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.. Schmidt, Brian Thomas 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 [ 21.79MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
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
Original Record: 1.0094430 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0094430.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 B r i t i s h 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 o r by his representatives.  It  is understood that copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n  o f this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  Health Care.and Epidemiology  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date  September ?R. 1Q7R  .  - ii -  ABSTRACT A study was undertaken to examine the major eye i n j u r y problems i n i n d u s t r y , to determine the hazards that caused them, and to develop methods f o r improving i n d u s t r i a l eye p r o t e c t i o n programs so as to reduce the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s .  The study was conducted i n A l b e r t a through the  Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a Labour and the A l b e r t a Workers'  Compensation Board.  A review of l i t e r a t u r e was performed to determine the status of p r o t e c t i o n programs, current epidemiological i n v e s t i g a t i o n s  eye  and modes of  p r o t e c t i o n , and t o 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 b e n e f i t information. The p r o j e c t c o n s i s t e d of seven studies which were designed and c a r r i e d out independently but, together, would provide a wide perspective concerning eye p r o t e c t i o n i n i n d u s t r y . a)  These studies were:  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 i n j u r y 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 l a i m s , claims f o r l o s t work time and claims where only medical aid was r e q u i r e d . b)  A Review of Selected W.C.B. Personal Medical F i l e s  -  which  was concerned with the d e t a i l e d review of eye i n j u r y claims from f i f t e e n high eye i n j u r y r i s k industry c l a s s e s .  Each medical f i l e was examined i n -  d i v i d u a l l y , paying p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to p r e v e n t i o n - o r i e n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . c)  A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety O f f i c e r s  t h i r t y - o n e occupational health and safety o f f i c e r s ( i n s p e c t i o n  -  where personnel)  were given an in-depth i n t e r v i e w to obtain t h e i r perceptions and i n formed opinions on the nature of eye i n j u r y hazards, compliance f a c t o r s ,  and the status of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs i n i n d u s t r y . d)  A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel  -  where  questionnaires were sent to over s i x hundred persons i n A l b e r t a , i d e n t i f i e d as being involved i n the p r o v i s i o n of occupational health and s a f e t y services in industry.  This included p h y s i c i a n s , nurses, s a f e t y personnel,  and persons i n government.Questions e) Alberta  were s i m i l a r to those i n Section c.  A Review of the Minutes of Selected J o i n t Work S i t e Committees i n -  where the minutes of s e l e c t e d meetings concerning health and  safety on the work s i t e between management, the worker, and government, were analyzed t o determine the extent of the u n s o l i c i t e d concern f o r eye i n j u r y prevention i n companies which were known to have i n c u r r e d 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 f o r eye i n j u r y prevention, and the development of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs at a p o l i c y l e v e l i n i n d u s t r y .  The comments and concerns of many  other persons were a l s o considered. g)  A Review of Selected S i t e V i s i t s to Industries  in Alberta  -  where the researcher made s i x p l a n t v i s i t s to b e t t e r understand the cond i t i o n s which lead to eye i n j u r i e s and the problems i n implementing p r e ventive  programs.  I t was found that i n d u s t r i e s involved i n the manufacture or use of metal products, chemicals or construction m a t e r i a l s were at high  risk.  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , however, i t was determined that c e r t a i n occupational groups such as m a c h i n i s t s , plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s , welders, and mechanics were a l s o at high eye i n j u r y 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 i n j u r y hazards should be t r e a t e d as a basis to eye i n j u r y 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 i n j u r y .  Injuries occurred most  often at certain times of the day, and there was some question of the e f f e c t s of boredom and fatigue. It was found that there i s a lack of knowledge and education concerning standards of eye protection and in the proper s e l e c t i o n of the protector f o r 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 p o l i c i e s as a basis to the provision of eye protection programs.  A plan was recommended f o r 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 t e r a t u r e on the subject, and the elucidation of a system of occupational v i s i o n care i n volving the i n t e r a c t i o n of a l l groups concerned with eye i n j u r y prevention in industry.  C.J.G. Mackenzie  -  V -  TABLE OF CONTENTS -LIST OF TABLES  vii  LIST OF FIGURES  xx  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  ....  xxi  CHAPTER 1.  2.  INTRODUCTION  1  A.  Background to the Study  1  B.  The Research Question  2  C.  Definitions  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  D.  A Review of Eye Protection Programs (Preventive)  10  and Worker Compliance in the Use of Protection 16  3.  E.  Legislation  22  F.  The Costs of Eye Injuries  22  G. Estimates of the Alberta Workforce by Occupation 24 PRESENTATION OF THE METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY A.  A Review of W.C.B. Statistical Master File Data M. Methodology 27 R. Results 30 D. Discussion of the Results 103  B.  A Review of Selected W.C.B. Personal Medical Files M. Methodology R. Results D. Discussion of the Results  121 125 166  A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Officers M. Methodology R. Results D. Discussion of the Results  197 205 219  A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel M. Methodology R. Results D. Discussion of the Results  222 227 238  C.  D.  25 26  120  196  221  - vi TABLE OF CONTENTS c o n t ' d E.  4.  A Review of the Minutes of Selected J o i n t Work S i t e Committees i n A l b e r t a M. Methodology R. Results D. Discussion of the Results  241 244 244  F.  A Review of Anecdotal Data M. Methodology R. Results D. Discussion of the Results  248 250 250  G.  A Review of Selected S i t e V i s i t s to Industries in Alberta M. Methodology R. Results D. Discussion of the Results  253 254 254  GENERAL DISCUSSION A.  6.  247  252  255  I n t e g r a t i o n of the Results and Discussion of Studies 3.A. - 3.G.  5.  240  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  PLANNING THE ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EYE PROTECTION PROGRAMS  273  A.  Planning Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs - the Organi z a t i o n a l Level  273  B.  Planning Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs - the Program Implementation Level  277  C.  A Time Frame f o r Implementation  279  CODA  282  A. B.  The Study The Ideal S i t u a t i o n  282 283  C.  Future Research  284  LITERATURE CITED  285  APPENDIX 1  292  - vii -  LIST OF TABLES 2.A.1  H i s t o r y and Development of Safety M a t e r i a l s , L e g i s l a t i o n and Standards Concerning the P r o t e c t i o n of Eyes i n 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 o n s of I n d u s t r i a 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  D e s c r i p t i o n of the Basic Types of Eye and Face Protection  9  2.C.1  The Incidence of Eye I n j u r i e s i n P r o v i n c i a l Workforces (1976)  11  2.C.2  Results of a National Survey on Eye I n j u r i e s (1977) f o r Canada, A l b e r t a and Selected Alberta Industries:  12  Review of the Reported Incidence of Lost Time Eye I n j u r i e s i n R e l a t i o n to the Total Number of I n d u s t r i a l Accidents  15  2.C.4  Sources of Lost Work Time Eye I n j u r i e s  17  2.C.5  Incidence of Lost Work Time Eye I n j u r i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, by Selected Occupation, f o r 1975 and 1976  18  2.D.1  L i t e r a t u r e Review of Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs i n Industry  19  2. E.1  A Review of P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n Concerning Eye P r o t e c t i o n i n Industry  23  3. A.1  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by Occurrence C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  31  3.A.2  Total Reported Eye I n j u r i e s in A l b e r t a by the Month of Injury (1974, 1975 and 1976)  33  3.A.3  Total Number and Rates of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s i n A l b e r t a by Standard I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n (S.I.C. ,1971) f o r 1976, with A d d i t i o n a l Data f o r 1974 and 1975  34  2.C.3  - vi i i -  3.A.4  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Sex of Worker  37  3.A.5  Total Number of ReDorted Eye I n j u r i e s i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Age of Injured Worker  37  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Length of Time the Injured Worker has been Employed  39  Total Number and Incidence Rates of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by Occupational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n - i n c l u d i n g Data f o r 1974 and 1975  40  3.A.6  3.A.7  3.A.8  3.A.9  3.A.10  3.A.11  3.A.12  3.A.13  3.A.14  3.A.15  3.A.16  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Length of S h i f t Worked by the Injured Worker Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Time of the Accident (on a 24 Hour Scale)  4 5  46  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident Occurred  48  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the S e v e r i t y Estimate of the Injury  49  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Source of the Injury  50  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Type of Accident Resulting i n the Injury  52  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the Nature of the Injury  53  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, by the Nature of I n j u r y , by the S e v e r i t y Estimate  54  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1974, 1975 and 1976, according to whether F i r s t Aid was Rendered  56  - ix -  3.A.17  3.A.18  Total Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1974, 1975 and 1976, according to whether a Language Problem was a Factor i n Causing the Injury  56  L i s t i n g of Five D i g i t Standard I n d u s t r i a l Classes ( S . I . C . 1971) Selected f o r Detailed Eye Inj u r y Analysis (shown i n the order i n which they appear i n Tables 3.A. 19 to 3.A.40)  59  Preliminary Information Concerning the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #1 Eye I n j u r i e s i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  64  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Age of the Injured Worker, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  65  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Occupation of the Injured Worker, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976  66  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Length of S h i f t Worked by the Injured Worker, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  69  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Time of Day the Accident Occurred, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976..  70  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring in 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Number of Hours Worked before the A c c i d e n t , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976....  71  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Source of the I n j u r y , i n A l b e r t a , in 1976  72  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s , Occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the TyDe of A c c i d e n t , in A l b e r t a , i n 1976 ',  74  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported Severity #1 Eye I n j u r i e s , occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Nature of the I n j u r y , in A l b e r t a , i n 1976 ,  75  s  3.A.19  3.A.20  3.A.21  3.A.22  3.A.23  3.A.24  3.A.25  3.A.26  3.A.27  - X -  3.A.28  3.A.29  3.A.30  3.A.31  3.A.32  3.A.33  3.A.34  3.A.35  3.A.36  3.A.37  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #1 Eye I n j u r i e s occurring i n 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes according to whether F i r s t Aid was Provided, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976  76  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y I n j u r i e s occurring i n 15 High Eye Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according a Language Problem was Involved i n i n 1976  77  #1 Eye Injury to whether Alberta,  P r e l i m i n a r y Information Concerning the D i s t r i bution of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s in 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  78  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk Classes, according to the Age of the Injured Worker, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  79  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , according to the Occupation of the Injured Worker i n A l b e r t a , in 1976  80  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Length of S h i f t Worked by the Injured Worker, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976  84  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring in 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Time of Day the Accident occurred, i n A l b e r t a i n 1976  85  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk Ind u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Number of Hours Worked before the A c c i d e n t , in A l b e r t a , i n 1976  86  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk Ind u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Source of the I n j u r y , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  87  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk Ind u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , according to the Type of A c c i dent, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976  89  - xi 3.A.38  3.A.39  3.A.40  3.A.41  3.A.42  3.A.43  3.A.44  3.A.45  3.A.46  3.A.47  3.A.48  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to the Nature of t h e ' I n j u r y , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  90  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , according to whether F i r s t Aid was provided, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976  91  The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reported S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inj u r i e s occurring i n 14 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, according to whether a Language Problem was Involved, in A l b e r t a , in 1976  92  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Occurrence Class of the Industry i n which the Accident Occurred  94  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, according to the Month i n which the Accident Occurred  94  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Industry Class in which the Injury Occurred  95  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Sex of the Injured Worker  95  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Age of the Injured Worker  97  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Occupation of the Injured Worker  97  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Length of Time the Injured Worker has Been Employed  98  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g in Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Length of S h i f t Worked per day by the Injured Person  98  - xii -  .3.A.49  3.A.50  3.A.51  3.A.52  3.A.53  3.A.54  3.A.55  3.A.56  3.A.57  3.A.58  3.A.59  3.A.60  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked by the Injured Person Before the Accident  99  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976 by the Source of the Injury  99  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Type of Accident  100  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Nature of the Injury  100  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according t o whether F i r s t Aid was Rendered at the Time of the Accident  102  Number of Reported S e v e r i t y #3 Eye I n j u r i e s , Res u l t i n g i n Permanent D i s a b i l i t y Claims, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, accounting f o r a Language Problem  102  L i s t i n g of the 20 Industry Classes with the Highest Rates of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976.  105  L i s t i n g of the Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , that have shown a Consistent Increase i n the Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s over the Years 1974, 1975 and 1976 (independent of V a r i a t i o n s i n Workforce Size)  107  L i s t i n g of the Industry C l a s s e s , i n A l b e r t a , that have shown a Consistent Decrease i n the Number of Reported Eye I n j u r i e s over the Years 1974, 1975 and 1976 (independent of V a r i a t i o n s i n Workforce Size)  108  The Incidence of Eye I n j u r i e s Reported to the W.C.B. i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by Selected Occupation  110  L i s t i n g of Eye Injury Sources that have become More Prevalent over the years 1974 to 1976, in Alberta  115  L i s t i n g of Eye Injury Sources that have Become Less Prevalent over the Years 1974 to 1976, i n Alberta  115  - xiii  -  3.A.61  A Comparison of the Nature of Lost Time Eye I n j u r i e s Reported i n A l b e r t a and B r i t i s h Columbia, i n 1976  116  3.A.62  L i s t i n g of the Times during the Worker's S h i f t i n which there were Peaks i n the occurrence of a l l types of Eye I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, f o r each of the Selected High Eye Injury Risk Ind u s t r i a l Classes  118  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Industry Class i n which the Inj u r e d Person Worked  126  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Occurrence C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Industry  127  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Month i n which the Injury Occurred  128  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to whether the work performed at the time of the accident was f o r normal business purposes  129  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to whether the work a c t i v i t y at the time of the eye i n j u r y was a regular part of the person's work  129  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1976 by the Occupation of the Injured Worker  131  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Cause of the Injury  133  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Source of the Injury '.  135  3.B.1  3.B.2  3.B.3  3.B.4  3.B.5  3.B.6  3.B.7  3.B.8  - xiv -  3.B.9  3.B.10  3.B.11  3.B.12  3.B.13  3.B.14  3.B.15  3.B.16  3.B.17  3.B.18  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected Severity #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Nature of the Injury  137  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected Severity #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to whether Eye P r o t e c t i o n was worn at the Time of the Accident  139  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Inuuries, from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Eye involved in the Accident  140  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Implement used at the Time of the Injury  142  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected Severity #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, in A l b e r t a , in 1976, according to whether F i r s t Aid was Rendered at the time of the Accident »  144  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk Industry Classes, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Length of Time a f t e r the Accident that the Injury was Reported  145  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to whom the Eye Injury was Reported  146  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, in A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to where the Accident occurred on the Employer's Premises  148  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected Severity #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to whether the Injured Worker had prev i o u s l y incurred a s i m i l a r type of I n j u r y . .  149  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk Industry Classes, in A l b e r t a , in 1976, according to a History of previous i n j u r y claims of any type and t h e i r time of occurrence  151  - XV  3.B.I9  3.B.20  3.B.21  3.B.22  3.B.23  3.B.24  3.B.25  3.B.26  3.B.27  -  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes i n A l b e r t a , i n 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 i n the Future .  152  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e n t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to the P o s s i b i l i t y of Concealment i n the Claim  153  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to the P o s s i b i l i t y of the Involvement of a Language Problem i n the Injury  153  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to the P h y s i c i a n ' s Estimate of the Length of Time the Injured Worker w i l l be Off Work  154  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Actual Time Lost by the Worker as a Result of the Eye I n jury  155  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by any Hospit a l i z a t i o n that occurred as a r e s u l t o f the Eye I n j u r y . .  157  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High I n d u s t r i a l Classes i n A l b e r t a , i n to the Costs of Hospital Services Injuries  158  and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye Eye Injury Risk 1976, according f o r Treating the  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, according to the Costs of P h y s i c i a n s ' Services i n Treating the I n j u r i e s  160  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Selected S e v e r i t y #1 and S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Weekly Wage of the Injured Worker who incurred a Lost Work Time Injury.  162  - xvi -  3.B.28  3.B.29  3.B.30  3.B.31  3.B.32  3.B.33  3.B.34  3.B.35  3.B.36  L i s t i n g of Selected Serious or Unusual Events causing Eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976.  165  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the D i r e c t Costs of 584 Eye I n j u r i e s , s e l e c t e d through a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  171  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes w i t h the Causes of I n j u r y , f o r 586 S e v e r i t y #1 I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  172  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes with the Causes of I n j u r y , f o r 584 S e v e r i t y #2 I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  174  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Occupation of the Inj u r e d Worker with the Causes of I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, f o r 586 S e v e r i t y #1 Inj u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  175  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Occupation of the Inj u r e d Worker w i t h the Causes of I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, f o r 584 S e v e r i t y #2 Inj u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  178  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Cause of Injury by the Resulting Nature of I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, f o r 586 S e v e r i t y #1 I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  180  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Cause of Injury by the Resulting Nature of I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry C l a s s e s , f o r 584 S e v e r i t y #2 I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  181  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Implement used at the Time of the Injury by the Cause of the I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye I n j u r y Risk Industry Classes f o r 586 S e v e r i t y #1 I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  183  - xvii  3.B.37  3.B.38  3.B.39  3.B.40  3.B.41  3.B.42  3.B.43  3.B.44  -  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Implement used at the Time of the Injury by the Cause of the I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes f o r 584 S e v e r i t y #2 I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976...  184  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of Information regarding the Use of Eye P r o t e c t i o n at the time of the Accident with the Cause of the I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , f o r 586 S e v e r i t y #1 Eye I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  185  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Information regarding the Use of Eye P r o t e c t i o n at the Time of the Accident with the cause of the I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , f o r 584 S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  187  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Location of the Accident by the Implement used when the Injury Occurred, f o r 586 S e v e r i t y #1 eye I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry C l a s s e s , Province of A l b e r t a , 1976  188  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Location of the Accident by the Implement used when the Injury Occurred, f o r 584 S e v e r i t y #2 Eye I n j u r i e s , f r o m a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes, P r o vince of A l b e r t a , 1976  189  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Occupation of the Injured Worker and the Magnitude of Lost Work Time due to S e v e r i t y #2 I n j u r i e s , from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , (586) I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  190  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Work Days Lost per Worker Injury ( S e v e r i t y #2) f o r Selected Occupations from a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s e s , 586 I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  192  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the Magnitude of Lost Work Time due to S e v e r i t y #2 I n j u r i e s and the Cause of the I n j u r y , from a Review of 15 High Eye Risk Industry Classes (586 I n j u r i e s ) , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976  193  - xviii  3.B.45  -  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Number of Work Days Lost per Worker Injury ( S e v e r i t y #2) by the Cause of the I n j u r y , from a review of 15 High Eye Inj u r y Risk I n d u s t r i a l Classes, 586 I n j u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1 9 7 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  194  3.C.1  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Industries i n A l b e r t a where Hazards to the Eyes are most Prevalent  206  3.C.2  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Hazards Leading to the Most Common Eye I n j u r i e s , i n the Industries Noted i n Table 3.C.1  207  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Hazards which Lead to the Most P o t e n t i a l l y Serious Eye I n j u r i e s , i n the Industries noted in Table 3.C.1  208  Responses t o 11 Questions, on a Five P o i n t L i k e r t S c a l e , concerning the Occurrence of Eye Inj u r i e s in Industry  209  Responses to 12 Questions, on a Five Point L i k e r t S c a l e , concerning Aspects of Worker Compliance in the Wearing of Eye P r o t e c t i o n in Industry  212  Responses to 5 General Questions, on a Five P o i n t L i k e r t S c a l e , Concerning Eye P r o t e c t i o n in Industry  215  3.C.7  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Responses Concerning the Adequacy of Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs i n Industry  217  3.C.8  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Responses concerning the Presence of Ideal Eye P r o t e c t i o n Proarams i n A l b e r t a Industry  218  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents to a Survey on Eye P r o t e c t i o n in Industry, Province of A l b e r t a , February 1978  228  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Industries to which the Respondents to a Survey on Eye P r o t e c t i o n are Employed or had t h e i r Previous Backgrounds, Province of A l b e r t a , February 1978  228  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Responses to the Question: Are the Number of Eye I n j u r i e s Occurring i n Industry a Serious Problem in your Opinion?  229  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Resoonses to the Question: What are the Most Frequent Causes of Eye I n j u r i e s ? . . . .  229  3.C.3  3.C.4  3.C.5  3.C.6  3.D.1  3.D.2  3.D.3  3.D.4  - xix -  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 I n j u r i e s from the Aforementioned Causes (noted i n Tables 3.D.4 and 3.D.5) be prevented?..  