eye protection because there i s a lack of education about the importance of wearing i t . One-half of the o f f i c e r s stated that workers were not being educated about the hazards of t h e i r jobs. 52% of the o f f i c e r s agreed with the statement that eye protect ion i s often not worn because workers are self-conscious about t h e i r appearance, while 45% disagreed with the statement. One o f f i c e r commented that th i s at t i tude was dependent on whether everyone was wearing the protect ion or not. Others commented that the younger worker (who, i n c i d e n t a l l y , incurs the greatest number of i n ju r i e s ) was most prone to th i s self-consciousness. A majority (61%) of the o f f i c e r s agreed that eye protect ion i s not worn because unions do not ac t i ve l y promote the eye safety of the worker on the job. 19% were undecided, while 19% did not agree that th i s was the case. There was optimism from the inspectors that more unions were pro- moting eye safety, although some unions s t i l l did not want to r i sk t h e i r popular i ty with the workers. Nearly 50% of the o f f i c e r s agreed with the statement that unions do l i t t l e to re inforce the eye protect ion po l i cy and programs set out by management. 35% of the inspectors did not agree with the statement. A few inspectors noted that unions were general ly cooperative i f properly approached, while others stated that unions t r a d i - t i o n a l l y oppose management po l i cy . - 2 14 - 65% of* the inspection personnel agreed that eye protect ion i s not worn because of discomfort and poor f i t , while 35% disagreed with the statement. A few o f f i ce r s noted that th i s was simply an excuse while others f e l t that f i t t i n g was very important. I t was the consensus (84%) that excessive heat, cold and dust made wearing eye protection d i f f i c u l t . Fogging of eye protection was c i ted as the most common problem. I t was in terest ing to note that nearly 60% of the o f f i ce r s disagreed with the statement that eye protection i nh i b i t s work performance. Table 3.C.6 shows a frequency d i s t r i bu t i on of L i ke r t scale responses by inspection personnel to statements concerning general aspects of eye protection in industry. A majority of o f f i ce r s (87%) disagreed with the statement that management and safety personnel are aware of the CSA Stan- dards for eye protectors. Only 13% of the o f f i c e r s thought that there was some awareness of the standards. In a s im i l a r ve in , 74% of the o f f i ce r s f e l t that management does not know what industr ia l ly-approved eye pro- tect ion i s or how to i den t i f y i t . I t was pointed out that safety suppliers do counsel management in some cases. I t was noted, however, that some companies want the cheapest protect ion. On the same subject, 94% of the o f f i ce r s agreed with the statement that a l l persons in industry often think that s t reet frames with hardened lenses represent i ndus t r i a l eye pro- tec t i on . I t was the consensus of 97% of the o f f i ce r s that management should en- force the wearing of eye protection with d i s c i p l i n a r y measures. A few i n - spectors noted that enforcement was espec ia l l y important in hazardous areas, while others were vehement that i t should be a condit ion of employ- ment. 77% of the o f f i ce r s agreed with the statement that l e g i s l a t i o n i s one of the best ways to ensure that management provides eye protection for TABLE 3.C.6 RESPONSES TO 5 GENERAL QUESTION, ON A FIVE POINT LIKERT SCALE CONCERNING EYE PROTECTION IN INDUSTRY (SURVEY OF 31 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, MARCH, 1978) QUESTION NUMBER LIKERT RESPONSE 1 2 3 4 5 # (%) # (*) # (%) # (%) # (%) 1. Strongly Disagree 3 (10) 2 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2. Disagree 24 (77) 21 (68)1 0 (0) 2 (6) 5 (17) 3. Neither 1 nor 5 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (3)| 0 (0) 2 (6) 4. Agree 4 (13) 7 (23) 3 (10) 18 (58) 15 (48) 5. Strongly Agree 0 (0) 0 (0) 27 (87) 11 (36) 9 (29) TOTAL 31 31 31 31 31 QUESTIONS GENERAL QUESTIONS: 1. Management, including safety personnel, are aware of the CSA Standards for eye protection. 2. Management, including safety personnel, know what industrially approved eye protection is and how to identify i t . 3. Management should strictly enforce the wearing of eye protection with disciplinary measures. 4. Management, safety personnel, and workers often think that street frames with hardened lenses represent industrial eye protection. 5. Legislation is one of the best ways to ensure that management provides eye protection for its workers. - 216 - i t s workers. Only 16% of the o f f i c e r s disagreed with th i s statement. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , i t was noted that education should be concurrent with l e g - i s l a t i o n , while 6 o f f i ce r s thought that education was more important than l e g i s l a t i o n . I t was noted, however, that l e g i s l a t i o n should also put the onus on the worker to wear the p rotect ion , and on safety supply houses to s e l l proper eye protect ion. Table 3.C.7 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of responses to the general ques- t i o n : Are the eye protect ion programs that are being provided in industry adequate in your opinion? The d i s t r i bu t i on of suggestions as to how these programs can be improved i s given also. A major i ty of the inspectors (97%) reported that in general, eye protect ion programs that are being provided in industry are not adequate. The majority of o f f i c e r s f e l t that education was a key to a successful program, in addit ion to enforcement and making the use of protection a condit ion of employment. Table 3.C.8 gives the responses of inspection personnel concerning the most important components of ideal eye protect ion programs. 74% of the o f f i c e r s stated that they had seen an ideal eye protect ion program. The inspectors noted that a key element in these ideal programs was making the use of eye protect ion a condit ion of employment. Cooperation between a l l persons in industry was seen as a very important factor in the ideal pro- gram. The inspectors were encouraged to give addit ional comments, i f they wished, a f te r each question. This anecdotal data i s not shown but i t w i l l be integrated into the discussion of the re su l t s . - 217 - TABLE 3.C.7 DISTRIBUTION OF REPONSES CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY, SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, ALBERTA LABOUR, MARCH, 1978 QUESTION: ARE THE EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED IN INDUSTRY ADEQUATE IN YOUR OPINION? RESPONSES (%) YES NO 1 30 (3) (97) TOTAL 31 REQUIRED MAJOR COMPONENTS OF AN EYE PROTECTION PROGRAM, AS SUGGESTED BY THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS: NUMBER OF PROGRAM COMPONENT OHSO RESPONSES Education of Worker 24 Enforcement of Rules 12 Compliance a condition of employment 8 Eye protection should be company policy 5 Management should set an example 3 Incentive program should be initiated 3 Proper protection for specific jobs should be available 3 Designate 'Eye Protection Areas' 2 Legislation necessary 2 Unions and management should work together 2 Allow workers to have input into safety program 2 Allow workers choice of eye protection 1 Ensure that eye protection f its comfortably 1 Research necessary to design better protection 1 OHSO's, management and safety personnel should work 1 together - 218 - TABLE 3.C.8 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES CONCERNING THE PRESENCE OF IDEAL EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN ALBERTA INDUSTRY, SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS, ALBERTA LABOUR, MARCH 1978 QUESTION: ARE ANY OF THE PROGRAMS YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IDEAL IN YOUR OPINION? RESPONSES (%) YES 8 (26) NO 23 (74) TOTAL 31 COMMENTS ON THE IDEAL COMPONENTS OF AN IDEAL EYE PROTECTION PROGRAM: IDEAL COMPONENT NUMBER OF OHSO RESPONSES Compliance condition of employment 11 Compulsory to wear eye protection with side shields 2 Visitors must wear eye protection 7 Management policy with enforcement 7 Union and management cooperate 4 Supervisors responsible for ensuring that eye protection is worn 3 Management sets good example 2 Management gives safety personnel ful l support 2 Local schools involved in eye safety education 1 Proper protection is provided and fitted by trained personnel - 219 - 3.CD. - Discussion of the Results of a Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Of f icers The nature of the resu lts of t h i s section ac tua l l y provide a discussion in themselves. I t was the consensus of the occupational health and safety o f f i c e r s that the at t i tude toward, and structure around, eye protect ion pro- grams in industry was not good. The o f f i c e r s were consistent with the s t a t i s t i c a l data in c i t i n g common and serious eye in jury hazards. Some o f f i ce r s emphasized the dramatic (e.g. 1asers),which may r e f l e c t a ten - tency to note the spec ia l i zed and downplay the rout ine, which accounts for a majority of the i n j u r i e s . I t i s apparent that the o f f i c e r s are aware of the eye protect ion pro- blems in industry. I t i s i n teres t ing to speculate, then, why conditions are not better . I t may be that there i s a lack of personnel to inspect and enforce on a regular basis. On the other hand, the o f f i c e r s may not have s u f f i c i e n t " l e g i s l a t i v e c l ou t " to ensure Dermanent resolvement of the problems. It i s i n teres t ing to speculate on the ro le of the o f f i c e in r e l a t i on to the enforcement of eye protect ion programs. I f eye protect ion i s being provided by a company, i t i s outside the current scope of the inspector to ensure that there i s an eye protect ion po l i cy (a real Drogram) as a basis. The degree of enforcement of rules and education i s secondary i f the company has s a t i s f i e d the l e g i s l a t i v e requ i s i te of supplying the pro- t e c t i o n ; yet i t i s wel l known that t h i s , in i t s e l f , i s not enough. Regu- l a t i on must u l t imate ly concern the ind iv idua l worker, and only recently have inspection personnel attempted to charge the ind iv idua l fo r v i o - l a t i on s . It i s apparent that industr ies must be made responsible fo r providing - 220 - an ent i re eye protection program (e.g. p o l i c i e s , education, enforcement) and not j u s t the skeleton (e.g. supplying protect ion) . By the same token, the worker must be given more re spons ib i l i t y fo r his own safety. - 2 2 1 - CHAPTER 3 SECTION D METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF A SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL - 222 - 3.D.M. - Methodology - Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel Rationale A major source of information regarding eye i n j u r i e s in industry comes from the personnel who are responsible fo r the health and safety of the worker on the job. This f i r s t -hand information i s essent ia l to the under- standing of the problem and would a id th i s researcher in putt ing the W.C.B. s t a t i s t i c a l data in to perspective. S o l i c i t i n g information from th i s group i s also p o l i t i c a l l y advantageous in that i t would make them more aware of the problems and i t would also involve them in the planning process. Population It was impossible to i den t i f y every occupational health worker in A l - be r ta , but three address l i s t s were acquired that i d e n t i f i e d the major i ty. The Medical Services Branch of the Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s ion keeps an up-to-date l i s t i n g of every nurse and physician who i s known to be pr imar i l y involved in occupational health. A l i s t i n g of members was ob- tained from the Secretary of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Society. A t h i r d l i s t i n g was obtained of a l l members of the Alberta Assoc i - ation of Safety Personnel. The l i s t s were examined fo r dupl icat ions. A master mai l ing l i s t of 620 names resu l ted. The Instrument A survey questionnaire was designed f o r mai l ing to the personnel on the master l i s t . This questionnaire was not designed to f i nd s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g - n i f i c a n t responses, but rather, to gather perceptions of the eye in ju ry and protection situation that the resDondents had gained through experience. For th i s reason, a loosely structured questionnaire was designed around a l im i ted set of questions. This would al low the data to be analyzed in a structured fash ion, but at the same time gave the respondent the freedom to - 223 - express his perceptions. Content Figure 3.D.l shows the questionnaire that was used in the survey. The survey included questions on the respondent's background, opinions on the seriousness and sources of eye i n j u r i e s , eye in ju ry prevention and safety programs. Method of Data Co l l ec t i on Questionnaires were sent by ma i l . An introductory l e t t e r out l ined the objectives of the survey and the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the