232  3.D.7.  Responses t o the Question: Why do so many Eye I n j u r i e s occur even when Eye P r o t e c t i o n i s worn?  233  3.D.8.  Responses to the Question: Who should be Responsible f o r I n i t i a t i n g Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs?  235  3.D.9  Responses to the Question: Who should be Responsible f o r Maintaining Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs i n Industry?  236  Responses t o the Question: What are the Most Successful Methods/Approaches t h a t should be used to Ensure that the Worker wears the Proper Eye P r o t e c t i o n  237  L i s t i n g of Selected Companies i n the Edmonton and Calgary areas, with a review of the Topic Areas, Concerning Eye Safety Discussed at t h e i r J o i n t Work Site"Committee Meetings, 1977-78...  245  L i s t i n g of the Major Topic Areas Discussed at Sel e c t e d J o i n t Work S i t e Committee Meetings, 1977-78  246  3.D.10  3.E.1  3.E.2  - XX  -  LIST OF FIGURES 3.A.1  3.A.2  3.A.3  L i s t i n g of the Information ( V a r i a b l e s ) Used i n the Study, Contained Within the W.C.B. Computer F i l e s , f o r Each Reported Injured Worker  28  Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Rate of Eye I n j u r i e s f o r I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s in A l b e r t a (W.C.B. 1976)  58  The C o r r e l a t i o n Between the Rate of Eye I n j u r i e s (per 100 man years) i n Each A l b e r t a W.C.B. Assessment Class and the Insurance Assessment ( i n d o l l a r s ) Paid by Industries Within the Occurrence Classes  104  D i s t r i b u t i o n ( i n percent) of the Reported Eye Inj u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , in 1976, by the Time of the Accident (on a 24 hour scale) ( A l b e r t a W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e s )  Ill  D i s t r i b u t i o n ( i n percent) of the Reported Eye Inj u r i e s , i n A l b e r t a , i n 1976, by the Number of Hours Worked before the Accident Occurred ( A l b e r t a 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 ( V a r i a b l e s )  123  3.C.1  Inspectors Survey on Eye I n j u r i e s and Eye P r o t e c t i o n  199  3.D.1  Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel . . . . . . 224  3.E.1  Form f o r Recording J o i n t Work S i t e Health and Safety Committee Minutes  242  3.F.1  Comments Wanted on Occupational Eye I n j u r i e s - from the A l b e r t a Labour Occupational Health and Safety B u l l e t i n , March 1978  251  The Occupational V i s i o n Care System  274  3.A.4  3.A.5  5.A.1  - xx i  -  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study involved the e f f o r t s of many dedicated people. My thanks go to those people who contributed t o t h i s study by o f f e r i n g t h e i r knowledge and experienced perspectives i n numerous conversations, i n t e r v i e w s , surveys and questionnaires. I would l i k e to thank my committee members; Dr. Cort Mackenzie, Dr. Bob Orford, and Dr. Linton Kulak f o r t h e i r assistance and valuable advice. I am most g r a t e f u l to Dr. Henry Wyatt and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f at the Department of Ophthalmology, U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , f o r t h e i r support, and assistance i n the administration of the research grant. I am a p p r e c i a t i v e of the assistance provided by Mr. Gerry Stocco and his computer s t a f f at A l b e r t a Labour, and by Mr. Ken Coull of the W.C.B. who f a c i l i t a t e d the c o l l e c t i o n 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 i v i s i o n , Alberta Labour, f o r t h e i r patience i n t r y i n g times and u n s e l f i s h e f f o r t s i n helping me to the conclusion of t h i s study, - - and to Dr. Bob F i s h , my thanks f o r the encouragement and b e l i e f i n my work that made t h i s experience p o s s i b l e . Foremost, I wish to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to Mrs. Jeannie Reimer. Her exceptional a p t i t u d e , and committment to her work as my research a s s i s t a n t , provided the cornerstone of t h i s  study.  My kindest thanks are extended to Mrs. Margaret Crombie f o r her i n v a l u able assistance i n the preparation of the f i n a l r e p o r t . F i n a l l y , I wish to recognize the f i n a n c i a l assistance of the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a Labour, and the Department of National Health and Welfare through a National Health Research Fellowship. I t i s g r a t i f y i n g to bear the f r u i t s of cooperation, and the i n t e r e s t of others, to improve occupational health care i n Canada.  - 1 -  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A.  Background to the Study Occupational eye p r o t e c t i o n i s a component of the t o t a l occupational  health and s a f e t y scheme.  The eyes have always been considered the most  e s s e n t i a l and important sensory organ and, hence, e s p e c i a l l y worthy of protection.  The eye i s responsible f o r t r a n s m i t t i n g a m a j o r i t y of the sensory  information that the b r a i n receives and, t h e r e f o r e , i s e s s e n t i a l to the worker's performance and p r o d u c t i v i t y . Concern f o r the safety of the eyes seems to have developed i n l i n e with general occupational health concerns.  In A l b e r t a i n 1975, 11,966  (12.9%) of the 92,412 accidents reported to the A l b e r t a Workers' s a t i o n Board d i r e c t l y involved the eyes.  Compen-  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 i n g e r s (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 t o t a l of 96,156 i n j u r i e s reported to the W.C.B. (12.9%).  Although these s t a t i s t i c s i n no way r e p r e -  sent a definable t r e n d , i t i s evident from the absolute numbers of eye i n j u r i e s reported i n 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 j u r i e s per working population i s c e r t a i n l y not decreasing and may be on the upswing. In order to develop recommendations f o r a c t i o n which w i l l reduce the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s i n A l b e r t a industry i t i s necessary to properly i d e n t i f y the problem, i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and e x t e n t , and what i s being done c u r r e n t l y , i f anything, to prevent eye i n j u r i e s i n i n d u s t r y .  This  task i s not d i f f i c u l t i n comparison w i t h developing programs to e f f e c t i v e l y reduce the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s i n i n d u s t r y .  This planning phase i n -  volves the human element where a l l p a r t i e s who would p o t e n t i a l l y be con-  - 2 -  cerned with the implementation of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs should be i n v o l v e d . B.  The Research Question Where are the major eye i n j u r y problems in industry and what are the  major hazards that cause them?  Using t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , what are the most  appropriate methods f o r developing and improving eye p r o t e c t i o n programs  so  as to reduce the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s ? The research i s d i v i d e d i n t o two major areas. s i s of reported cases of eye i n j u r i e s .  The f i r s t i s an analy-  The second i s an a n a l y s i s of i n f o r -  mation gathered through personal i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and anecdotes. The former area of i n q u i r y i s necessary to e s t a b l i s h 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.  Definitions Hours Worked Before the Accident  -  The d i f f e r e n c e between the time  the claimant commenced work and the hour of the accident. Industry Code  -  The Standard I n d u s t r i a 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 I n d u s t r i a 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 d e t a i l e d 5 - d i g i t code. Language Problem  -  i n d i c a t e s i f the employer considered language as  a problem c o n t r i b u t i n g to the a c c i d e n t . Length of S h i f t  -  A statement of the normal hours worked per day by  the claimant. Man Years Worked by the A l b e r t a Workers'  -  An estimate of the s i z e of the workforce insured Compensation Board, by i n d u s t r y or occurrence c l a s s .  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 d e n t i f i e s the i n j u r y in terms of the p r i n c i p a l  physical c h a r a c t e 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,  Occurrence Class  -  The A l b e r t a Workers'  Compensation Board assess-  ment c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( f o r the payment of insurance premiums) S e v e r i t y Estimate  -  1971.  of the employer.  An i n i t i a l estimate of the s e v e r i t y 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 a v a i l a b l e .  The c l a s s i -  f i c a t i o n s are: 1 -  Medical aid only (no compensation  due).  2 -  Compensable i n j u r y or i l l n e s s (causing  l o s t work time)  not r e s u l t i n g 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 a i d only ( i n v o l v i n g a m u l t i p l e i n j u r y , e.g. to the eye and f a c e ) .  Source of Injury  -  I d e n t i f i e s the o b j e c t , substance, exposure, or  b o d i l y motion which d i r e c t l y produced or i n f l i c t e d the nature of i n j u r y 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 l o c a l time of the accident on a 24-hour clock  -  I d e n t i f i e s the event which d i r e c t l y r e s u l t e d in  system. Type of Accident  the i n j u r y (e.g. struck by a f l y i n g o b j e c t ) .  -4  -  CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In order to provide an adequate background f o r t h i s study of eye prot e c t i o n i n 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 i n j u r y hazards and current modes of eye protection  C)  The epidemiology of eye i n j u r i e s  D)  A review of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs, prevention and compliance  E)  P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n concerning eye p r o t e c t i o n  F)  The costs of eye i n j u r i e s  G)  Estimates of the Alberta workforce by occupation  2.A. A H i s t o r i c a l Review of Eye Protection Figure 2.A.1  gives a chronological l i s t i n g of selected milestones per-  t a i n i n g to the development of eye protection i n industry.  Although rudimen-  tary forms of protection were used in the 17th century ( 1 ) , concerted e f f o r t s did not begin u n t i l the 19th century.  As e a r l y as 1923 (8) and 1924  ( 9 ) , major documents were published concerning eye protection in industry. The content of these r e p o r t s , accounting f o r changes i n l i t e r a r y present a t i o n , and some advances i n technology, do not appear r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from current trends and thoughts on eye p r o t e c t i o n in industry. 2.B. A Review of Eye Hazards and Current Eye P r o t e c t i o n 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 , a n a l y s 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 injuries.  Although d e f i n i t i o n s may be c l o s e , there i s no acceptable u n 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  classi-  f i c a t i o n s of ocular hazards that have been put forward in the l i t e r a t u r e  - 5 -  TABLE 2.A.1 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF SAFETY MATERIALS, LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF EYES IN INDUSTRY (1840 - 1978) SELECTED MILESTONE  YEAR  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  1884  GERMAN LAWS REQUIRING PROTECTIVE GOGGLES IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS  2  1889  GERMAN STONE QUARRIERS GUILD REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO FURNISH GOGGLES  2  BERLIN ACCIDENT INSURANCE ORDERS - FIRST MODERN POLICY FOR THE PREVENTION OF EYE INJURIES - SPECIFIED THE USE OF PROTECTIVE EQUIPHENT  2  FIRST ACTS PASSED IN THE U.S. REQUIRING EYE PROTECTION IN CERTAIN JOBS  2  I860 1870 1880  1890 1893 1900 1908 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  AMERICAN STANDARD SAFETY CODE Z26.1 FOR THE PROTECTION OF HEAD, EYES AND RESPIRATORY ORGANS  2  1948  CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION - FIRST CODE (Z94-1948) FOR HEAD AND EYE PROTECTION  4  1950  COMMON USE OF PLASTIC SAFETY SPECTACLES  5  1920 1930 1938 1940  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)  Flying fragments and objects  Relatively large flying objects  Mechanical - Large Projectiles  Direct of Indirect Blows  Flying Objects  Small f,1y1ng particles  Dust and small flying particles  Small objects  Foreign Bodies projectiles  Flying particles, dust, wind  Dust and Powder  Dusts  Dust and Wind  Falls and Explosions Dust  Chemicals, Vapours, Splash' and Spray  Harmful liquids, gases and vapours  Gas, fumes, and liquid  Chemicals  Splashing metals, splashing materials, and corrosives  Splashing metal  Splashes of metal  Radiation  Reflected light or glare  Radiation  High Energy Particles  Injurious radiant energy with a moderate reduction 1n Intensity of visible radiant energy  Impact from flying articles or objects  Glare, Heat, and Radiation  Heat, glare, sparks and molten metal splash Chemicals  Chemicals Abrasive Blasting Materials  Radiation  Glare, Stray light Injurious Radiation  Injurious radiant energy with a large reduction of visible energy Abrasive Blasting 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 p h y s i o l o g i c a l mechanisms t h a t a i d i n p r o t e c t i n g the eye from hazards, eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 d e s c r i p t i o n of the b a s i c types of eye and face p r o t e c t i o n that should be worn i n various hazardous s i t u a t i o n s (Table 2.B.3). Descriptions of eye p r o t e c t i o n devices a v a i l a b l e on the market and t h e i r uses abound i n l i t e r a t u r e published by commercial firms  (19-22).  The Canadian Standards A s s o c i a t i o n (23) and American National  Standards  I n s t i t u t e (24) have published a l i s t i n g of recommended protectors f o r use in various hazardous s i t u a t i o n s .  Other authors (25-27) have reported  c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i n g the appropriate eye p r o t e c t i o n according t o the hazard.  A recent survey by the Construction Safety A s s o c i a t i o n of Ontario  (28), however, notes disregard f o r the c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n of p r o t e c t i o n by personnel in some o p t i c a l establishments and safety supply houses, and recommends t r a i n i n g of personnel in t h i s area. In order t o ensure t h a t eye p r o t e c t i o n does the intended j o b , s t a n dards of q u a l i t y have been formulated by the Canadian Standards  Associ-  ation (29) and the American National Standards I n s t i t u t e (30).  In Canada,  however, few provinces l e g i s l a t e adherence to the Canadian standards f o r eye p r o t e c t i o n (see L i t e r a t u r e Review, Section 2 . E . ) .  The National Re-  search Council reported i n a recent study (31) t h a t 50% of 181 randomly s e l e c t e d eye protectors f a i l e d at l e a s t one of the t e s t s s p e c i f i e d in the C.S.A. Standard on Eye P r o t e c t o r s .  To a i d workers and safety personnel  s e l e c t i n g q u a l i t y eye p r o t e c t i o n , the Canada Safety Council (32) has r e -  in  - 8-  TABLE  2.B.2  COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONAL EYE HAZARDS  Mechanical Hazards 1)  Large f l y i n g fragments and objects  2)  Small f l y i n g p a r t i c l e s  3)  Dusts, powders and winds  Chemical and Splashing Hazards 4)  Harmful l i q u i d s and corrosives  5)  Gases, vapours, and fumes  6)  Splashing metals, sparks, heat  7)  Reflected l i g h t or g l a r e  8)  Injurious radiant energy  Radiation  - Large component of n o n - v i s i b l e radiant energy - Small component of v i s i b l e radiant energy  Disease must also be considered a hazard but is not categorized in the p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme  - 9-  TABLE  2.B.3  DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC TYPES OF EYE AND FACE PROTECTION from Fox (18)  1.  Safety Spectacles  2.  Eye Cup Goggles  For flying particles and injurious radiation  (Cup Type or Cover Type) For flying Particles  a)  Chippers Model  b)  Dust and Splash Models  For relatively fine dust particles, liquid splashes and impact  c)  Welders and Cutters Models  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. s t a n dards. 2.C. The Epidemiology of Eye I n j u r i e s Carman (33) sets out in Table 2.C.1 the incidence of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s in 1976 as reported by P r o v i n c i a l Workers' Compensation Boards. The rates vary between 9 and 48 eye i n j u r i e s per 10,000 workers but comparisons are d i f f i c u l t because of discrepancies in r e p o r t i n g procedures. In the same study, Carman reports the cumulative r e s u l t s of a National Survey of eye i n j u r i e s , shown i n Column 1 of Table 2.C.2.  Columns 2  through 4 i n Table 2.C.2 give comparative f i g u r e s f o r the Province of A l b e r t a , these being taken from the d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s of the survey  (34).  Various authors (35-41) have noted the incidence of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l number of i n j u r i e s . Table 2.C.3.  These are given i n  On average, 4.8% of l o s t time i n d u 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 t h a t about 60% of t h e . l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s are i n curred by workers with less than 5 y e a r s ' experience on the j o b .  This f i - .  gure i s supported by Ivanov and Bezugly (42) who found an incidence of 57.8% i n the same job experience category. The r e s u l t s of the Canadian eye i n j u r y survey (Table 2.C.2) show that 75% of the i n j u r i e s occurred i n workers who were less than 35 years of age.  Veale (36) showed also that 53% of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s occurred  in t h i s age group whereas Bel f o r t (38) notes that 85% of h i s sample of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s occurred in workers who were l e s s than 40 years of age.  (58% of the eye i n j u 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)  Lost Time Eye Injuries in 1976  Rate of Eye Injuries per 10,000 Workers  Province  1976 Stats Can Labour Force Data (1000's)  Alberta'  856  2625  31  1135  2429  21  Manitoba  449  1062  24  New Brunswick  261  823  32  Newfoundland  183  317  17  Nova Scotia  326  293  9  3931  6547  17  P.E.I.  48  83  17  Quebec  2761  13166  48  403  1724  43  10330  29069  28  B.C.  Ontario  Saskatchewan  Canada  *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  -^^^  CANADA (Total of Provincial Results)  SURVEY GROUP  SELECTED V A R I A B L E ^ - - ^ ^ ^ NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED  [  3107  AGE OF WORKER 15-20 YEARS 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65+ No Response  ALBERTA  ALBERTA  (Manufacturing only)  (Construction only)  97  213  114 178 111 75 46 44 23 21 10 5  (18) (28) (18) (12) ( 7) ( 7) ( 4) ( 3) ( 2) ( 1)  15 22 23 13 9 7 4 3  (%) (15) (24) (24) (13) ( 9) <) ( 4) ( 3)  1  ( 1)  37 61 36 28 15 17 6 8 3 2  (62) (16) ( 8) ( 5) ( 4) ( 5)  399 88 56 33 22 22 7  (64) (14) ( 9) ( 5) ( 4) ( 4)  61 17 11 2 3 2 1  (63) (18) (12 ( 2) ( 3) ( 2)  125 35 23 12 8 10  (58) (16)  111 ( 5) 857 (36) 1242 52) 51 2) 94 ( 4) 23 t 1) 728  22 157 281 6 23 2 136  ( 4) (32) (57 ( 1) ( 5) ( 1)  8 (11) 16 (21) 47 63) 1 ( 1) 2 ( 3) 1 t 1) 22  6 49 no 1 2 1 44  ( 4) (28) 65) ( 1) ( 1) t 1)  1816 534 305 165 100 150 37  (59) (18) (10) ( 5) [ ) ( 5)  386 96 59 33 27 22 4  (63) (15) ( 9) ( 5) ( ) ( 4)  57 16 15 5 1 2 1  (59) (17) (16) ( 5) ( !) ( 2)  127 37 18 11 12 8  (60) (17) ( 8) ( 5) ( ) 4)  172 356 224 203 241 246 699 146 310 367 52 91  ( 6) (12) ( 7) ( 7) ( 8) ( 8) (23) ( 5) (10) (12) ( 2)  ( 5) (16) 42 ( 7) 32 ( 5) 48 ( 8) 45 ( 7) 145 (24) 33 ( 5) 49 ( 8) 80 (13) 14 ( 2) 20  1 26 8 7 4 5 15 5 3 20 1 2  ( 1) (27) ( 9) ( 8) ( 4) ( 5) (16) ( 5) (.3) (21) ( 1)  17 29 17 12 27 18 38 4 9 24 9 9  ( 8) (15) ( 8) ( 6) (13) ( 9) (19) ( 2) ( 4) (12) (4)  447 796 517 416 242 214 159 128 74 48 5 1  (%) (14) (26) (19) (13) ( 8) ( 7) ( 5) ( 4) ( 2) ( 2) ( 0)  627  ALBERTA  {%)  7  (2) (17) (29) (17) (13) ( 7) ( 8) ( 3) ( 4) ( ) ( 1) ]  YEAR IN INDUSTRY 00-05 YEARS 05-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25+ No Response  1906 500 263 164 108 148 18  ( 6) ( 4) ( 5)  OCCUPATION OF WORKER Management Labourer Trades Clerical Technical Student - No Response YEARS IN OCCUPATION 00-05 05-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25+ No Response  3  4  6  1  TASK AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENT Drilling Grinding Welding, Soldering Cutting Hammering Sawing, Filing, Chipping Working with chemicals, elec. Housekeeping Working on or with equipment Miscellaneous Plastering, Painting No Response  31  88  - 13 -  TABLE 2.C.2 (Continued)  """--^.^^ SELECTED  CANADA  SURVEY GROUP  (Total of Provincial Results)  VARIABLT"^-^.^^  NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED  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  1  ALBERTA  ALBERTA  (Manufacturing only)  (Construction only)  97  213  627  3107  (%) 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  21 (10) 1(1) 401  42  543 (16) 1144 (33) 209 ( 6) 196 ( 6) 207 ( 6) 150 ( 4) 109 ( 3)  107 (15) 251 (35) 41 ( 6) 43 ( 6) 41 ( 6 ) 38 ( 5) 15 ( 2)  14 (13) 53 (48) 6 (5) 4 ( 4) 3 ( 3) 2(2) 5 ( 5)  71 (32) 52 (24) 14 1  3 3 2 3 9  1 3 30  i  I]  ( 1) ( 1) (1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 4) (1) ( 1) (13)  ALBERTA  (%) 16 (28) 14 (26) 1(2) 4 ( 7)  (2) 18 (26) 18 (26) 4 ( 6) 5 ( 7) 1 ( 2) 2 ( 3)  1 ( 2) 1 ( 2) 1 ( 2) 1(2)  1 (2) 2 (3)  7 (13)  9  9 (16)  (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  39 (16) 82 (33) 21 ( 9) 21 ( 9 ) 7 ( 3) 20 ( 8) 2 ( 1)  196 207 28  ( 6) ( 6) ( 1)  30 ( 4 ) 49 ( 7) 9 ( 1)  7 ( 6) 4 ( 4) 2 ( 2)  11 10 3  ( 4) 4) ( 1)  157 269  ( 5) ( 8)  37 ( 5 ) 52 ( 8 )  I ill  14 14  ( 6) ( 6)  84 51 357 244 263 195 98 1815  ( 6) (4 (28) (19) (20) (15) ( 8)  IF WEARING PROTECTION, HOW DID  SOURCE REACH THE EYE  Through Lens Through Body Around Above Below Temple Nose No Response  23 7 84 44 48 46 19 356  ( 8) ( 3) (31) (16) (18) (17) ( 7)  3 3 21 8 12 14 2 34  ( 5) ( 5) (33) (13) (19) (22) ( 3)  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  29 ( 3) 1114 (97) 1964  10 ( 4) 215 (96) 402  2 ( 3) 57 (97) 38  0 ( 0) 67 (100) 145  WAS LENS BROKEN Yes No No Response  -  14  -  TABLE 2.C.2 (Continued)  ^ ^ " ^ - ^ ^ ^  CANADA (Total of Provincial Results)  SURVEY GROUP  SELECTED V A R I A B L E " " " " " ^ - - ^ ^ ^  NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED  1  WAS LENS DRIVEN OUT OF  1  PROTECTION  Yes No No Response  ALBERTA  627  3107 (*)  (2)  ALBERTA  ALBERTA  (Manufacturing Only)  (Construction Only)  ?7  213 (%)  (%)  23 ( 2) 1120 (98) 1964  5 ( 2) 220 (98) 402  3 ( 5) 56 (95) 38  0 ( 0) 67 (100) 145  804 (29) 1974 (71) 319  131 (23) 437 (77) 59  24 (74) 69 (74) 4  34 (15) 189 (85)  731 (91) 73 ( 9) 2303  116 (89) 15 (11) 496  21 (88) 3 (12) 73  31 (90) 3 ( 9) 179  584 (36) 1036 (64) 1487  137 (41) 198 (59) 292  13 (39) 20 (61) 64  54 (46) 63 (54) 96  1158 (42) 1949 (58)  233 (37) 394 (63)  59 (61) 38 (39)  72 (34) 141 (66)  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  PRIOR PARTICIPATION IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROGRAM Yes ' No No Response WAS USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IN PROGRAM Yes No No Response IF NO PROTECTION WORN, SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN Yes No No Response WAS PROTECTION WORN AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT Yes No No Response IS PROTECTION REGULARLY INSPECTED BY EMPLOYER Yes No Don't Know No Response  - 15 -  TABLE  2.C.3  REVIEW OF THE REPORTED INCIDENCE OF LOST TIME EYE INJURIES IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS  PROPORTION OF  TOTAL NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED IN STUDY  REF. #  EYE INJURIES TO TOTAL INJURIES.(%)  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  AUTHOR  Average  4.8%  - 16 Whereas Table 2.C.2 shows that 59% of the people i n j u r e d i n Canada, who completed the survey, were not wearing issued eye p r o t e c t i o n , Veale (36) notes that 42% of his population were in the same s i t u a t i o n .  In  V e a l e ' s group, however, a f u r t h e r 21% of peoDle i n j u r e d did not have p r o tection supplied.  Ten percent of the i n j u r e d had p r o t e c t i o n which was not  adjusted c o r r e c t l y and 6% had the wrong type of p r o t e c t i o n . Table 2.C.4 shows the sources of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s reported by various authors (36, 38, 43, 44).  Table 2.C.5 shows the incidence of eye  i n j u r i e s i n B.C., by s e l e c t e d occupation, as reported by the B r i t i s h Columbia Workers'  Compensation Board  (43).  Smith (45) reports that i n d u s t r i a l accidents of a l l types are commoner at c e r t a i n 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 d e 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 i m e ) , and a mid-afternoon peak. 2.D.  A Review of Eye P r o t e c t i o n Programs  ( P r e v e n t i o n ) , and Worker Compliance  i n the Use of Eye P r o t e c t i o n Components of each eye p r o t e c t i o n program described in the l i t e r a t u r e are recorded i n 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 i n each a r t i c l e .  A synthesis  of the major  components suggests a comprehensive eye p r o t e c t i o n (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-  c a t i o n programs s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s , as do preventive measures in the f a c t o r y which are based on the a n a l y s i s of eye injuries.  Matiashina et a l . (67) note that the prevention of eye i n j u r i e s  i s best r e a l i z e d by the organization of e f f e c t i v e reporting mechanisms,  TABLE  2.C.4'  SOURCES OF LOST WORK TIME EYE INJURIES INJURY STUDY  SOURCE OF INJURY  Foreign Bodies Cuts, Lacerations  VEALE (36)  BELFORT (38)  68.0%*  75%  IVANOF (44)  69.7%  6.1%  Chemicals - Heat Burns  19.6%  Bruises, Contusions  4.0% 12%  4,2%  Radiation Effects Other  B.C.-W.C.B. (43)  11.0% 3.4% 11.0% 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)  OCCUPATION  .  YEAR  _  NUMBER  1976 {%)*  NUMBER  1975 •(%)*  Machining Occupations 8313 8333 8335 8337 8379 8393  -  Machinist Sheet Metal Worker Welders and Flame Cutters Boiler Makers, Platers Clay, Glass, and Stone Materials Metal Shaping and Forming  59 29 269 49 3 31  (2.6) (1.3) (12.0) (2.2) (0.1) (1.4)  85 38 323 88 1 33  (3.4) (1.5) (13.0) (3.6)  32 13 139 145  (1.4) (0.6) (6.2) (6.5)  12 10 171 179  (0.5) (0.4) (6.9) (7,2)  -49  (2.2)  51  (2.1)  30 46 106 36 9 67  (1.3) (2.0) (4.7) (1.6) (0.4) (3.0)  18 64 18 47 12 73  (0.7) (2.6) (3.3) (1.9) (0.5) (3.0)  (1~3)  Product Fabricating & Assembling & Repairing 8528 8529 8581 8584 8590 8592  -  Laboring Fabricating Occupations Motor Vehicle Mechanics Heavy Duty Machinery Mechanics Foreman - Product Fabricating Marine Craft Fabricating  -  -  -  Construction Trades 8718 8733 8781 8791 8793 8798  -  Laboring: Excavating and Grading Electricians Carpenters Plumbers and Pipefitters Structural Metal Erectors Laboring  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  REFERENCES 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: I E . 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  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 i n j u r y hazards a n a l y s i s , the proper use of safety engineering  features  and personal p r o t e c t i o n , and the education of the worker. Matiashina et a l . (67) state that the incidence of eye i n j u r i e s  is  highly dependent on the degree of i n d u s t r i a l development in a country.  In  the same v e i n , Veale (68) notes that the increase in eye i n j u r i e s i n A u s t r a 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 c e " . In I n d u s t r i a l  V i s i o n , " H o f s t e t t e r (69) describes the H e i n r i c h accident/  injury relationship.  "A major i n j u r y i s an i n e v i t a b l e 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 t u r n , are the s t a t i s t i c a l by-product of an excess of n o - i n j u r y a c c i d e n t s . "  Heinrich, there-  f o r e , regarded a l l accidents as p o t e n t i a l m a j o r - i n j u r y accidents.  Gilmore  (70) notes that in most cases the cause of an accident i s the same while the s e v e r i t y of the i n j u r y varies according to chance.  He concludes  reducing the causes of minor i n j u r i e s reduces the p r o b a b i l i t y of d i s a b l i n g and f a t a l i n j u r i e s .  that  serious,  Gilmore c i t e s f i x e d r a t i o s between s e v e r i t y  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of i n j u r y f o r d i f f e r e n t types of i n d u s t r y . Wood (71), quoting the work of H e i n r i c h , notes that 98% of a l l a c c i dents are preventable, and that 88% of a l l i n d u s t r i a l accidents could be prevented by proper a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( i . e . preventive programs).  Bel f o r t  (72)  states that 88% of reported eye i n j u r i e s are due to human e r r o r , a f u r t h e r 10% due to inherent r i s k s of the j o b , bad organization or inadequate prot e c t i o n , and only 2% due to unforeseeable  circumstances.  Smith (73) states that the D r e v e n t i o n of eye i n j u r i e s i s r e a l i z e d 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 o c a l p r o t e c t i v e screening not p r a c t i c a l and, 3) Training in eye s a f e t y , to be used in a l l  cases.  is  -21 -  This involves the development of s k i l l s i n avoiding danger to the eyes  (of  others as w e l l ) through; a) safety t r a i n i n g , b) encouragement i n the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n , and c) awareness of safety r u l e s . Carr (74) concludes that i t i s necessary not only to i d e n t i f y the r i s k and to provide the appropriate p r o t e c t i o n , but to contrive that the prot e c t i o n i s used on every occasion that the worker i s exposed to the r i s k (the subject of compliance). Compliance Schlesinger (75) states that workers have been c l a s s i f i e d i n t o f o u r groups; 1) those who do not think about the hazard at a l l , 2) those uncert a i n about the existence of the hazard (and who tend to equate the uncert a i n t y of the hazard with a lack of real personal r i s k ) , 3) those who a c t u a l l y b e l i e v e no real hazard e x i s t s and, 4) those who d e l i b e r a t e l y appraise the hazard, and the r i s k i n v o l v e d , and act accordingly. a l l workers should be in the fourth category.  Wigglesworth  (76)  Optimally, states  that methods which motivate towards the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n may be more e f f e c t i v e than methods of compulsion.  Those methods which motivate t o -  wards compliance are: the need f o r v i s u a l c o r r e c t i o n , f e a r of i n j u r y , peer acceptance of the p r o t e c t i o n , choice and proper f i t t i n g and the e f f e c t s of safety t r a i n i n g . ' Those f a c t o r s which motivate against compliance are: cosmetic u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y , discomfort, and poor design.  Wigglesworth notes i n  p a r t i c u l a r that apprentice safety t r a i n i n g i s an important p r a c t i c e although no studies have been undertaken to ascertain the e f f e c t s . A recent study by Logar (77) showed that there i s a 9% non-compliance rate ( f o r eye protection) i n American industry.  Of the three major com-  pliance f a c t o r s ; physical f i t , v i s u a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y and cosmetic accepta b i l i t y , i t was found that the physical f i t of the appliance was the most  - 22 important f a c t o r i n worker compliance. 2.E.  Legislation Table 2.E.1  (78-92) presents a t a b u l a r review of Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n  concerning occupational and i n d u s t r i a l eye p r o t e c t i o n .  The review i s based  p r i m a r i l y on regulations made under the respective Acts.  Not a l l relevant  l e g i s l a t i o n i s covered, notably l e g i s l a t i o n concerning mines.  The i n f o r -  mation provided, however, gives a good i n d i c a t i o n of the status of l e g i s l a t i o n concerning eye p r o t e c t i o n i n Canadian 2.F. The Costs of Eye  industry.  Injuries  Although the costs of accidents in general have been documented i n the l i t e r a t u r e and found to be s u b s t a n t i a l l y more than the costs of e s t a b l i s h ing p r o t e c t i v e programs, the costs of eye i n j u r i e s versus preventive programs have not been well documented. Young (93) reports that the approximate costs of the 20,000 reported m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y and compensable eye i n j u r i e s in Ontario, i n 1976, was $800,000.  1.6% of the l o s t time claims r e s u l t i n a permanent d i s a b i l i t y ,  f o r a f u r t h e r cost of $1.2 m i l l i o n .  Young states that the average cost  of a m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y eye i n j u r y 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 r e c t costs (of medical a i d and compensation) are only a f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l of eye i n j u r i e s .  costs  A common consensus i s that the hidden or i n d i r e c t costs  of i n d u s t r i a l accidents ( i n t e r r u p t i o n of the j o b , t r a i n i n g of another work e r , e t c . ) are f o u r times greater than the d i r e c t costs. Duffy (97) reports the cost b e n e f i t r e s u l t s of an eye protection program of 23 y e a r s ' duration.  The p o t e n t i a l d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t costs of  160 d i s a b l i n g eye i n j u r i e s that were prevented by the use of p r o t e c t i o n was  TABLE 2.E.1 A REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING. EYE PROTECTION IN INDUSTRY  COMPONENTS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION CONCERNING EYE PROTECnOTJ  Bf^ER^EJ^  EYE PROTECTION AND/OR SCREENS FOR HAZARDS IN GENERAL EYE PROTECTION SHOULD MEET C.S.A. STANDARD Z94.3 (OSHA 87.1) SPECIFIC NOTE:  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  LASER OPERATIONS  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  ACCORDING TO C.S.A. STANDARD C92.1  X  X  X  X  X  ILLUMINATION - FOR ADEQUATE ACCESS OR EGRESS  X  X X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X X  EYE PROTECTION WHEN HANDLING STORAGE BATTERIES OR ELECTROLYTES  X  X  EYE PROTECTION WHEN USING EXPLOSIVE ACTIVATED TOOLS  X  EYE PROTECTION WHEN USING COMPRESSED AIR  X  REFERENCE TO THE USE OF GUARDS ON MACHINERY  X  REQUIRED EYE WASH FACILITIES  X  YUKON  3E  Z  X  X  X  X  X X  X  X X  X  X  X  X  X  X X X  X X  X  MAINTENANCE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT  BLANKET USE OF ANY C.S.A. STANDARD  X X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR OPTIMIZING VISUAL PERFORMANCE FACTORS  SPECIFIC REF TO RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYER TO SUPPLY PER PROTECTIVE EQUIP  t-j  X  X  PROTECTION FOR WELDERS & RELATED OCCUP (PROT AND/OR SCREENS)  REFERENCE TO THE USE OF CONTACT LENSES  NFLD.  z  P.E.I.  N.B.  QUEBEC  CO  78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 99  PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION (eg. U.V., I.R., MICROWAVE)  ACCORDING TO OTHER ACCEPTED OR ESTABLISHED STANDARDS  ONTARIO  MANITOBA  SASK.  ALBERTA  B.C.  PROVINCES  X  X  X  X 'X  X  - 24 -  c a l c u l a t e d at $2,412,257.80, whereas the t o t a l costs of the eye p r o t e c t i o n program over t h i s p e r i o d of time was only $1,080,871.20, a saving of $1,331,386.60. 2.G. Estimates of the A l b e r t a Workforce by Occupation Using data c o l l e c t e d by Walker (98) an estimate was obtained of the number of workers in occupational categories in A l b e r t a i n d u s t r y .  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, V o 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 A l b e r t a using the Canadian C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Occuptaions.  The l a s t census of t h i s kind was i n  1971 and since the A l b e r t a 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 i n t o which of the occupations the increase occurred, provisions could not be made and l i n e a r p r o j e c t i o n s were used i n each of the occupational categories to account f o r the population increase.  This data i s shown in Chapter 4 where occupation-  al eye i n j u r y rates have been c a l c u l a t e d .  - 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 i m a t e l y a f f e c t a number of d i f f e r e n t groups, i t i s necessary f o r p o l i t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l reasons t o 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 t h i s s i t u a t i o n , include the government, the worker, and the p r i v a t e s e c t o r . Therefore, in order to examine a l l p o t e n t i a l l y relevant sources of data and i n f o r m a t i o n , and to gain a wide perspective of the problems of eye p r o t e c t i o n in i n d u s t r y , seven studies (Sections A - G i n Chapter 3) were designed f o r the research p r o j e c t .  Each of the seven studies were designed  and c a r r i e d out independently but together provide a wide persDective concerning eye p r o t e c t i o n i n i n d u s t r y .  To avoid confusion, the methods, r e -  s u l t s , and discussion f o r each study are presented as a u n i t , and are designated by the l e t t e r s M (methodology), R ( r e s u l t s ) , and D f o l l o w i n g the section headings  (discussion)  (e.g. 3.A.M., 3.A.R., and 3.A.D.).  The studies ( s e c t i o n 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 O f f i c e r s  3.D.  A Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel  3.E.  A Review of the Minutes of Selected J o i n t Work S i t e Committees in A l b e r t a  3.F.  A Review of Anecdotal Data  3.G.  A Review of Selected S i t e V i s i t s to Industries  in A l b e r t a .  -  26  -  CHAPTER 3  SECTION A  METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION OF A REVIEW OF W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE DATA  -  3.A.M.  Methodology  -  27  -  W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e Data  Rationale The A l b e r t a 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 i n  A l b e r t a on eye i n j u r i e s , and one that would be r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e in the future f o r planning and e v a l u a t i v e work. Access In the summer of 1977 t h i s researcher contacted the A l b e r t a W.C.B. and, with the a i d of A l b e r t a Labour, was able to obtain access to that segment of the computer f i l e , concerning eye i n j u r i e s , f o r review and a n a l y s i s . Population A l l persons who reported eye i n j u r i e s t o the W.C.B. i n A l b e r t a i n 1976 were included in the a n a l y s i s .  Some information concerning eye i n -  j u r i e s reported in 1974 and 1975 was used f o r comparison. The  Instrument  The W.C.B. in A l b e r t a requires eye accident reports to be submitted on standard forms, shown i n Appendix 1.  Reports are submitted f o r those  accidents which involve l o s t time at work and f o r those accidents that r e quire medical a i d only.  Compensation f o r l o s t time accidents i s not paid  unless a l l p e r t i n e n t information has been f i l e d , but i n the case of a c c i dents where only medical a i d i s required t h i s i s not the r u l e and report i n g 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 v a r i a b l e s coded i n t o the computer  f i l e s at the W.C.B. by t r a i n e d personnel, that were used i n t h i s  study.  Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n The data from the reporting forms i s sent to the W.C.B. throughout  -  FIGURE  28  -  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 i n j u r e d . Month of Injury. Standard I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Industry i n which the worker was i n j u r e d . Sex of the i n j u r e d worker. Age of the i n j u r e d worker. Length of time the i n j u r e d worker has been employed by the company. Occupational C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the i n j u r e d worker. Length of s h i f t normally worked by the i n j u r e d worker. Time of the accident. Number of hours worked before the accident occurred. S e v e r i t y Estimate of the Injury. Source of the Injury. Type of Accident r e s u l t i n g in the Injury. Nature of the Injury. Whether f i r s t aid was rendered. Whether a language problem was a f a c t o r in causing the i n j u r y .  - 29 the year where i t i s coded immediately and put i n t o 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 l b e r t a , or i n any p a r t i c u l a r i n d u 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 a d d i t i o n , there i s no formal mechanism to monitor the v a l i d i t y of any accident report.  A m a j o r i t y of the i n f o r -  mation i s derived from the worker report and the management r e p o r t , which may be erroneous depending on the s e v e r i t y of the a c c i d e n t , who was at f a u l t , and other f a c t o r s . 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, i n c l u d i n g the use of frequency and c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n  functions.  Due to the nature of the data, and i t s intended use f o r t h i s p r o j e c 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 i n d u s t r i e s 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 I n d u s t r i a 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 j u r i e s per 100 man years worked were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  I t was found that most i n -  dustries had r e l a t i v e l y low rates of eye i n j u r i e s and p r o g r e s s i v e l y ( i n an exponential function) i n d u s t r i e s had higher r a t e s .  fewer  Standard i n -  d u s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s with eye i n j u r y rates above an acceptable c u t - o f f l e v e l were s e l e c t e d f o r f u r t h e r study.  The m a j o r i t y of the i n d u s t r i e s had a  large number of man years worked and the f i n d i n g s can be s t a t i s t i c a l l y j u s tified.  A few i n d u s t r i e s were excluded from the a n a l y s i s  because one or  two i n j u r i e s w i t h i n a small group of workers caused the high r a t e s .  - 30 -  3.A.R.  Results of a Review of A l b e r t a 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 i n A l b e r t a i n 1976 by occurrence c l a s s .  Using estimates of the workforce s i z e i n each  c l a s s ( i n man years worked), i n j u r y rates have been e s t a b l i s h e d .  The i n -  surance premium paid by companies w i t h i n each occurrence class i s included f o r comparison purposes. dustries.  An occurrence class may contain a v a r i e t y of i n -  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 r e l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s . Table 3.A.2 shows the t o t a l number of reported eye i n j u r i e s in 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the month in which they occurred. i n j u r i e s occur in the summer and f a l l months.  The greatest number of  The proportion of i n j u r i e s  incurred i n the months of January, May and September has increased over a three year p e r i o d , while the month of November has shown a steady d e c l i n e . Table 3.A.3 shows the number of eye i n j u r i e s that were reported in 1976 by the 3 d i g i t i n d u s 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 i n the t a b l e are estimates of the s i z e of the workforce in each i n d u s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and c a l c u l a t e d eye i n j u r y r a t e s .  The number of  eye i n j u r i e s reported in 1974 and 1975 i s included f o r reference purposes although estimates of the s i z e of the workforce (and, t h e r e f o r e , eye i n j u r y rates) were not a v a i l a b l e f o r these years.  The highest rates of  eye i n j u r i e s are found g e n e r a l l y in i n d u s t r i e s concerned with the manuf a c t u r e , f a b r i c a t i o n or r e p a i r of metal products, while the lowest rates are found in business and p r o f e s s i o n a l  offices.  Table 3.A.4 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1974, and 1976 by the sex of the worker.  1975  Nearly 97% of the eye i n j u 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 CLASS 01-01 01-02 02-01 03-01 03-02 04-01 04-02 04-03 04-04 04-05 04-06 05-01 06-01 06-02 06-03 06-04 06-05 06-06 06-07 06-08 06-09 07-01 08-01 08-02 08-03 08-04 08-05 09-01 09-02 09-03 09-04 10-01 10-02 11-01 11-02 11-03 11-04 11-05 11-06 12-01 12-02 12-03 14-01 14-02  NUMBER OF REPORTED INJURIES Ml 79 25 47 76 29 33 157 254 60 85 1069 2031 725 435 113 44 304 518 109 13 247 96 1668 788 602 153 98 31 119 39 111 131 9 138 115 37 44 25 42 41 83 81 15  WORKFORCE SIZE (MAN-YEARS) 826 2364 698 1465 2300 13887 1586 6659 13574 5320 3931 28792 45308 13458 9348 2160 1161 6.59 17333 1249 426 15445 1328 11759 10414 9815 1271 8288 2264 6045 1883 9451 6080 18230 37512 26605 10279 3282 2056 18732 10644 36725 22424 7618  RATE OF EYE INJURIES PER 100 MAN/YRS 5.0 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.3 0.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.1 2.2 3.7 4.5 5.4 4.7 5.2 3.8 4.9 3.0 1.0 3.1 1.6 7.2 14.2 7.6 6.1 12.0 1.2 1.4 2.0 2.1 1.2 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2  OCCURRENCE CLASS INSURANCE PREMIUM ($) $12.75 2.50 5.75 10.50 6.25 0.50 3.45 5.75 1.35 1.05 3.00 1.45 2.85 2.50 3.20 4.45 9.50 2.25 4.00 8.25 8.75 4.75 4.10 3.00 2.20 3.25 3.60 1.70 3.00 3.40 3.50 0.80 1.80 0.30 0.50 0.60 1.35 2.05 3.35 0.30 1.00 0.95 0.50 1.00  '  - 32 TABLE 3.A.1 (Continued)  OCCURRENCE CLASS  NUMBER OF REPORTED INJURIES  WORKFORCE SIZE (MAN-YEARS)  RATE OF EYE INJURIES PER 100MAN/YRS  OCCURRENCE CLASS INSURANCE PREMIUM ($)  16-01 17-01 17-02 17-03 17-04 17-05 19-01 19-02 19-03 19-04 19-05 19-06  34 47 48 204 64 47 41 250 1 99 13 8  2763 2513 4492 20795 10990 15356 2970 25248 1717 3514 1571 2041  1.2 1.9 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.3 1.4 1.0 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.4  Unclassed  587  Unknown  -  -  TOTAL  12403  550124  -  -  1.40 2.05 1.25 2.25 0.70 0.25 0.50 - 4.50 0.50 - 7.50  - 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^EAR^^  January February March April May June July August September October November December No Response TOTAL INJURIES  1976  (  854 883 999 911 1103 1169 1172 1191 1126 1119 1106 770  (6.9) (7.2) (8.1) (7.3) (8.9) (9.4) (9.4) (9.6) (9.1) (9.0) (8-9) (6.2)  2 12403  % )  ( - )  1975  (  % )  761 (6.4) 692 (5.8) 740 (6.2) 944 (7.9) 1012 (8.5) 958 (8.0) 975 (8.1) 924 (7.7) 1075 (9.0) 1419 (11.8) 1357 (11.3) 1108 (9.3) 1 11966  ( - )  1974  (  % )  677 (6.1) 703 (6.5) 754 (6.8) 810 (7.3) 896 (8.1) 972 (8.8) 937 (8.5) 949 (8.6) 917 (8.3) 1154 (10.5) 1367 (12.4) 889 (8.1) 28 11053  (0.3)  TREND .t  --  t -  -  _  +  •f  - 34 TABLE  3.A.3  TOTAL NUMBER AND RATES OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES IN ALBERTA BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL C L A S S I F I C A T I O N ( S . I . C . , 1971) FOR 1976, WITH ADDITIONAL DATA FOR 1974 AND 1975 (ALBERTA W.C.B. S T A T I S T I C A L MASTER F I L E )  INDUSTRY CLASS  L i v e s t o c k Farms C o m m e r c i a l Farms O t h e r C r o p Farms M i s c e l l a n e o u s Farms Agricultural Services Logging Forestry Services Coal Mines P e t r o l e u m and Gas W e l l s N a t u r a l Gas P l a n t s O i l Shale P i t s S a l t Mines Other Non-Metal Mines Sand P i t s o r Q u a r r i e s Petroleum Prospecting Other P r o s p e c t i n g Contract D r i l l i n g f o r Petroleum Other C o n t r a c t D r i l l i n g Other Services I n c i d e n t a l to Mining S l a u g h t e r i n g and Meat P r o c e s s o r s Poulty Processors Dairy Factories F r u i t and V e g e t a b l e C a n n e r s Feed M a n u f a c t u r e r s Flour M i l l s Bakeries Confectionery Manufacturers Sugar R e f i n e r i e s V e g e t a b l e 011 H i l l s M i s c e l l a n e o u s Food I n d u s t r i e s Soft Drink Manufacturers Distilleries Breweries T i r e and Tube M a n u f a c t u r e r s O t h e r Rubber I n d u s t r i e s Leather Tanneries Luggage and L e a t h e r Goods M a n u f a c t u r e r s Canvas P r o d u c t s I n d u s t r y Miscellaneous T e x t i l e Industries Other C l o t h i n g I n d u s t r i e s Sawmills V e n e e r and P l y w o o d M i l l s S a s h and Door and P l a n i n g M i l l s Wooden Box F a c t o r i e s C o f f i n and C a s k e t I n d u s t r y M i s c e l l a n e o u s Wook I n d u s t r i e s Household F u r n i t u r e I n d u s t r y Office Furniture Industry Other F u r n i t u r e I n d u s t r i e s P u l p and P a p e r M i l l s . Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers P a p e r Box a n d Bag M a n u f a c t u r e r s Commercial P r i n t i n g P r i n t i n g and P u b l i s h i n g I r o n and S t e e l M i l l s S t e e l P i p e and Tube M i l l s C o p p e r and A l l o y C a s t i n g B o i l e r and P l a t e Works Fabricated S t r u c t u r a l Metal Industry Ornamental Metal I n d u s t r y Metal Stamping, P r e s s i n g Industry W i r e and W i r e P r o d u c t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s Hardware M a n u f a c t u r e r s H e a t i n g Equipment M a n u f a c t u r e r s M a c h i n e Shops Misc. Metal F a b r i c a t i n g I n d u s t r i e s A g r i c u l t u r a l Implement I n d u s t r y M i s c . M a c h i n e r y and E q u i p M a n u f a c t u r e r s 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 Motor V e h i c l e Manufacturers T r u c k Body and T r a i l e r M a n u f a c t u r e r s B o a t b u i l d i n g and R e p a i r Communications Equipment M a n u f a c t u r e r s Manufacturers o f E l e c t r i c a l Indust Equip Battery Manufacturers E l e c t r i c W i r e and C a b l e M a n u f a c t u r e r s Misc E l e c t r i c a l Products Manufacturers Cement M a n u f a c t u r e r s  NUMBER OF INJURIES (1976) 1 3 4 11 22 44 1 117 156 68 21 1 3 35 33 2 134 4 104 120 12 23 2 13 9 5 1 6 7 12 23 3 15 23 1 3 1 4 2 17 72 36 .424 4 1 5 17 20 7 60 13 4 17 3 152 64 7 584 295 202 97 1 2 29 397 8* 51 30 25 47 312 5 6 36 4 10 2 32  NUMBER OF MANYEARS WORKED (1976) 309 139 306 883 2373 1465 19 3130 16639 3980 2378 121 110 1104 1586 201 5205 •54 5317 5821 735 2345 363 1017 585 1851 124 3U5 334 627 1185 219 720 806 104 137 171 264 457 2276 2174 .541 10554 126 74 300 , 960 265 389 1225 515 404 3510 2766 1271 1073 97 2830 1814 2607 1701 7 9 291 3702 186 513 633 829 304 2405 60 943 398 146 379 147 650  RATE OF EYE INJURIES ( 1 9 7 6 ) PER 100 MAN YEARS 0.3 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 3.0 5.3 3.7 1.0 1.7 0.9 0.8 2.7 3.2 2.1 1.0 2.6 7.4 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.5 0.3 0.8 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.4 2.1 2.9 1.0 2.2 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.8 3.3 6.7 4.0 3.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 7.5 1.8 4.9 2.5 1.0 0.5 0.1 12.0 6.0 7.2 20.6 16.3 7.7 5.7 14.2 22.2 10.0 10.5 4.3 9.9 4.5 3.0 15.5 13.0 8.3 0.6 9.0 2.7 2.6 1.4 4.9  INJURIES (1975) 2 3 2 10 24 37  INJURIES (1974)  TREND  1 _ _  12 22 61  _  72 194 46 31  t  _ _  _  102 180 71 21 2 1 43 40 1 102 2 110 107 14 20 6 34 6 9 6 6 . 4 9 1 13 16 6 2  2 36 29 1 94 2 79 88 6 21 8 18 3 5 1 5 7 3 19 2 12 37 5 1 1 3  3 3 17 90 13 433 2 6 11 25 13 4 63 28 3 18 7 224 91 1 603 .354 185 95  13 22 21 4 55 18 6 13 5 193 67 6 431 264 149 114  -29  -11  408 11 41 26 32 43 207 9 2 5 5 7 8 13  440 12 60 35 31 25 171 10 2  a  92 30 440 1  -2 8 2 11  _  _  + _  _  + _  _  _ _ _ _  t _ _ _  _ _ _ _  -t - • -+ -t t  ---  - 35 TABLE  INDUSTRY CLASS Lime M a n u f a c t u r e r s Gypsum P r o d u c t s M a n u f a c t u r e r s Concrete Products Manufacturers Ready-Mix Concrete M a n u f a c t u r e r s Regractories Manufacturers M i n e r a l Wool M a n u f a c t u r e r s 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 Other Non-Metallic Mineral Industries Petroleum Regineries Manufacturers o f Mixed F e r t i l i z e r s Manuf o f P l a s t i c s and S y n t h e t i c R e s i n s Manuf o f Soap and Soap Compounds Manuf o f I n d u s t r i a l C h e m i c a l s Other Chemical I n d u s t r i e s S c i e n t i f i c Equipment M a n u f a c t u r e r s 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 Plastic Fabricators S i g n s and D i s p l a y s I n d u s t r y Misc Manufacturing I n d u s t r i e s Building Construction H i g h w a y , 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 Other C o n s t r u c t i o n Special-Trade Contractors A i r Transport Services Incidental to A1r Transport Water T r a n s p o r t Railway Transport Truck Transport Bus T r a n s p o r t Pipeline Transport Other Services I n c i d e n t a l to Transport Other T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Grain Elevators Warehousing R a d i o and T e l e v i s i o n B r o a d c a s t i n g Telephone Systems E l e c t r i c Power Gas D i s t r i b u t i o n Water Systems Other U t i l i t i e s Wholesalers o f Livestock Wholesalers o f Petroleum Products W h o l e s a l e r s o f Farm M a c h i n e r y Wholesalers o f Machinery , W h o l e s a l e r s o f S c r a p and Waste M a t e r i a l s W h o l e s a l e r s , Not Elsewhere C l a s s i f i e d Food S t o r e s Department S t o r e s A c c e s s o r y , P a r t s , T 1 r e & B a t t e r y Shops Gasoline Service Stations Motor V e h i c l e Dealers M o t o r V e h i c l e R e p a i r Shops Shoe S t o r e s Clothing Stores Hardware S t o r e s Household F u r n i t u r e Stores R a d i o , T e l e v i s i o n Shops Book a n d S t a t i o n e r y S t o r e s F l o r i s t s ' Shops Fuel Dealers Liquor Stores R e t a i l S t o r e s , NEC Elementary and Secondary S c h o o l s Vocational Schools U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s Libraries Hospitals Offices of Dentists Other Health Services Welfare Organizations Recreational Services 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 S e r v i c e s t o B u s i n e s s Management Shoe R e p a i r Shops B a r b e r and B e a u t y Shops Laundries H o t e l s , R e s t a u r a n t s and T a v e r n s Labour O r g a n i z a t i o n s B l a c k s m i t h i n g and W e l d i n g Shops M i s c e l l a n e o u s R e p a i r Shops Services to Buildings Miscellaneous Services Other Federal A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Provincial Administration  3.A.3  (Continued)  NUMBER OF INJURIES (1976) 12 4 96 53 7 28 5 21 13 21 22 1 35 2 21 5 13 11 2 1603 248 209 1817 12 5 16 169 225 13 30 2 1 25 13 6 16 34 39 5 13 1 3 210 72 37 115 28 73 40 173 289 '359 1 3 19 18 10 1 1 4 3 31 60 4 45 3 123 4 1 14 4 21 23 1 1 10 86 6 311 42 28 64 119 192  NUMBER OF MANYEARS WORKED (1976) 94 195 1344 1798 325 539 345 1025 1170 1546 1164 80 2033 104 1793 131 244 347 173 37711 10492 4972 36548 1257 808 N/A N/A 14735 1486 3299 404 251 2056 1776 2019 N/A 2736 2611 282 349 394 1366 5354 4704 668 27988 9693 22563 1453 7633 10338 4410 1043 6298 4118 3414 1024 1732 572 508 N/A 5460 12875 437 13587 906 25720 767 1043 6783 1783 8336 5304 73 1961 99 38124 1610 1857 1088 7060 7856 N/A N/A  RATE OF EYE INJURIES (1976) PER 100 MAN YEARS 12.8 2.1 7.1 2.9 2.2 5.2 1.4 2.0 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.2 3.8 5.3 3.2 1.2 4.3 2.4 4.2 5.0 1.0 0.6  1.5  0.9 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.3  8  32 13 10 22 33 17 2 37 8 31 2 13 12 1 1215 301 256 1624 19 8 17 219 203 11 32 5 22 11 7 25 20 38 2 14  1.2 1.5 1.8 3.7 0.3 0.2 3.9 1.5 5.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.8 2.3  5 230 70 26 111 22 84 33 191 277 359  2.8 8.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.8  -  INJURIES (1974) 23 4 65 51 16 10 io 5 14 27 18 2 50 3 26 1 16 21  TREND  •  -  -  1108 285 208 1424 23 2 9 219 229 14  +  -_  22  _ _  _  0.6 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 16.7 3.9 0.4 0.8  INJURIES (1975) 8 9 87 68  j  2 16 7 5 4 2 4 6 50 52 3 43 1 159 2 3 4 12 19 22  >  25 18 'b 11 31 31 3 6 2 12 226 60 35 137 18 57 35 196  _ _  _ _  315 375 6 16 n 8 2 7 4 37 66 5 48  _ _  143 2 2 18 4 10 24  _ _ _  6 83 3 282 58 22 58 115 183  —  10 62 4 247 46 35 67 118 154  + _  t  - 36 -  TABLE 3.A.3 (Continued) INDUSTRY CUSS  NUMBER OF INJURIES (1976)  Local Administration Unspecified or Undefined  303 92  Not Classified  347 TOTAL  12405  NUMBER OF MANYEARS WORKED (1976) 28107 3159  551124  RATE OF EYE INJURIES (1976) PER 100 MAN YEARS 1.1 2.9  2.3  INJURIES (1975)  INJURIES (1974) TREND  314 124  277 139  271  257  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  MALES FEMALES NOT CLASSIFIED TOTAL  1976  {%)  11986  (96.6)  11541  (96.4)  10711  (96.9)  418  (3.4)  395  (3.3)  333  (3.0)  1  (O.O)  30  (0.3)  9  (0.1)  12405  1975  (%)  1974  (%)  11053  11966  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 CATEGORY^^-^^ 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 14 AGE UNCLASSIFIED TOTAL  1976  (%)  1975  (%)  1974  (%)  5 25 130 231 435 665 840 1072 1611 2342 3485 1470 1  (0.0) (0.2) (1.0) (1.9) (3.5) (5.4) (6.8) (8.6) (13.0) (18.9) (28.1) (11.9) (0.0)  7 28 126 275 396 632 885 1059 1438 2298 3158 1523 4  (0.1) (0.2) (1.1) (2.3) (3.3) (5.3) (7.4) (8.9) (12.0) (19.2) (26.4) (12.7) (0.0)  3 39 165 265 384 606 813 978 1323 2056 2874 1390 7  (0.0) (0.4) (1.5) (2.4) (3.5) (5.5) (7.4) (8.9) (11.9) (18.6) (26.0) (12.6) (0.0)  93  (0.7)  137  (1.1)  150  (1.3)  12405  11966  11053  - 38 Table 3.A.5 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1974, and 1976 according to the age of the i n j u r e d worker.  1975  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 p e r i o d . Table 3.A.6 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the length of time the i n j u r e d 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 i n t h e i r present j o b . missing  There were a great number of  responses.  Table 3.A.7 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1976 by the occupation of the i n j u r e d 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 t e r a t u r e Review - Section G) are g i v e n , i n order to e s t a b l i s h i n j u r y r a t e s .  The number of reported eye i n -  j u r i e s i n 1974 and 1975, by occupation, are included f o r comparison purposes.  The highest rates of eye i n j u r i e s occur among metal r e l a t e d  occupations such as mechanics, m a c h i n i s t s , plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s , and welders. clerical  The lowest rates of eye i n j u r i e s occur in the professions  and  trades.  Table 3.A.8 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1974, 1975 and 1976 by the length of s h i f t the i n j u r e d person worked per day.  