responses. The re - spondents were requested to return the questionnaire to the Medical Ser- vices Branch of the Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s i on . A c o l l e c t phone number was given for the use of any person who wished fur ther i n f o r - mation. There was no follow-up procedure performed. Possible Bias The i n i t i a l sample was composed of personnel with a wide var ie ty of backgrounds in the health and safety f i e l d . There was, however, no attempt made to ensure th i s cross-sect ion in the responses or to fo l low up the questionnaire to obtain a higher rate of response. For the purpose of th i s survey, because no s t a t i s t i c a l inferences were to be made of the responses, and because time was a f a c t o r , there was only one mail ing with no fol low-up. Method of Analys is Content analys is was used to analyze the resu l t s of the questionnaire. Within s p e c i f i c questions, responses which re f l ec ted the respondent's major idea were categorized. With the exception of a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n , no s t a t i s t i c a l operations were performed. - 224 - FIGURE 3.D.1 Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel Liberia February 28, 1978 Dear Colleague: LABOUR OccuDaiionBl Healm and Safely Oivinon Medical Servicea Branch 403/427-672* 3rd Floor. Oxbridge Place 9820 - 106 Sueei Edmonton. Alberu. Canada TSK 2J6 Under the auspices of the Occupational Health and Safety Division of Alberta Labour I have recently initiated a province-wide study on eye protection in industry. The objectives of the study are to examine the most common and the most serious causer of eye injuries in industrial and occupational environments, and to develop strategies for advising on and implementing eye protection programs in industry. In order to gain practical knowledge about the problems in eye protection, from those who are in touch with this special health problem, I am asking for your valuable assistance. Although this will take a few minutes of your time, your ideas and comments regarding eye protection would be much appreciated. In the long run, your suggestions will aid in the improvement of current eye protection practices in industry. To ease the task of compiling your suggestions and comments, it would be apprec- iated if you could respond according to the guidelines given below. If there are additional comments you would like to make, please do not hesitate to do so. GUIDELINES FOR COMMENTING ON EYE PROTECTION IN INDUSTRY Please place your written coiments to these questions on the following pages. 1. Please state briefly your experience in occupational health and/or safety, and the particular type of industry in which you now work. (Respond to this question under Guideline #1 on the next page.) 2. Are the number of eye injuries occuring in industry a serious problem in your opinion? (Give details) 3. In your experience, a) what are the most frequent causes of eye injuries and, b) what are the most serious causes of eye injuries (ie. those which could likely result in permanent eye disability.) 4. How can these injuries be prevented? (ie. by using better safety design on mach- ines, using more specific or better types of protection, etc.) Please give details. Why, in your opinion, do so many eye injuries occur even when eye protection is worn? Who should be responsible for initiating eye protection programs in industry? (ie. government, management, the worker, the union, others) Please explain. Who should be responsible for maintaining (and ensuring the success of) these programs? (ie. government, management, the worker, the union, others) Please explain. In your view, what are the most successful methods or aoDroaches that should be used to ensure that the worker wears proper eye protection? (ie. showing a good example, discipline, incentives, education, etc.) Please explain. The information you give will be kept completely confidential. Your response will be destroyed after use. Please use the back of the pages or additional paper i f you wish. Thank you. Dr. Brian Schmidt, Optometrist Eye Protection Consultant 8 - 225 - FIGURE 3.D.l cont'd Liberia EYE PROTECTION SURVEY LABOUR RESPONSE TO: GUIDELINE 11 GUIDELINE #2 GUIDELINE #3 GUIDELINE #4 GUIDELINE US Please use the back of this paae,or addition paqes, if required. - 226 - FIGURE 3.D.l cont'd > 4 f b c a i a EYE PROTECTION SURVEY LABOUR RESPONSE TO: GUIDELINE #6 GUIDELINE #7 GUIDELINE #8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Please use the back of this page, or additional paper, i f more room is reauired for any of your responses. PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE MEDICAL SERVICES BRANCH, Occupational Health and Safety Division. PLEASE FIND THE ADBRESS OK THE COVERING LETTER. If you have any questions about the survey please call Dr. Brian Schmidt, person-to- Derson collect, after 6:00 p.m., at - 227 - 3.D.R. Results of a Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel The survey was mailed to 620 occupational health physicians, nurses, members of the Alberta Association of Safety Personnel, and members of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Society. 86 questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 14.0%. 10 questionnaires were returned with no useful information, leaving 76 va l i d responses. Table 3.D.l shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of responses to the questionnaire according to the occupation of the health worker. A wide var iety of health and safety personnel responded to the questionnaire. A large number of the respondents were occupational health nurses and other nurses. A number of physicians responded in addition to employees of the Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s ion of Alberta Labour. Table 3.D.2 shows the various industr ies or organizations in which these workers are located. A number of respondents worked in the con- st ruct ion and petro-chemical industr ies . Hospitals and community health f a c i l i t i e s were represented well in addit ion. The remainder of respon- dents came from a wide var iety of i ndus t r i a l groups. Table 3.D.3 notes the opinion of the respondents regarding the seriousness of the eye protection s i tuat ion in industry. A majority (72%) of the respondents thought that the number of eye i n ju r i e s occurring in industry was a serious problem. Table 3.D.4 gives a d i s t r i bu t i on of the causes of eye in ju r ie s that were reported to appear most frequently in industry. In t h i s , and sub- sequent tab les , mult ip le responses were permitted. 75% of the respondents reported that foreign bodies were the most frequent causes of eye i n ju r i e s . Nearly 20% of the respondents c i ted chemicals as a common cause, while 18% of the respondents f e l t that other f l y i n g objects commonly caused eye i n - - 228 - TABLE 3.D.l DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS TO A SURVEY ON EYE PROTECTION IN INDUSTRY PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS Occupational Health Nurse 19 Nurses 6 Nursing Instructor 1 Physician 5 Occupational Health & Safety Officer 2 Other Occupational Health & Safety 35 Personnel 8 Not Specific TOTAL 76 TABLE 3.D.2 DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIES TO WHICH THE RESPONDENTS TO A SURVEY ON EYE PROTECTION ARE EMPLOYED OR HAD THEIR PREVIOUS BACKGROUNDS PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 INDUSTRY NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Construction 13 Pulp, Paper, Lumber 5 Public Service (Utilities,Road Maint) 6 Food Industry 4 Agriculture 2 Chemical; Petro-Chemical 12 Metal Industry 3 Railway 3 Office Workers, Retail Stores 4 Manufacturing 4 Hospital, Student Health, Community 13 Health 8 Safety Professionals TOTAL 76 - 229 - TABLE 3.D.3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: ARE THE NUMBER OF EYE INJURIES OCCURRING IN INDUSTRY A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN YOUR OPINION? SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 RESPONSE RESPONDENTS . # % YES NO 55 (72) 21 (28) TOTAL 76 TABLE 3.D.4 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE MOST FREQUENT CAUSES OF EYE INJURIES? SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 # OF RESPONDENTS FREQUENT CAUSES OF INJURY WHO NOTED THE CAUSE Foreign bodies 57 Chemicals 15 Flying object 14 Welding: Radiation 10 Rubbing eyes 3 Radiation (non-specific) 2 Molten metal 1 Wind 2 Direct blow 1 - 230 - j u r i e s . Welding operations were noted also as a common cause. Table 3.D.5 gives a d i s t r i b u t i o n of the various causes of eye i n - j u r i e s which, in the opinion of the respondents, resulted in the most serious eye i n j u r i e s . 38% of the respondents reported that chemicals caused the most serious eye i n j u r i e s . In the opinion of 46% of the res - pondents, meta l l i c and other foreign bodies caused serious eye i n j u r i e s . In add i t ion , welding operations and high pressure (explosive) operations were stated as causes of serious eye i n j u r i e s . Table 3.D.6 D r o v i d e s a d i s t r i bu t i on of opinions of the respondents as to how eye i n ju r i e s can be prevented. The use of eye protect ion was c i t ed by the greatest number of respondents (40%) as a way of preventing eye i n j u r i e s . 28% of the respondents stated that education was also important in preventing i n j u r i e s , while 26% of the respondents thought that i n j u r i e s would be prevented with better qua l i t y and design of eye protect ion. Other respondents (24%) noted that the use of proper protect ion f o r the task was important while 13% of the respondents were of the opinion that pro- tect ion at the source and the correct ion of unsafe work procedures was most important in the prevention of eye i n j u r i e s . Table 3.D.7 shows the d i s t r i bu t i on of responses to the question: Why do so many i n ju r i e s occur, even when eye protect ion i s being worn? I t was the opinion of 76% of the respondents that i n j u r i e s occur even while pro- tect ion i s worn because the eye protect ion i s inappropriate for the task. However, 26% reported that i n j u r i e s occur (with the use of protect ion) because of the poor design or qua l i t y standards of eye protect ion. Others noted that the poor f i t and inappropriate use of eye protect ion caused eye i n j u r i e s . Nearly 15% of the respondents stated that unsafe work con- d i t ions caused eye i n ju r i e s even though eye protect ion was being worn. A - 231 - TABLE 3.D.5 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE MOST SERIOUS CAUSES OF EYE INJURIES? SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 SERIOUS CAUSES RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED THE CAUSE Chemicals 29 Flying object: Particles 16 Foreign Body 11 Metallic Foreign Body 8 Welding 5 High Pressure Injuries (Compressed air, Explosions) 4 Radiation 2 Molten Metal 2 Burns 1 Direct Blow 1 Assault 2 - 232 - TABLE 3.D.6 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: HOW CAN THE INJURIES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED CAUSES (NOTED IN TABLES 3.D.4 AND 3.D.5) BE PREVENTED? SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 PREVENTIVE MEASURE RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED THE MEASURE Ensure that eye protection is worn 30 Educate the worker 21 Better design, quality of eye protection needed 20 Ensure that proper protection is worn for specific type of work being done 18 Work at the source and correct unsafe conditions, and work procedures 10 Make eye protection readily available 6 Implement eye protection program: Management policy 4 Ensure proper f i t , comfort of eye protection 4 Constant use of eye protection necessary 3 Keep eye protection clean, well maintained 3 Supervision needed 3 Attitude change of worker necessary 3 Designate 'Eye Protection Areas' 2 Compliance condition of work 2 Communication between workers necessary 1 - 233 - TABLE 3.D.7. SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978. RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: WHY DO SO MANY EYE INJURIES OCCUR EVEN WHEN EYE PROTECTION IS WORN? REASON FOR INJURIES NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED THIS REASON WRONG PROTECTION FOR TYPE OF WORK 29 BAD DESIGN/POOR STANDARDS OF EYE PROTECTION 20 UNSAFE WORK PROCEDURES/CONDITIONS 11 POOR FIT 9 IMPROPER USE OF EYE PROTECTION 9 NOT EXPERIENCED 5 THIRD PARTY NOT PROTECTED 4 NO ANSWER 4 PROTECTION NOT WORN CONTINUOUSLY 3 WORKER BECOMES OVER-CONFIDENT 2 WORKER RUBS EYES AFTER REMOVING PROTECTION 2 FB ENTERS WHILE PROTECTION REMOVED (TRAPPED DUST) 2 EYE PROTECTION NOT KEPT CLEAN 1 - 234 - few respondents stated that i n j u r i e s occur with the use of eye protect ion because of over-confidence, rubbing the eyes, or allowing foreign bodies to enter the eye a f te r the eye protect ion had been removed. Table 3.D.8 gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of opinion by the respondents to the questionnaire regarding who should be responsible for i n i t i a t i n g eye protect ion programs, whi le Table 3.D.9 reports on who should be respons- i b l e fo r maintaining these programs once they are establ i shed. A var iety of responses was given, revolving around the pa r t i c i pa t i on of management, the worker, unions, and government. In general, the respondents f e l t that management should be responsible fo r i n i t i a t i n g and maintaining eye protect ion programs. It was c lea r from t h e i r responses, however, that a l l concerned groups had a part to play in the success of eye protect ion pro- grams. Table 3.D.10 reports on the respondents' perception of the most succ- essful methods or approaches that should be used to ensure that the worker wears proper eye protect ion. Education was c i ted by the major ity of res- pondents (92%) as an important approach. Showing an example was noted as being important, as well as worker incent ives . A number of respondents noted the importance of d i s c i p l i n a r y measures in gaining worker compliance. I t was apparent from the responses that an organized approach was best. - 235 - TABLE 3.D.8. SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978. RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS? GROUPS RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATION NUMBER OF NOTED RESPONDENTS WHO THE GROUP MANAGEMENT 16 GOVERNMENT 7 UNION 1 ALL PARTIES CONCERNED 13 MANAGEMENT AND WORKER 12 MANAGEMENT AND UNION 7 MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNMENT 6 MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT AND UNION 3 MANAGEMENT AND WORKER WITH SAFETY PERSONNEL 2 MANAGEMENT SUPPORTED BY UNION AND SAFETY PERSONNEL 3 GOVERNMENT FOR INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE; MANAGEMENT FOR RESPECTIVE PLANTS 2 - 236 - TABLE. 3,D.9 SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY? GROUPS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED THE GROUP TEAM EFFORT: ALL PARTIES CONCERNED 23 MANAGEMENT 14 MANAGEMENT AND WORKER 12 GOVERNMENT 8 MANAGEMENT AND UNION 6 MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY PERSONNEL 2 GOVERNMNET WORKING WITH MANAGEMENT AND UNION 2 GOVERNMENT AND MANAGEMENT 2 GOVERNMENT AND WORKERS 1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEES 1 WORKERS SHOULD BE INVOLVED 1 UNION 1 JOB STEWARD 1 - 237 - \ TABLE 3.D.10. SURVEY OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY PERSONNEL IN ALBERTA, FEBRUARY 1978. RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL METHODS/APPROACHES THAT SHOULD BE USED TO ENSURE THAT THE WORKER WEARS PROPER EYE PROTECTION? SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED THIS APPROACH EDUCATION EXAMPLE OF WORKERS AND MANAGEMENT INCENTIVES DISCIPLINE DISCIPLINE AS A LAST RESORT 70 41 21 21 15 OTHER APPROACHES MANAGEMENT POLICY IS MOST IMPORTANT SEEKING ENDORSEMENT OF POLICY BY UNION INVOLVING THE WORKER IN THE PROGRAM UTILIZING CONSTANT FOLLOW-UP COMPLIANCE CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDE COMFORTABLE PROTECTION 7 1 4 2 4 4 - 238 - 3.D.D. Discussion of the Results of a Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel The majority of respondents to the questionnaire were prov inc ia l occu- pational health and safety employees, or nurses. I t was l o g i c a l , therefore, to expect they would consider eye i n ju r i e s to be a s i g n i f i c an t problem in industry. Although t h e i r backgrounds were d iverse, there was consistent agreement on the most frequent and serious causes of eye i n j u r i e s . The use of eye protect ion to prevent i n j u r i e s was an obvious so lut ion and may have been overlooked by some respondents. I t was in teres t ing to note that the use of proper protect ion and better equipment design was em- phasized on a magnitude comparable to the need fo r employee education. This indicates a r e a l i s t i c and informed approach to the problem. The respondents were well informed of the reasons fo r the occurrence of eye i n j u r i e s , even when eye protect ion was being worn. This knowledge i s not re f lec ted in the current pract ices of industry toward eye protect ion , however, and one must speculate that there i s bias in the re su l t s . I t i s apparent from the responses to questions #6 and #7 that the res- pondents were aware of the essent ia l pa r t i c i pa t i on that was needed for the i n i t i a t i o n and maintenance of eye protect ion programs. There was, however, a notable lack of perspective as to what the interact ions of the agencies should be, and how they would come about. However, th i s may be due to the manner in which the auestions were phrased. There was a s i g n i f i c an t o r ientat ion towards education as a means of gaining worker compliance. Example was seen as another important feature in gaining compliance. In comparison to the strong responses of the i n - spection personnel,using d i s c i p l i n a r y measures as a means of compliance was not considered as important, and often only as a l a s t resort . This may - 239 - r e f l e c t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n government a t t i t u d e s as compared w i t h the more p a s s i v e approach o f t h o s e i n the f i e l d . - 240 - CHAPTER 3 SECTION E METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF A REVIEW OF THE MINUTES OF SELECTED JOINT WORK SITE COMMITTEES IN ALBERTA. - 241 - 3.E.M. Methodology - Review of the Minutes of Selected Jo in t Work S i te Committees in Alberta Rationale A method of evaluating the concern for eye i n j u r i e s and the e f fo r t s that are being made to prevent them in the ind iv idua l company i s to ex- amine the mechanisms for discussing health and safety in the workplace. In A lbe r ta , by l e g i s l a t i o n , a number of companies have been required to form j o i n t work s i t e health and safety committees composed of worker and manage- ment representatives with input from government o f f i c i a l s . By examining the minutes of these committee meetings i t was poss ible to determine the un- s o l i c i t e d concern fo r eye i n ju r i e s and t h e i r prevention. Access Permission was obtained from Alberta Labour to examine the minutes of the j o i n t work s i t e committees. These are f i l e d in the Edmonton and C a l - gary o f f i ce s of A lberta Labour. Population There were 19 companies with j o i n t work s i t e committees that were also categorized with in the Standard Industr ia l C l a s s i f i c a t i on s previouly des- ignated for fu r ther study in Part A because of high eye in ju ry rates. These were selected fo r study in th i s sect ion. Data Co l l ec t i on - The Instrument Companies with work s i t e committees are required to submit copies of t h e i r monthly meetings to the Inspection D iv i s ion of the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i on , on standard reporting forms. This form i s shown in Figure 3.E.I. The data was taken from these forms. - 242 - FIGURE 3.E.1 ydlbOTtQ JO'NT WORK SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE •nd Safety Ohiiion M I N U T E S OF MEETING DATED . — — V AOORE5S SITE CODE 1 1 NUMBER OF WORKERS AT SITE E M P L O Y E R M E M B E R S W O R K E R M E M B E R S IM MV OPINION. TMt AIOV« IS AM A C C U H A T 1 nicoffo o»» T M S MarriMQ: I F O R O X X C M V I S I O N UM O N L Y fM**lOV« A <CO-CMAtnUAM) C S T I M A T I O D A T E Of N E X T M l i T l M O - 243 - The Content Data was taken from the minutes where there was any mention of eye i n ju r i e s and t he i r prevention. Method of Data Co l lect ion A l i s t i n g of companies with in the high eye injury r i sk i ndus t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i d en t i f i ed in Part A was obtained. A current l i s t i n g of ' j o i n t work s i tes was obtained. Company names from these two l i s t s were cross-matched, the common companies being designated for study. The minutes of the meetings of these companies were requested, and photocopies of same were received. Analysis was performed d i r e c t l y on the minutes. Bias Only companies with generally poor accident experiences ( including eye i n ju r i e s ) are selected to have j o i n t work s i t e committees. These com- panies, therefore, do not always represent the average company within t he i r i ndu s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The general apathy of companies with poor accident experiences toward safety i s o f f set by the fact that a force has been created where safety matters must be discussed. Method of Analysis A standard content analysis was performed on the minutes of the meet- ings, looking for phrases which indicated discussion of incidents or p r i n - c ip le s involving eye protect ion, or re lated safety factors such as plant l i g h t i n g . - 244 - 3.E.R. - Results of a Review of Selected Jo int Work S i te Committee Minutes In accordance with the c r i t e r i a set out in the methodology, 19 com- panies in the Edmonton and Calgary area were selected for a review of t he i r j o i n t work s i t e committee minutes. Among the 19 companies, 60 meetings had been held over a 7-month period. In 39, or 65% of the meetings, there was discussion of some aspect of eye protect ion, eye safety, or personal protect ive equipment in general, which included eye protect ion. Table 3.E.1 shows a l i s t i n g of the companies selected and the dates, over a seven-month per iod, in which j o i n t work s i t e committee meetings were held. The X marks indicate the spec i f i c topic areas that were discussed at the meetings. Table 3.E.2 defines the topic areas from #1 to #11. 3.E.D. - Discussion of the Results of a Review of Selected Jo int Work S i te Committee Minutes It i s s i gn i f i c an t that in 65% of the j o i n t work s i t e meetings studied, the minutes indicated that some aspect of eye safety or v i sua l performance was studied. Table 3.E.2 shows that topics of discussion were var ied, but eye protection when using grinders and the general problems of eye pro- tect ion and worker compliance was discussed in the greatest number of meet- ings. Eye protection in welding operations was also discussed to some de- gree as was the improvement of v i s i b i l i t y , through better l i g h t i n g , fo r safety. A few companies tended toward the discussion of more i so lated i n - c idents. I t appears that concern for the protection of the eyes, in these com- panies, i s present. The discuss ion, in many cases, centers on problems that are common to many indus t r i a l groups (e.g. gr inders). - 245 - TABLE 3.E.1 LISTING OF SELECTED COMPANIES IN THE EDMONTON AND CALGARY AREAS. WITH A REVIEW OF THE TOPIC AREAS. CONCERNING EKE SAFETY OISCUSSED AT THEIR JOINT WORK SITE COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 1977-78 CO. SUBJEa OF DISCUSSION AT MEETINGS EYE SAFETY NOT DISCUSSED DATES OF MEETINGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 JAN 26/78 DEC 21/77 J 12 JAN 17/78 DEC 13/77 NOV 9/77 NOV 2/77 X 5 #3 JAN 11/78 14 JAN 13/78 DEC 16/77 NOV 18/77 Oa 19/77 X X #5 FEB 2/78 JAH 4/78 NOV 23/77 O a 27/77 X X X X #6 FEB 15/78 JAN 5/78 X X #7 JAN 19/78 DEC 14/77 NOV 8/77 X X X X X X I ta JAN 20/78 DEC 16/77 NOV 26/77 X X X #9 JAM 25/78 DEC 25/77 NOV 30/77 OCT 19/77 X X X X 110 OEC 7/77 X #11 NOV 16/77 OCT 19/77 SEPT 21/77 X X X 112 JAN 17/78 DEC 6/77 NOV 8/77 Oa 21.77 X X X X X X 113 JAN 16/78 DEC 19/77 X X 114 JAN 6/78 NOV 18/77 O a 14/77 X I X 115 JAN 17/78 DEC 22/77 NOV 14/77 Oa 14/77 SEPT 12/77 AUG 15/77 X X X X X X 116 JAN 9/78 X 117 JAN 17/78 DEC 13/77- NOV 16/77 O a 18/77 X X X X X X X #18 JAN 9/78 DEC 7/77 NOV 8/77 SEPT 29/77 AUG 29/77 X X X X X 119 JAN 9/77 DEC 12/77 NOV 1/77 Oa 17/77 I •: X X I X - 246 - TABLE 3.E.2 LISTING OF THE MAJOR TOPIC AREAS DISCUSSED AT SELECTED JOINT WORK SITE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, 1977-78 NO. MAJOR TOPIC AREAS 1. THE USE OF SHIELDING, OR LACK THEREOF, AROUND WELDING OR GRINDING OPERATIONS .2. THE USE OF FACE SHIELDS WITH SMALL GRINDERS 3. THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT REGARDING PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 4. THE IMPROVEMENT OR REPAIR OF INADEQUATE LIGHTING 5. EYE SAFETY AND DISCUSSED AS A PRIORITY 6. NECESSITY OF WEARING EYE PROTECTION, WORKER COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS, NEW EYE PROTECTION AND THE USE OF SIGNS FOR EDUCATION 7. THE NEED FOR AND REPLACEMENT OF GUARDS ON GRINDERS OR SAWS 8. WORKER COMPLIANCE IN THE USE OF PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IN GENERAL 9. USE OF EQUIPMENT IN THE PLANT TO IMPROVE VISIBILITY 10. THE DANGER OF ACID BURNS 11. POSTING DANGER AREAS FOR EYE HAZARDS 12. THE USE OF PROTECTIVE SCREENS AROUND EQUIPMENT IN GENERAL - 247 - CHAPTER 3 SECTION F METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF A REVIEW OF ANECDOTAL DATA - 248 - 3.F.M. Methodology - Anecdotal Data Rationale From a political and planning perspective, it is important to seek the involvement and input of all persons concerned with eye protection. Although site visits were planned as well, it was important to speak with labour and management groups, on a policy level, concerning eye protection in indus- try. For this part of the project, it was impossible to interview every union and worker group, and every management group that was concerned with health and safety. It was decided, therefore, to approach only the major representative organizations of labour and management. It was decided to try to obtain more anecdotal data through an adver- tisement of the project