The  majority of i n j u r i e s occurred during an e i g h t hour s h i f t although a subs t a n 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 j u 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)  LENGTH^\ EMPLOYED ^v.  1976  <1 mnth 1 mnth - <6 mnths 6 mnths - <1 yr si yr  535 1086 381 1042  R  Unknown TOTAL  (35)  (17.6) (35.7) (12.5) (34.2)  1975  (%)  1974  (%)  472 954 384 1019  (16.7) (33.7) (13.6) (36.0)  435 862 387 897  (16.9) (33.4) (15.0) (34.7)  9361  9137  8472  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)  OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF INJURED WORKERS Administrators Inspectors; Government General Managers Production Management Construction Management Other Managers Financial Officers Personnel Officers Purchasing Officers Occupations: Management Geologists Meteorologists Physical Sciences Technologists Agriculturists Biologists Life Sciences Technologists Civil Engineers Electrical Engineers Mechanical Engineers Petroleum Engineers Aerospace Engineers Surveyors Draughtsmen Engineering Technologists Other occupations: Engineering Analysts and Programmers Community Services Occupation Librarians Social Sciences Occupations Elementary Teachers Conmunity College Teachers Fine Arts Teachers Post-Secondary Teachers Flying Instructors Other Teaching Occupations Veterinarians Health Diagnosing Occupations Nurses Nursing Aides Physiotherapists Nursing Assisting Occupations Dispensing Opticians Radiological Technologists Medical Laboratory Technologists Other Occupations in Medicine Interior Designers Illustrating Artists Secretaries Typists Bookkeepers Cashiers Statistical Clerks Office Machine Operators Data-Processing Operators Scheduling Occupations Production Clerks Shipping Clerks Stock Clerks Weighers  WORKFORCE INJURY RATE (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES WORKERS) 1976 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974 840 1115 2445 390 410 1720 8340 1955 1255 3060 2145 90 1545 685 320 900 1690 970 680 1090 125 1050 2200 1875 1210 1375 1810 510 195 12515 1130 1175 460 570 345 190 N/A 9260 6500 760 3385 140 815 1730 390 815 540 18395 10885 17576 1785 375 2400 2220 635 485 3845 3775 300  3 2 7 2 15 7 2 1 2 1 1 1 15 2 1 9 7 5 4 1 5 9 6 4 13 1 1 1 2 2 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 24 20 2 7 1 1 12 2 4 1 2 2 2 6 1 1 2 1 2 33 14 1  0.36 0.18 0.29 0.51 3.66 0.41 0.02 0.05 0.16 0.03 0.05 1.10 0.97 0.29 0.31 1.00 0.41 0.51 0.59 0.37 4.00 0.86 0.27 0.21 1.07 0.07 0.06 0.20 1.03 0.02 0.35 0.17 1.09 0.18 0.29 0.53 _  0.26 0.31 0.26 0.21 0.71 0.12 0.69 0.51 0.49 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.34 0.27 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.41 0.86 0.37 0.33  TREND  1  2.  _  _  •  5 4 12 9 1  5 3 15 4  -  _  _  •  _  _  _  3  3  _  _  19 3  14 4  _  _  3 6 1 1 _  5 5 5 3 13 1 3 _  2 5 2 2 1 _  5 5 3 4. 1 1 7 7 8 16  . -  1 1  6 21 4 3  _  _  _ _  _  23 21 3  4  _  _  _  1 3 5  _  1 2 1  _  _  _  _  _  1 14 1  -  2  _  -1  -  _  _  1 11 3 1 1 2 2 4 4  _ _  _  -  _  -  _  _  _  1  _  1 1 34 12 3  _  _ _  1 34 6 1  -  - 41 TABLE  OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION OF INJURED WORKERS Material Recording Occupations Medical-Records Librarians Receptionists Mail Carriers Postal Clerks Telephone Operators Messengers Message Distribution Occupations Hotel Clerks Office Clerks Other C l e r i c a l occupations Managing Supervisors Commercial Travellers Salesmen Sales Clerks Newsboys Service Station Attendants Sales Occupations Driver-Salesmen Fire-Fighters Policemen Guards Protective Service Occupations Supervisors; Food and Beverage Chefs and Cooks Bartenders Waiters Food Preparation Occupations Supervisors & Lodging Occupations Chambermaids Occupations in Lodging Barbers and Hairdressers Hostesses and Stewards Personal Service Occupations Supervisors; Laudering Occupations Apparel Service Occupations Janitors Occupations in Labouring Other Service Occupations Farm Workers Nursery Workers Farm-Machinery Operators Animal Care Occupations Fishermen Forestry Conservation Occupations Timber Cutting Occupations Log Inspecting Log Hoisting Labouring; Forestry and Logging Forest Related Occupations Supervisors; D r i l l i n q Operations Rotary W e l l - D r i l l i n g Rock D r i l l i n g Occupations Mining and Quarrying Labouring in Mining and Quarrying 011 and Gas F i e l d Occupations Supervisors-M1neral Ores Operations Crushing and Grinding Occupations Supervisors-Ore Testing Operations Metal Furnacemen Metal Rolling Occupations Metal Casting Plating, Metal Occupations Labouring 1n Metal Processing  3.A.7  (Continued)  WORKFORCE (NUMBER OF INJURIES WORKERS) 1976 120 3610 4635 1325 3225 3175 540 1110 1070 8970 6915 20895 3715 6060 24940 1095 3405 N/A 2025 1570 2740 3245 875 3125 8015 N/A 14220 2100 2275 N/A 155 4795 3270 4080 570 555 N/A 6915 655 N/A N/A N/A N/A 155 1020 660 N/A 265 270 110 1875 2050 400 745 970 1695 50 N/A 230 115 85 185 75 95  1 3 1 9 4 1 1 1 2 4 5 56 1 11 61 1 23 3 5 25 9 17 2 3 11 3 12 12 15 7 2 2 1 3 1 1 95 20 2 9 12 1 1 1 4 10 1 4 2 1 11 93 1 12 24 58 1 1 2 2 1 11 3 4  INJURY RATE INJURIES INJURIES 1976 (PER 1974 100 WORKERS) 1975 TREND 0.83 0.08 0.02 0.68 0.12 0.03 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.04 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.18 0.24 0.09 0.68 0.25 1.59 0.33 0.52 0.23 0.10 0.14  -0.08  0.57 0.66 _  1.29 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.18  .  0.29 0.30 _ _  -0.65 0.39 1.52  .  1.51 0.74 0.91 0.58 4.53 0.25 1.60 2.47 3.46 2.00 0.87 1.74 1.17 5.95 4.00 4.20  1 2 1 7 4  3 1 2 5 5 5  _  -1  -  _  3 10 44 1 1 62  1 3 7 45 2 13 38  17  18  26 7 3 1 1 20 5 9 21 15 4  10 11 6 1 2 16 1 10 12 22 3  _  -6  -5  _  _ _  -_  _  -  _  -  _  _  _  -  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  1 _  1 91 24  _  81 28 1 6 12 1 3 _  -  _  _  7 21 1 2  _  _  _  1  _  4 10  7 23  _  _  _  _  6  10 3 5 14 72 6 21 32 26  _  2 6 88 3 19 32 48 5 4 5 1 9 3 2  •  _  _ _  _  t + _  +  _  3 14 1 14 3 8  _  _  -  - 42 TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued) OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION OF INJURED WORKERS Metal Processing Furnacemen: Clay,Glass,Stone Mixing Occupations: Clay,Glass,Stone Clay,Glass,Stone Forming Occupations Chemicals; Mixing and Blending Chemicals; Distilling, Carbonizing Chemicals; Crushing and Grinding Chemicals,Petroleum-Inspecting Labouring in Chemicals,Petroleum Chemicals,Petroleum-Processing Occu. Foremen: Food Occupations Grain Milling Occupations Baking Occupations Slaughtering and Meat Cutting Milk Processing Occupations Inspecting,Testing: Food,Beverages Beverage Processing Occupations Labouring in Food & Beverages Food & Beverage Occupations Sawmill Sawyers Plywood Making Wood Treating Occupations Inspecting & Testing-Wood Processing Labouring in Wood Processing Wood Processing Occupations Pulp Preparing Occupations Labouring in Pulp and Papermaking Pulp and Papermaking Textile Winding and Reeling Textile Finishing Other Processing Occupations Foremen: Machining Operations Tool and Die Making Machinist Machine-Tool Operating Metal Machining Foremen: Metal Shaping & Forming Forging Occupations Sheet-Metal Workers Metalworking-Machine Operators Welding and Flame Cutting Inspecting Metal Shaping & Forming Boilermakers, Platers Metal Shaping and Forming Wood Sawing Wood Machining Wood Sanding Cutting,Shaping-Clay,Glass,Stone Abrading,Polishing-Stone,Cement,Clay Clay,Glass,Stone Machining Filing,Grinding,Buffing Occupations Motor Vehicle Fabricating Business Machines Fabricating Other Fabricating Occupations Electrical Equip. Fab & Assembling Electrical Equip. Installing,Repair Electronic Equip. Fab & Assembling Radio & TV Repairmen Labouring: Fab, Assembling, Installing, Repairing Electrical Equip. Cabinet Makers [ Labouring: Fab, Assembling, Repairing Wood Products  WORKFORCE INJURY RATE (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES WORKERS) 1976 TREND 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974  270 185 360 175 105 835 N/A  210 205 965 850 310 1485 3720 460 215 200 750 515 355 50 N/A  55 395  N/A  60 65 55 175 175 75 445 90 1315 640 55 775 185 1480 280 4910 N/A  280 65 320 185  N/A  75 no 75 260 180 N/A  215 255 1215 140 815  8 5 2 7 1 6 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 35 1 1 1 73 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 209 7 2 3 3 306 6 1511 1 91 4 9 4 1 3 1 9 64 8 1 19 6 12 3 4  2.96 2.70 0.56 4.00 1.00 0.70  0.-95 0.97 0.10 0.24 0.97 0.13 0.94 0.21 0.47 0.50 9.73 0.97 0.28 2.00  15 9 9 5  8 1 2 2 3 -2  1 20 1  -  2 42 4 1 _  14 6 5 18  -  -  _  _  2 _  _  6 3 2 5 1 35 2 _ 3 44 5 _  _ _  _ _  _ _  _ _ _ _  _  -  3 2 _  0.25  4 _  6  _  _  3.30 1.54 3.60 0.57 0.57 1.33 0.67 4.44 15.42 1.09 3.64 0.38 1.62 20.68 2.14 30.77  3 2 1 _  1 3 2 _  _  _  -1.81 -  3-2.50 6.15 2.81 2.16  -4.00  0.90 12.00 24.62 4.40  -.83 8 2.35 0.99 2.14 0.49  _ _  _ _ _ _  3 8 223 5 3 2 5 256 5 1405 1 90 4 10 2  4 3 212 17 4 10 5 245 10 1342  _  _  4 79 12  4 3 3 72 2 _  -t  12 9 14 1 2  28 8 17 3 4  -  _  _  -6  -  70 2 24 2  _  _  _  -+  _  _ _ _ _  _ _  1000  1 40  4.00  21  22  -  80  6  7.50  6  14  -  N/A  _  _  - 43 TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued)  OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION OF INJURED WORKERS  WORKFORCE (NUMBER OF INJURIES WORKERS) 1976  Fab, Assembling, Repairing: Wood N/A Products Upholsterers 555 Sewing Machine Operators 2630 Fab, Assembling: Textile, Fur & 205 Leather Products Bonding & Cementing: Rubber,Plastic 525 110 Moulding Rubber,Plastic Cutting & Finishing: Rubber,Plastic N/A N/A Fab,Assembling Rubber,Plastic Foremen: Motor Vehicle Mechanics 2735 9915 Motor-Vehicle Mechanics Aircraft Mechanics 635 Rail Transport Mechanics 630 Heavy Duty Machinery Mechanics N/A Watch.Repairmen 265 Other Mechanics 1215 Foremen: Product Fab.Assembling & 205 Repairing Jewellery & Silverware Fabricating 60 Painting & Decorating 325 Labouring in Product Fabricating, N/A Assembling and Rapairing Musical Instrument Fabricating, 325 Assembling and Repairing Foremen: Excava ti ng,Gradi ng,Pav i ng 2030 Excavating and Grading 2895 Paving and Surfacing 355 Railway Sectionmen 1180 Excavating,Grading,Paving 1025 Foremen: Electrical Power & Wire 1395 Communication Equipment Electrical Power Lineman 485 Construction Electricians 3780 Wire Communications Installing 2195 Inspecting & Testing: Electrical 215 Power and Wire Communications Electrical Power: Wire Communica300 tions Equipment Foremen: Other Construction Trades 6340 Carpenters 8515 Brick and Stone Masons 875 Concrete Finishing 900 Plasterers 1375 Painters & Paperhangers 3270 Insulating Occupations 495 Roofing 800 Pipefitting, Plumbing 4275 Structural-Metal Erectors630 Glaziers 275 Inspecting & Testing Construction 495 Labouring in Construction 6675 Other Construction Trade Occupations 2380 Air Pilots N/A Air Transport Support Occupations N/A Foremen: Railway Operations N/A Locomotive Engineers N/A Conductors and Brakemen N/A Railway Transport Operating Occup. N/A Ship's Carpenters N/A Foremen: Motor Transport Operations 1315 Bus Drivers 3180 Truck Drivers 20135 Motor Transport Operating Occup. 550  2  INJURY RATE 1976 (PER INJURIES INJURIES 100 WORKERS) 1975 1974 TREND •  2  3  12 10 1  2.16 0.38 0.49  15 10  9 2  _  31 2 1 1 2 758 11 39 303 1 14 27  5.90 1.82  20 3  37 1  _  -  0.07 7.60 1.73 6.19  -  0.38 1.15 13.17  -  -9  _ _  21 4  8 845 15 50 202 2 16 9  836 12 51 204  -  _  -t _ _ _  1 9 365  1.67 2.77  1 20 272  2 19 279  5  1.54  1  10  _  9 36 1 14 76 6  0.44 1.24 0.28 1.19 7.41 0.43  23 7 3 19 81 3  20 33  -  18 347 11 2  4.14 9.18 0.50 0.93  8 347 8  26 276 11  _  _  3  1.00  1  1  50 475 51 13 43 68 34 28 636 129 10 2 486 42 2 1 1 3 11 9 2 2 14 190 1  0.79 5.58 5.94 1.44 3.13 2.08 6.87 3.50 14.88 20.48 3.64 0.40 7.28 1.76  19 374 34 18 26 57 36 27 482 107 10  34 354 30 24 44 50 24 20 411 80 18 2 451 36 3 1 3 4 17 7  -  0.15 _  0.44 0.94 0.73  344 26 _  1 1 2 14 19 1 2 8 170  -  _  12 33 3  -2  9 221 1  _  -+  _  _  _  -  _ _  _  + _  -  _ _ _ _  _ _  -  - 44 TABLE 3.A.7 (Continued)  OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION OF INJURED WORKERS Motormen and Dinkeymen Other Transport Operating Occup. Foremen: Material Handling Hoisting Occupations Longshoremen Material-Handling Equip. Operators Packaging Occupations Labouring in Material-Handling Other Material-Handling Occupations Typesetting Printing Press Pri nti ng-Engravi ng Bookbinding Printing Power Station Operators Other Stationary Engine Operating Occupations Radio and TV Broadcasting Foremen Occupations Inspecting, Testing and Sampling Occupations Labouring Occupations Other Occupations Not Classified TOTAL  INJURY RATE WORKFORCE INJURIES INJURIES (NUMBER OF INJURIES 1976 (PER 1976 1975 TREND 100 WORKERS) 1975 WORKERS) 300 95 2200 990 3055 3500 3680 2470 515 715 440 85 400 N/A 245 2855  4 1 6 37 53 96 15 25 5 3 2 1 1 4 2 10  1.33 1.05 0.27 0.20 0.03 2.74 - 0.41 1.00 0.97 0.28 0.45 1.17 0.25  85 1075 565  7 1 3  7780 N/A  746 124 3326  470970  12405  1  -  7 21 60 116 14 20 4 1 5 1  -1  5 2 7 23 60 106 9 21 5 6 5  -2  9  2 3 16  1.18 0.09 0.53  2 1  -1  9.59  -  878 107 3676  801 78 2859  -  11966  11053  -  0.80 0.35  -  3  -  --  -+  - 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  (%)  (%)  1974  33 33 478 6947 1192 142 2 0  (0.4) (0.4) (5.4) (78.7) (13.5) (1.6) (0.0) (0.0)  18 18 284 5391 1148 128 8 3  1 - 4 Hours/Day 5-6 7 8 9 -10 11-12 13-14. 15  28 37 371 7498 1171 146 4 1  Unknown  3143  3139  4055  12405  11966  11053  TOTAL  (0.3) (0.4) (4.0) (81.0) (12.6) (1.6)) (0.1) (0.0)  1975  (%) (0.3) (0.3) (4.1) (77.0) (16.4) (1.8) (0.1) (0.0)  - 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)  . YEAR TIME 24 HR. C L O C K S .  1976  [%)  1975  (%)  1974  01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  41 47 33 31 21 41 114 361 703 1069 977 343 635 1360 1145 804 222 133 no 110 96 105 71 22  (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) ;o.2) (0.5) ;i.3) (4.2) (8.2) C 12.4) C 11.4) (4.0) (7.4) .C15.8) ('13.3) (9.4) (2.6) (1.5) (1-3) (1.3) (1.1) (1.2) (0.8) (0.3)  32 39 35 25 27 39 119 304 668 986 946 300 632 1258 1240 815 253 138 106 107 84 79 67 31  (0.4) (0.5) ;0.4) ;0.3) (0.3) (0.5) ;i.4) (3.6) ;8.o) 11.8) C C 11.4) (3.6) (7.6) C 15.1) ('14.9) (9.8) (3.0) (1.7) (1.3) (1.3) (1.0) (0.9) (0.8) (0.4)  44 39 32 15 28 33 88 291 633 900 944 285 632 1226 1167 814 219 123 123 115 72 100 65 26  Unknown  3811  3636  3039  12405  11966  11053  TOTAL  (%) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) (1.1) (3.6) (7.9) (11.2) (11.8) (3.6) (7.9) (1.5) (14.6) (10.2) (2.7) (1.5) (1.5) (1.4) (0.9) (1.2) (0.8) (0.3)  - 47 -  day). Table 3.A.10 shows the number of eye i n j u r i e s reported in 1974,  1975  and 1976 according to the number of hours that were worked on the job before the accident occurred.  The greatest proportion of i n j u r i e s occurred  during the s i x t h hour of the work s h i f t , although a s u b s t a n t i a l  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 j u r i e s in 1974, and 1976 by the s e v e r i t y estimate of the i n j u r y .  1975  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 ( s e v e r i t y #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 ( s e v e r i t y #2) u n t i l the prognosis has been established.  Over the three year p e r i o d , 23 percent of the i n j u r y 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 j u r i e s only required medical a i d . Table 3.A.12 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1974, and 1976 by the source of the i n j u r y .  1975  Approximately 50 percent of the i n -  j u r i e s were caused by u n i d e n t i f i e d p a r t i c l e s , while approximately 20 percent 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 p r i m a r i l y by welding equipment, acids and other chemicals. Table 3.A.13 shows the number of reported eye i n j u r i e s in 1974, and 1976 by the type of i n j u r y i n c u r r e d .  1975  Three-quarters of the i n j u r i e s  were a r e s u l t of being abraded by f o r e i g n matter in the eyes while a f u r ther 15% were due to contact with r a d i a t i o n s .  The remaining i n j u r i e s were  a r e s u l t of a great v a r i e t y of events. Table 3.A.14 shows the number of reported eye i n j u 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 j u r i e s in 1976 by the s e v e r i t y 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 ACCIDENT  ^P  R  1976  (X)  1975  00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19  376 715 985 1051 676 989 1258 1137 617 145 55 21 21 4 1 1 0 0 0  (4.7) (8.8) (12.2) (13.1) (8.4) (12.3) (15.6) (14.1) (7.7) (1.8) (0.7) (0.3) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  310 661 932 1005 659 957 1208 1197 683 141 52 22 24 4 1 3 1 1 0  Unknown  4353  4105  3678  12405  11966  11053  TOTAL  (%) (3.9) (8.4) (11.9) (12.8) (8.4) (12.2) (15.3) (15.2) (8.7) (1.8) (0.7) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  1974 259 570 897 989 564 903 1107 1134 676 147 70 31 14 5 5 3 0 0 1  (%) (3.5) (7.7) (12.2) (13.4) (7.6) (12.2) (15.0) (15.4) (9.2) (2.0) (0.9) (0.4) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  - 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) ^ v . YEAR SEVERITY^\. ESTIMATE S v  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)  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 o i l 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  1976  (%) _  _  1 3 1 21 2 2 3 5 3 1 4 2 189 3 43 1 3 1 1 30 7 6  (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.5) (0.0) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.0)  _  23 3 459 1 2 15 33 3 1 9 12 1 8 5 1 2 1 8 13 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 6 191 2 1 2 11  (0~2) (0.0) (3-7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1)  _  7  (o'l)  1975  (%)  2  (0.0)  3 27 2  (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.0)  9 5 0 2 1 181 8 58 1 1 2 2 38 16 2 4 26 1 437  (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.5) (0.1) (0.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.3) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.0) (3.7)  14 28 8  (0.0) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1)  16 3 17 12  (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1)  -3  -4  -2  -14  -1  -  -  -  -  -  (0.0) 2 (0.0) 11 (0.1) 8 (0.1) 2 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 2 (0.0)  -1  -  1 1 2 1 136  (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.1)  2 9 4 7  (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1)  -2  -  1974  (%)  3  (0.0)  6 21 7  (0.0) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1)  11 5  (0.0) (0.1) (0.0)  -5  -1  -5  -  -  --  -  (0.4) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.3) (0.0) (3.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.3) (0.0)  24 6 8 15 2 2 1 6 13 3 3 3  (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  -  -6  (0.1)  -1  -  --  1 1 148  --  -  17 6 6 32 2 389 2 1 12 31 5  -4  -  -  (0.0) 2 (0.0) 154 (1.4) 8 (0.1) 50 (0.5) 1 (0.0) 8 (0.1) 1 (0.0)  -44  TREND  (0.0) (0.0) (1.3)  (0.0) 6 (0.1) 5 (0.0) 4 (0.0) 6 (0.0)  _  -+ -+ • +  -  +  -  --  - 51 TABLE. 3.A.12 (Continued)  INJURY SOURCE~~~~  ~~~~^~-^_YEAR^  Rope, chain Saw Screwdriver Wrench Hand tools, not powered Drill Hammer, tamper Welding tools . Cranes, derricks, Jacks (mechanical) Chokers and tongs Infectious and parasitic agents Extension ladders Straight, single, ladders Ladders, NEC Water Other liquids, NEC Agricultural machines, NEC Buffers, polishers, sanders, qrinders Earth moving & highway const machines NEC Office machines Machines, NEC Chains, ropes, cables Nails, spikes, tacks Nails and staples Metal chips and particTes Molten metal Structural members Pipe, NEC Metal items, NEC Rocks, stones and sand Mineral items, nonmetallic, NEC Paper and pulp items, NEC Particles (unidentified) Trees, saplings Branches, limbs Snags Plants, trees, vegetation, NEC Plastic items, NEC Isotopes or irradiated substances for industrial or medical use Sun Ultraviolet equipment Welding equipment, electric arc X-ray and fluoroscope equipment Laser equipment Radiating substances or equipment, NEC Soaps, detergents, cleaning compounds, NEC Steam Textile items, NEC Highway vehicles, powered Handtrucks, dollies Mules, tractors Lumber Veneer, Plywood Slivers, splinters, etc Chips Wood items, NEC Ground (outdoors) Concrete items, NEC Miscellaneous, NEC Unknown, unidentified TOTAL  1976  (X)  9 1 22 16 6 6 1 5 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 6 15 1 1 1 1 2 20 127 12 2617 201 8 16 142 39 14 17 6066 1 57 4 8 16  (0.1) (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (1.0) (0.1) (21.1) (1.6) (0.1) (0.1) (1.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) (48.9) (0.0) (0.5) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1)  1 1 7 1010 1 5 5 78 7 2 2 2 1 11 8 396 59 19 1 2 66 85  (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (8.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.6) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (3.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.5) (0.7)  12405  1975  (%)  1974  2  (0.0)  12 14 9 2 1 9  (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1)  2 1 30 16 3 7 1 5  -  -  -  -  -  1  -6  15 1 2  -  2 14 63 10 2238 232 7 9 162 65 44 26 6205 11 51 2 8 18  -  -  -  (0.0)  -  (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0)  -  (0.0) (0.1) (0.5) (0.1) (18.7) (1.9) (0.1) (0.1) (1.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.2) (51.9) (0.1) (0.4) (0.0) (0.1) (0.2)  -  -  TREND  W (0.0) (0.0) (0.3) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  -  3 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0)  -  -2  -  -  (0.0) 5 (0.0) 25 (0.2)  -3  (0.0)  -7  (0.1) (0.2) (0.5) (0.1) (22.4) (1.7) (0.1) (0.1) (1.4) (0.5) (0.9) (0.1) (45.6) (0.0) (0.7) (0.0) (0.1) (0.2)  2 (0.0)  19 53 7 2477 187 14 6 155 55 105 16 5037 5 75 4 8 17 _  -  2 5 998  (0.0) (0.0) (8.3)  2 18 98 4 3 10 1  (0.0) (0.2) (0.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0)  2 21 63 4 3 9 3  (0.0) (0.2) (0.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0)  9  (0.1)  147 15 39  (0.1) (0.3)  14 3 122 38 58 4 54 84 126  (0.1) (0.0) (1.1) (0.3) (0.5) (0.0) (0.5) (0.8)  -  -  -  8 69 106 11966  -  -  (172)  -  (0.1) (0.6) (0.9)  3 (0.0) 4 (0.0) 893 (8.1)  -  -  11053  -  -  -  --  -  +  -  -  t  -  -  -  +  -  (l.D 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^"""-*-^^ Struck against moving object Step on stationary object Bumping into stationary object Struck against stationary object Struck by falling Object during handling Struck by falling object Flying object due to explosion Flying object thrown back by a machine Struck by flying object NEC Struck by objects being hoisted, handled Struck by NEC Fall from elevation - on stairs Fall from stationary vehicles Fall from chairs, sawhorses, kegs Fall from buildings, roofs Fall from poles, trees, logs Fall into or against objects Fall to walkway Fall to walkway or working surface Fall to walkway or working surface NEC Caught in a moving and a stationary object Caught 1n, under, or between NEC Abraded by leaning, kneeling, or sitting Abraded by objects being handled Abraded by vibrating objects Abraded by foreign matter in eyes Abraded by repetition of pressure Abraded by foreign matter 1n nose, ears Rubbed or abraded NEC Bodily reaction from voluntary motions Overexertion in lifting objects Overexertion 1n carrying objects Overexertion NEC Contact with electric current General heat - atmosphere or environment General cold - atmosphere or environment Hot objects or substances Contact with radiations, caustics, t o x i c and noxious substances: By absorption By inhalation of water By inhalatin NEC Contact with radiations, caustics Human assault Uncalssified, Insufficient data TOTAL  NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified  1976  -  1  9 39 8 20 12 12 237 136 266 -  -  (%) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (1.9) (l.D (2.1)  3 1 7 25 2 28 15 28 292 127 313  -  -  -  1  (0.0)  1 6  (0.0) (0.0)  1 2 2  9411 -  1975  -  -.  -  -  (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  -  -  (75.9) -  -  (0.7) (0.1)  1  (0.0)  1 3  (0.0) (0.0)  -  163  (1~3)  7  (0.1)  -  -  -  -  -  (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.6) (0.2) ( .1) (2.3) (1.2) (2.7) (0.0) (0.0)  -  1  (0.0)  6  (0.1)  1  (0.0)  8 1 3  (0.1) (0.0) (0.0)  1 3  (0.0) (0.0)  -  -  -  . -  -  (0.0) (0.0) (0.0)  1  (0.0)  121  (1.0)  -  12405  2 1 19 38 17 61 25 451 250 130 293 1 2  2 1 1  -  3 (0.0) 1945 (15.7) 12 (0.1) 63 (0.5)  (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.2) (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (2.4) (1.1) (2.6)  TREND  -  -  -  -  1974  8784 (73.4) 12 (0.1) 79 (0.7) 14 (0.1)  36 7 -  {%)  -  199 (1.7) 4 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1793 (15.0) 13 (0.1) 82 (0.7) 11966  -  -  2 2 1 4 2 7599 15 90 31 1 5 2 2 2 4 1 164  (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (68.8) (0.1) (0.8) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.5)  438 1 6 1242 6 126  (4.0) (0.0) (0.1) (11.2) (0.1) (1.1)  11C53  _  +  -  -  +  -  +  t  - 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  Enucleation Burn or Scald (heat) Electric burn Contusion, Bruise Cut, Laceration Hernia, Rupture Scratches, Abrasions Sprains, Strains Multiple Injuries Occup. Injury NEC Burn (chemical) Contagious Disease Dermatitis Freezing, Frostbite Irritation Poisoning, systemic Radiation effects Radiation NEC Nonionizing Radiation Non-personal damage Unclassified disorder  TOTAL  1976 2 158 1 206 113  -14  9910  922  1  892  1 147  -38  12405  NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified  (%) (0.0) (1.3) (0.0) (1.7) (0.9) (0.0) (79.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (7.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (7.2) (0.0) (1.2) (0.0) (0.3)  1975 5 142 1 149 153  .-  9430  -  -38  978  -2 pa  1031  -36  11966  {%)  (0.0) (1.2) (0.0) (1.3) (1.3) (0.0) (78.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.3) (8.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (8.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.3)  1974  (%)  1 (0.0) 171 (1.5) 1 (0.0) 173 (1.5) 249 (2.3) 2 (0.0) 8647 (78.2) 6 (0.1) 1 (0.0) 62 (0.6) 763 (6.9) 11 (0.1) 2 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 6 (0.1) 8 (0.1) 892 (8.1) (0.0) (0.0) 1 (0.0) 55 (0.5)  -  11053  TREND _  + T  - 54 -  TABLE 3.A.15  M  Not Classified  No Compensation Medical Aid Only  ROW TOTAL  M  Compensation  Permanent Disability  COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT  w  NATURE OF INJURY  oi Multiple No Compensation  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)  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  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  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  z  202 21.9 7.1 1.6  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  5 35.7 0.2 0.0  718 77.9 7.5 5.8 9  922 7.4  0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0  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  0.1 7796 78.7 81.8 62.8  0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 83.3 0.0  6  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  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 0' 0.0 0.0 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  1 50.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  0 0.0 0.0 0.0  oi  2854 23.0  9534 76.9  Radiation Effects Dermatitis Chemical Burns Occupational Injury-NEC  COLUMN TOTAL  3 0.0  NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified  14.3 0.0 7 u °1  :  64.3  1  • T™ 0.0  1 0.0  1  12405 100.0  - 55 -  three categories  (of nature of i n j u r y ) account f o r a m a j o r i t y of eye i n -  j u r i e s (95.7%): Radiation e f f e c t s ( i . e . from welding f l a s h (8.4%), chemical burns (7.4%) and scratches  or abrasions (79.9%)). The eye i n j u r y s t a t -  i s t i c s f o r 1974 and 1975 show s i m i l a r trends. these three categories  Table 3.A.15 shows that  account f o r 96.4% of the m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y  (severity  #1) eye i n j u r i e s ; r a d i a t i o n e f f e c t s (7.1%), chemical burns (7.5%) and scratches  or abrasions (81.8%).  The same categories  of nature of i n j u r y  (in 1976)  accounted f o r 93.7% of the l o s t time ( s e v e r i t y #2)  injuries;  r a d i a t i o n e f f e c t 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 j u 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 t o t a l number of reported eye i n j u r i e s were  provided with f i r s t a i d .  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 j u 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 i n j u r y . some language (communication)  In 1976, 0.6% of the reported i n j u r i e s had 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  12405  11966  11053  TOTAL  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)  LANGUAGE PROBLEM  YEAR  Yes  1976  (%)  1975  (%)  1974  (%)  51  (0.6)  39  (0.5)  41  (0.5)  No  8672  (99.4)  8198  (99.5)  7894  (99.5)  Unknown  3682  3729  3118  12405  11966  11053  TOTAL  - 57 -  Part 2  -  D e t a i l e d Results  -  High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes  Figure 3.A.2 shows a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of standard industry classes  (S.I.C. Code), showing various rates of eye i n j u r i e s in A l b e r t a  i n 1976.  The graph i s exponential i n nature, with the greatest number  of industry classes having low rates and p r o g r e s s i v e l y fewer industry classes having higher rates of eye i n j u r i e s . With two exceptions, industry classes with an eye i n j u r y rate of greater than 9 i n j u r i e s per 100 man years worked were s e l e c t e d f o r f u r ther study.  These are l i s t e d in Table 3.A.18.  The two industry  classes  with eye i n j u r y rates greater than 9/100 man y e a r s , but with very small workforces, were excluded from the study because even one i n j u r y gave an a r t i f i c i a l l y high eye i n j u r y r a t e .  These were classes 305 (wire manu-  f a c t u r e r s ) , and 306 (hardware manufacturers). Tables 3.A.19 to 3.A.29 concern s e l e c t e d eye i n j u r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( v a r i a b l e s ) , f o r s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s , taken from the A l b e r t a W.C.B. S t a t 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 f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s . of 3.A.R., Part 2.)  (These tables are found at the end  The eye i n j u r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , or v a r i a b l e s , that  were s e l e c t e d are: Variable (Sev.  #1)  3.A.19  (Sev.  #2)  3.A.30  P r e l i m i n a r y 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 S h 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 IN ALBERTA  111rrhi-  (w.C.B.  CLASSIFICATIONS 1976)  HIGH EYE INJURY RISK CLASSES 1~i 10 i  RATE OF EYE INJURIES PER  i H'—i-i-i-i 15 100 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 31100 30700 30800 30801 29100 •• 02 34300 32400 •• 01 •• 03 32300 30200 89400 • 01 30100  DESCRIPTION Mfg. of Agricultural Implements Mfg. of Heating Equipment Automotive Machine Shops Machine Shops Mfg. of Steel Foundry - Iron and Steel Mfg. of Lime Mfg. of Holiday Trailers and Campers Mfg. of Truck Bodies and Cabs Mfg. of Wooden Truck Boxes Mfg. of Vehicles Fabrication of Structural Steel Blacksmith Shop Welding Shop Mfg., Fabrication and Repair of Metal Products  - 60 -  Variable (Sev. #1)  (Sev.  (Cont'd)  #2)  3.A.24  3.A.35  Hours worked before Accident  3.A.25  3.A.36  Source of  3.A.26  3.A.37  Type of Accident  3.A.27  3.A.38  Nature of  3.A.28  3.A.39  F i r s t Aid Provided  3.A.29  3.A.40  Language problem involved i n  Injury  Injury  Injury  There were only 4 i n j u r i e s in these s e l e c t e d classes that were classed as s e v e r i t y #2 (permanent d i s a b i l i t y ) or s e v e r i t y #5 ( m u l t i p l e i n j u r i e s which involve medical a i d o n l y ) . 311.  These were found in classes 301, 302 and  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 t e e n 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 v a r i a b l e s 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 j u r i e s in Tables 3.A.19 and 3.A.30 no longer f o l l o w an ascending t r e n d .  Industry class 29100, f o r 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 c l a s s 29102 which has a high incidence of eye i n j u r i e s .  The a n a l y s i s i s not hampered by t h i s f a c t o r , however,  but i t must be taken i n t o account. Table 3.A.20 shows that a high percentage ( s i m i l a r to the general r e s u l t s discussed previously)  of s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s occur in workers  less than 30 years of age.  Workers who i n c u r s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s i n  the machine shop and s t e e l f a b r i c a t i o n i n d u s t r i e s are older i n general. Table 3.A.31 i n d i c a t e s a s i m i l a r trend f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , although  -  61  -  in the machine shop and s t e e l f a b r i c a t i o n i n d u s t r i e s , the more serious i n j u r i e s occur i n the s l i g h t l y o l d e r worker.  On the other hand, automotive  machine shops and i n d u s t r i e s manufacturing a g r i c u l t u r a l implements and heating equipment i n c u r more serious i n j u r i e s i n t h e i r s l i g h t l y younger workers. In a m a j o r i t y of the i n d u s t r i e s c i t e d in Table 3.A.21, welders and p i p e f i t t e r s i n c u r the greatest number of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s .  Machinists,  metal shapers and formers and mechanics top the l i s t i n three i n d u s t r i e s . Each of these occupations involve handling metal products.  Much the same  s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s i n Table 3.A.32 f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s .  Welders do  not f i g u r e as prominently, but t h i s i s due mainly to the lower number of s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s which allow other occupations to dominate by v i r tue of chance. The m a j o r i t y of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , i n a l l industry c l a s s e s , 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 s e v e r i t y #1 than s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u 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 d i f f e r e n c e or could not be compared  due to lack of numbers.  S e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s were prevalent among  workers who worked 7 hour s h i f t s , w h i l e very few s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s occurred i n t h i s category. Tables 3.A.23 and 3.A.34 show that the m a j o r i t y of industry have eye i n j u r y peaks at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.  classes  Welding shops and manufac-  turers of a g r i c u l t u r a l equipment had peaks occurring at 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.  Machine shops and v e h i c l e 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 f a b r i c a t o r s at 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. peaks v a r i e d between three and f i v e hours.  The duration between  A l l industry classes excep-  t i n g cab and truck body manufacturers and heating equipment manufacturers showed a higher peak i n the afternoon, w h i l e the l a t t e r showed a higher peak in the morning. The m a j o r i t y of high r i s k industry classes studied i n Table 3.A.25 show t h a t between 30% and 40% of the s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s are caused by metal chips and p a r t i c l e s .  Among s t e e l manufacturing i n d u s t r i e s and  t r a i l e r manufacturers t h i s f i g u r e i s lower. i n j u r y source of t h i s k i n d .  Lime manufacturers show no  Metal chips and p a r t i c l e s c o n t r i b u t e to a  high proportion of the s e v e r i t y #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 v e h i c l e manufacturers show lower r a t e s .  A high proportion of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye  i n j u r i e s are caused by u n i d e n t i f i e d p a r t i c l e s and welding equipment. A l l industry c l a s s e s , with the exception of lime manufacturers, show in Table 3.A.26 that a very high proportion of eye i n j u r i e s occur as a r e s u l t of f o r e i g n matter being rubbed or abraded on the a n t e r i o r segment. Table 3.A.37 shows that t h i s proportion i s lower, although s t i l l s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s .  high, f o r  Contact with r a d i a t i o n s and c a u s t i c s i s the  second most prevalent type of s e v e r i t y #2 accident.  Truck body and cab  manufacturers and lime manufacturers show a higher than average incidence of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s in t h i s category.  Hot objects (which could i n -  clude molten metal and sparks) were responsible f o r a moderate proportion of l o s t work time i n j u r i e s i n i n d u s t r i e s concerned with the manufacture of a g r i c u l t u r a l implements and heating equipment. In g e n e r a l , t h i s type of accident v a r i a b l e does not prove f r u i t f u l t h i s a n a l y s i s as i t i s h i g h l y generalized and r e p e t i t i o u s .  in  - 63 -  Excepting lime manufacturers with 40%, Table 3.A.27 shows that superf i c i a l abrasions to the cornea were responsible f o r 78% to 100% of the s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s in the high eye i n j u r y r i s k industry c l a s s e s .  The  range becomes g r e a t e r , and the proportion lower, f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s (Table 3.A.38) (e.g. between 62% and 91%). Notable exceptions are lime manufacturers pectively.  and v e h i c l e manufacturers with proportions  of 0 and 42% r e s -  The proportion of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s due to i o n i z i n g r a d i a -  tions i s v a r i a b l e , between 2.2% and 14.7%.  With the exception of lime  manufacturers, where no s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r y i s due to r a d i a t i o n s , no trends in the nature of the i n j u r i e s can be seen and v a r i a t i o n i s l i k e l y due to chance.  A high proportion of s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s i s caused by r a d i a -  tion effects.  Again, the prevalence of t h i s i n j u r y among high eye i n j u r y  r i s k industry classes i s highly v a r i a b l e and ranges from 9% to 51%.  Sev-  e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s caused by chemical burns are prevalent in lime manuf a c t u r e r s , automotive machine shops and s t r u c t u r a l s t e e l f a b r i c a t i o n p l a n t s . S e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s due to contact with hot substances appear cons i s t e n t l y but are not in high p r o p o r t i o n . The p r o v i s i o n of f i r s t aid among these s e l e c t e d industry classes highly v a r i a b l e .  is  Tables 3.A.28 and 3.A.39 show that i t ranges from 20% to  80% f o r s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s and 13% to 68% f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , respectively.  The p r o v i s i o n of f i r s t a i d s e r v i c e s , e s p e c i a l l y f o 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 a n t part in the causation of s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u 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 s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r y cases i n the metal f a b r i c a t i o n , manufacture and r e p a i r  industry.  products  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)  t—1  a  _i Ul 35  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  BLACKSMITH SHOP  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  VEHICLES  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  LIME  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  MFG STEEL  MACHINE SHOP  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  HEATING EQUIPMENT  PRELIMINARY INFORMATION  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  INDUSTRY CLASS  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 80 94 _3 35 35 196_ 239 399 IP. 139 1 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% 60% 66% 74% 66% 100% 68% 77% 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 POPULATION OF INDUSTRY CLASS (MAN YEARS)  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)  •FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  VEHICLES  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  CL.  LIME  cn  FOUNDARY: STEEL, IRON  35  MFG STEEL  AGE OF INJURED WORKER  MACHINE SHOP  (X)  HEATING EQUIPMENT  NO.  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  INDUSTRY CLASS «t to a. hLU Q£  (_)  =3  O oO O  z:  CD  z  CC  cu a.  »  o  a.  ca to  a _i ui 3  u. 3E «£  U l  -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  1 (2.9) 3 (8.8) 3 (8.8) 2 (5.9) 3 (8.8) 2 (5.9) 11 (32.4) 9 (26.5)  1 (5.6)  2 (3.7) 1 (1.9)  1 (5.6) 3 (16.6) 1 (5.6) 8 (44.4) 4 (22.2)  5 (9.2) 5 (9.2) 6 (11.1) 11 (20.4) 15 (27.8) 9 (16.7)  4 (1.6) 5 (2.0) 11 (4.5) 11 (4.5) 22 (9.1) 25 (10.2) 51 (20.8) 43 (17.6) 60 (24.6) 11 (4.5)  1 (2.9)  2 (5.7) 2 (5.7) 3 (8.6) 6 (17.0) 8 (22.9) 12 (34.3) 1 (2.9)  6 (7.5) 3 (3.8) 4 (5.0) 4 (5.0) 7 (8.8) 10 (12.5) 13 (16.3) 22 (27.5) 11 (13.8)  1 1 (10.0) (0.7) 2 (1.4) 5 1 (10.0) (3.6) 1 7 (10.0) (5.0) 2 3 (20.0) (2.2) 15 (10.8) 17 1 (10.0) (12.2) 2 49 (20.0) (35.3) 2 39 (20.0) (28.1)  3 (3.2) 2 1 (2.9) (2.1) 3 4 (8.6) (4.3) 3 2 1 (3.2) (33.2) (5.7) 3 7 (7.4) (8.6) 5 11 (14.3) (11.7) 14 5 (14.9) (14.3) 40 12 2 (42.6) (66.7) (34.3) 9 3 (9.6) (8.6)  1 (0.5) 3 (1.5) 4 (2.0) 10 (5.1) 13 (6.6) 24 1 (12.2) ( 1 0 0 ) 42 (21.4) 44 (22.4) 40 (20.4) 13 (6.6)  (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)  YRS 1 (0.4)  1 (0.7)  1 (1.1)  35 80 34 244 , , I , , » (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (io§)  (IS  (lOTj)  MISSING VALUES TOTAL  8  5 4  , v 196  (100)  (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  2 (0.8)  1 2 (2.9) (1.0)  (10(1) ( l f t  12 (3.0)| 5  (100)  239 (100)  399 , (lOOH  INDUSTRY CLASS  NOT CLASSIFIED CIVIL ENGINEERS MECHANICAL ENGINEERS  12 3 10 72 5 13 3 49 17 (35.3) (16.7) (18.5) (29.5) (14.3) (16.2) (30.0) (35.3) (18.1) 1 (0.7)  Ui  >  7 53 (20.0) (27.0)  oo  a. h-  BLACKSMITH SHOP  CO Ui _J  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL «  —i  <  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  s: »—•  DC  -  TRUCK BODIE! CABS  Ui  HOLIDAY TRA! CAMPERS  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  MFG STEEL  MACHINE SHOP  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHO;  (%)  -J  Q_  HEATING EQUIPMENT  NO.  cc UJ AGRICULTURA IMPLEMENTS  OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER  CO  _l  CO  z o  —1  FAB.MFG & RE METAL PRODUC  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)  72 90 (30.1) (22.6)  (O.J) BOOKKEEPERS SHIPPING CLERKS COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS FIRE-FIGHTERS JANITORS  1 (1.9)  SUPERVISORS: DRILLING OPERATIONS  (2.9)  1 (1.2)  ROTARY WELL-DRILLING CRUSHING AND GRINDING OCCUPATIONS  SUPERVISORS: ORE TREATING OPERATIONS METAL FURNACEMEN  METAL CASTING PLATING, METAL OCCUPATIONS  1 (0.4)  LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING  (8.6)  2 (2.5)  LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM METAL PROCESSING LABOURING IN FOOD & BEVERAGE TOOL-AND-DIE MAKING MACHINIST FOREMEN:METAL SHAPING AND FORMING  1 (5.6) 2 (0.8) 69 17 (31.5) (28.3)  1 (1.2) 1 (1.2) 4 (5.0)  1 (2.9)  2 (2,5)  2 (5.7)  2 (2.5)  1 (10.0)  (0.3)  1 (0.7) 1 (0.7)  (0.5)  1 (0.7) (0.3) 2 (0.5)  1 (10.0) 1 (10.0)  1 (10.0) 2 (0.5)  (0.7) 3 (8.6)  2 (1.0)  (0.4) (0.4)  FORGING OCCUPATIONS (0.4)  10 (2.5) 2 (0.5)  r~  Z ID Ul z s:  P °" 2 3X UJ  Oo  UJ 3 : > i/>  P  § ? ~UJ P 1  §3  z x o  a. o  2£  —i Ul UJ hf) o U-  z:  METALWORKING-HACHINE OPERATORS  INSPECTING: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING  o cc >-  OC  •  _i z Ul =3 UJ £ co a  h-  UJ z: -i  > ~ CO <C al O UJ t— Q. _J  X  S3  6 9 (26.5) (33.3)  3 62 4 (5.6) (25.4) (11.4)  CO UJ Q O CO  UJ X o  O CO =3 ca  z O UJ CZ£ a <_> Q =>  s i—  1 (1.1)  3 (3.7)  z O  */>  PS  1 (1.2)  SHEET-METAL WORKERS  WELDING ANO FLAME CUTTING  s  z  TEEL  LERS, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEM1ENTS  TABLE 3.A.21 - CONTINUED  ac  ce 3 ca a: < >u. l/>  >•  2 (5.7)  ca  to  Ux  d  1 144 194 (100) (60.3) (48.6)  (0.7)  OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS  1 (1.1)  1  ELECTRICAL EQUIP FABRICATING & ASSEMBLING MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS 1 (2.9) 5 5 (14.7) (27.8)  EXCAVATING. GRADING  11 (20.4) 7 (13.0) 1 (1.9)  4 (1.6) (2.9) 3 (1.2)  (17.1)  (2.9)  ELECTRICAL POWER LINEMEN  1 (2.9)  CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS FOREMEN: OTHER CONSTRUCTION TRADES  (0.7) 16 2 (17.0) (1.4) 9  1 (2.9) 6  (5.6)  1 (1.2) 7 (8.7)  (0.4)  6 (1.5)  2 (1.0)  (0.1)  4 (1.0)  2 (1.0)  (0.4)  1  55 (39.6)  3 (3.2)  (0.7)  (2.9) 1 (33.3)  (0.5) 1 (1.5) 5 (2.6)  (5.7) 1 (2.9)  (0.3) 1 (0.3)  2 (2.1)  2 (2.9) (0.8)  STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS 1 (0.4) (0.4)  1 (2.9) (5.0)  (0.3) 14 (3.5)  2  CONCRETE FINISHING  1 (5.6)  (0.4)  2 (1.4)  CARPENTERS  PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING  6 (1.5) 1 (0.3)  (0.5)  (9.6)  1 (10.0)  -5i  ux  (0.5) 4 42 2 17 63 (2.9) (44.7) (66.7) (48.6) (32.1) 1  20 (25.0)  MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING  LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION  o a-  3S  11 (2.8)  (0.5)  1 (2.9) 4 (1.6)  FILING. GRINDING. BUFFING OCCUPATIONS  PAINTERS. PAPERHANGERS  -§ C9 CI.  13 Z a  (0.5)  HETAL SHAPING AND FORMING  LABOURING IN PRODUCT FAB.ASSEHB. & REPAIR  ad => a  DC  0-  4 (2.0)  BOILERMAKERS. PLATERS  FOREMEN: PRODUCT FAB.. ASSEMBLING & REPAIR  -1  PS  Ul  < CO Ul t_>  CI  Ul -J  OC  (0.4) 5 (2.9) (2.6) 25 (12.8) 3 (1.5) 2 (2.9) (1.0)  (0.4) 2 (0.8) 3 (1.3)  (0.3) 28 (7.0) 2 (0.5)  TABLE 3.A.21 - CONTINUED  HOISTING OCCUPATIONS  LONGSHOREMEN  MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS  FOREMEN OCCUPATIONS  INSPECTING. TESTING. GRADING & SAMPLING  LABOURING OCCUPATIONS  OTHER OCCUPATIONS  TOTAL (14.7)  18 (100)  HEATING EQUIPMENT  - j  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  (2.9)  54 (100)  34 (100)  tn cn —«  10 (100)  O  o  J> X.  MACHINE SHOP  (0.4)  12 (4.9) (11.4)  80 (100)  (0.4)  35 (100)  >j«)ro-j  *-• ro  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  (8.6)  (2.9)  ro » u> —•  MFG STEEL  .—» ro  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  tn ro  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 —'  •— ro u*  U3  o ro  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL BLACKSMITH SHOP  o o — O O  .—. —'  WELDING  ro o  399 (100)  tn O  FAB,MFG t REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  ro o  - 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)  »  NO. 00  - J  CO  LU  35  *—*.—J  LENGTH OF SHIFT WORKED  CC Cu ts x  eg L U X 1-4 CL Z  J— LU X  O * LU  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHI  a.  S5  - J LU LU  LU  z  X Q. 1—t C_> O  8  5 THRU 6 HOURS PER DAY 7 HOURS PER DAY  1 (3.8)  8 HOURS PER DAY  22 (84.6)  9 THRU 10 HOURS PER DAY  3 (11.5)  6  4  34 (100)  to LL.  Lu  X  61  3  2 (1.1) 4 1 (0.5) (12.5) 12 46 163 28 (100) (92.0) (88.1) (87.5) 4 (8.0)  16 (8.7) 1 (0.5)  54 (100)  244 (100)  11 THRU 12 HOURS PER DAY  TOTAL  O Z =) O  «/>  18 (100)  35 (100)  co  o to >- cc LU  X .  «  —J  9  LU  CO LU  O  o  I—I  a  _J LU LU (— LO  LU  X  cc -  h-  <* i - i  UNKNOWN  >-  z o cc  1  _j LU  co cc LU a.  < LU »—4 *—t Q  _1  oS X r-  43  X  z O  CO  LU O  CO  i£  zz) ca 83 ac <  U  t- C_)  25  Z  _l PS O  to LU _l o *~*  X <  CC =3 CO CC <. r 3S U. W  X LU  O  O  CO  5  O-  to z. a  _ i  LU  co co  49  88  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  INDUSTRY CLASS  89 1 (0.3)  71 (100)  80 (100)  1  (1.0) 8  95 63 (99.0) (91.3) (80.0) 5 1 (7.2) (1.0) (10.0) 1 (1.4) 10 (100)  139 (100)  94 (100) T  3 (100)  (3.3) 27 (90.1) 2 (6.6)  3 (100)  35 (100)  4 (2.7)  4 (2.6)  133 (90.5)  1 104 (100) (68.8)  10 (6.8)  196 (100)  13 (4.2) 259 (8.4)  40 32 (26.5) (10.3) 5 3 (1.9) (1.6) 1 (100)  239 (100)  399 (100)  - 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  NO.  (S)  TIME OF ACCIDENT  <c ae vi => t— K- Z ^ UJ =D X  >-• _j  ac a. C9 3E <c —>  a.  »— z ca ui z X  P 23-  \— UJ h- O  ZC UJ  01 02 03  I  04 05  l  1 (4.0)  08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  Ui Ui  z a. x c_> o  S =5  1 1 (4.0) 1 1 1 (4.0) (7.7) (2.3) 5 4 6 (20.0) (30.8) (13.6) 1 7 (7.7) (15.9) 2 5 (8.0) 01.4) 1 (7.7) 1 2 (7.7) (4.5) g 6 (20.0) (23.1) (13.6) 1 7 (8.0) (15.9) 4 (16.0) (7.7) (11.4) 3 1 (2.3) (12.0)  (7.7,  20 1(4.0)  22  1 (2.3) 1 (2.3)  23  Hj CO U.  -e  3  o  CC  >-  OC * o ^ =3 Ul 3= UJ O ru_ 1/1  Ul 3E _1  I— >- trt < O OC UJ  •—. a. ^5 X cj  Ui  Ui X  a  o aa ^£  =3 ca C J «c o oc h- <_)  o  ca  UJ  irf  a iC J S  36 I —  O Wt  UJ _i CJ 3= Ul >  *c  PS  r-  — CJ C J 1— OC ZD ca cc «€ i — U. V )  <: =  U J ris* a_ CC C J Z3  X  zc. on  C9  1 (0.6) 1 (0.6)  i  19  21  —i  Ul  (2.3)  06 07  aE  o UJ zc  OC  LACK  _l  _J Ul UJ I— IS) —1  HOP  l/l OC Ul  (0.6) 1 (0.6)  6  z  I—1 J * Ul 3  TOTAL  34  (ICO)  5 18  :ioo)  10  2 (6.7, 1 (3.3, 3 (10.0, 1 (3.3, 2 (6.7, 2 (6.7, 1 (3.3,  (3.8) 7 (4.5) 14 (8.9) 18 2 (6.7, (11.5) 6 3 (3.8) (10.0, 2 13 (8.3) (6.7, 26 2 (16.6) (6.7, 35 1 (22.3, (3.3, 2 (10.8, (6.7) 3 1 (3.3, (1-9) 3 (1.9) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 2 1 (1.3) (3.3, 1 2 (0.6, (6.7, 2 (6.7,  87  £s  2 1 (0.8,  2 (3.4,  1 (0.4,  1 1 2 0-7, (3.1) (1.1, 4 2 4 1 (6.9, (20.0, (4.5, (1.5, 3 1 11 4 (5.2, (10.0, (12.5, (6.2, 7 14 11 (15.9, ( 1 6 . 9 , 02.1) 5 3 16 4 1 (8.6, (30.0, (18.2, ( 6 . 2 , (50.0) 1 5 2 1 0.7, (5.7, (3.1, (50.0, 3 1 13 4 (5.2, (10.0, (14.8, (6.2, 9 10 13 (15.5, (11.4, (20.0, 1 9 8 11 (15.5, (10.0, (9.1) ( 1 6 . 9 , 4 6 (6.9, (10.0, (6.8, (7.7, 1 1 2 (1.7) (10.0, (3.1, 1 2 (1.7) (3.1, 2 (3.1, 3 2 (5.2, (3.1, 3 (5.2,  2 (7.7, 2 (7.7) 3 (11.5, 4 (15.4, 1 (3.8, 1 (3.8, 3 (11.5) 5 (19.2) 3 (11.5) (3.8)  1 (3.8)  2 (3.4,  2 (1.5, 7 (5.4, 7 (5.4, 16 (12.3, 14 (10.8, 4 (3.1) 12 (9.2, 18 (13.8, 19 (14.6, 6 (4.6, 2 (1.5, 7 (5.4, 2 (1.5, 5 (3.8, 5 (3.8, 3 (2.3, 1 (0.8)  i  (100,  1 (0.8, 1 8 (0.8, (3.0, 2 5 (1.7, (1.9, 17 25 (9.4, (14.3, 13 31 (10.9, (11.7, 14 36 (11-8, (13.6, 5 8 (4.2, (3.0, 5 18 (4.2, (6.8, 22 56 (18.5, (21.1, 19 43  (11.0) (10.9) 1 (0.8, 2 (1.7, 3 (2-5)  (2.3) 9  u>  «£ Ul  (0.8,  24  MISSING VALUE  o co a.  5  51  22  54 244 35 80 (100) (100, (100, (100,  10  139"  (100) (100)  29 94  (WO,  1 3 (100,  r . 35 (100,  66 196 (100,  I (100,  ( 1 6  lf  (5.3, 4 (1.5,  4 (1.5, 2 (0.8), 3 (1.1) 3 (1.1) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4,  120  134  239 (100,  399 (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  HOURS WORKED BEFORE ACCIDENT  OO  «t —>  SS  4  (2.8) 9 (6.3) 13  4  _l  1  ac  4  6 (5.0) 6  3 a (3.7) (14.0) (33.3) (9.4) (4.8) (4.2) 3 7 10 14 (15.9) (16.0) (8.2) (7.0) (9.1) (11.7) 1 6 2 20 8 1 18 (7.7) (3.7) (10.5) (22.2) (23.5) (12.7) (50.0) (15.0) (4.0) 16 5 5 7 1 8 (18.5) (8.8) ( U . l ) (8.2) (6.3) (50.0) (4.0) (6.7) (9.1) (4.8) (11.2) 2 2 6 16 3 6 1 14 8 2 19 (8.3) (18.2) (14.3) (10.5) (11.1) (16.5) (12.7) (8.0) (15.8) (11.2) 3 2 5 16 7 8 1 10 7 6 21 (12.5) (18.2) (25.9) (14.0) (24.0) (17.5) (8.2) (15.9) (11.9) (11.2) 3 10 28 2 9 13 9 13 (23.8) (19.6) (12.5) (15.8) (15.3) (14.3) (16.0) (10.8) (9.1) (7.4) 5 2 23 7 6 .2 (20.8) (8.0) (9.2) (9.5) (4.8) (16.1) (3.7) (12.3) (4.7) 2 2 1 2 (2.8) (3.5) (4.2) (2.4) (1.6) (1.7) 3 1 2  02  4  03 04 05  11  (11.1)  4  1  4 1 1  4  (11.1)  06  (11.1) 1 (11.1)  1  07 08  1  09  1  10  1  TOTAL  10  11  4  11 UNKNOWN  4  4  7  (2.4) 12  (2.1) 101  (1.8) 8  23  1  54  31  1  10  co tn  CD  z  r—« o  2  (1.9) 11  (10.4) 12  (11.3)  i.MFG & REPA AL PRODUCTS  s  IP  _ J  iCKSMITH  IICLES 2 (8.0) 3 (12.0)  (6.3) 3  (/> z *~* s Si= 3 EEfc O  LU >  U  3 (3.5)  (14-8) (1.8) 8 1  t—«  Ut t-  )DEN JCK BOXES  3E •™.  OC  LU  JCK BODIES, iS  LU  —i  .IDAY TRAILE 1PERS  JNDRY: DN, STEEL  J STEEL  DP  liar  -  3 1 1 (12.5) (9.1) (2.4) 2 2 6 (8.3) (18.2) (14.3) 3 2 (12.5) (18.2) (9.5) 2 5 (8.3) (11.9) 1 2  01  CHINE  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  (1)  HEATING EQUIPMENT  NO.  RICULTURAL PLEMENTS  52  « £  U J  u. ac  11  (4.3)  15 (5.9) 28  (11.1)  18 37 (17.0) (14.6) 7 19 (6.6) (7.5) 37 10 (9.4) (14.6) 12 42 (11.3) (16.6) 24 45 I (100) (22.6) (17.8) 7 16 (6.6) (6.3) 2 (0.8) 2  1  (1.7)  (1.9) (0.4)  (0.8)  (0.9)  76  18 54 244 34 35 80 10 35 196 139 94 3 1 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)  133  146  239 (100)  399 (100)  m XI  CO  rm  o CD  TP  ^»  CO CO  o  m > z  M  -(  33  m  -n  X  *—« o 5> |— CO  CO  r*  *  5» O *  i—  5 r-  a CO  •—»  m CO  •  -n  »-« rn  >  o  o  rm  O  CO o  o  m 3E CO  E  CO  An AU  T I  cu  —t o z o CO  22  cn i— 3>  tn  m 33 CO  -r-  an  T J  r-  z o —1  cz m r-  -D  3d m CO CO  X  t—<  tr>  X  cz 33 m  -D  #—« z  TO  r-  CO CO  cz 33  co  CO  m  TO  o  O  m r-  o  ALL!  CO  r-  m z: X  :RE  —t  cr 33  o  r-  5> CO CO t -n  o  > o o O  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  ro vo —'  cn •—i co O x z • cr •—• o .  CD  MACHINE SHOP  «J  o ~J  —'  —1  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  — '  ~j —'  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  ro co  ro vo —•  VEHICLES o  o  cn •  cn •  33  c o  o cz co TO  -c o r5>  CO • —1 z  • 3m3  FABRICATION ISTRUCTURAL STEEL .BLACKSMITH SHOP o j > —•  o * » •  MELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR FETAL PRODUCTS  o CO CO  - ZL -  m  •  >»  z  o =»fc r — co l - l3 3m—3 3m -c rm — I 3» co s» r —— •> -—• z o c•-« — Z *r » 3 3cz CO * - i —»co m vo m co S » CZ —'  -~J CO-  enWOODEN TRUCK BOXES  —<  s» rn "o co O r-  5- ~ ~-<  CO CO  CO  m TO -< m  T]  T I  o c_ m ro > CZ 3 3 « = cn r —-<3 3COi—•3 3m  —1  o  o  O  co  z  4  (40.0)  O  o  X  m  — ) i - i 33  1—1  LIME  TO tn  o  —I j » —I  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  (10.0)  ro ro co  co  MFG STEEL  ro —•  1  —I  9C o  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  ro —  o  CD *—• « Z CO 3> —( CD —4 t— O TO CO M *—* m — i z co  HEATING EQUIPMENT  ro vo •  O  TO O X O C P l i - i TO Z TO O  •  (001) (001)  08  o — •  ro  —<  •  — »  —  ro  1  — • ro co cn cn • • • r » ••  —<  —J >  MFG S T E E L  J >  i  t  O  FOUNDRY:  .  ro co ro —•  o  *  o  . ro • vo vo N I • ..  co co  -*  co  196  (100)  co c n  N J  -~~  —•  Jfi.  o • cn  ro cn . ro • vo ro -e* —<  C O  TRUCK  BODIES,CABS  T R U C K BOXES  C O  VEHICLES  N I ~  N  C O  «-N  cn —• • . . cr,. cn co cn ro o ro  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL S T E E L BLACKSMITH SHOP  « - N > ^ C O . - N o o cn —< ro ' . . . — i . ^ j • j&. —• j > — . N I en co cn c n cn  • — *  (0.3)  134  (0.3)  16  [33.6)  (4.0)  - ZL -  (0.3)  (0.8)  (0.3)  176  (0.5)  60  399  J  jfi»co co • vo cn cn vo co (44.1)  (100)  —  (15.0)  239  o • J> —'  (0.3)  (100)  - — •  TRAILERS,  CAMPERS  WOODEN ro  cn —•  cn  . _ ,  . .  cn cn NI  L  "*T  ^  o o —' — • _co_co  IRON  HOLIDAY  . - ^  . ro . i_j  1  cn  35  (100)  •—N  —  J >  ' — -  STEEL,  LIME  — » ro — . cn * » r o - i ^ o i J>  J >  C O  »-  SHOP  N I  C C O  "ro . ro co —  • • — oj i. joji k — ' — ' o cn C D J >  —  SHOP  MACHINE  o —•  ^  *>  ^  o  ro co ro J •—• • — —•>  M  94  (100)  • —^ro  —  to  •  MACHINE  i  o ro  N I  CONTINUED  1  ro  . N I  TABLE 3 . A . 2 5 -  O •NJ  AUTOMOTIVE  "ZT  co  .  o  ro  HEATING EQUIPMENT  to  ^—.  —*  ro  o  IMPLEMENTS  V I M - < C h  . N I  c n ro ro  .  O  '  C  AGRICULTURAL  .  vo ro  no co co cn cn J>  .—* cn  cn •  SCREWDRIVER  ro  O  O  roco!t»—»  U V I C O  •  INFECTIOUS AND PARASITIC AGENTS  •  _ J  —•  20  cn cn ^ ,  *o  C D vo vo ro  35  (100)  CD •  [37.0)  244  c n — •  31  (100)  NJ  •  —' c o —< oo • • - i r o i o > j  v>  M  TACKS  ro ro U  NAILS, SPIKES,  I  METAL CHIPS AND PARTICLES  N  O  •  vo ro - c *  o  o o  MOLTEN METAL  ITEMS  —' cn •  co ro  1  O  STRUCTURAL MEMBERS  METAL  ROCKS, STONES, SAND  — '  [57.4)  54 V O  ITEMS, NON-METALLIC, NEC  •  cn ro u  (3.7)  (100)  oo  MINERAL  34  O  O  (UNIDENTIFIED)  (100)  •  ro !-• o  oo .—* c n ro c n  C O  .toco  cn • os—'  O o  PARTICLES  POWERED  WELDING EQUIPMENT, ELECTRIC ARC  HIGHWAY VEHICLES,  SLIVERS, SPLINTERS, ETC  CHIPS  WOOD ITEMS, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  MISCELLANEOUS, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  UNKNOWN, UNIDENTIFIED  TOTAL  — »  WELDING  FAB,MFG & REPAIR 4ETAL  PRODUCTS  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)  STRUCK AGAINST MOVING OBJECT STRUCK AGAINST STATIONARY OBJECT  (0.3)  1 j  STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECT  1 (0.4)  FLYING OBJECT THROWN BACK BY A MACHINE FLYING OBJECT, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED STRUCK BY OBJECTS BEING HOISTED STRUCK BY, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  3 1 (2.9)  CAUGHT IN A MOVING/STATIONARY OBJECT FOREIGN MATTER IN EYES ABRADED BY FOREIGN MATTER  28 (82.1)  HOT OBJECTS OR SUBSTANCES CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS. CAUSTICS UNCLASSIFIED, INSUFFICIENT DATA  TOTAL  5 (14.7)  34 (100)  1 1  (1.2) 1  3 (2.2) 3 (2.2) 2 (1.4)  (1.1)  FAB. MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  WELDING  BLACKSMITH SHOP  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  VEHICLES  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  LIME  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  MFG STEEL  MACHINE SHOP  TYPE OF ACCIDENT  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  (X)  HEATING EQUIPMENT  NO.  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  INDUSTRY CLASS  2 (1.0) 1 (0.5)  (0.3) 5 (1.3) (0.4)  (0.3) 2 (2.9) (1.2) 1 (5.6) (0.3) (0.8) 311 51 4 123 3 29 160 1 185 212 (94.4) (86.9) (88.5) (1.1) (ioo.o: (81.6) (100.0 (77.4) (77.9) 1 12 2 1 1 (1.1) (82.9) 73 (40.0) (0.4) ( 0 . 5 ) (0.4) (66.7) 70 11 10 6 2 30 (74.5) (0.8) (3.1) (4.2) (2.8) (11.1) 1 1 1 65 3 3 22 39 26 (91.2) (16.3) (16.3) (16.7) (5.6) (9.0) (13.3) (10.0) (5.0) (1.1) 1 1 2 2 1 (1.1) 5 1 (2.9) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8) (0.3) 19 2 (50.0) (0.7) (85.7) (20.2) (2.5) 18 54 244 35 804 10 139 94 355 196 3 1 239 399 (100) (100) (100) (100) (5.0) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (14.3) 4 (11.4)  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 *  co OC LU  NO.  (X)  NATURE OF INJURY  2 _1  x  co  =>s:  O LU •-< _ l OC Q_  <s  C 9  LU  £ < ?  H >Lu O" X  LU  1  BURN (HOT SUBSTANCE) (2.9)  CONTUSIONS CUTS, LACERATIONS SCRATCHES OR ABRASIONS UNCLASSIFIED OCCUP. INJURY CHEMICAL BURN RADIATION EFFECTS NON-IONIZING RADIATION UNCLASSIFIED  TOTAL  (5.6) 28 (82.4)  LU > to i—« r- LU O Z  3E « o  Ii  z  LU z  rc a . CJ o  — i LU LU 1—  CO CO U. 3£  >cc  O Z  » _ l LU  S£  LL. CO  2 3 (0.8) (2.9) (3.7) 1 (0-4) (0.4) 51 218 30 73 (94.4) (89.3) (85.7) (91.2)  co LU  ff  z o cc  O  i — i o_  s:  »—» _ i  x  o  1  X  o o CO  o  03  zc C J CO =3 CO pr < r~ c j  1  (l.D  1 (1.1) (10.0)  z  co LU  I—<  >- CO < OC a LU  LU  z L U ZC a CJ o =>  O _ J  CJ  X  (  Ul  >  1 (2.9) (2.9)  (0.7) 72 131 3 28 (94.2) (76.6) (100) (80.0)  4 3 1 5 4 (1.9) (1.2) (2.9) 0.2) (2.9) (5.3) 2 3 3 16 3 12 (14.7) (3.7) (6.6) (8.6) (3.7) (40.0) (2.2) (12.8) 3 3 (77.8) (1.2) (3.2) 5 (50.0) 35 80 10 139 (100) (100) (100) (100)  _l  CO Ui  14  18 34 54 244 2 (100) (100) (100) (100) (11.1) 1 (5.6)  OC  Ul Ul  •—<  CL.  LU  _i  —1  2 (5.7) 3 (8.6)  >-> OC ca < U.  CJ zz> cc HCO  6 (3.1)  < co a. (Ul CJ  "R  X  i -  1—4  tn  ST'  1—4  o o_  < o _ l X CO CO  z  o —1 LU  2  9 (3.8) 1 (0.4) 2 (0.8) 164 187 1 (83.7) (100) (78.2) 1 (0.5) 2 5 (1.0) (2.1) 18 27 (9.2) (11.3) 5 7 (2.9) (2.6) 1 (0.4)  o  a.  LL.  at LL.  