and a request for information from the reader. Access to Information The Alberta Federation of Labour is the representative labour group. The AFL have a special sub-committee concerned with health and safety. The past president of the AFL was approached for an interview in addition to the current chairman of the committee concerned with.health and safety (the environment committee). Only the environment committee chairman was able to meet with the researcher. Two other union representatives were asked to attend, one being a senior person from the Alberta Building Trades Council. Four management sponsored safety councils were identified within the group of previously designated high eye injury risk Standard Industrial Classi- fications. Two of these committees were active and their chairmen were approached for interviews. One accepted and the other could not be con- tacted at an appropriate time. The remaining safety councils were inactive but the researcher was able to contact their past chairmen who both agreed to interviews. - 249 - The Instrument A set of questions was designed fo r the interviews. They were, how- ever, very unstructured, in l i ne with the intent of the interview, which was to gain p rac t i ca l po l icy perspectives on the eye protection s i t u - ation in Alberta industry. The Content The interviews were quite unstructured although questions re la t ing to broad subject areas were posed. The researcher, at his d i s c re t i on , probed in various content areas where i t was appropriate. The subject areas were s im i l a r to those areas of questioning in the questionnaire of Part D. A pol icy and implementation perspective was stressed. Method of Data Co l lect ion A pre-arranged interview time was arranged with every person. The interview started with a b r i e f introduction of the researcher and the ob- ject i ves of the study. A l l interviews lasted approximately 1 hour, with the exception of the meeting with the union representatives, which lasted 2 hours. B r i e f notes were taken in the interviews and a deta i led summary wr i t ten immediately fo l lowing. A l l recorded comments were subjective. Bias Due to the nature of the groups, i t was not expected that they'would give en t i r e l y objective opinions. The purpose, however, was only to gather perspectives on the problem from a certa in point of view. Knowledge of t h e i r biases was also important. Method of Analysis The data was not analyzed to any degree, although t h e i r perspectives and answers to questions were taken into account. - 250 - Advertisement in the Occupational Health and Safety Div i s ion B u l l e t i n Figure 3.F.1 shows a copy of the news c l ipp ing published in the Occu- pational Health and Safety D iv i s ion B u l l e t i n . The purpose of the a r t i c l e was to make as many people involved in occupational health and safety in Alberta aware of the project and to s o l i c i t t he i r opinions. Approximately 35,000 copies of each issue are p r in ted , with a very diverse readership. 3.F.R. and 3.F.D. - Results and Discussion, Anecdotal Data One month a f te r the pr int ing of the Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s ion B u l l e t i n , no responses had been received to the advertisement c a l l i n g for opinions on eye protect ion problems. This was not en t i r e l y unexpected and i t was f e l t that fo r the purposes of planning, the a r t i c l e had achieved i t s objective (of informing the i ndus t r i a l pub l i c ) . Interviews were held with representat ives, or in two cases a past re - presentat ive, of three management sponsored safety counci l s . These were: 1) The Alberta Bui ld ing Materials Safety Council - representing companies with in occurrence classes 8-03 and 8-04. 2) The Alberta Automotive Safety Association - representing companies with in occurrence class 5-01. 3) The Alberta Metal Trades Accident Prevention Association - represen- t ing companies within occurrence classes 8-02, 8-03 and 8-04. An interview was held with union personnel, who were representatives of the Alberta Federation of Labour and the Alberta Bui lding Trades Counci l . The minutes of these meetings are not submitted as data resu lts but, rather, w i l l be re f lec ted in t h i s researcher 's opinions and conclusions con- cerning the eye protection problems in industry. - 251 - FIGURE 3.F.1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY BULLETIN - ALBERTA LABOUR VOL. 2. NO. 1 MARCH 1978 COMMENT G N OCC1 EYE INJURIES S W A N T E D r i QNAL He forgot to put his safety glasses on, but luckily a friend reminded him. Dr. Brian Schmidt is currently carrying out a review of occupa- tional eye injuries and prevention programs for the Occupational Health and Safety Division, and is looking for your suggestions and ob- servations. He has been asked to examine the causes of eye injuries in occupational environments and to develop stan- dards and programs directed to vi- sion protection in industry. In order to obtain as much infor- mation as possible about eye injuries in industry, their underlying causes, and about ways of reducing them, Dr. Schmidt would like to obtain comments from any concerned per- sons or organizations. If you can help, please forward your comments to Dr. Schmidt as soon as possible. Information can be sent to his attention at the Medical Services Branch, Occupational Health and Safety Division, Alberta Labour, 3rd Floor, Oxbridge Place, 9820 - 106 Street, Edmonton,' Alber- ta T5K 2J6. During the summer of 1977, Dr. Schmidt worked for the Medical Services Branch compiling currently available information on optimum eye protection systems and pro- grams. This is to be edited and made available to industry shortly. - 252 CHAPTER 3 SECTION 6 METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF SELECTED SITE VISITS TO INDUSTRIES IN ALBERTA - 253 - 3.G.M. Methbdoloay - S i te V i s i t s Rationale To better understand the conditions which lead to eye i n ju r i e s and the problems in implementing programs, several plant v i s i t s were made by the researcher. Population Six companies were selected from the previously i d e n t i f i e d group of high eye injury r i sk Standard Industr ia l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . These companies were in the v i c i n i t y of Calgary and th i s researcher was assured, by govern- ment personnel, that they were representative of companies in these i n - dustry c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Method In February of 1978 the researcher t rave l l ed to Calgary where the s ix s i t e v i s i t s had been arranged by Alberta Labour personnel. Four of the plants were v i s i t e d . In March of 1978, as a resu l t of discussions with management safety council personnel, th i s researcher made two more s i t e v i s i t s . Along with an OHSO who had been assigned to coordinate the s i t e v i s i t s , the researcher met the safety personnel in every company before entering the working area. The researcher was allowed to walk through any area of the plant and to stop and speak with workers. Mo pa r t i cu l a r format was used in observing the hazards and safety condit ions. The researcher looked for evidence or the lack thereof of eye protect ion, and for eye hazards which had been previously i d e n t i f i e d in the l i t e r a t u r e (and from the data the researcher had co l l ec ted ) . B r i e f notes were recorded at the end of each s i t e v i s i t . - 254 - Bias In four cases, the researcher v i s i t e d the plants with an inspection o f f i c e r . Because the v i s i t s were prearranged, the true picture may not have been shown. However, a considerable number of in f ract ions were evident and worker behaviour did not appear to have been a l tered. 3.G.R. and3.G.D. - Results and Discussion of S ite V i s i t s The notes taken during the course of the s i t e v i s i t s are not sub- mitted as data resu lts but, s im i l a r to the anecdotal data, the information received w i l l be included in the general discussion on eye protect ion. - 255 - CHAPTER 4 GENERAL DISCUSSION 4.A. Integration of the Results and Discussion of Studies 3.A. -3.G. The methodology, results and discussions of seven separate studies have been presented in the previous section. The studies represent the components of a "system of inquiry", used to identify and assess the pro- blems in eye protection and causes of eye injuries. As this was a nlanning study, it was necessary to pursue all avenues to develop an overview of the system. In this section, this overview will be presented and discussed. The review of the W.C.B. Statistical Master Files (Section 3.A.) gave a macro-epidemiological view of the reported eye injury statistics in Al- berta. This review allowed the identification of high eye injury risk in- dustry classes, which could then be studied in detail. The detailed analy- sis of high eye injury risk industry classes was facilitated through the re- view of selected W.C.B. personal medical files (Section 3.B.). Although these same cases had been identified and reviewed in Section 3.A., this re- view (Section 3.B.) allowed for a more detailed analysis of eye injuries, and the collection of information from a preventive point of view. Signi- ficant points of information regarding eye injury prevention that were not included in the statistical master files (Section 3.A.), but were identified in the review of the personal medical files (Section 3.B.) were: a) whether eye protection was worn at the time of the accident, b) which machine or implement was being used at the time of the accident, and c) the number of similar claims that had been reported previously by the worker. Section C, the survey of occupational health and safety officers, pro- vided expert, first-hand, information on the eye injury and eye protection - 256 - situation. The nature of some of the questions allowed for the verifi- cation of some of the statistical data in Sections A and B. Section D, the survey of occupational health and safety personnel in industries in Alberta, also provided a verification of some of the statistical data re- lating to the seriousness of eye injuries. Both the inspectors (Section C) and the occupational health personnel (Section D) were able to provide in- formation concerning the implementation, or lack thereof, of preventive eye protection programs. This type of information was not available from the statistical master files or the review of personal medical files. Contrary to Sections A to D, Section E examined the unsolicited con- cern for eye injuries and eye protection programs in industry, through a study of safety committee minutes. This data illustrated concern for the prevention of eye injuries, independent of the bias introduced by asking directed questions. Section F outlined the interviews (anecdotal data) that the researcher had with various organized labour and management groups. Little hard data was collected but, rather, perceptions of the eye protection situation were gathered that the researcher could use in formulating his final opinions. As opposed to the practical opinions given in Sections C and D, the labour and management groups provided information from a broad policy perspective. The researcher's site visits, described in Section 6, allowed him to integrate the statistical and other information by acquiring first-hand information on industrial eye protection problems. These studies, therefore, represent the gamut of available data and opinions concerning eye injuries and eye protection in industry. The dis- cussion shows that the sections of this study are highly differentiated, but can be synthesized and integrated as a unit. The next section (4.B.) provides the synthesis of the results and discussions of these studies. - 257 - 4.B. Synthesis of Results arid Discussions Occurrence C l a s s i f i c a t i on There i s l i t t l e r e l a t i on between the rate of eye i n ju r i e s in an i n - dustry class and the occurrence c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in which i t has been placed. This indicates the presence of hazards which are spec i f i c to the causation of eye i n ju r i e s (e.g. f l y i n g pa r t i c l e s ) and which appear in industry d i s - proport ionately to the hazards (and overal l in jury rates) which determine the insurance premiums. Industry The high eye injury r i sk industr ies include those which are assoc i - ated with the manufacture or processing of metals or metal products, the lime manufacturing industry, and the construction industry. There i s no re la t i on between the average s ize of a company with in an industry class and the rate of eye i n j u r i e s . In general, however, i t i s neither advantageous or appropriate to study eye i n ju r ie s on the basis of industry c lass . I t has been i l l u s t r a t e d that the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the occupation of the worker and the i d e n t i - f i c a t i o n of the hazard i s more appropriate than a discussion of the indus- t ry class which simply contain them. Occupati on The majority of high eye injury r i sk occupations are those which i n - volve work with metals and metal products. S p e c i f i c a l l y , these include welders, plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s , machinists, and mechanics. Workers in construction occupations, such as carpentry and masonry, are also "at r i s k " because of the presence of stone and wood pa r t i c l e s . A large number of eye i n ju r i e s are incurred by helDers of persons who are in metal re lated occu- pations and by persons who are walking by when these tradesmen engaged in - 258 - t h e i r work. The high incidence of eye i n ju r i e s with in s p e c i f i c occu- pational groups suggests that they receive special attent ion concerning education and/or enforcement of safety rules on the use of eye pro- tec t i on . This i s a departure from past p rac t i ce , where such e f fo r t s were directed at the industry as a whole. In metal re lated occupations the sources of worker in jury remain stable and are f a i r l y predictable. In occupational groups with large mem- berships, however, a greater var iety of injury sources are evident because odd i n ju r i e s can occur by chance. Age and Work Experience of the Injured Worker Nearly 75% of the injured workers were less than 35 years of age, and over 45% were less than 25 years of age. It i s l i k e l y that these f indings are disproport ionately high in re la t i on to the s ize of the work force in these same age categories. More than half the workers (who reported th i s information) stated they had less than one year of work experience in the industry. Nearly 70% of the workers who incurred i n ju r i e s that resulted in permanent d i s a b i l i t i e s had less than one year of work experience with the company. It can be. concluded, therefore, that the greatest proportion of eye i n ju r ie s occur in young and inexperienced workers, and educational and enforcement e f fo r t s directed toward these workers should be given special at tent ion. Time of Accident and Length of Sh i f t A majority of the eye i n ju r i e s occurred among workers who worked eight hour s h i f t s . A r e l a t i v e l y high proportion of i n j u r i e s , however, occurred among workers who worked nine hour s h i f t s . I t i s not l i k e l y th i s high pro- portion i s congruent with the proportion of the workforce who actua l ly work nine hour s h i f t s , but the data to substantiate th i s f inding would be d i f f i - - 259 - cu l t to obtain. The incidence of eye i n ju r i e s i s highest at certa in times of the day, with a mid-morning peak and a higher mid-afternoon peak. The majority of eye i n ju r i e s occur in the l a t t e r portion of the worker's s h i f t , although a peak in the middle of the f i r s t ha l f of the s h i f t is present in some i n - dustry classes. This data, and the information concerning the length of the workers' s h i f t , indicates that boredom and/or fatigue may be factors which contribute to the causation of eye i n j u r i e s . Cause (Source)and Nature of Eye Injur ies The majority of eye i n ju r ie s are caused by metal (mainly s teel ) and other p a r t i c l e s , followed by radiat ion and chemicals. In most cases these in jury sources resu l t in corneal abrasions, radiat ion burns and chemical burns to the eye respect ive ly. Metal and other pa r t i c l e s cause a higher proportion of medical-aid-only accidents than chemicals and rad ia t i on , which cause a higher proportion of the i n ju r i e s resu l t ing in lo s t work time. The source and resu l t ing nature of most i n ju r i e s are predictable, and control measures are therefore poss ible. Over the years 1974 to 1976, i n ju r ie s due to chemicals, welding equip- ment (radiation),, and pa r t i c l e s increased in prevalence,while only the less common injury sources decreased in prevalence. There may be some c e n t r a l i - zat ion of i n ju r i e s toward the more common e t io log ie s and away from the rarer events. This may indicate the use of eye protection in the special cases, but the same contempt for safety in "everyday s i t ua t i on s " . .Implement or Machine Used at the Time of the Accident The greatest number of eye i n ju r i e s from a s ingle implement occurred while the worker was using a grinder or welding equipment. These imple- ments often resulted in i n ju r i e s when the injured worker was not d i r e c t l y - 260 - involved in i t s use. Handtools and explosive-actuated tools are other im- plements v/hich caused a s i g n i f i c an t number of i n j u r i e s . Directed enforcement and education programs concerning gr inders, wel - ding equipment, and other implements could have a s i gn i f i c an t impact on the occurrence of eye i n ju r i e s in industry. Many i n ju r i e s were reported to have been caused by pa r t i c le s being blown in the eyes, even when the worker was not using any equipment. This indicates the need for appropriate eye protection at a l l times when the worker i s in a hazardous area. The minimum standard for protection should be safety spectacles with side sh ie lds. Use of Eye Protection when the Accident Occurred On the basis of ava i lable data, i t appears that the majority of workers who incurred eye i n ju r ie s were not wearing eye protection at the time of the accident. This conclusion i s based on the presumption that the majority of workers who gave no information about the use of eye protection were not wearing any at the time of the accident. The majority of workers who were wearing eye protection at the time of the accident were wearing safety spectacles only. No information could be obtained concerning the use of side shields or whether the spectacles used were appropriate for the task. Safety spectacles with side shields should be considered the minimum standard. An evaluation of the hazard, which may indicate the need for addit ional protect ion, should also be performed. In a s i g n i f i c an t number of cases, however, accidents occurred even though the proper type of protection was being worn. In these cases, metal pa r t i c l e s f e l l behind the protection or f e l l i n to the eye as the protection was being removed. The design of certa in types of eye protect ion, notably face shields and welding helmets, should be evaluated. - 261 - In many cases, although protection was worn, the f i t was poor. This may be as much a hazard as using the incorrect type of eye protect ion. Few eye i n ju r i e s occur as a resu l t of the physical f a i l u r e of the protector. The present C.S.A. standards appear to be adequate. More attent ion must be placed upon the design, f i t and se lect ion of the pro- tectors . Reporting of Eye Injur ies and F i r s t Aid The review of selected W.C.B. personal medical f i l e s showed that accidents are reported to a diverse group of people, from jan i to r s to management executives. There i s great inconsistency in the time of repor- t ing also. Reports are frequently made the day a f te r the event despite the small number of i n ju r ie s (e.g. rad iat ion burns) that might normally be reported the next day. Inappropriate reporting or delays in treatment may lead to more serious in jury. This idea is supported by the fact that a low proportion of l o s t work time i n ju r i e s receive f i r s t a id. F i r s t aid was given in only 56% of the cases which resulted in permanent d i s a b i l i t y . F i r s t a i d , of course, cannot be offered in a l l cases, but i t appears more is needed than is presently being given. Many of the i n ju r i e s that resu l t in l o s t work time are simply compli- cations of common i n ju r i e s that normally require medical aid only (e.g. unattended metal foreign bodies that can cause rust deposition in the cornea). Prompt reporting to spec i f ied occuoational health and safety personnel, with f i r s t aid leading to medical care i f necessary, could reduce or el iminate many of the i n ju r i e s that resu l t in l o s t work time. Prevalence of S imi la r Injur ies and Other Claims The review of selected personal medical f i l e s from the W.C.B. showed that a large proportion of the workers had submitted claims for eye i n - j u r i e s in the past. A past h i s tory of other types of i n ju r ie s was also - 262 - common. The most l i k e l y explanation i s that there are pa r t i cu la r job tasks and occupational classes that receive more exposure to the threat of i n - jury than others. The concept of job carelessness or indi f ference to safety may also be a f a c to r , but apart from anecdotal reports , was not ex- amined in th i s study. A more deta i led invest igat ion into the cause of eye i n ju r i e s with appropriate education and/or equipment should be made in the case of each eye in jury to prevent recurrences. The Cost of Eye Injur ies The to ta l cost of the majority of i n ju r i e s resu l t ing in lost work time i s approximately $400, while the cost on average is $600. The review of personal medical f i l e s shows that the majority of los t work time eye in ju r ie s are between one and two days in duration. There are r e l a t i v e l y few eye i n - j u r i e s of high cost. I t i s apparent, therefore, that a general reduction in the incidence of the common eye i n ju r i e s i s the best way to reduce the cost of eye i n j u r i e s . The Severity of Eye Injur ies In general, the r a t i o of sever i ty #1 to sever i ty #2 eye i n ju r i e s i s four to one. This r a t i o , however, varies widely among industry classes and bears no re l a t i on to t he i r s i ze or type. The incidence of permanent d i sa - b i l i t y i n ju r i e s (sever i ty #3) i s minute in comparison and, once again, these cannot be at t r ibuted to any pa r t i cu l a r industry. It has been hypothesized tha t , according to the industry or task, the number of permanent d i s a b i l i t y , l o s t work time, and medical aid only eye i n ju r i e s varies by chance (70). This i s supported by data from th i s study which indicates that the majority of eye i n ju r i e s are caused by common and ea s i l y recognizable sources. Few in ju r i e s can be att r ibuted to unusual events. The more serious injury appears to be a resu l t of a more serious - 2 6 3 - form (occurring by chance) of a common hazard. Eye Protection Programs There i s a lack of management po l i cy concerning eye protection in industry and, therefore, an absence of e f f ec t i ve eye protection programs. In general, current ly establ ished eye protection programs are l im i ted in scope and effect iveness. Inspection personnel and other occupational health personnel c i ted the fol lowing de f i c ient factor s : a) lack of education as to the importance of wearing eye protection b) lack of well establ ished eye protection po l i c i e s c) lack of r i g i d enforcement ( including d i s c i p l i ne where necessary) d) lack of adequate peer and management example. It was the opinion of a majority of i ndus t r i a l personnel and occu- pational health personnel that management is pr imar i l y responsible fo r the i n i t i a t i o n and maintenance of eye protection programs. Leg i s lat ion i s one of the best ways to ensure that management provides adeauate eye pro- tect ion programs although i t i s important that worker and management edu- cation be concurrent with such l e g i s l a t i o n . Inspection personnel con- cluded that there is l i t t l e knowledge of C.S.A. Eye Protector Standards or how to i den t i f y protection claimed by manufacturers to meet these Standards. Since recommendations fo r the se lect ion of the appropriate type of eye protect ion fo r the task are given in the C.S.A. standards, i t i s i m p l i c i t that there i s a lack of information and knowledge by management and workers in th i s area also. Furthermore, some suppliers of eye protection must up- grade t h e i r knowledge. Leg i s la t ion was suggested as a feas ib le method of ensuring that suppl iers of eye protection provide qua l i t y advice and pro- ducts. The lack of the essential elements of an eye protection program (e.g. po l i c y , education, enforcement, fo l low-up, etc.) can a f fect worker com- - 264 - pl iance. Other factors which a f fect worker compliance are the f i t of the appliance and cosmetic acceptab i l i t y . Improvements can be made in th i s area. Eye i n ju r i e s are a s i g n i f i c an t problem in industry. The majority of eye i n j u r i e s , however, are caused by common hazards. There i s an awareness of the magnitude of the problem in industry but e f f o r t s to contain the pro- blem are often absent or, at best, incomplete. It i s apparent that there has been inadequate problem solving which has centered around coping with i so lated incidents (e.g. f i r e f i g h t i n g ) , rather than establ i sh ing po l i c i e s which, in time, could contain a majority of the problems. The development and enforcement of adequate eye protection programs w i l l be an important part of th i s process. - 265 - 4.C. Conclusions and Recommendations - General A p p l i c a b i l i t y Industry Classes The manufacture and processing of metal products and chemicals and the use of construction materials are associated with high rates of eye i n j u r - i e s . It i s recommended that: 1. INDUSTRIES INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURE OR USE OF METAL PRODUCTS, CHEMICALS OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, BE DESIGNATED AS HIGH RISK INDUSTRY CLASSES AND GIVEN SPECIAL ATTENTION IN REGARD TO THE DE- VELOPMENT OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS OVER THE SHORT TERM. Occupation and Hazard C l a s s i f i c a t i on The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of eye i n ju r i e s oh the basis of the hazard which caused them, instead of the industry in which they occurred, i s well doc- umented in l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s an appropriate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in re la t ion to the hazards which were found, and studied, in th i s thes i s . The l i t e r a t u r e (43) shows that certa in occupational classes have high eye in jury r i s k s . The occupations are s im i l a r to the ones i den t i f i ed in th i s study and include machinists, plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s , and welders. Rates of eye i n ju r i e s were not avai lable by occupation in the l i t e r a t u r e and have been determined in this study apparently for the f i r s t time (Table 3.A.3). The f indings of th i s study suggest that certain occupational groups receive special attention when developing eye protection programs. It i s recommended that: 2. A NEW EMPHASIS BE INITIATED BY TREATING OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS AND EYE INJURY HAZARDS AS A BASIS TO EYE INJURY PREVENTION, RATHER THAN INDUSTRY CLASSES; and a) THAT OCCUPATIONS CONCERNED WITH THE MANUFACTURE OR PROCESSING OF METALS OR METAL PRODUCTS BE DESIGNATED AS HIGH RISK OCCUP- ATIONS; and - 266 - b) THAT SPECIAL PROGRAMS BE DEVELOPED, THROUGH APPRENTICE TRAINING PROGRAMS, UNIONS AND COMPANIES, TO INFORM AND EDUCATE THESE WORK- ERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE EYES AND THE PREVENTION OF EYE IN- JURIES, AND THAT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO WELDERS, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS, MACHINISTS, AND MECHANICS; and c) THAT EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS BE DEVELOPED ON THE BASIS OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF EYE INJURY HAZARDS, RATHER THAN UPON THE IN- DUSTRIES WHICH MAY CONTAIN THEM. Many eye i n ju r i e s are incurred by helpers of persons who are in metal re lated occupations and by persons who are walking by when tradesmen are engaged in t he i r work. It i s recommended that: 3. SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS BE DEVELOPED TO EDUCATE THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE HELPERS, OR THOSE WHO ARE PASSING BY WHEN A HAZARDOUS TASK - IS BEING PERFORMED, OF THE DANGERS TO THE EYES AND THE METHODS OF PROTECTION; and a) THAT IT BE KNOWN THAT EYE PROTECTION IS NECESSARY EVEN WHEN PASSING BY A HAZARDOUS TASK OR HELPING AT A TASK. Eye Protection Standards One study (31) notes a high f a i l u r e rate of eye protectors, measured against the C.S.A. Standards. This i s not a c r i t i c a l factor in l i g h t of the findings of th i s study, where few in ju r i e s were due to the physical f a i l u r e of the protector. These standards must not be disregarded, however, and the qua l i t y of protectors must be maintained at a high l e v e l . I t i s recommended that: 4. GOVERNMENTS RECOGNIZE, IN THE FORM OF REGULATIONS, THE STANDARDS SET OUT BY THE C.S.A., NAMELY THE C.S.A. STANDARD FOR EYE PROTECT- ORS, 1969. - 267 - It i s also recommended that: 5. GOVERNMENTS LEGISLATE THAT OPTICAL AND SAFETY SUPPLY HOUSES CARRY EYE PROTECTION WHICH IS MANUFACTURED BY COMPANIES WHO CLAIM THEIR PRODUCTS MEET THE C.S.A. STANDARDS. A LISTING OF THESE MANUFACTURERS IS GIVEN IN A CANADA SAFETY COUNCIL BULLETIN; and a) THAT GOVERNMENTS PUBLISH A LIST, FOR DISTRIBUTION TO INDUSTRY, OF THOSE COMPANIES WHO CLAIM THAT THE PROTECTORS THEY SELL IN THE PROVINCE MEET THE C.S.A. STANDARDS. There i s , however, a disregard for the careful and appropriate se lec t - ion of eye protectors by those who supply and use them, as noted e a r l i e r in th i s thesis and in the work by Chartrand (28). More use should be made of the standardized charts which indicate the appropriate protection for the job hazard. I t i s recommended that: 6. EMPHASIS BE PLACED, THROUGH EDUCATION, ON THE SELECTION OF APPROP- RIATE EYE PROTECTORS FOR THE HAZARD. THIS INCLUDES THE TRAINING OF THE SAFETY PERSONNEL WHO WILL CHOOSE.THE PROTECTION AND SAFETY SUP- PLY REPRESENTATIVES WHO MUST AID IN THE SELECTION AND PROVISION OF THE EQUIPMENT. The Canadian l i t e r a t u r e on eye protectors tends to emphasize the i r physical protection cha rac te r i s t i c s . I t i s apparent from th i s study and an American study by Logar (77) that more emphasis needs to be placed on the f i t and function of the protector, and more attent ion must be given to design, including cosmetic acceptab i l i t y . It i s recommended that: 7. PROVISIONS BE MADE IN EACH COMPANY FOR THE FITTING OF EACH PROTECT- OR TO THE FACE OF THE WORKER. THIS MAY INVOLVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHORT PROGRAM TO TEACH SAFETY PERSONNEL THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF FIT- ING. CONSIDERATION MIGHT BE GIVEN TO USING VISION CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR THE FIRST FITTING. -.268 - It i s also recommended that: • 8. APPROPRIATE STUDIES BE CONDUCTED TO EXAMINE THE DESIGN OF EYE PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE HAZARD IT MUST PROTECT AGAINST. The Incidence and Nature of Eye Injur ies I t i s d i f f i c u l t to corre late the rate of eye i n ju r i e s in Alberta with the rate of eye i n ju r i e s in the other Canadian provinces because of report- ing discrepancies and the d i f f i c u l t y in estimating the s ize of the workforce. The incidence of eye i n ju r i e s in Alberta i s r e l a t i v e l y high but so i s the overa l l injury incidence. The proportion of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s , in re - l a t i on to the tota l number of i n ju r ie s of a l l kinds, i s s l i g h t l y lower (3.4%) than that reported elsewhere. The f indings of th i s study are consistent with the l i t e r a t u r e (34) which shows that the majority of eye i n ju r i e s occur in the young and i n - experienced worker. I t i s recommended that: 9. THE MAJORITY OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY BE ORIENTED TOWARD THE YOUNGER AND MORE INEXPERIENCED WORKER. THIS INCLUDES THE INTEGRATION OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS INTO APPRENTICE TRAINING COURSES AND ANY INITIAL ORIENTATION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY. This and another study (34). show that grinding and welding are promin- ent causes of eye i n j u r i e s . The proportion of i n ju r i e s due to chemicals i s var iab le , accounting for between 8.1% (40) and 24% (34) of eye in ju r ie s in previous studies. Only 7.1% of the eye i n ju r i e s in Alberta in 1976 were re - lated to chemical i n ju ry . The lower proportion may be due to differences in the industr ies represented in th i s province, or to sampling bias in other studies. In l i g h t of th i s information, i t i s recommended that: 10. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO THE PROTECTION OF THE EYES AROUND ALL GRINDING AND WELDING OPERATIONS AND THAT SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS BE DEVELOPED CONCERNING THEIR USE. SPECIAL - 269 - PROGRAMS CONCERNING THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE ACTUATED TOOLS AND CHEM- ICALS ARE HIGHLY RECOMMENDED ALSO. B r i t i s h Columbia data (34) concerning the nature of l o s t time eye i n - j u r i e s was compared with f indings of th i s study (Table 3.A.61). Although the overa l l rate of eye i n ju r i e s i s quite d i f f e r en t , the r e l a t i v e proportions of the d i f f e ren t kinds of i n ju r i e s are remarkably s im i l a r . These s t a t i s t - ics suggest the presence of common eye injury denominators and, thus, pred- i c t ab l e and cont ro l l ab le causes of in jury. One Canadian study (34) shows that nearly 42% of the reported eye i n - j u r i e s (using Canadian and Alberta to ta l s ) occurred while eye protection was being worn. Information concerning the use of eye protection was not usual- l y provided in Alberta W.C.B. forms, so th i s f inding can neither be con- firmed nor denied by th i s thes i s . Anecdotal data, however, suggests that far fewer i n ju r i e s occur while protection i s being worn than i s c i ted in the l i t e r a t u r e . The f indings of th i s study are consistent with the l i t e r a t u r e (46) with regard to morning and afternoon peaks in the occurrence of i n j u r i e s , and suggests that attent ion must be paid to the ef fects of fatigue and bore- dom. It i s recommended that: 11. WORKER FATIGUE AND/OR BOREDOM BE CONSIDERED AS A POSSIBLE CAUSE OF EYE INJURIES. CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE STAGGERING OR MODIFICATION OF BREAK PERIODS IN LIGHT OF PEAK PERIODS DURING THE WORKER'S SHIFT IN WHICH EYE INJURIES OCCUR. Eye Protection Programs This thesis reviewed the various components of eye protection programs (eg. education, enforcement) in r e l a t i on to t he i r importance, as indicated by the responses to two surveys. The l i t e r a t u r e , on the other hand, discuss- es the structure and resu l t ing processes that would be found in the complete - 270 - eye protection program. The resu l t s of th i s study are consistent with the l i t e r a t u r e in c i t i n g pol icy development, education, and enforcement as important components of an eye protection program. It i s recommended that: 12. COMPANIES BE ENCOURAGED TO DEVELOP EYE PROTECTION POLICIES AS A BASIS TO THE PROVISION OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS, AND THAT EDUCATION, MANAGEMENT EXAMPLE, AND ENFORCEMENT BE USED AS COM- PONENTS IN EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS. It i s also recommended that: 13. DISCUSSION OF EYE PROTECTION AT JOINT WORK SITE COMMITTEE MEETINGS BE DIRECTED, GRADUALLY, TOWARD POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN THE DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC EYE PROTECTION PROBLEMS. AT SUCH TIME AS PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, SPECIFIC PROBLEMS COULD BE DISCUSSED IN THEIR LIGHT. A synthesis of the components (structure) of eye protection programs reported in the l i t e r a t u r e (Table 2.D.l) leads to the formulation of a comprehensive eye protection program. It i s c lear that the successful eye protection program i s m u l t i - f a c t o r i a l , and, such programs cannot be separat- ed from the general personal protection program. It i s recommended that: 14. THE COMPREHENSIVE EYE PROTECTION PROGRAM, OUTLINED IN TABLE 2.D. l , FORMULATED THROUGH A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT, BE USED AS A BASIS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY. THIS INVOLVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION STRA- TEGIES FOR EACH STEP OUTLINED IN TABLE 2.D.l. It i s also recommended that: 15. EXPERTISE BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISIONS OR OTHER AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT TO ADVISE ON THE DEVELOP- MENT OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY. - 271 - The more serious injury•appears to be a re su l t of a more serious form (occurring by chance) of a common hazard. This i s consistent with the l i t - erature (70) which notes that the,cause of an injury i s often the same while the severity of the injury varies according to chance. I t may be con- cluded, therefore, that the best approach to preventing serious eye injury i s to adopt general po l i c i e s which w i l l reduce the overa l l incidence of i n - ju r i e s and, in doing so, w i l l reduce the number of l o s t time and permanent d i s a b i l i t y i n j u r i e s . I t i s recommended that: 16. THE PREVENTION OF ANY AND ALL TYPES OF EYE INJURIES BE RECOGNIZED AS A METHOD OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT DISABILITY EYE INJURIES. Injury Reporting The l i t e r a t u r e did not contain any information concerning the severity of i ndus t r i a l eye i n ju r i e s in re l a t i on to when f i r s t aid or treatment was provided. It i s suggested in th i s study that prompt reporting and f i r s t aid could reduce the number of l o s t time i n j u r i e s . I t i s recommended that: 17. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS BE DEVELOPED, FOR THE WORKER AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PERSONNEL, TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR THE REPORTING OF EYE INJURIES TO DESIGNATED PERSONNEL, WITH PROMPT FIRST AID, THAT WILL POSSIBLY REDUCE THE COMPLICATIONS WHICH APPEAR TO LEAD TO LOST WORK TIME. Prevalence of S imi lar Injur ies and Other Claims The results of th i s study show that a large proportion of workers, whose claims were studied, had submitted claims fo r eye i n ju r i e s and other types of i n ju r ie s in the past. The l i t e r a t u r e did not provide any s im i la r information for comparison. I t i s recommended that: 18. PROVISIONS BE MADE IN THE W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE TO RECORD WHETHER AN INJURED WORKER HAS HAD PREVIOUS SIMILAR CLAIMS AND THAT - 272 - THOSE SO IDENTIFIED BE CONTACTED AND ASKED TO TAKE INJURY PREVENT- ION EDUCATION. A PROGRAM, ANALAGOUS TO A DEFENSIVE DRIVING COURSE, COULD BE DEVELOPED. Leg i s lat ion Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n , at th i s time, deals with l im i ted aspects of eye protect ion. Only B.C. and New Brunswick demand adherence to the C.S.A. Eye Protector Standards, and other provinces have regulations only for spec i f i c hazards (eg. l a se r s ) . There i s no l e g i s l a t i on addressing the subject of worker compliance, an essent ia l element in eye in jury prevention. Com- prehensive eye protection p o l i c i e s , in l i n e with establ ished standards, are needed to reduce the incidence of eye in ju r ie s in the future. Recommendations regarding the development of regulations for eye injury prevention are found e a r l i e r in th i s sect ion. - 273 - CHAPTER 5 PLANNING THE ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS How can the recommendations a r i s ing from th i s study be implemented? In the absence of government po l icy concerning eye protection programs in industry, the recommendations from th i s study w i l l serve as the objec- t ives upon which a plan for providing eye protection programs in industry can be formulated. In add i t ion, the review of l i t e r a t u r e concerning eye protection Drograms in industry serves to i den t i f y the spec i f i c components of successful programs. There are, therefore, two levels of planning which must be i d e n t i f i e d : at the organizational l e v e l , and the program implementation l e v e l . 5.A. Planning Eye Protection Programs - the Organizational Level Each recommendation from th i s study involves a group or groups of people who are involved in giving or receiv ing occupational v is ion care ser- vices. I t i s l o g i c a l , therefore, to plan the organizational framework of eye protection programs around the groups who are u lt imately concerned. Role Def in i t ions and Inter-Relationships of Involved Groups Figure 5.A.1 i l l u s t r a t e s the ex i s t ing and/or potential involvement of groups in occupational v i s ion care. In general, government ( including the Workers' Compensation Board) i s responsible f o r monitoring and regulating the health and safety of the worker. Government i s also responsible to a great extent for i n i t i a t i n g and/or f a c i l i t a t i n g education and research in th i s area. It i s commonly agreed (and often leg i s la ted) that management i s responsible for the i n i t i a t i o n and maintenance of occupational safety programs in t he i r industry. They receive service and advice from, and feed back information to government. Management must also interact with the pr ivate sector (e.g. opt ica l companies) who provide protective equipment - 274 - Figure 5.A.1 THE OCCUPATIONAL VISION CARE SYSTEM / HEALTH PROFESSIONAL GOVERNMENT p j ( i n c l u d i n g W . C . B . ) K P R I V A T E SECTOR ( O p t i c a l ) CANADIAN STANDARDS A S S O C I A T I O N CENTER FOR jOCCUPATIONALl HEALTH & SAFETY - 275 - and other information for health and safety programs. The health (v i s ion care) professional advises government on health and safety matters ( i n - cluding research) and interacts with opt ica l companies by providing advice on the most su i tab le types and design of protective equipment and screening devices. Most importantly, the health Drofessional examines and advises the worker, in the plant or the examination room, on eye protection and v i sual performance. Optical companies can advise government and the pro- fessional on standards of materials and v i s ion screening devices. In turn, they receive feedback from a l l groups to improve the qua l i ty of the i r pro- ducts. Workers must have access to a l l bodies concerned with occupational v i s ion care. Their re spons ib i l i t y is compliance, which u l t imately includes taking some re spons ib i l i t y for t he i r own health and safety while in the workplace. The Canadian Standards Association must also interact with a l l concerned groups in order to a t ta in standards which improve performance, comfort, safety, and ease of regulat ion. The recently l eg i s l a ted National Center for Occupational Health and Safety i s another potential forum for pol icy and standards development. Communication Networks Within the system shown in Figure 5.A.1 independent and j o i n t commit- tees should be formed to ensure ongoing communication. There appears to be a trend toward work s i t e committees (shown as a dotted l i n e in Figure 5.1), composed of representatives from labour and management, often with input from government. Individual groups in the system have the i r own forums in which to discuss health matters; health professionals have t he i r professional organizations, some workers have unions, and management have access to t h e i r own safety counci l s . Government committees, involv ing a l l concerned departments, should be - 276 - formed where there are areas of occupational health and safety with frag- mented responsibilities. Government has the ultimate authority to bring the occupational health system into operation, to ensure that the health and safety of the worker is optimized. In Alberta, the basic structures such as shown in Figure 5.A.1 are in existence but the coordination is lacking. Regardless of final juris- diction on occupational health matters, an interdepartmental unit com- posed of representatives from health, labour and the W.C.B. should be pre- sent to coordinate the government's efforts. An example of the cooper- ation that is required between government departments is seen by exploring the provision of occupational health care to small industry. A high pro- portion of industry is comnosed of companies with less than ten employees. These smaller companies do not have the expertise, the resources, nor the appropriate pressure to provide occupational health services independently. In these cases, one alternative would be to provide services through local public health units. This proposed integration of occupational and public health would require internal communication and cooperation. Management, in most cases, bears the costs of vision screening and per- sonal protection programs and will ask to see the cost-benefit result of providing eye protection or optimizing visual performance factors in their plant. Little effort has been made in the past to demonstrate the benefits and inform industry of them. Recent communication with a management safety council leader reinforced this notion when he stated that a majority of companies simply don't see the potential benefits results of providing and enforcing protection programs. The government of Alberta must view this task as a priority and be able to substantiate the benefits of legislated' occupational health programs in this area. - 277 - In most provinces, companies within broad industry groups pay s im i l a r insurance premiums to the W.C.B. This provides l i t t l e incentive for the ind iv idual company to provide health and safety programs. Governments should consider more extensive schemes in which insurance premiums can be based on ind iv idual company accident experience. Another p o s s i b i l i t y would be to provide addit ional incentives to companies who promote safety pro- grams. It would be naive to presume an eye protection program could be devel- oped in i s o l a t i on from general safety programs. Industr ia l eye protection must, therefore, be treated as a component of general occupational health and safety programs. With th i s in mind, a discussion of spec i f i c strategies for program implementation can take place. 5.B. Planning Eye Protection Programs - the Program Implementation Level Table 2.D.1, shown once again on the fo l lowing page, represents a cor re la t ion of expert opinion concerning the components of an eye pro- tect ion program. The table i s sel f -explanatory and out l ines , in approximate order, the steps an organization could take in implementing an eye pro- tect ion program. The development of each point i s best done at the company l e v e l , allowing modif icat ion according to ind iv idual d i f ferences. Occupational v i s ion care i s an essent ia l element of the eye protection program. It includes the evaluation of v isual performance factors and v i s - ion screening. For th i s reason, the ro le of the professional v i s ion care worker in industry (the optometrist and the ophthalmologist) i s important. T rad i t i ona l l y neither profession has involved themselves extensively in th i s f i e l d but i t i s c lear that the i r pa r t i c i pa t i on and support i s required. It i s unreasonable to suggest, from a cost-benef i t point of view, that the v i s ion care professional be involved in every aspect of the eye protection TABLE 2.0.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS IN INDUSTRY REFERENCES PROGRAH COMPONENTS 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 .1 ORGANIZE PROGRAM CRITERIA - DETERMINE STATUS OF PROBLEM AND SET OUT PRELIMINARY OBJECTIVES X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2 GAIN SUPPORT & ACCEPTANCE OF PROGRAM (ALL GROUPS-PRIMARILY MANAGEMENT) BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 INITIATE PLANT SURVEY & VISUAL JOB ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE VISION SKILLS, THE ACCIDENT FACTORS S SEVERITY OF THE PROBLEM X X X X X X X X X X 4 SET UP A VISION SCREENING PROGRAM FOR THE WORKER x X X X X X X X X X X X 5 ESTABLISH A REFERRAL SYSTEM TO A VISION CARE PROFESSIONAL FOR THOSE WORKERS WHO NEED VISUAL AID x X x X X X 6 FORMULATE AND/OR REVIEW A/THE PLANT EYE PROTECTION POLICY: INCLUDING WHO SHOULD WEAR THEM, WHERE, ETC. x x X X X 7 REVIEW THE EYE PROTECTION WITH THE UNION - GAIN THEIR COOPERATION AND SUPPORT x x x X X X 8 DRAW UP A STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES TO COVER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM y x x x X X X X X X X X 9 INFORM ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE PROGRAM & WHY IT IS IMPORTANT (INCLUDING ALL ASPECTS OF EDUC. & MOTIVATION A y x x X X 10 AS A FIRST STEP, ENGINEER THE DANGER OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (HAZARD ELIMINATION AND/OR CONTROL) A y x X 11 SELECT A REPUTABLE SUPPLIER OF EYE PROTECTION WHO HANDLES GOOD MATERIALS OR SECURE BIDS FROM SUPPLIERS A y X 12 SELECT MOST APPROPRIATE TYPE OF PROTECTION - CONSIDERING HAZARDS, EMPLOYEE COMFORT AND COST y A x x x X X X X X X X 13 STANDARDIZE THE EQUIPMENT CARRIED FOR SMALLER INVENTORY AND LOWER VOLUME COST A y x 14 ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENTS ARE TAKEN BEFOREHAND & THAT THE PROTECTION IS PROPERLY FITTED - A INCLUDING FOLLOW-UP X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 15 MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE INVENTORY AND ENSURE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE EYE PROTECTION x x x X X X X 16 DEVELOP PROCEDURES TO ENSURE UNIFORMITY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PROBLEM: IE. IDENTIFY AREAS, ETC. 17 DEVELOP SUPERVISION & ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES FOR THE PROGRAM X X X X X - EVERYONE WEARS THEM IN HAZARDOUS AREAS - MANDATORY AT ANY TIME OR ANY PLACE IN THE PLANT - USE OF PROTECTION MANDATORY ANO A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT X X x X X x X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X 18 MONITOR AND EVALUATE THE PROGRAM X 19 DEVELOP ACCIDENT EMERGENCY PROCEDURES X X 20 WHO PAYS FOR THE EYE PROTECTION - TOTALLY BY THE EMPLOYER . T I U C n c D , n n c x x _ b y E M p L O y E R & WORKER; VARIOUS NEGOTIATED PROPORTIONS 1 TIME PERIODS X 21 MENTION OR RECOGNITION OF USING EYE PROTECTION ACCORDING TO AMERICAN OR CANADIANT STANDARDS ASSOCIATION STANDARDS X X - 279 - program but, clearly, they can play a major role in the coordination of the components. More study is required to determine the roles of vision care professionals in industry, and especially, how they will interact in the most fruitful way with the private sector. 