E  10 (2.5) (0.3) 2 (0.5) 323 (81.0) 2 (0.5) 54 (13.5) 6 (1.5) 1 (0.3)  94 3 35 196 1 239 399 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)  3D  CO  »« »3 —  o  —I  o o  CD  »« O  O CU O J>  • r o O  —'  co O  © •  cn  CD  ro cn  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT  3» r>  et  ©  3D  O cn  •  ro o  * »  CO  • r o co ro  CO  ro CO  O 33  • c n 00 c n  ro —•  VO  ro CD  • r o co  MFG STEEL  ro ro  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  r> CD c z  33 33  CD m •—« i — i m  LIME  CD  CO  cn ->j ro  o  <o  o  O 4»  o o  cn ro • CO VO C o  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  VEHICLES c o ~ j • —• v o  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL BLACKSMITH SHOP  •—  O CO O VO  c n —• • o co  O VO O VO  • O CO  "»J  o  ro  co  _  o  C D 33 C D O • co x -n D O —1 m 33 3» - < m m T3  CO •—•  —( zs  o  —I  3» CO  t—  *» M33 m —1 C Z -1 o cr  O r-  3>  co CO  —1 33 Zt> •—' T3 - < CO O 33 m ro > o » < i— «c .-. m • — i CO 33 ^ a 3<:«  CO C3 -< —1z m o « 33 w C Z —•  Z  ro c n • c o -«j c n r o v o ' 0 0  (SO 4>,  WELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  - 9Z -  CO  -TI —i m •-• 3» 33 •< r— r— m  « m  co s»  co m r- •—i  -^33 z —1 o c » » r - c z - *» 33 CO i—i  •—• c o m m co  z  vo  VO  o o  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  co  • r o cn ro  cn  co  ro  o co o cn  o o  —i z  33 X CZ —t m —• — i 3> 33 c n »-t  33  O  x m  —I O CZ» Z CO S J C C D - I t~ ZT. 33  -C  O VO  o  CD — I  ~ Z  • i > c - m CO co co cz o  ro  o  o  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP  co o  o  O ZJ  O  cn  O CO O cn  o  O  cn  CO  CD  o  m co  LANGUAGE PR0BLE  UNKNOWN  TOTAL  -<  z  »« ©  VO J>  ro vo  o  (001) 01 cn cn  LIME HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  ro —'  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  O  CO  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  O O  ro  VEHICLES  o co  tt  cr i O 3d 3D TO: Ic o i —l 3D co • m —<: : co 3D o cr —t —I 3> x : c n #—» re o m rc z —I w rc cn o * zm rc 30 c m  J > 3>  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  NI CD Oo ro  i—»  o  MFG STEEL  »s.  o r>:  -<  r m c o c o r— —I m 3> ? o z z — I — I O C_i <-• 3> c r c r CO-  INDUSTR Y CLASS  139 (100) O O  -  MACHINE SHOP  82 (98.8]  80 35 10 (100) (100) (100) »—•  ~ j cn  (001) S9  -f*  34 (100)  *.  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  168 (100)  ro  O  HEATING EQUIPMENT  44 (100)  O O  cn  AGR [CULTURAL IMPI-EMENTS  12 (100)  18 (100) O O  cn  24 (100)  34 (100) *-»  o  r>:  CD  NJ  o o >—  129 (100)  35 196 (100) (100)  cn  N I  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL BLACKSMITH SHOP  o o —•  399 (100)  o  137 284 (100) (98.3)  239 (100)  o ro  WELDING  Ni  cn  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  - LL -  a>  -<  M  V O 0  ro vo  3D C O T O 7  co —I rn so  •—•  CO  r~ co  —  5  «  co —i r— •—i -c m z 2 D * c r —• ?E co  5> c n  =o -< i—i m  z  S  r - • z— i  O o c t— r— c r « : 3> so  own m co  T T l C O •—1  co  00  r—  m Co  3> 3  3> OD  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)  INDUSTRY CLASS  2  —I LU  => ac  PRELIMINARY INFORMATION  POPULATION OF INDUSTRY CLASS (MAN YEARS)  O  LU  CC  CL.  <  >-"  513  o  zn  LU  io  >  I—4  5E I  (O  oc  3-  LU Z  •-!  o  5 oX  o  to  a o co  cc Q  _1  Lu  to  IS  593  94 1494  o  -  X  z  o oo =3 CO CC  <C  r - <->  o CO  LU ^ o u O =J O QC  Ui  291  843 2943  678  16  Jl  18  71  2  35  2  25  3.1  3.8  2.1  2.5  0.3  5.9  2.1  1.7  818  63  O »—«  X  LU  PS  CO  >-< CC  a _i  O  =3  CO QC  2 to  z  t—4  LU  2  310 1814 1822  97 21 li. 3.9 5.3 3.9 PROPORTION OF INJURED WORKERS OF MALE SEX 100% 1002 94.421 98.62] 1002 100* 1002 B4.02 1002 1002 1002 1002 1002 NUMBER OF SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES (1976) RATE OF SEV #2 INJURIES PER 100 MAN YRS  ii 6.0  2  3.2  3>  cn  3C  171  o tn z  o —I 3>  vo  ro o  ro cn  CO  CO  o  cn  o  ro  ro vo  CO J >  CO  J >  vo  J >  cn O cn J>  cn vo  cn cn  cn o  en cn  cn vo  cn J>  Ci vo  —i  o +  70 m o o 3D 75  o O  — cn I  c  o  r  o  c  n  c  o  Co c o c n r o c o  r  o  c  n  c  n  c o c o c n ro co  r  o  c n  c o —* c n r o  co •  CD —t rc rc  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  z 3>  ro  —* CO  CO  to  u> c o r o r o r o r o —' ro - s j o  co  — c n  *  to  mm* #•*"•«. on c n cn  1  to  — i «^ "—  ^  o>  — •  —  J  *—'  c n  o i - ^ a c n N i u N J U O i ^ o i - » N Jcoen •  - c m  HEATING EQUIPMENT  z m o —I 30 I 3>-< •  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  Z  CO  cn 7^  VO  r o c n  1  o  N I  —' c n  v o CD v o c n  N J  —' v o  — *  —> « — . J > c n o  N I J >  cn  MACHINE SHOP  ro Co r o .  J >  cn o O —• O —'  O O  CO cn  ro o J  >  J  >  O  ro co N  I  O  I  MFG STEEL —• —•  O  J  o N I r— c n 3> tn •—. c n 3> m r— cn m 3 3 3> —1 o S> O o s r 33 • a r > •—> • z  >  —»  J  >  cn  r o  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  cn  - E » . c * N i r o v o —"Njro  o O  ro I  O  cn O —• O  LIME  —'  o cr Co —I 33 - C  O O  no cn  o  -to  O  VO  o O  r o  —• c n cn ro O - t » O C 0 O —' c o r o c o  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  — » O C T i  r o o  -—C D  -e»  — J  r o  • — -  TRUCK BODIES CABS  - — -  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 -  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  O  o ro <—  <•••—N O O  i— r o  CO  CO CO  C O  CO  — ' C O 4*  CO  ^  o vo O N )  O o  Nil  —  •  * — '  cn *C—O'  —<  cn — ^ •co— a •o — *  CO •  •  c n Co v o • r o • —' • — » cnjB>roc7icocoNjo> — o 1  r o v o  « ^  •  r o c n  C71 *  —• c n *  N I  WELDING  r o w J * —• -£»..  —. —. *—.. .—. C O c n — —' ™'J * * • • cnj&cojkcnNicD—•cnj>coNj4>o-^rocnco N I •  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  ro •  c n c n c n c n C o c o o r o N I —* r o — ' r o  CO  cn  —. O CO  1  VEHICLES  CO  *-o  _ J  -—- u> posj —  -  1  C O *  - 6Z -  .—. —' • —'ro  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  o cn cn  CO  -4  3> •  -<  C O  cn  —1 % o ro  3>—I —t r c •—• m cn —1 3 > »cn o m 3> 1— O -n  —»  cn m •cr m 33  CD  —i cn O  O  m  m-< z cr 33  S3  — ro  cn r c —1 m o m o 3 0 •-" o z cr 33 i - i c r3 3 r - 33 #—t m m Z N ^ O cn C •—< o 33 75 33  r— m CO  CO  TABLE  3.A.32  THE D I S T R I B U T I O N OF REPORTED SEVERITY 12 EYE I N J U R I E S OCCURRING I N 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 . I N 1976 ( A L B E R T A W . C . B . S T A T I S T I C A L MASTER F I L E S )  NO. (*)  SJ 00 £ z  _1 U i => 3 £  UNKNOWN  oc o. to ar  (6.3)  SHIPPING CLERKS  o i x > co co ui Z 3£ >-i a.  o  z  ZC a. o  ui c r  2 (18.2)  o cc  4 (22.2)  o  CtC O —I z ui =3 U l O h u. c o  co CO  u.  z  2 (5.7)  6 (8.5)  s 3- CO  <C cc O Ul >-• CL. _I 3 £  OH  OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER  O Ui —> —I  CO QC _ l *—*  (8.0)  < a. u i CO  OC r~  CO  CJ  111  a o CO zc  O CO =3 CO  PS  6 (12.2)  PS  •o => c o oc  a c => co oc  —I » < <C U l  O  o GO z Ui a o o =>  §P  (50.0)  — J  o  s•->eo  z  < t-  I—I  (8.3)  u . a.  X Ul  ca r -  U . CO  10 (10.3)  (9.9)  9 (4.9)  1 (6.3) 1  WEIGHERS  (50.0) JANITORS  SUPERVISORS.  (5.6)  1 (50.0)  1 (1.4)  D R I L L I N G OPERATIONS  1  LABOURING I N M I N I N G AND QUARRYING  (0.5) O I L AND GAS F I E L D OCCUPATIONS  1 (0.5)  METAL CASTING  METAL  PROCESSING  3 (8.6) 1 (0.5)  T3  «/>  i>  -H 3D CZ o  CO  o cr yo CO  m•o -n  AP  r> —I  o z rt —4 3D  X  p  >  aC 3»  —I  zC3  «  s zC3  O  •  >  «C  »^  3D CO  m  zCO  T3  >  3>tc o 3>  3D O m O T3 s> —( <-> •— 3D C3 CO  z  Sci CD 3D r  -  Z  C3  •-•  <7> z  3>  z O  TJ  3D  cr  <_• - n Z 3>  •  I—I  3> «c ~c tz>  cz  X  «  m  S» CO m  co  j> CO ro  zC-i  r> X s> z  et o 3  cz 3D m o 3E  o co  S C  O 3D 3* m 3D  X_ 5» Z  «  r~  o z o -n  z m 3D -< X m Cl  o  cz  x o  -<  t—H  —t  <t o  > —1  < m  —<  cn—4> Z 0  o  3D  o  "D  ICS  zC3  CO CO m 3: CO  cz  z © —(  X  -n  >  o 30 m x 5» r — • *z zC3 " D a» 3Do z o o o 3D —1 m T3 -n s> > •—i CO 3D 3D  CO CD  CH  z•73  o zCO —1 3D CZ  m  tr> m  o3D t/>  r>  EL  PL  iTR  m o -H  —1 o  3D CO  m x3D  cr X CD  m 3D  cz c->  m  T3  r~  as  —1 m 3D CO w  *—*  i X m  z o oL O  Z  3  r5> ~  S» 3D T3 m z— I  3>  LE  Z  o  •o  t—•  R> CL  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  cn co •  HEATING EQUIPMENT  cn -  en  >  cn e n —•  • ro  s  i  u  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  * —  r o  ' . —•  Co ro  MACHINE SHOP  MFG STEEL  FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON  ro v o —•  LIME  O  HOLIDAY CAMPERS  cn  CD  o•  ro  cn  O  co Co  ro cn  TRAILERS,  TRUCK BODIES CABS WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  cn  o  VEHICLES  —•  r o  cn  —' r o  cn cn  ~—  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL S T E E L  •—'  WELDING  ro co ro  O  c n  c n —'  o  —'  O  —<  r o  cn •  —' r o  ro  " L8 "  *  o cn •  F A B . MFG & R E P A I R METAL PRODUCTS  (Continued)  co co  TABLE 3.A.32  (6.3)  (6.3) (50.0)  (6.3)  HEATING EQUIPMENT ro  OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER  CRUSHING ANO GRINDING CHEMICALS MACHINIST MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING METAL MACHINING FOREMEN: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING SHEET-METAL WORKERS METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS WELDING A N D FLAME CUTTING BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS FILING, GRINDING, BUFFING OCCUPATIONS OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS  3  (16.7)  (1.4)  24 (33.8)  (1.4)  27 (38.0)  MACHINE SHOP (2.8)  8  (8.6)  (5.7)  (2.9)  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON (22.9)  TRUCK BODIES CABS 28 (57.1)  (8.3)  VEHICLES  (l.J)  (4.1)  49 (66.7) (50.5)  (8.3)  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  (1.0)  cr. CO  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP (5.6)  cr,  111 (60.3)  (0.5)  (3.8)  (0.5)  (0.5)  (3.3)  (0.5)  FAB, MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  (1.1)  - 28 -  WELDING  4>—'  4=. —'  1  —  —> .  j >  .  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  MFG STEEL  LIME  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  71 (100)  OO  MFG STEEL o o ro  2 (5.7)  (22.9)  (2.9)  1 (50.0)  (50.0)  (12.0)  49 (100)  TRUCK BODIES CABS 25 (100)  VEHICLES  12 (100)  1 (0.5)  184 (100)  15 (8.2)  (1.4)  (12.7)  FAB, MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  71 (100)  WELDING  97 (100)  - £8 -  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON 35 (100)  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  o o ro  (Continued)  18 (100)  MACHINE SHOP cn cn  TABLE 3.A.32  11 (100)  CO CO  OCCUPATION OF INJURED WORKER  (12.5)  16 (100)  HEATING EQUIPMENT ro —i  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP cn cn —• cn cn —'  TRUCK DRIVERS HOISTING OCCUPATIONS MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS PACKAGING OCCUPATIONS OTHER MATERIAL-HANDLING OCCUPATIONS LABOURING OCCUPATIONS OTHER OCCUPATIONS  TOTAL  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  oo ro co  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  ro o —«  LIME o o ro »—•  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  to —1 rc 50 cr  o  0 •jr.  o —I  PO CO  f H r— D  PO CO N»  "Ni  0 3>  0 3>  -<  o  O  >-• Ol  o o  >-• •—  J>  O  NJ  co co  o  •—  ro co  CO r o  O o  c n  O  CO  cn  j > —*  o  b —> b •  ro ^ cn •  NI r o  ^ CD c n c o • • c o NI r o c n — •  o o ro  o o  o O  o  J »  VO  O  ro  o  <—  O O  vo  O  cn  ro cn  ro  NI  • r o J>  -o  —* c o  —> ro ro cn  CO — 1  cn  o •o  o  ro  CO — '  —* c o  —' r o  oo ro  cn  co ro  -cn c o  TRUCK BODIES, (CABS WOODEN ttTRUCK BOXES  FABRICATION [STRUCTURAL STEEL  —• CO ~ N o J > — < c o • _ j t n « > - - > c o v o T O c n -co c n #  FAB,MFG & REPAIR flMETAL PRODUCTS  -  i?8 -  33 •<  >  CO CO  o  z o  cr 30 33 »—* 2 m 1  •—1  cn —I 33 *—« co cr —1 o  2  2  —»  J>  ©  • - n rc 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 tn o —( 2 1— i - i •-» m 2 cn o 3> 2 c m » r- o cr «: 1— c o - H 30 m •  o  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  n  • _ co  cr CO  MELDING —. _ 11 r o 0 0 0 1 * OJ>|| r o 4»  r> o  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  VEHICLES  Co  01  co j * — trn r— r c cn co m«» m s o « — • a> —I 2 o S» e_ r> cr o x : s o 30 • m o  MFG STEEL  LIME  m  Ec n noo  MACHINE SHOP  ro  o  o O  o  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  CO  cn cn  tn  o o  HEATING EQUIPMENT  co  o —•  co  NI  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  N  r o  O  O  g  NJ  NJ  co  CO N.  c n  ro  o  -n 3D  NJ  ro cn O  o  CD rc  1—1  t n > - n « < — ( t n m 0 7 ^ % 3d w s r o  •—' —' —t  o  -<  mor—> c  30  r— vo cr m m NI Ti t o c o c n o —1»—• 33 3 3 2 J V I H C ,  CO CO 3>  - 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)  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  WELDING  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  VEHICLES  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  TRUCK BODIES CABS  i  LU  HOLIDAY TRAILERS CAMPERS  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  MFG STEEL  MACHINE SHOP  TIME OF ACCIDENT  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  (I)  HEATING EQUIPMENT  NO.  AGR I CULTURAL irlrL EMENTS  INDUSTRY CLASS  01 02 03  1 (6.3)  1 (1.3)  1 (9.1)  2 (1.4)  04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  1 (6.3) 1 (6.3)  1 (9.1)  1 2 (9.1) (11.1) 2 2 2 (12.5) (18.2) (11.1) 1 (9.1) 2 2 (18.2) (11.1) 3 5 (18.8) (27.8) 1 2 1 (6.3) (18.2) (5.6) 2 1 2 (12.5) (9.1) (11.1) 1 1 (6.3) (5.6) 1 (6.3) 1 1 (6.3) (5.6) 1 (6.3)  UNKNOWN 16 (100)  11 (100)  1 (1.7)  1 (5.6)  2 (3.4) 1 (1.7) 1 (1-7)  1  13  18 (100)  71 (100)  1 (6.3)  24  TOTAL  1 (5.6)  1 (1.7) 2 (3.4) 3 (5.2) 9 (15.5) 2 (3.4) 5 (8.6) 3 (5.2) 4 (6.9) 17 (29.3) 5 (8.6) 2 (3.4)  1 2 (3.4) (1.4) 1 1 3 2 4 (3.4) (12.5) (3.8) (3.7) (2.7) 2 1 3 3 1 4 4 6 (6.9) (50.0) (12.5) (7.5) (12.5) (5.1) (7.0) (4.1) 3 1 4 1 7 7 13 (10.3) (4.2) (10.0) (12.5) (8.9) (13.0) (8.8) 4 5 6 1 5 5 19 (13.8) (25.0) (12.5) (50.0) (6.3) (9.3) (12.9) 1 1 1 1 1 7 (3.4) (4.2) (2.5) (1.3) (1.9) (4.8) 1 6 2 6 14 3 (3.4) (25.0) (5.0) (7.6) (5.6) (9.5) 5 4 13 19 12 27 (17.2) (16.7) (32.5) (24.1) (22.2) (18.4) 4 1 1 6 5 10 9 32 (13.8) (50.0) (4.2) (15.0) (62.5) (12.7) (16.7) (21.8) 1 2 2 4 9 15 (100) (8.3) (5.0) (5.1) (16.7) (10.2) 1 2 1 1 1 (3.4) (5.0) (50.0) (1.3) (1.9) 1 1 1 3 (3.4) (2.5) (3.8) (0.7) 1 3 (3.4) (3.8) 2 (2.5) 1 1 1 (0.7) (2.5) (1.3) 3 7 1 (10.3) (0.7) (8.9) 1 1 1 3 (3.4) (1.3) (1.9) (2.0) 1 (1.3) 1 6 1 9 4 18 17 37 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) INDUSTRY CLASS  O-  NO. (X) HOURS WORKED BEFORE ACCIDENT  o  o r oo  §g rax: u ui  >-i — i  o r CL. tax:  C9 u i  Z 5E >-> O-  §  Ul X > CO O  X  X C J  UJ © X Ul  o. o  a >- c o < or  or « O _ l Z Ul => u i  CO u. x:  O Ul l-l  o.  _ l 3E  £ to  o ca  z  CJ CO =3 c o o r <  z  x o ca  O  Ul Z£ Q CJ O =3 o or  02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10  UNKNOWN  TOTAL  2 (6.9) 6 (20.7) 2 (6.9) 4 (13.8) 3 (10.3) 4 (13.8) 8 (27.6)  2 (50.0) (8.3) 2 (8.3) 4 (16.7) 3 (50.0) (12.5) 6 (25.0) 3 12.5) (12.5) (4.2)  1 1 (5.6) (1-9) 17  11-12  16 (100)  11 18 (100) (100)  71  cs  z  l-l CJ o r =3  3r-  ca o r  < (-  1 1 1 (6.3) (10.0) (5.6) (1.9) 1 1 4 (6.3) (7.4) (5.6) 7 (13.0) 2 (11.1) 3 5 (18.8) (20.0) (9.3) 1 (11.1) 2 5 (12.5) (10.0) (9.3) 2 4 1 5 (6.3) (20.0) (22.2) (9.3) 1 3 3 3 (18.8) (10.0) (16.7) (5.6) 4 2 2 8 (25.0) (20.0) (11. 1) (14.8) 2 13 l (11.1) (24.1) (100) 1 2 (3.7) (6.3) (10.0)  01  -I  Pel Si? u.  00  co  2  35  2  25  co  l 1 (2.6) (1.3) (1.9)1 3 1 1 (7.9) (1.3) (9.3) | (12.5) 2 7 (5.3) (9.3) (7.4) | (12.5) 3 10 (7.9) (50.0) (13.3) (16.7) | (12.5) 6 6 2 (8.0) (3.7)| (15.8) 9 4 8 (10.5) (12.0) (14.8) | 9 8 12 (23.7) (16.0) (14.8) 12 6 3 17 (15.8) (37.5) (22.7) (22.2) 3 4 7 2 (7.9) (50.0) 1(25.0) (9.3) (7.4) 2 1 1 (2.6) (2.7) (1.9) 2 (2.7) 1 (1.3) 22 17 11 49  2  12  97  71  (ion) (100) (inn) (100) (ion) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)  TABLE  3.A.36  THE D I S T R I B U T I O N 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 , I N A L B E R T A , I N 1976 ( A L B E R T A W . C . B . S T A T I S T I C A L MASTER F I L E S ) INDUSTRY C L A S S  a  BOXES,  X  Ul  UJ  z  *—* z  o  TEEL  zc to  to to u. s:  ..  o or  >-  1—*  O  _ l  oc  z  r-  >- to <  «  UJ  n ui o I'to  LL,  O  s: t—t _i  z  oc  LU  u  t-  LU  O  Q  Z3  O CO  EPAIR CTS  to  z  1/1  or ui to z  O  o 3  X  o  OQ  to LU  _1 «_) X  Ul  >  FABRI CATION STRUC TURAL  ui Cr  AUTOMiOTIVE MACHI KIT CL  SOURCE OF THE INJURY  AGRI  o SH  'ING : PMENT  (*)  JLTURAI 1ENTS  NO.  Q_ O  O  TRUCK CABS  n  •  _ l Ul  _J  OC Z3 to z  _ l Ui 3C  C R A T E S , CARTONS  •e Qo oc to a . u. CO <  r-  LU  u. x : 1  2  ACIDS ALKALIES  (1.0)  RESINS SULPHUR AND SULPHUR COMPOUNDS  (11.1) 1 (1.4)  C H E M I C A L , CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, NOT ELSEWHERE C L A S S I F I E D  2 (100.0)  FLAME AND F I R E GLASS  1  2 (2.1)  1  (4.0)  (0.5)  (2.9)  (5.6) 1 (5.6)  1 (4.0) 1 (4.0)  ITEMS  SCREWDRIVER WRENCH DRILL  (0.5)  1  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 (1.4)  1 (0.5)  1 (1.0)  1 (1.4)  cn O  o  —•  O  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  cn •  HEATING EQUIPMENT  —' -—* cn cn COCT>— '  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  -«4  ^  —'  -e* ro o ro • • - r o * ^oorooovocoro  MACHINE SHOP  MFG STEEL —'  35  (inn)  i*, cn **j cn  FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON  .J>  co o cn co o  ro vo —*  LIME  o o ro  25  (ion)  i—• O -to O VO  |  ^ o  —^  ro O CO  cn Oi*  .—* ro  ro o • —• i?> o  i * *—cn ^ ro • vo co —* ro  ro cn . —« o — • cn co  cn oo co  ro ^—• cn oo o co co —^  t—• o vo O -J '  ro • ro  ro • ro  71 (100)  ro oo . ro ro o  •—•  o oo O 4*  TRUCK BODIES CABS  cn cn o o o —* o —•  o o ro  o ro  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  ro •£» O CO O  I—•  »—• O i—  TABLE 3 . A . 3 6 CONTINUED  cn O  UELDING TOOLS  o O ro  u> ro • ro ^ CA)  CHAINS. ROPES, CABLES  oo •  10  •  cn . —i vo ro  NAILS, SPIKES, TACKS  •-•  METAL CHIPS AND PARTICLES  MOLTEN METAL  io •  —* co ro • • cn ro tn cr*  cn cn cn O  t—' o •— O 00  O  ro cn • o «c* co •  •  METAL ITEMS, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  10  o •-• o •->  ROCKS, STONES AND SAND  1—'  PARTICLES (UNIDENTIFIED)  ro cn • O «&»  BRANCHES, LIMBS  i—• o •— O CM  PLASTIC ITEMS, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  WELDING EQUIPMENT, ELECTRIC ARC  o s> r—1  SLIVERS. SPLINTERS  MISCELLANEOUS, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  —1  CD Cn  ro CD • cn Co co  VD 0 0  ro ro • —* cn cn » ro O O VD • • • cn cn —• cn —^ vo cn  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  —•*  VEHICLES  OD  co *—.  *  co * • co •  O —* O —' —^  0~»  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL O —^ O —'  -—• - co —« i>> VD — • •• • ro • 4 * —* ro co i * co —' J  *—* co -O CO • • cn co co ro —•  - 88 -  — - • i * —* J  O • cn —*  WELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  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)  FLYING OBJECT THROWN BACK BY MACHINE FLYING OBJECT. NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  (6.3)  HOT OBJECTS OR SUBSTANCES CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS. CAUSTICS TOTAL  (9.1)  54 (5.6) (76.1) 1 12 (66.7) (1.4) 7  WELDING  1 1 (1.0) (1.4) (0.5) 2 (1.1) 5 67 +5 120 (68.0)(63.4)(65.2) 1  1 (4.0! 1  1 (5.6) (1.4) 1  ABRADED BY FOREIGN MATTER  1  1  1  FOREIGN MATTER IN EYES  CONTACT WITH ELECTRIC CURRENT  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  1  STRUCK BY OBJECTS BEING HOISTED STRUCK BY, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED  1 FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  —1  VEHICLES  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  t—t  TRUCK BODIES CABS  UJ  _  HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON  MFG STEEL  MACHINE SHOP  TYPE OF ACCIDENT  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  (t)  HEATING EQUIPMENT  NO.  AGRICIJLTURAL IMPLE11ENTS  INDUSTRY CLASS  1  32 (91.4)  3b  (73.5  (50.0) 1 (1.4) (2.9) (56.3) (4.0] (50.0) (41.7) 7 2 1 (3.8) (5.6) (1.0) (5.7) (12.5) 2 3 54 2 13 28 4 (2.8) (4.2) (28.9) (29.3) (26.5 (25.0) [16.7) (100) 13 21 (63.6) 49 2 12 97 (29.6) 71 18 (18.3) 184 16 11 2 71 2 25 35 j (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) 7 1 1 1 (58.3! 2 (50.0) 9  (18.2) (9.1)  (4.0:  (50.0  IN t—4  z o ?p > o a> —i  o  —I  T |  m r> —I co  o  SC  O 3> —1 i O z m T l »—I  CH  NO  5  z i »—< o z *—€  m _ •—i o 3> 1— CO cz 3D  cz —t co  3D £• —1  cr CO — t> o m .z co  O  _ m  CO o 3D 3> co 3D CO  Z  o  2  s>  —(  3D o  <->  —I  CO  co cr CD CO  cr  3D  o z CO  si  z  z CO  ro cn  cn ro  o •—  ro cn ro  o cn  cn co  o •— o •—  • — cn  o •— O CO  cn ro NI co ro co  cn P o —  •—*  o o ro  3D  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS HEATING EQUIPMENT  — •  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  NJ • cn • ' cn cn .  J> ro ro co NI vo •  N J I—  N J  cr  o  o  o z  O O  3D Z  o  ro Co ro  cn ° o —  —j  MFG STEEL  2  (5.7)  (2.9)  32 (91.4)  35 (100) o o ro  o O ro  FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON  LIME  HOLIDAY CAMPERS, TRAILERS  12  (24.5)  (2.0)  49 (100)  TRUCK BODIES, CABS  /  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  —  N J  cn  VEHICLES  i*l f1\  1  2  (2.1) 66 (68.0)  (3.1) 23 (23.7)  (2.1)  97 (100) 71 (100)  ro — en ro cn — • j_ • . —•. • j _ oo ro J > C O J > — . oocn  " N  w  12 (100)  . J  \ **** •  o O ro  1 (50.0)  1 (50.0)  *—»  cn C O . co N  .—.  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  _  184 (100)  _ . j_ —  _ _ ^ _,  WELDING  ro —. cn —. —* N I _ . cn — o o • cn • . ro. . — • r o r o o — rocorocn — i n —  _ co . co cn  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  —• — •  —|  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 3D • z •< co O f - rri »> cr 33 -e r~ so • — i m —I  —C  CO 33  W M H t <  24 36 (96.0) (73.5)  (40.0)  i— o ro o cn  ITi —I  MACHINE SHOP  —i  i —  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  - 06 -  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.  FIRST AID GIVEN  UNKNOWN  TOTAL  -< m co  z o  —»z M  11 (100)  —  18 (100)  —  71 (100)  o  ro  o o ro  O —'  12 (100)  (001) ZI  17 (77.3)  49 (100) *—*  5 31 (22.7) (73.8)  25 (100)  CO  o o ro  ro cn — * . ro —*  ro  40  184 (100)  CO  O —1 Z O z CD cz 3D m —130 0 —I  o Z *— CO' S» C CD —1 t— Z 3D  MACHINE SHOP  m—*  DIUMM  rn CD 3 3 —H 1 z C= —1 —( S» m 3D —• *» •-•  MFG STEEL  o  • C -»—n* i—i zz  FOUNDRY: STEEL, IRON LIME HOLIDAY TRAILERS, CAMPERS TRUCK BODIES. CABS  CO CO  O 33 CD • —1 co z OD  o  CO cz —1 CO 33  o  -ri m jo —1 *» *»-< m t A t H m TJ cc —1 o •-• 30 o r— 3> —1 E Z —1 m M > c m CO O 03D3 3 m > < r <•HW33 M m  J O ^ «  > m —1 (/>o«< —)- z m 3D c= o ro >•= — •  CO -TI Z —i rn «  J»- 3D -<  — f r •—i rn mo>  co m r •—< 3D z —too -  VEHICLES 15 11 (18.5) (19.6)  71 (100)  cn  66 45 112 (81.5) (80.4) (73.7)  97 (100)  cn  (-> o o S o  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  o  mmm  HEATING EQUIPMENT  INDUS'TRY CLA  •  o o ro  AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  ro  J*  o o ro 35 (100)  15 3 5 6 In* r V / OA t\\ (29.4) (24.6) (50.0) (18.2) (30.0} 12 46 11 7 1 27 (84.6) (70.0) (70.6) (75.4) (50.0) (81.8)  16 (100)  CO  ?  O  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL WELDING FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  - L6 -  —  CO I—i  •—• co m z CO m co IO  cn  . CO CO  -<  z o  m  cn  O 3Z Z  LANGI  TOTAL  c=  Z  >  CD m -D  zo o  CO  (OOI) 91  r— m  ro  4k  11 (100)  VO O  to O  18 (100)  O mtml O  71 (100)  CO  AGRICU LTURAL IMPLEM ENTS  o —• O  «-»z ** o  vo  HEATING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  —' ~J  o  s» o  MACHINE SHOP  O cn O CO  »• I— CD m 3D —1 3»  mmm*  »—*  o o ro  o o ro  MFG STEEL  i 35 (100)  FOUNDRY: S T E E L , IRON  o co o —•  i—>  o o ro *-» o ro o tn »—• O 4k O VO  o o ro  LIME  o o ro  CO  vo ro cn —>  cn  mmm O 4k O 4k  —  4k  o —•  HOLIDAY CAMPERS  TRAILERS,  TRUCK B O D I E S , CABS WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  o o—•  12 (100)  VEHICLES  o —• o ro  i 97 (100)  ro ro  71 (100)  4k  184 (100)  ro cn  vo CD • »o ^1 4k  o cn  o cn  O CO  CO —•  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL S T E E L WELDING  FAB,MFG & REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS  - Z6 -  *m* Z D I CO —1 TO -<  a CO CO  —<  n n i o c= m O 30 3 3 3D o t i 2 «»— « M 1/I  Z CD —1 CD 3D < _t —< O z co C —•—1 mC 4> — 1 z z o JC m z —I O M I D O • z 3D m z -n CD —1 . r3> m jo - *» -< m S» CD co r — m -o —co I m o P>» 3D io i-i TO m —4 —1 Z Z —1 t H > Q o m CO CO. 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 —1 m  3D  -n  •-• rm  «co —  —|  r~ i—z -< m  2 o ««fc cc ro a : co 5> —I rn CO 3D - e — m 3» z «= r - t-t z o o c-  r— r— cz «: s» so m co M O co m m CO co  - 93 -  Part 3  -  Severity #3 Eye I n j u r i e s  -  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 f u r t h e r search at the W.C.B., 9 more were l o c a t e d .  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 j u r i e s incurred i n 1976. I t i s probable, however, that not a l l of the claims have been f i n a l i z e d to date, and these claims are s t i l l coded as s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s .  Tables  3.A.41 t o 3.A.54 show selected eye i n j u r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o 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 j u r i e s that occurred i n 1976. The selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are: Table 3.A.41  Occurrence Class i n which i n j u r y 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 i n j u r e d worker  3.A.45  Age of i n j u r e d worker  3.A.46  Occupation of i n j u r e d worker  3.A.47  Length of time i n j u r e d 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 i n j u r y  3.A.51  Type of accident  3.A.52  Nature of i n j u r y  3.A.53  F i r s t a i d rendered  3.A.54  Language problem  Tables 3.A.41 through 3.A.54 show data concerning 16 permanent d i s a b i l i t y eye i n j u r y claims.  Table 3.A.42 shows that 40% of the i n j u r i e s  occurred through February and March of 1976. Table 3.A.43 shows that no p a r t i c u l a r industry class i s prone to permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims. cases, the i n j u r e d persons were male (Table 3.A.44).  In a l l  F o r t y - f o u r 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 04-06 05-01 06-01 06-04 06-07 08-03 08-04 09-03 09-04 12-03 22-01  1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1  TOTAL  16  (%) (6.3) (6.3) (12.5) (6.3) (6.3) (18.8) (6.3) (12.5) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3)  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)  MONTH OF INJURY January February March August October November December TOTAL  NUMBER OF INJURIES 2 5 3 1 2 2 1 16  (%)  (12.5) (31.3) (18.8) (6.3) (12.5) (12.5) (6.3)  - 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) NUMBER OF INJURIES  INDUSTRY CLASS 09912 Well Testing and Coring 10100 Meat Packing Plant 25405 Mfg, Prefab Wood Bldgs, Sections 25900 Peeling and Pointing of Posts 31100 Mfg of Agricultural Implements 37902 Chemical Blending and Packaging 40400 Construction of Bldgs, Plants 40601 Highway, Road, Railway Construction 40604 Excavating, Bulldozing, etc. 40905 Construction of Pipe Lines 42102 Masonry, Brick, Block Laying 62303 Sale-Service O i l f i e l d Equipment 65600 New, Used Car Dealers 65802 Brake Shop 87501 Restaurant or Drive-In 93100 Provincial Government TOTAL  ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  (*) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3)  1  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 Male TOTAL  NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  16  (100)  16  (100)  - 96 -  of the permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims involved workers who were l e s s than 35 years of age (Table 3.A.45).  This i s somewhat lower than the propor-  t i o n i n the same age category f o r s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #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 v e h i c l e mechanics and repairmen, while the remainder were spread over a large range of occupations, although a m a j o r i t y were metal r e l a t e d 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 h e i r Dresent j o b .  This  f i n d i n g i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the ages of these workers unless there was a considerable change i n 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 i n c o n s i s t e n t with the general trends in the eye i n j u r i e s reported p r e v i o u s l y . 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 f a t i g u e f a c t o r s do not play a s i g n i f i c a n 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 p a r t i c l e s or n a i l s . from explosive actuated t o o l s .  Two of these claims were due to n a i l s  The remaining i n j u r i e s are spread over a  range of sources i n c l u d i n g r a d i a t i o n and c a u s t i c s . Table 3.A.51 i n d i c a t e s the type of i n j u r y where a m a j o r i t y were due to being struck by a . f l y i n g o b j e c t .  - 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 OF INJURIES  AGE GROUP 70+ 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 TOTAL  1  (6.3)  1 1 2 4  (6.3) (6.3) (12.5) (25.0)  2 2 2  (12.5) (12.5) (12.5)  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 0000 2117 6121 8176 8541 8581 8711 8719 8781 8782 8798 9175 9918  NUMBER OF INJURIES  (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]  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  (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 < 1 Month 1 Mth to < 6 Mths 6 Mths to < 1 Yr 1 Year or more Unknown TOTAL  NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  4 4 3 5  (25.0) (25.0) (18.8) (31.2)  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)  LENGTH OF SHIFT 7 Hours 8 Hours 9 - 1 0 Hours 1 1 - 1 2 Hours Unknown TOTAL  * NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  1 11 2 1 1  (6.3) (68.6) (12.5) (6.3) (6.3)  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) NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  OO 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 XX Unknown  1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2  (6.3) (12.5) (6.3) (12.5) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (12.5) (12.5) (6.3) (12.5)  TOTAL  16  (100)  HOURS OF WORK  1  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)  INJURY SOURCE Chemicals, NEC Rope, Chain Chains, Ropes, Cables Nails, Staples Metal Chips and Particles Particles (Unidentified) Slivers, Splinters, etc. Wood Chip Wood Items, NEC TOTAL NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified  NUMBER OF INJURIES  (X)  1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1  (6.3) (6.3) (6.3) (12.5) (37.2) (12.5) (6.3) (6.3) (6.3)  16  (100)  - 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 OF INJURIES  (%)  Struck against stationary object Flying object thrown back by machine Flying object, NEC Struck by, NEC By vibrating objects Rubbed or Abraded, NEC Contact with radiations, caustics  1 1 4 3 5 1 1  (6.3) (6.3) (25.0) (18.8) (31.2) (6.3) (6.3)  TOTAL  16  (100)  ACCIDENT TYPE  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) NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  Enucleation Cut, Laceration Scratches, abrasions Burn (chemical)  2 5 8 1  (12.5) (31.2) (50.0) (6.3)  TOTAL  16  (100)  NATURE OF INJURY  - 101 -  Table 3.A.52 shows that 50% of the claims were due to scratches and abrasions and a f u r t h e r 31% due to cuts and l a c e r a t i o n s .  The nature of  the i n j u r y in a permanent d i s a b i l i t y case, t h e r e f o r e , appears to be only a more serious form of an i n j u r y that i s often classed as s e v e r i t y #1 or s e v e r i t y #2. F i r s t a i d was rendered in only 56% of the cases (Table 3.A.53).  It  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 s e v e r i t y or degree of d i s a b i l i t y had f i r s t a i d been rendered. I t does not appear that a communication (language) problem played a part i n 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  FIRST  AID  NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  Yes  9  (56.0)  No  7  (44.0)  16  (100)  TOTAL  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)  LANGUAGE PROBLEM  NUMBER OF INJURIES  (%)  Yes  0  (0.0)  No  16  (100)  TOTAL  16  (100)  -103 3.A.D.  -  Discussion of the Results of a Review of A l b e r t a W.C.B. S t a t i s t i c a l Master F i l e  Parti  -^Discussion of General  Results  Figure 3.A.3 i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i o n between the rate of eye i n j u r i e s i n each occurrence c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by the insurance premium (per $100 p a y r o l l ) , an assessment rate which r e f l e c t s the o v e r a l l i n j u r y experience of indust r i e s w i t h i n the c l a s s e s .  The points on the graph are widely  and the regression analysis of r = +.06 regression equation of y = 2.29 + .29X.  dispersed  i n d i c a t e s l i t t l e r e l a t i o n to the There appears to be l i t t l e  rela-  t i o n between W.C.B. insurance premiums and the rate of eye i n j u 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 j u r i e s was lower in the winter months and higher i n the spring and summer months (Table 3.A.2).  This trend may be  due t o the r e l a t i v e s i z e of the workforce during these periods of the y e a r , i n c l u d i n g the use of student labour during the summer months.  As  the majority of i n j u r i e s occur w i t h i n b u i l d i n g s , there i s no c l e a r a s s o c i a t i o n with c l i m a t 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 j u r i e s f o r 1976. rates f o r s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s and the r a t i o l a t t e r two are included.  Overall  between the  The rates of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n -  j u r i e s do not f a l l c o n s i s t e n t l y with t h e i r respective o v e r a l l r a t e s , but the downward trend i s seen f o r both.  L i t t l e r e l a t i o n i s seen ( c o r r e l a t i o n  c o e f f i c i e n t -0.11) between the o v e r a l l rate of eye i n j u r i e s and the r a t i o of s e v e r i t y #1 to s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s .  The average company s i z e  varies g r e a t l y and no r e l a t i o n can be seen between the average  industry  s i z e (below an average of 200 man years in s i z e ) and the rate of eye i n juries.  The majority of these high eye i n j u r y 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  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  W.C.B. INSURANCE ASSESSMENT (DOLLARS)  9  Tt)  it  TABLE 3.A.55  6.5 3.8 5.3 3.9 3.2 2.1 2.9 2.4 3.8 3.1 2.8 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.0 2.8 2.6 1.8  NUMBER OF COMPANIES WITHIN INDUSTRY CLASS  14.1 12.9 10.8 11.5 9.8 10.6 9.0 8.0 6.2 6.6 6.3 6.7 6.1 5.4 6.0 5.6 6.2 4.4 4.1 4.2  AVERAGE SIZE OF THE COMPANY WITHIN THE INDUSTRY CLASS.  20.6 16.7 16.3 15.5 13.0 12.8 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.9 9.0 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.0  1976  RATIO: SEV #1/SEV #2 INJURIES  Boiler and Plate Works Blacksmith and Welding Operations Fabrication of Structural Steel Mfg. of Vehicles Mfg. of Trailers, Trucks and Campers Mfg. of Lime Mfg. of Steel Machine Shops Mfg. of Furnaces and Registers Mfg. of Farm Implements Mfg. of Generators and other Electrical Equip. Mfg. of Fiberglass Boats Auto Repair and Unloading Mfg. of Doors and Windows Mfg. of Metal Office Furniture and Installation Diamond Drilling Foundries - Brass, Bronze and Lead Mfg. of Concrete Products Mfg. of Plywood Mfg. of Steel Pipe  RATE OF SEVERITY #2 EYE INJURIES (PER 100 MAN YEARS)  301 894 302 323 324 343 291 308 307 311 336 328 658 303 264 098 297 347 252 292  DESCRIPTION  RATE OF SEVERITY #V EYE INJURIES (PER 100 MAN YEARS)  I INDUSTRY CLASS  OVERALL EYE INJURY RATE (PER 100 MAN YEARS)  LISTING OF THE 20 INDUSTRY CLASSES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF REPORTED EYE INJURIES, IN ALBERTA, IN (ALBERTA W.C.B. STATISTICAL MASTER FILE)  0.46 0.29 0.49 0.25 0.33 0.16 0.32 0.23 0.61 0.47 0.44 0.25 0.34 0.43 0.25 0.34 0.16 0.64 0.63 0.43  2.6 2.5 42.0 34.0 19.0 47.0 98.0 13.0 49.0 24.0 27.0 5.0 5.0 12.0 29.0 7.0 11.0 31.0 180.0 134.0  no 772 43 9 129 2 13 282 6 21 15 13 948 225 9 7 9 44 3 8  - 106 -  volve the manufacture or processing of metals or metal products. Industry classes which have shown a consistent increase in the absolute number of eye i n j u r i e s from 1974 to 1976 are shown i n Table 3.A.56. Even though rates cannot be applied to these absolute f i g u r e s , i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that an absolute increase did occur.  still  Table 3.A.57  shows the industry classes which have shown consistent decreases i n the absolute number of eye i n j u r i e s over the same time period.  These tables  show no noticeable p a t t e r n s , e i t h e r in industry type or s i z e . In 1976, over 96% of the i n j u r e d workers were males (Table 3.A.4). This i s not an unusual f i n d i n g as a majority of workers i n high eye hazard i n d u s t r i e s (those which manufacture metals or metal products) are male. From 1974 to 1976, the proportion of i n j u r i e s among women increased from 3.0 to 3.3 percent; however t h i s i s l i k e l y due to an increase in the f e male workforce during t h i s p e r i o d . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study show that a majority (69% - 72%) of eye i n j u r i e s between 1974 and 1976 occurred among workers less than 35 years of age.  Forty percent of reported eye i n j u r i e s occurred among workers  who were 25 years of age or l e s s .  I t appears, then, that a high propor-  t i o n of i n j u r i e s occur among young workers. Because data concerning the i n j u r e d workers' length of employment (Table 3.A.6) was reported i n f r e q u e n t l y , i t was d i f f i c u l t to judge the e f f e c t of experience on eye i n j u r i e s .  62% - 65% of i n j u r y claims that  included t h i s information in 1974-76 concerned workers with less than one year of work experience.  Although t h i s suggests a r e l a t i o n between ex-  perience and eye i n j u r y , the findings could be explained also by rapid turnover or s e l e c t i v e reporting of t h i s information f o r those with l i t t l e time with the company.  - 107 -  TABLE 3.A.56  WORKFORC IN 1976 (MAN YEA  NO. OF COMPANIES IN 1976  AVERAGE SIZE  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)  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  LU  INDUSTRY CLASS 061 096 101 124 139 145 303 323 324 341 347 359 404 421 875 894 931  DESCRIPTION Coal Mines D r i l l i n g 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  oo QC  - 108 -  TABLE 3.A. 57  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  AVERAGE SIZE  DESCRIPTION  NO. OF COMPANIES IN 1976  INDUSTRY' CLASS  WORKFORCE IN 1976 (MAN YEARS)  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)  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 i n j u r i e s in 1975 (greater than 5.9 i n j u r i e s per 100 man y e a r s ) .  Most are occupations i n v o l v i n g work with metals or  metal products ( i n c l u d i n g mechanics) or the construction i n d u s t r y , where there are constant hazards from f l y i n g p a r t i c l e s . The r e s u l t s show (Table 3.A.8) that 81% of the workers who incurred eye i n j u r i e s i n 1976 worked an eight hour s h i f t .  F i f t e n percent of the  workers who incurred eye i n j u r i e s worked greater than eight hours per day. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h any r e l a t i o n between the length of s h i f t (and possibly f a t i g u e ) and eye i n j u r y as i t i s not possible to know the proportion 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 j u r i e s i n 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 i n midafternoon, then d e c l i n i n g again in the l a t e afternoon.  Figure  3.A.5  shows the incidence of reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1976 (from Table 3.A.10) r e l a t i v e to the number of hours the person had worked p r i o r to the accident. The r e s u l t s show a peak a f t e r 2 to 3 hours of work, d e c l i n i n g in the 4th hour, which i s u s u a l l y a lunch Deriod, and r i s i n g again to the highest i n cidence of eye i n j u r i e s in the 6th hour of work.  The proportion of eye  i n j u r i e s declines r a p i d l y 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 i n Figures 3.A.4 and 3.A.5  f o l l o w the normal patterns of i n j u r y , r e l a t i v e to time, reported in the literature.  One can speculate from these f i n d i n g s that boredom and  f a t i g u e contribute to the incidence of eye i n j u 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)  RATING  STANDARD OCCUP. "CODE  1  8337  2 3 4 5 6  8335 8393 8333 8793 8313  7  8791  8  8590  9  8379  10.'  8228  11  9918  12 13  8733 8529  14  8581  15  8548  16  8798  17  8786  18  8583  19  8339  20  8137  21  8782  22  8571  23  8781  OCCUPATION DESCRIPTION Boiler Makers, Platers and Structural Metal Workers Welding and Flame Cutting Metal Shaping and Forming Sheet Metal Workers Structural Metal Erectors Machinist and Machine Tool Setting Up Pipefitting, Plumbing and Related Occupations Foreman: Product Fabricating Assembling and Repairing Clay, Glass, Stone and Related Meterials Making Laboring and Other Elemental Work; Food and Beverage Laboring and Elemental Work NEC Construction Electricians Fabricating Occupations; Metal Products, NEC Motor Vehicle Mechanics and Repairmen Occupations in Laboring, Fabricating, Assembling and Repairing; Wood Products Occupations in Laboring, Other Construction Insulating Occupations Construction Rail Transport Equipment, Mechanics and Repairmen Other Metal Shaping and Forming Occupations Except Machining Moulding, Coremaking and Metal Casting Brick and Stone Masons and Tile Setters and Related Occup. Bonding and Cementing Occup. Rubber, Plastic, Etc. Carpenters and Related Occupations  NEC - Not Elsewhere Classified  ALBERTA WORKFORCE (1976) 280  RATE OF EYE INJURIES PER 100 WORKERS 32.50 •  4910 260 1480 630 1355  30.80 24.60 20.70 20.50 15.40  4275  14.90  205  13.20  75  12.00  750  9.70  7780  9.60  3780 215  9.20 8.80  9915  7.60  80  7.50  6675  7.28  495  6.87  630  6.19  65  6.15  185  5.95  875  5.94  525  5.90  8515  5.58  FIGURE 3.A.4 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 16 15 14 13 12 w 11  n n n n , n 1  2  3 4  5  6  111 JL  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)  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) 16 15 14 13 12 CO  cu •r—  •| cu >> ra 4->  O  <4O  I i-  11  101 9 8 7 6 5  O DO  A  o-  3  i.  ro i  H  00  01  02  03  04  05  06  07  08  09  Number of Hours Worked Before the Accident Occurred  H  10  •  CL  11  12  - 113 -  A great proportion of eye i n j u r i e s (77%) do not r e s u l t i n l o s t work time and only require medical a i d .  In the years 1974, 1975 and 1976, 23%  of the i n j u r i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y involved the payment of compensation f o 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 r e s p e c t i v e 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 l a i m s , as i n d i c a t e d by the 1974 and 1975 f i gures, the very low f i g u r e in 1976 i s due to the f a c t that settlement of permanent d i s a b i l i t y claims takes some time and many had not y e t been finalized.  F o r t u n a t e l y , 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 v e to the number of l o s t time and m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y claims.  One  could s p e c u l a t e , in l i n e with the l i t e r a t u r e , that a reduction i n s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s would also bring a reduction i n the number of permanent d i s a b i l i t y c l a i m s . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 9 i n j u r y sources are responsible 91% of the reported eye i n j u r i e s i n 1976 (Table 3.A.12). Source Particles  (unidentified)  Metal chips and p a r t i c l e s  Proportion of I n j u r i e s  for  These are: (%)  48.,9 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 t c .  3. 2  Acids  1..5  Glass items  1..5  Hand t o o l s  1. 5  This i s due p r i m a r i l y to the gross c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system t h a t i s used at the W.C.B., but the r e s u l t s do show that the m a j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s r e -  - 114 -  s u i t from metal, wood and other foreign bodies, with chemicals and r a d i a t i o n ( p r i m a r i l y u l t r a - v i o l e t ) c o n t r i b u t i n g to about 13% of the reported injuries.  Over the time period 1974 to 1976, the absolute frequency of a  majority of the i n j u r y sources has not a l t e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  Table  3.A.59 shows those i n j u r y sources that have increased i n number from 1974 to 1976 while Table 3.A.60 shows those sources of i n j u r y that have consist e n t 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 juries.  A s u b s t a n t i a l proportion of the remaining 20% involve chemical  burns, r a d i a t i o n e f f e c t s . a n d contusions.  Table 3.A.61 gives a comparison  of the nature of l o s t time eye i n j u r i e s reported to the Workers'  Compen-  s a t i o n Board i n A l b e r t a i n 1976, and in B.C. i n 1976, as reported in the literature.  Although the o v e r a l l rates of eye i n j u r i e s are quite d i f f e r e n t ,  the r e l a t i v e proportions of the d i f f e r e n t kinds c f i n j u r i e s are remarkably similar.  These s t a t i s t i c s suggest the presence of common i n j u r y denomi-  nators and, thus, p r e d i c t a b l e and perhaps c o n t r o l l a b l e causes of i n j u r y . I t is. d i f f i c u l t t o assess the provision of f i r s t aid i n r e l a t i o n to eye i n j u r i e s , as i t i s not known how many of the eye i n j u r i e s studied r e quired i t .  In a d d i t i o n , the non-response rate to t h i s question (Table  3.A.16) was high (29% i n 1976).  There has been concern r e g i s t e r e d by occu-  pational health personnel where workers are providing t h e i r own f i r s t a i d , often to the detriment of t h e i r eyes.  A notable example i s where welders  apply t o p i c a l anaesthetic to t h e i r eyes a f t e r an arc f l a s h . The proportion of eye i n j u r i e s that had some communication problem associated with them (0.6%) appears unnecessarily high.  This exposes the  need f o r proper employee o r i e n t a t i o n and the use of appropriate signals noise or language prevent verbal communication.  if  - 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 0901 0999 4101 4103 4129 5070 5708  DESCRIPTION Acids Chemicals, NEC Nails, Spikes and Tacks Nails and Staples (From Power Actuated Tools) Pipe, NEC Welding equipment, Electric Arc 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 250 630 965 970 1180 1190 1199 2230 4399 5090 5799 5900 8800 9800  DESCRIPTION Insects Boxes and Crates Cement or Calcium Compounds Chlorine and Chlorine Compounds Sulphur and Sulpher Compounds Petroleum Asphalts and Road Oils Coal and Petroleum Products Hammer, Sledge or Mallet Non-Metallic Mineral Items Laser Equipment Wood Items, NEC Concrete Items, NEC Miscellaneous, NEC 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 NUMBER OF INJURIES NATURE OF INJURY Unclassified Radiation Effects Conjunctivitis Chemical Burn Scratches, Abrasions Cuts, Lacerations Contusions, Bruises Heat Burn Electric Burn Enucleation Multiple TOTAL  ALBERTA NUMBER (%) 15 367  (0.6) (12.8)  202 2105 40 70 53 1 1  (7.1) (73.8) (1.4) (2.5) (1.9) (0.0) (0.0)  -  -  2854  -  —  (100%)  B.C. NUMBER (%) 34 194 67 197 1693 97 82 63  --  (1.4) (8.0) (2.8) (8.1) (69.7) (4.0) (3.4) (2.6)  2  (0.1)  2429  (100%)  -117 -  Part 2  -  Discussion of the Detailed Results of a Review of 15 High Eye Injury Risk Industry Classes  The f i f t e e n i n d u s t r i e s l i s t e d i n Tables 3.A.19 t o 3.A.40 contribute 2.73% of the A l b e r t a workforce ( i n man y e a r s ) , but i n 1976 accounted f o r 17.57% of the t o t a l number of reported eye i n j u r i e s , 20.4% of the s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s and 16.6% of the s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s .  This s u b s t a n t i -  ates the f a c t that a disproportionate number of eye i n j u r i e s occur i n s p e c i f i c industry classes r e l a t e d to metals and metal products.  I t i s apparent  that a s u b s t a n t i a l decrease i n the t o t a l number of eye i n j u r i e s could be r e a l i z e d 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 n d u s t r i a l population. Because of the predominance o  f  t h i s data i n the o v e r a l l number of eye  i n j u r i e s in A l b e r t a i n 1976, the r e s u l t s from t h i s section (Part II) much the same f i n d i n g s as in Part I.  show  There are, however, a few notable  additions to the d i s c u s s i o n . The incidence of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s i n r e l a t i o n to time are very c o n s i s t e n t .  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note i n Tables 3.A.23 and  3.A.34, however, that s t e e l f o u n d r i e s , heating equipment manufacturers, and welding shops showed s e v e r i t y #2 Deaks i n the morning that were one hour l a t e r than the s e v e r i t y #1 peak.  This may i n d i c a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y of  more serious i n j u r i e s with the onset of f a t i g u e .  This r e l a t i o n , however,  did not e x i s t in the afternoon. Table 3.A.62 shows the time during the workers' s h i f t in which the maj o r i t y of eye i n j u r i e s occurred.  The f i r s t peak, which would usually c o r r e s -  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, i n d u s t r i e s show an increasing trend in the number of eye i n j u 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 CLASS  31100 30700 30800 30801 29100 29102 34300 32400 32401 32403 32300 30200 89400 89401 30100  DESCRIPTION  Mfg. of Agricultural Implements Mfg. of Heating Equipment Automotive Machine Shops Machine Shops Mfg. of Steel Foundry - Iron and Steel Mfg. of Lime Mfg. of Holiday Trailers and Campers Mfg. of Truck Bodies and Cabs Mfg. of Wooden Truck Boxes Mfg. of Vehicles Fabrication of Structural Steel Blacksmith Shop Welding Shop Mfg., Fab. and Repair of Metal Products  FIRST PEAK  SECOND PEAK  3 No Peak 5 No Peak No Peak. No Peak  7 5 7 7 6 7  3 2  No Peak 6  2 3  7 6  -  »  3 3  -  -  7 7  - 119 -  Fatigue and boredom f a c t o r s should be considered i n the e t i o l o g y of these injuries. In both s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , i t appears that the lower proportion or absence of metal chips and p a 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 s e v e r i t y #1 and  s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s are caused by i n j u r y sources c l a s s i f i e d as u n i d e n t i f i e d particles. injuries.  In most industry classes t h i s prooortion i s less f o r s e v e r i t y #2 This may be due t o the greater required a t t e n t i o n that i s demanded  i n completing forms i f compensation i s to be p a i d , or the f a c t that compensable i n j u r i e s a r i s e from more s i g n i f i c a n t (recognizable) causes.  Severity  #1 i n j u r i e s from chemical sources are uncommon i n the industry classes with the exception of lime manufacturing.  S i g n i f i c a n t l y , chemicals ( i n c l u d i n g  acids) account f o r 17% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s i n automotive machine shops and 100% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s in lime manufacturing  industries.  S e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r i e s due to welding equipment ( r a d i a t i o n ) f i g u r e prominently i n 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 t u a t i o n i s apparent respecting s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s although, i n general, welding equipment contributes t o a higher proportion of the i n j u r i e s .  -  120  -  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 A l b e r t a 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 f o 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 i n t o 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 i n 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 i n Edmonton were examined. Access t o Information In December of 1977 t h i s researcher approached the A l b e r t a W.C.B. through t h e i r D i r e c t o r 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-  t a i n e d , provided the f i l e s were kept in the W.C.B. o f f i c e s and those examining the f i l e s signed a statement of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . Population A l l claims that were w i t h i n the high eye i n j u r y r i s k Standard Indust r i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , i d e n t i f i e d f o r f u r t h e r study i n Part A, were s e l e c t e d . This included 1581 claims that required m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y , and 584 claims that involved compensation f o r l o s t time or permanent d i s a b i l i t y .  A l l compens-  able i n j u r y 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 t o t a l number of medical-aid-only f i l e s were selected because of more common and e a s i l y recognized e t i o l o g i e 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 s e l e c t a 37%  - 122 -  sample of the m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y claims (586). The Instrument The data was taken from the W.C.B. r e p o r t i n g forms which appear i n Appendix I.  A data r e t r i e v a l form was designed to record s p e c i f i c i n f o r -  mation and, thereby, t o obtain the information i n a usable format. Data Content Figure 3.B.1 l i s t s the information ( v a r i a b l e s ) from the medical f i l e s .  that were extracted  Most of the v a r i a b l e s are s i m i l a r to those e x t r a c -  ted from the W.C.B. Computer f i l e s , with the exception that they are coded in much greater d e t a i l and with a preventive r e p o r t i n g o r i e n t a t i o n . Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n In order to i d e n t i f y the medical f i l e s to be examined, the claim number of each accident case was obtained and categorized according to the standard i n d u s t r i a l c l a s s i n which the accident occurred.  A research a s s i s -  tant was appointed and t r a i n e d to e x t r a c t the information from the medical files.  The information was coded by hand onto data sheets.  The completed  sheets were sent t o the A l b e r t a Labour a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c e s f o r key punching and t r a n s f e r onto the computer. P o s s i b l e Bias This data s u f f e r s from the same p o s s i b l e biases as the data i n Part A. I t was, of course, impossible to remove bias t h a t may have occurred p r i o r to the data e x t r a c t i o n and coding. Method Analysis The data was processed using the SPSS S t a t i s t i c a l Programming on an I.B.M. 370 Computer.  Package  In a d d i t i o n to the computerized i n f o r m a t i o n , the  research a s s i s t a n t was i n s t r u c t e d t o make s p e c i a l d e t a i l e d 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 e t i o l o g y , injury that was p a r t i c u l a r l y serious.  or an  -  3.B.R.  125  -  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 b u t i o n of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye  i n j u r i e s by industry c l a s s .  In a d d i t i o n 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 e x t r a d i g i t s have been added to define the opera t i o n w i t h i n the c l a s s .  The f i n d i n g s show the presence of the m a j o r i t y of  i n j u r i e s i n metal r e l a t e d work environments.  Among these industry  classes  there i s a marked v a r i a t i o n i n the r a t i o of s e v e r i t y #1 to s e v e r i t y #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 b u t i o n of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s by the W.C.B. occurrence c l a s s i n which they occurred.  The  premiums paid in each occurrence c l a s s are included f o r reference.  The ma-  j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s are w i t h i n classes which contain companies concerned with manufacturing and r e p a i r i n g metal and wood oroducts. Table 3.B.3 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e l e c t e d eye i n j u r y claims according to the month in which the i n j u r y occurred.  There i s l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n i n  the number of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s over the months of the year. Table 3.B.4 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e l e c t e d eye i n j u r y claims according to whether the work performed at the time of the accident was f o r normal business purposes.  The great m a j o r i t y of eye i n j u r i e s occurred as a r e -  s u l t of work r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , although two s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s occurred while workers were attending apprentice  classes.  Table 3.B.5 shows the number of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #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 i n j u r y was a regular part of the person's work.  The great m a j o r i t y of eye i n j u r i e s  occurred while the person was engaged i n his regular work.  One s e v e r i t y #2  eye i n j u r y occurred as a r e s u l t of a worker engaging in e x t r a d u t i e s .  - 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) SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  INDUSTRY CLASS  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  (5.8) (1.0)  9  (1*5) (1.2) (3.4)  7 20 13  8:8 (1.0) (6.0) (0.3)  (2.2) (0*5)  7 2 1 1 12 7 1  (1.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (2.0) (1.2) (0.2  28  (4.8)  3 15  (0.5) (2.6)  40 12 2 43  (6*9) (2.0) (0.3) (7.3)  5 2 34 34  (0.9) (0.4) (5.8) (5.8) (0.2) (7.9)  46  (0~2) (0.2) (0.3) (7.6) (0.7) (0.2) (0.5) (1.5) (0.2) (0.2 (6.4)  44  37  (0*7) (1.2) (0.2 (0.2  586  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  2 13 16 4  (0.3) (2.2) 2.7 (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 1 1 4  (5.0) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.7)  16 11 1 3 1  2.8) 1.9) 0.2) 0.5) 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)  OCCURRENCE CLASS  05-01 06-02 06-08 08-02 08-03 08-04 08-05 19-02 Unknown TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  #  (%)  #  (%)  55 18 3 246 117 53 85 10  (9.4) (3.1) (0.3) (42.0) (20.0) (9.0) (14.5) (1-7)  13 11 1 396 99 26 34 1 3  (2.2) (1.9) (0.2) (67.8) (17.0) (4.5) (5.8) (0.2) (0.5)  586  (100%)  584  (100%)  -  INSURANCE PREMIUM  $1.45 $2.50 $8.25 $3.00 $2.20 $3.25 $3.60 $0.50 - $7.50 Unknown  - 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  January February March April May June July August September October November December Unknown TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  #  (%)  #  52 41 58 43 53 45 55 51 55 49 45 39  (8.9) (7.0) (9.9) (7.3) (9.0) (7.7) (9.4) (8.7) (9.4) (8.4) (7.7) (6.7)  47 40 57 49 56 41 65 62 63 44 31 28 1  (8.0) (6.8) (9.8) (8.4) (9.6) (7.0) (11.1) (10.6) (10.8) (7.5) (5.3) (4.8) (0.2)  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)  1  WORK FOR BUSINESS  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES #  No Response Yes During Lunch Worker Attending SAIT Personal Business TOTAL  (%)  92 491  (15.7) (83.8)  2  (0.3)  1  (0.2)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES #  (%)  13 570 1  (2.2) (97.6) (0.2)  584  586  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 No Response Yes Apprentice Class Personal Work Extra Duty TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES #  (%)  92 491  (15.7) (83.8)  2 1  (0.3) (0.2)  586  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES #  (%)  13 570  (2.2) (97.6)  1  (0.2)  584  -130  -  Table 3.B.6 gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of selected s e v e r i t y #1 and severi t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s by the occupation of the i n j u r e d 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 i n 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 s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s ,  in the industry classes s t u d i e d , occur among m a c h i n i s t s , welders, mechanics, plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s and labouring occupations.  