5.C. A Time Frame for Implementation It is not possible, or advisable at this point, to lay out a set of steps whereby the Alberta government could achieve industry-wide aware- ness and acceptance of eye protection programs. The changing nature of people and the political climate (both governmental and inter-professional) would surely prove this author incorrect, even with the most viable plan. Using the recommendations of this study as a base, the planning of such programs must take place in Alberta, through the government, with the cooperation of all bodies concerned, near the time that implementation is feasible. The following outlines suggested yearly goals that a plan might en- compass. The-elements discussed are not inclusive. YEAR 1 General Awareness General promotional campaigns to create awareness of the need for eye protection in industry. Communication to industry and other concerned groups of the results of this study and the underlying philosophies that were developed as a result. Commi ttee Structures Establishment of an intra-governmental committee (labour, health and the W.C.B.) to examine the problems of providing eye protection programs to industry. This committee, under the chairmanship of the Occupational Health and Safety Division, should utilize representation from the vision - 280 - care professions, management, labour, and the private sector, to receive informed opinion and to establ i sh cooperation between the groups. Be- cause of the large number of groups in the labour movement and the pr ivate sector (opt ica l indust ry ) , some consideration w i l l have to be given to the se lect ion of representatives from these groups. Development Within the Occupational Health and Safety Div is ion Expertise in i ndus t r i a l eye protection should be developed in the Div i s ion during t h i s t ime, in preparation for the development of programs. Although i t i s feas ib le to use outside consultants, i t i s v i t a l that some degree of internal expertise be present. Leg i s la t ion Development of regulations which l e g i s l a te the use of appropriate eye protection by any person involved i n , helping w i th , or passing by any wel- ding, gr inding, or machining operation. Development of a regulation whereby a l l eye protection used by workers in Alberta must meet the C.S.A. standards fo r eye protectors, and recog- n i t i on that the se lect ion of appropriate protection for the hazard must, with in reason and accounting fo r special circumstance, comply with guide- l ines set out in the C.S.A. standard. Development of a regulation which l eg i s l a te s the use of side shields on a l l safety spectacles, excepting cases where extreme discomfort would be caused, or performance or perception i s unreasonably affected. Evaluation Set up evaluation schemes for any establ ished nrograms. YEAR 2 General Awareness Continuation of the promotional a c t i v i t i e s of Year 1. In add i t ion, - 2 8 1 - the development of special programs to educate helpers to welders, machinists, etc. on the importance of wearing eye protect ion. Education Programs Development of mandatory programs, with in apprentice t ra in ing courses, to educate young and inexperienced tradesmen on the importance of personal protection and safety ( s p e c i f i c a l l y concerning eyes). To begin, welding, plumbing and D i p e f i t t i n g , machining and mechanics courses should contain th i s safety education component. Development of programs, sponsored by the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i on , fo r any person involved in company safety programs, to learn the basic elements of f i t t i n g non-prescription eye protect ion, and se lect ing the appropriate protection for the hazard. ( I t i s presumed that prescr ipt ion safety eyewear would be properly f i t t e d by the v i s ion care pro- fess ional or the opt ic ian who has supplied the device.) Evaluation Set up evaluation schemes for any establ ished programs, YEAR 3 Continuation of programs establ ished in the f i r s t and second years, i n - cluding an evaluation of t he i r ef fect iveness. Other A c t i v i t i e s Regulation of safety supply houses to ensure that only C.S.A. approved eye protection is marketed in A lberta. Informal regulation of safety supply houses to ensure t he i r representatives have adequate t ra in ing and knowledge in the eye protection f i e l d . Establishment of a p i l o t project to i den t i f y those persons who incur eye i n ju r i e s frequently. Coordination of an educational program for these i d e n t i f i e d persons. - 282 - CHAPTER 6 CODA 6.A. The Study This study has, for the most part, progressed through its methodolo- gical steps without exception. The study, therefore, has been successful. Although it was intended that statistical data currently available would be examined, it is apparent, in retrospect, that the data collected from W.C.B. accident reporting forms do not contain sufficient "prevention- oriented" information (e.g. was eye protection worn at the time of the accident). The study may have given more fruitful conclusions if such data had been collected. A great deal is now known about persons who incurred eye injuries, but little is known about those who apparently used proper protection and/ or avoided injury. Herein lies the fallacy of using secondary, accident oriented information. Further research in this area should involve the entire working population, not only those who were injured. The recommendations arising from the conclusions of this study are, for the most part, practical and should be considered for inclusion in current government policy. It is difficult, however, to isolate eye pro- tection from other kinds of personal protection and, for this reason, such specific policy objectives may not be adequate or may not have sufficient impact. It.will depend also on the political climate; at this time, eye protection in industry is not a priority in occupational health circles. The coordination of the structural elements of the occupational vision care system (Fig. 5.A.1)is the biggest problem facing the successful imple- mentation of sound industrial eye protection programs. It may be difficult - 283 - to bring together groups with widely disparate goals and objectives. Pro- f i t and non-prof i t motives must be meshed in the best interests of the worker. Professional standards must be meshed with the free enterprise ob- jec t i ve s of the private sector. The ultimate success of th i s study w i l l de- pend on cooperation, t r u s t , and coordination of e f f o r t between a l l part ies . 6.B. The Ideal S i tuat ion This thesis i s l im i ted by i t s approach, and the necessity to use i n - cremental planning techniques. For p o l i t i c a l and other reasons, the so lu - tions (recommendations) are mainly modif ications or extensions of current ideas. This i s not uncommon, and ce r ta in l y not objectionable to the major i - ty of people, but i t is c lear that the problem i s much more basic and the real so lut ion must involve innovative planning techniques. I f one examines how the general population l i ve s and copes with da i l y physical hazards i t i s evident that the majority show l i t t l e concern for t he i r wel l -be ing. The ind iv idual takes r i sks da i l y : dr iv ing a car too f a s t , drinking excess ive ly, and even performing hazardous tasks without the benefit of personal protect ive equipment. Humans exh ib i t the unique a b i l i t y to disregard the dangerous - - un t i l i t happens to them. This may be due to an innate sense of adventure, but i s more l i k e l y due to the way in which they are taught, from a young age, to regard the physical environment. Children grow•up and assume many d i f fe rent professions: a company mana- ger, a government o f f i c i a l , a tradesman, a health profess ional . I f a regard for health and safety can be i n s t i l l e d at an ear ly age, through the edu- cational systems, before p r o f i t motives, vanity or an unhealthy sense of se l f - regard become manifest, a super-ordinate goal w i l l have been created. Compliance would not be an issue. The coordination of e f f o r t , which is now so d i f f i c u l t to obta in, would be f a c i l i t a t e d by a common sense of purpose. - 284 - 6.C. Future Research This study has exposed areas of concern that require research in the future. B r i e f l y , some of these are: 1. A medical examination of the complications that can resu l t i f common i n ju r i e s do not receive prompt f i r s t a id , and p a r t i c u l a r l y , a de- termination of the time and cost savings that resu l t i f treatment is prompt. 2. Determination of the roles of various health personnel ( including v i s ion care professionals) in the provis ion of occupational v i s ion care and eye protection programs. 3. Research into the effect iveness of common eye protector designs in preventing i n j u r i e s , and researching the e f f i cacy of new eye protector designs. 4. Research into the importance of coordinating ergonomic-visual performance type programs with eye safety programs. 5. Researching the effectiveness of the common v i s ion screening de- vices in the i ndus t r i a l se t t ing . 6. Researching the psycholog ica l - soc io log ica l determinants of com- pliance in the use of eye protection in industry. - 285 - LITERATURE CITED 1. Keeney, A.H.: Lens Materials in the Prevention of Eye In jur ies , Publisher Unknown, 1957. p. 3. Obtained through Mr. I. Patterson, American Optical Co. L t d . , Toronto, Ontario. 2. Ib id . pp. 3-9. 3. Glazer, A.: The Workers' Compensation Board of B.C.: A Consideration of E f f i c i ency and Effect iveness. A Paper prepared for Course HCEP 501, Univers ity of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, March, 1978. 4. Canadian Standards Associat ion. Code for Head and Eye Protect ion, Z94-1948. Published by the Canadian Standards Associat ion. Ottawa, Ontario. August, 1948. 5. op. c i t . Keeney, A.H.: p. 31. 6. American National Standards I n s t i tu te . ANSI Z87.1-1958 Pract ice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protect ion. Published by the American National Standards I n s t i tu te , New York, 1968. 7. Canadian Standards Associat ion. Eye Protectors, CSA Standard Z94.3- 1969. Published by the Canadian Standards Assoc iat ion, Ottawa, Ontario. October 1969. 8. International Labour O f f i ce . The Protection of Eyesight in Industry. Series F ( Industr ia l Hygiene), No. 6. Published by the Inter- national Labour O f f i c e , Geneva, June 1923. 9. Resnick, L. and Lewis, H .C: Eye Hazards in Industr ia l Occupations. The National Committee for the Prevention of Blindness, Inc. New York, 1924. 10. Bausch and Lomb Co. Ltd. Safety Products D iv i s ion. A Systems Approach to Eye Protect ion, A-5180, Printed in the United States, Undated, p. 8. 11. Taylor, H.A.: Control of Ocular Hazards. Austra l ian Journal of Optometry 55:430, November 1972. 12. Heinrich,R.: Industr ia l Accident Prevention, in Resnick, Lewis, Eye Hazards in Industry, p. 6, National Society for the Prevention of Bl indness, New York, Columbia Univers ity Press, 1941. 13. F letcher, R.: Ophthalmics in Industry,p. 154, Aldwych, Columbia House, The Hatton Press L t d . , 1961. 14. C o l l i n , H.B.: Industr ia l Eye In ju r ie s , Part 2 - Protection of V i s i on , Austra l ian Journal of Optometry 55:420, November, 1972. - 286 - 15. op. c i t . Canadian Standards Associat ion. Standard Z94.3-1969 - Eye Protectors. 16. Schmidt, B.T.: Occupational Vis ion and Eye Protection - Bridging the Gap Between the Worker's Capacity and the Demands.of the Job. Occupational Health and Safety D iv i s i on , Alberta Labour. Edmonton, A lber ta , August 1977. 17. op. c i t . C o l l i n , H.B.: p.420. 18. Fox, S.L.: Industr ia l and Occupational Ophthalmology, p. 57. Spring- f i e l d , I l l i n o i s . Charles C. Thomas Co., 1973. 19. Bausch and Lomb Co. Ltd. Comprehensive Eye Safety Program for Schools. Rochester, New York. Bausch and Lomb Co. L t d . , 1971. 20. Bausch and Lomb Co. Ltd. Eye Protection - Catalog of Safety Glasses and Goggles. Rochester, New York. Bausch and Lomb Co. Ltd. 1974. 21. A0C0 Ltd. Protect ive Eyewear B e l l e v i l l e , Ontario. A0C0 Ltd. No date. 22. Safety Supply Co. No. 70 - Eye Protect ion. Toronto, Ontario. Safety Supply Co. January 1970. 23. op. c i t . Canadian Standards Associat ion. Standard Z94.3-1969 - Eye Protectors. 24. op. c i t . American National Standard. Z87.1-1968. 25. Taylor, H.A.: Control of Ocular Hazards. The Austra l ian Journal of Optometry 55:430, November 1972. 26. : Programming Personal Protect ion, Eye and Face. National Safety News 110:53, February 1975. 27. Safety Supply Co. Ltd. No. 70 - Eye Protect ion. Toronto, Ontario. January 1976. 28. Chartrand, P.: Purchasing Survey of Eye Protectors. Construction Safety Association of Ontario. Presented at the Canadian Conference on Personal Protect ive Equipment. Toronto, Ontario. January 1978. 29. op. c i t . Canadian Standards Associat ion. Standard Z94.2-1969 - Eye Protectors. 30. op. c i t . American National Standard Z87.1-1968. 31. Powell, I. and Carman, P.D.: Tests of Industr ial Eye Protectors. National Research Council of Canada. Presented at the Canadian Conference on Personal Protect ive Equipment. Toronto, Ontario. January 1978. - 287 - 32. Canada Safety Counci l. Eye Protectors I dent i f i ca t i on L i s t . Second Ed i t i on . Ottawa, Ontario. Canada Safety Counci l . October 1976. 33. Carman, P.D.: Comment on Results of Eye Protection Questionnaire. National Research Council of Canada. Presented at the Canadian Conference of Personal Protect ive Equipment. Toronto, Ontario. January 1978. 34. Canada Safety Counci l , Canadian Standards Assoc iat ion, and the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. Results of the Eye and Foot Injury Questionnaire Program. Canadian Standards Associat ion. Toronto, Ontario. August 30, 1977. 35. Venkataswamy, G.: Industr ia l Injur ies of the Eye. Journal of the A11- India Ophthalmological Society 16:169-171, 1968. 36. Veale, John.: The Incidence of Industr ia l Eye Injuries in New Zealand and Their Causes. Occupational Health (New Zealand) 6:10-12, June 1972. 37. Lambah, P.: Adult Eye Injur ies at Wolverhampton. Transactions of the Ophthalmological Society of the United Kingdom 88:661-673, 1969. 38. Be l f o r t , Rubens: Industr ia l Eye Injur ies - Analysis of 500 Cases. Industr ia l Medicine 41(7):30-32, 1972. 39. Young, Doreen A.: Work Related Eye Injury S t a t i s t i c s and Studies at the Workers' Compensat