In the case of s e v e r i t y  #1 i n j u r i e s , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 11.1% of the i n j u r e d welders were apprentices, while 3.3% were welders' helpers.  14% of the s e v e r i t y #1  i n j u r i e s among plumbers and p i p e f i t t e r s were shared equally by apprentices and helpers.  In the case of s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , 5.4% of the t o t a l num-  ber of i n j u r i e s incurred by machinists were incurred by apprentices.  Forty  of the 295 (14%) s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s incurred by welders happened to apprentices, while a f u r t h e r ders were incurred by welders'  3.1% of the t o t a l number of i n j u r i e s to w e l helpers.  Table 3.B.7 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of selected eye i n j u r i e s by the cause of the i n j u r y .  A large proportion of the s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2  eye i n j u r i e s studied i n t h i s s e c t i o n were caused by a f l y i n g piece of metal which usually came in the form of a spark from a g r i n d e r .  Non-specific f o r -  eign bodies contributed to 12% of the s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s , but only 4% of the s e v e r i t y #2. i n j u r i e s .  In t o t a l , 85% of the s e v e r i t y #:1 i n j u r i e s and  72% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s were caused by a f o r e i g n body in the eye. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , r a d i a t i o n (from welding operations) contributed to 9% of the s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s and 21% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s .  The majority  of other causes of eye i n j u r i e s r e l a t e to m e t a l l i c or non-metallic p a r t i c l e s or fragments.  Chemicals contribute only to about 2% of the i n j u r i e s in  e i t h e r category.  Compressed a i r and/or wind are responsible f o r 6% of the  -131  -  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)  OCCUPATION  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES #  OOOOOO 415301 415701 513501 611138 619101 771001 771140 771901 811101 813701 813702 813716 813747 814301 814801 814822 814901 814927 817103 817813 817835 817838 831001 831301 831303 831314 831315 831322 831516 831522 831901 833001 833301 833304 833305 833310 833316 833401 833422 833426 833501 833503 833515 833517 833518 833524 833529 833548 833601 833701 833716 833915 833943 839301 839303 851309 851319 852903 853101 853801  _  NO CLASSIFICATION  SHIPPING AND RECIEVING CLERKS - WEIGHERS - SALESMEN - FIRE-FIGHTERS: KILN FIREMANS HELPER - JANITORS - SUPERVISORS; DRILLING OPERATIONS - ROTARY WELL-DRILLING - OIL AND GAS FIELD OCCUPATIONS - CRUSHING AND GRINDING OCCUPATIONS - METAL CASTING - METAL CASTING: CUPOLA OPERATOR - METAL CASTING: STEEL WORKER CASTING: COREMAKER - METAL PLATING, METAL OCCUPATIONS - LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING - LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - METAL PROCESSING PROCESSING: METAL TRADESMAN - METAL AND GRINDING CHEMICALS - CRUSHING LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM: BULK LOADER, BAGGER - LABOURING PETROLEUM: MAINTENANCE - LABOURING ININ CHEMICALS, CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM: KILN FIREMANS HELPER - FOREMAN; MACHINING OPERATIONS -- MACHINIST MACHINIST: GRINDER MACHINIST HELPER - MACHINIST: APPRENTICE - MACHINIST: MACHINIST: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING: STEEL WORKER - MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - METAL MACHINING - FOREMAN; METAL SHAPING AND FORMING - SHEET-METAL - SHEET-METAL WORKERS WELDER - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: WORKERS: ASSEMBLER/PRODUCTION WORKER - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: TINSMITH - SHEET-METAL WORKERS: STEEL WORKER - METALWORKING-MACHINE - METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS EQUIPMENT OPERATOR - METALWORKING-MACHINE OPERATORS: OPERATORS: SHEAR HELPER - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER - WELDING WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: APPRENTICE - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: PIPEFITTER AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: WELDERS HELPER - WELDING WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: PRESSURE WELDER - WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: MACHINIST AND FLAME CUTTING OCCUPATIONS: WELDING FOREMAN - WELDING INSPECTING, METAL SHAPING AND FORMING - BOILERMAKERS, - BOILERMAKERS, PLATERS PLATERS: STEEL WORKER - METAL SHAPING AND OCCUPATIONS: APPRENTICE - METAL SHAPING AND FORMING FORMING OCCUPATIONS: CASTING OPERATOR - FILING, GRINDING AND OCCUPATIONS - FILING, GRINDING AND BUFFING BUFFING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER - MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING: PUNCH MACHINE OPERATOR _  854801 858101 858112 858123 858136 858145 848401 858403 -  MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING: FABRICATOR OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FABRICATING ANO ASSEMBLING LABOURING IN FABRICATING. ASSEMBLING. INSTALLING I REPAIRING ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT LABOURING IN FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING WOOD PRODUCTS MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: SHOP FOREMAN MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: MILLWRIGHT MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: MECHANICS HELPER MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS: BODY MECHANIC HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS: GRINDER  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  f  (*)  63 2  (10.8) (0.3)  13  1 1 2 1 1  (0*2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2)  -1  3  (0?2) (0.5)  1 1 2  (0?2j (0.2) (0.2) (0.3)  .  -1  -1 -1 .  2 1 2 2 48 1 1 1  6 1  . 1  -173 23  (0T2)  (0.3)  (0.2) (0.3 (0.3) (8.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  (1.1) (0-2) (0*2)  -(29.6)  3 8  (3~9) (0.5) (1.4)  1 1 2  (0.2) (0.2) (0.4)  -  -1  4 15  -1 ..  .  _  (0.2) (0.7) (2-6) (0*2)  1 1  (o'.z)  -2  -  (0.2)  20  (3.4)  1  (0.2) (0.3) (2.2)  2  13  W  1  fell (0.2)  1  (0.2) (0.2)  1  (o'.z)  2 1  (0*3) (0.2)  1  (0.2)  1  -  .  -  -  1 1  (o'.z)  _  (6.0)  35 1  (0.2)  (0.2)  _  1 2 11 1  (0*3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (1.9) (0.2)  1 1 1 1 1 242 1 40  (0?2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (41.4) (0.2) (6-8)  10 1  1  (1*7) (0.2) (0.2)  1 1 1  (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  8 2 1  (1*4) (0.3) (0.2)  2 1 1  1  .  _  -  -  _  1  -  (0*2)  -  1 15 1  (0.2) 2.6) (0.2)  12 1  (2.1) (0.2)  -  -  - 132 -  TABLE 3.B.6 - Continued  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  OCCUPATION  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  U)  (X) 858415 858423 858901 859001 859801 859803 859805  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 859811 LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING ANO REPAIRING: WOODWORKER 859816 LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING: STEEL WORKER 859841 LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING: TRUCK BODY BUILDER 871139 EXCAVATING, GRADING: SCRAPER OPERATOR EXCAVATING, GRADING, PAVING: EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 871922 CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS 873301 873601 INSPECTING AND TESTING: ELECTRICAL POWER, WIRE COMMUNICATIONS 878001 FOREMAN: OTHER CONSTRUCTION TRADES 878101 CARPENTERS 878501 PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS 878531 • PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS: PAINTERS HELPER 879101 • PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING 879103 • PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING: GRINDER 879115 • PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING: APPRENTICE 879117 • PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING: PIPEFITTER 879133 • PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING: FITTERS HELPER 879134 • PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING: BOILERMAKER 879301 • STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS 879304 • STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS: WELDER 879321 • STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS: IRON WORKER 879801 • LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION 879803 • LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION: GRINDER 879805 • LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION: ASSEMBLER/PRODUCTION WORKER 917501 • TRUCK DRIVERS 931101 • HOISTING OCCUPATIONS 831144 • HOISTING OCCUPATIONS: CRANE OPERATOR 931501 • MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS 931522 • MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATOR 931525 . MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS FORK LIFT OPERATOR 931544 • MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS CRANE OPERATOR 931801 • LABOURING IN MATERIAL-HANDLING 931913 • OTHER MATERIAL-HANDLING OCCUPATIONS: BULK LOADER, BAGGER 991601 • INSPECTING, TESTING, GRADING, AND SAMPLING OCCUPATIONS 991801 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: NON-SPECIFIC 991802 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: CUPOLA OPERATOR 991803 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: GRINDER 991804 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: WELDER 991805 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: ASSEMBLER - PRODUCTION WORKER 991806 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: DRILLER 991807 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: STEAM CLEANER 991808 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: ENGINE TESTER 991813 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: BULK LOADER/BAGGER 991814 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: MACHINIST HELPER 991815 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: APPRENTICE 991816 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: STEEL WORKER 991817 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: PIPEFITTER 991818 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: WELDERS HELPER 991819 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: FABRICATOR 991827 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: METAL TRADESMAN 991828 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: BRAKE HELPER 991830 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: SWAMPER 991833 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: FITTERS HELPER 991835 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: MAINTENANCE WORKER 991836 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: MECHANICS HELPER 991837 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: SHOP ASSISTANT 991842 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: HELPER, FURNACE 991846 - LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: SINGLE PUNCH OPERATOR 991849 • LABOURING OCCUPATIONS: RIGGER TOTAL  1 3 5 32 2 16  (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)  2 1 2 17 4 6  (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (2.9) (0.7) (1.0)  1  (0.2)  1  (0.2)  (0.2) (0.3) 5 2 2 21 1 3 2 3  (0.2) (0.4) (0.2)  (0.2) (0.2) (0.9)  (0~5) (0.2) (0.3)  (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) 1  (0.2)  1 35 1 8  (0.2) (6.0) (0.2) (1.4) (0~3)  1  (0.2)  6  (1.0)  2  (0*4)  1 1 1 3 2 1 1  (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2)  586  (0.9) (0.3) (0.3) (3.6) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.5)  1 1  (0.2) (0.2)  2 1 1 24  (0*4) (0.2) (0.2) (4.1)  16 4 3 2 1 1 1 1  (2~7) (0.7) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  2 1 7 1 1 1 1  (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  Unknown Foreign Body; Non-Specific Flying Spark/Piece of Metal Welding Flash/Radiation Foreign Body; Non-Metallic Electrical Flash Hot Metal Splatter Sharp Object Harmful Liquids & Corrosives Welding Injury Flying Fragment or Object Welding Flash and Metallic Foreign Body Wind Blew Foreign Body into Eye Blunt Object TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  #  (%)  #  (%)  2 72 327 55 58  (0.3) (12.3) (55.8) (9.4) (9.9)  (0.2) (4.3) (60.4) (20.5) (4-5) (0.2)  2 10 4 14  (2.0) (0.3) (1.7) (0.7) (2.4)  1 25 353 120 26 1 5 13 5 13  (0.9) (2.2) (0.9) (2.2)  -  7  (1.2)  (4.1) (0.2)  11 1  (1.9) (0.2)  -12  24 1 586  -  -  584  -  - 134 -  s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s , but only 2% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s . Table 3.B.S  shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2  •eye i n j u r i e s by the source of the i n j u r y .  This information represents  a more d e t a i l e d look at the cause of i n j u r i e s shown i n Table 3.B.7.  Al-  though the type of m e t a l l i c foreign body was not defined i n most cases, a high proportion that v/ere defined were found to be s t e e l .  Although s t e e l  was responsible f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l l y greater proportion of s e v e r i t y #2 than s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s , t h i s may be due to reporting anomalies.  S i m i l a r num-  bers of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e 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 f o r l o s t work time. Table 3.B.9 gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of eye i n j u r i e s according to the nature of the i n j u r y .  Approximately 55% of the eye i n j u r i e s studied r e -  s u l t e d in corneal abrasions.  The r e s u l t s show a multitude of s p e c i a l i z e d  i n c i d e n t s which cannot be well categorized. Table 3.B.10 records the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u 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 f e r any information on whether eye protection was worn at the time of the accident (83% f o r s e v e r i t y #1, 73% f o r s e v e r i t y #2).  Of those who reported the information, 13% of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s  and 28% of s e v e r i t y #2 did not use any eye p r o t e c t i o n .  Safety glasses were  used i n 42% of the s e v e r i t y #1 cases and 31% of the s e v e r i t y #2 cases.  In-  j u r i e s occurred while goggles were being worn in 12% of the s e v e r i t y #1 cases and 4% of the s e v e r i t y #2 cases.  The remaining cases where eye pro-  t e c t i o n was worn are highly v a r i e d . Table 3.B.11 reports whether the r i g h 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 j u r i e s occurred i n 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 INJURIES  SOURCE OF INJURY  Not Classified foreign body; non-specific metallic foreign body; non-specific steel iron manganese rust hot metal; non-specific copper rivet, nut 'gumdoll sand electrical; non-specific piece of plastic ultraviolet radiation degreaser sulphuric acid staples dirt, dust hot water, steam with detergent chromic acid hot cinder wood (fiber, chip, splinter, sawdust) chemically treated tar chip fiberglass glass air hose nozzle aluminum lime dust dirty o i l lead caustic soda drill bit ultraviolet radiation and metallic FB hot welding rod sulphur dust ultraviolet radiation & hot welding rod wrench handle paint hot steel nitrogen coal dust hot zinc cone cardboard box flap' hot steel bar dust and iron filings dry paint chip screwdriver Liquid metal conditioner acid brass wood panel copper tubing hot sand pliers piece of cement query ultraviolet radiation piece of carbon  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  #  (5!)  #  2 80 218 88 7  (0.3) (13.7) (37.2) (15.0) (1.2)  5 24 157 155 15 1 5 14 1 2 1 5 1 2 119 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 7 1 4 3 " 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1  -1 19  (0.2) (3.2)  --  -  1 6  (0.2) (1.0)  54-  (9.2)  -  -  -44-  (7.5)  -1  -  21  (0.2) (3.6)  1 1 4 7  (0*9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.7) (1.2)  1 1  (0~2) (0.2)  -5  .  -1 1  -1  :  (0.2)  (0.2)  -  -  1  (0.2) (0.2)  1  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  j  1  (0.2)  -1  •  -  -  (2) (0.9) (4.1) (26.9) (26.5) (2.6) (0.2) (0.9) (2.4) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.9) (0.2) (0.3) (20.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (3.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (1.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2) (0.7) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (1.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  _  _  _  _  _  _  -  -  _  _  2  -  -  (0.3)  -136 TABLE 3.B.8 (Continued) J  1  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  SOURCE OF INJURY  (*).  i  metal dust hot metal wire paint thinner metal chain solvent  1 1 1  SEVERITY iZ INJURIES #  (0.2) 0.2) (0.2) 1 2  TOTAL  |  586  <*)  584  (0*2) (0.3)  - 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  (*) 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 INJECTIONECCHYMOSIS 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 (2.6) 246 (42.0) 1 (0.2) 39 (6.7) (3.6) (0.3) (0.5) (0.2)  21 2 3 1  39 (6.7)  4 (0.7)  14 (2.4)  1 6 13 2  (0.2) (1.0) (2.2) (0.3)  1 11 20  (0.2) (1.9) (3.4)  1 (0.2)  1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)  (X)  7 (1.2) 173 (29.6) 3 (0.5) 84 (14.4) 3 (0.5) 38 (6.5) 2 (0.3) 1 (0.2) 3 (0.5) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 21 (3.6) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 8 (1.4) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2) 14 (2.4) 1 (0.2)  30  (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 SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  NATURE OF INJURY  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  W (0.2)  MULTIPLE CORNEAL ULCERS-RUST RING  6  NO INJURY NOTED  (0.3)  (1.0)  (0.2)  SULFURIC ACID BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA  (0.2)  CHROMIC ACID BURNS TO CORNEA ANO CONJUNCTIVA  (0.2)  LIME BURNS LIME 8URNS-CHEMICAL SCLERITIS  (0.2) (0.2)  CAUSTIC SODA BURNS-EPITHELIAL BREAKDOWN-BLEPHAROSPASM  (0.2)  CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO NITROGEN SPLASH  (0.2)  CHEMICAL CONJUNCTIVITIS-SULPHUR DUST  (0.2)  BILATERAL CORNEAL ABRASIONS AND CONJUNCTIVITIS FROM PAINT  (0.2)  CONJUNCTIVAL ABRASION  (0.2)  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  41  (7.0)  36  (6.2)  2  (0.3)  29  (5.0)  2  (0.3)  CONJUNCTIVITIS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS  (1.5)  (4.3)  ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS:  (0.2)  (2.1)  NON-SPECIFIC  (0.5)  CONJUNCTIVITIS & PHOTOPHOBIA DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN  (0.2)  IRITIS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION  (0.2)  BLEPHARITIS OF UPPER AND LOWER EYELIDS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS  (0.2)  SWELLING OF EYELIDS DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS  (0.7)  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  (0.3)  (0.2)  (0.2)  (0.2)  (0.2)  (0.3) (0.2)  SECOND DEGREE BURN OF SKIN NEAR INNER CANTHUS  (0.2)  SECOND DEGREE BURN OF EYELIDS WITH SECONDARY INFECTION  (0.2)  CORNEAL BURN  (0.2)  DEEP BURNS TO INNER ENDS OF UPPER AND LOWER EYELIDS AND ON THE CARUNCLE  (0.2)  BURN TO MEDIAL CANTHUS HEAT BURNS TO EYELIDS  (0.9)  HEAT BURN TO SCLERA  (0.2)  HEAT BURN TO UPPER EYELID  (0.2)  HEAT BURN TO INNER CANTHUS AND CONJUNCTIVA  (0.2)  CORNEAL ABRASION WITH BURN INVOLVEMENT  (0.7)  (0.2)  10  (1.7)  CHEMICAL BURN-SUBCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE-CORNEAL ABRASION  1  (0.2)  ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS TO CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH CORNEAL ABRASION  2  (0.3)  5  (0.9)  1  (0.2)  2  (0.3)  2  (0.2)  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 LIDCONTUSION OF THE GLOBE CONJUNCTIVITIS FROM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS-CORNEAL ABRASIONCONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE  TOTAL  586  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)  EYE PROTECTION Not Discussed No Yes; non-specific Yes; improper f i t Goggles; flexible type (poor f i t ) Yes; blown off by force Face shield Street glasses Safety glasses Helmet Helmet and safety glasses Helmet; glass broke on impact Glasses; non-specific Mono-goggles Helmet; improper shade of glass Helmet; foreign body in helmet Worker had just l i f t e d helmet Goggles Helmet shield not completly down Face shield and safety glasses Goggles; had just been removed Face shield; had just been l i f t e d Goggles; not properly worn Goggles; had holes in them "Dark" safety glasses TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) 488 13 -  (13.3) -  4  (4.1)  7  (7.1)  42 9  (42.9) (9.2)  -  -  •-  -  2 2 12 1 1 11 1 1 1 1  586  -  -  -  --  (2.0) (2.0) (12.2) (1.0) (1.0)  (i.o) (i.o) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) 424 45 1 3 1 1 7 4 50 13 3 3 1 1 2 3 5 7 2 6 2  -  ff  584  (28.1) (0.6) (1.9) (0.6) (0.6) (4.4) (2.5) (31.3) (8.1) (1.9) (1.9) (0.6) (1.3) (1.9) (3.1) (4.4) (1.3) (3.8) (1.3)  --  - 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 #  Not Classified Right Left Both TOTAL  2 237 283 64 586  (%) (0.3) (40.4) (48.3) (10.9)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # 3 233 216 132 584  (%)  CO,5)  (39.9) (37.0) (22.6)  - 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 injuries 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 severity #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, accounting for 35% of the severity #2 injuries and 47% of the severity #1 injuries.  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 indicates 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% respectively.  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)  TYPE OF IMPLEMENT USED  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES (*)  #  (X)  16 83 39 8  (2.7) (14.2) (6.7) (1.4)  145  (24.7)  1 66  (0.2) (11.3)  6 47 39 9 1 159 1 1 5 2 115 1 3 1 2 1 16 1 16  (1.0) (8.0) (6.7) (1.5) (0.2) (27.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.9) (0.3) (19.7) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (2.7) (0.2) (2.7)  #  Unknown Non-specific Not using implement Not using implement; standing, walking by Cupola Grinder Schecker Refractory patching gun Chisel Crane Welder Propane torch Wrench; power impact wrench Soldering iron Pop rivet gun Press machine D r i l l ; power d r i l l Degreaser tank Air hose Stapler Sand blaster (third party using) Furnace Cutting torch Hammer Compression tester Hand tools; non-specific Punch machine Router Screwdriver Electric Sander A1r hacksaw, power saw, ski 1 saw Air drill Impact gun Acetelene torch Welder (third party using) Grinder (third party using) Air Tools; a i r gun Fertilizer spreader Power brush Sand blaster Grease gun Machining equipment; non-specific Lathe Axe Air hose (third p'arty using) Metal Cutter (third party using) Welder arc gouger Electric buffer Wire brush Steamer Belt polisher Brake drum turning machine Boring bar Drill press Water hose Shovel Loader; loading bulk cars Straightener Skimmer  SEVERITY §2 INJURIES  -1  -1 -2 27 16  1 2 4 12 8 1 20  -3  (0.2)  (0.3) (4.6) (2.7) (0.2)  (0.2) (0.3 0.7) (2.0) 1.4) (0.2) (3.4)  (0.5) -  -9 -1  oTs)  -1 8 -1  (0.2) (1.4) (0.2)  1 22 19 3  (0.2) (0.2) (3.8) (3.2) (0.5)  1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1  (0.2) (0.2) (1.0) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2)  -3  1 7 6 1 24 1 3 1 2 6 5 1 1 45 27 2 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 1  -  (0.5) (0.2) (1.2) (1 .0) (0.2) (4.1) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0-3)  ((0.9) i.o)  (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)  -  - 143 -  TABLE 3.B.12 (Continued)  TYPE OF IMPLEMENT USED  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES  W  #  Impact Tool Crowbar Crane (third party using) File Paint brush Milling machine Knife Sand muller Spray paint gun Pliers Jack hammer Drill (third party using) Blade Sharpener Impact Tool (third party using) Shot blast machine TOTAL  27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  586  (4.6) 0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) :o.3) ;o.2) :o.2) ;o.2) (0.2) :o.2) (0.2) [0.2) (0.2)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES #  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 INJURIES  FIRST AID  Not Classified Yes; non-specific No First aid attendant Occupational health nurse Fellow employee Foreman Self Physician TOTAL  #  (%)  93 53 392 34 12 1  (10.8) (79.5) (6.9) (2.4) (0.2)  1  (0.2)  -  586  -  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES #  13 53 467 37 9 2 2 1  -  584  (9.2) (81.7) (6.5) (1.6) (0.3) (0.4) (0.2)  -  - 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)  REPORT OF ACCIDENT  Immediately; within 5 minutes Within 1 hour Within 4 hours Same day Next day 2 days later 3 days later 4 days later 5 days later 6 days later 7 days later 8 days later 10 days later 11 days later 14 days later 15 days later 21 days later 25 days later One month or longer Not Reported Unknown TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%)  261 15 1 63 80 13 18 4 3 5 2 1 3 1  (54.4) (3.1) (0.2) (13.2) (16.7) (2.7) (3.1) (0.7) (0.6) (1.0) (0.4) (0.2) (0.6) (0.2)  218 15 1 55 221 25 17 11 5 1  1  (0.4) (0.2)  1 5 107  (0.2) (0.9) (18.3)  -1  -2 -  586  -  -  -  -  (38.1) (2.6) (0.2) (9.6) (38.6) (4.4) (3.0) (1.9) (0.9) (0.2)  -  -  1  (0.2)  1  (0.2) (0.2)  -  12 584  -  (2.1)  - 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 #  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 TOTAL  (%)  96 191  (16.4) (32.6)  23 147  (3.9) (25.1)  1 32 4 7  (0.2) (5.5) (0.7) (1.2)  25 8 6 19 2 2  (4.3) (1.4) (1.0) (3.2) (0.3) (0.3)  2 2 1  (0.3) (0.3) (0,2)  11 1  0~9)  1 5  (0.2) (0.9)  586  (0.2)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # 22 76 1 49 237 2 8 5 16 11 5 41 7 9 44 23 7 1 7 1 2 1 3 5 1  584  (%) (3.8) (13.0) (0.2) (8.4) (40.6) (0.3) (1.4) (0.9) (2.7) (1.9) (0.9) (7.0) (1.2) (1.5) (7.5) (3.9) (1.2) (0.2) (1.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.5) (0.9) (0.2)  - 147 -  dent.  In t o t a l , 71% and 50% r e s p e c t i v e l y were reported the same day of the  accident.  A f u r t h e r 17% of the s e v e r i t y # 1 accidents and 39% of the  s e v e r i t y #2 accidents were reported the next day. Table 3.B.15 shows that 25% of the s e v e r i t y # 1 i n j u r i e s and 41% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s were reDorted to the foreman ( f i r s t l i n e visor).  super-  The employer was n o t i f i e d i n 4% of s e v e r i t y # 1 cases and 8% of the  s e v e r i t y #2 cases, while 6% and 1% r e s p e c t i v e l y were reported to the shop manager.  In 49% of s e v e r i t y # 1 cases and 21% of the s e v e r i t y #2 cases,  there was a n o n - s p e c i f i c or missing response to the question.  Injuries  were i n i t i a l l y reported to a nurse or f i r s t a i d attendant in only 5.7% of the s e v e r i t y # 1 cases and 9.1% of the s e v e r i t y #2 cases. Table 3.B.16 shows the number of s e v e r i t y # 1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s that occurred on the employers' l o c a t i o n w i t h i n the premises.  premises and, i f p o s s i b l e , the  A high proportion of the i n j u r y claims  (69%  of s e v e r i t y # 1 , 58% of s e v e r i t y #2) did not i n d i c a t e where the accident took place i n the employers' premises.  3.1% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s  and 1.4% of the s e v e r i t y # 1 i n j u r i e s occurred on a job s i t e , while 2.6% of the s e v e r i t y #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 , t h e r e f o r e , occurred in defined spaces, g e n e r a l l y where metals were being handled or processed. Table 3.B.17 shows that 41% of the persons who i n c u r r e d s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s had a s i m i l a r type of i n j u r y p r e v i o u s l y .  Although there were a  large number of non-responses to t h i s question i n the s e v e r i t y # 1 c a t e gory, 55% of those who responded had a s i m i l a r type of i n j u r y p r e v i o u s l y . The high proportion of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s i s l o g i c a 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 i m i l a r d i s a b i l i t i e s i n the s e v e r i t y #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 INJURIES  WHERE ACCIDENT OCCURRED  Unknown Yes; non-specific Not on employer's premises; non-specific Millroom of plant Paint shop Grinding room Welding booth, room, shop Mould department Furnace room Cupola room Factory; non-specific Assembly line, production line Drilling bench Steam bay Machine shop Shipping department Chrome plating room Test track In a mobile home, trailer Cabinet department Trailer shop At construction site Valve bay At caustic soda tank Mechanics bay Engine room At job site Outside in yard; non-specific Inside large pipe or tank On oilfield Under vehicle Fabrication shop Inside shell Pipe fitting table Compressor assembly shop Axle department Repair shop Structural shop Apprentice classes Melt shop Confined area; non-specific Laminating Room Plumbing department Shipping department Sand mixing area Sheet metal shop Service shop By fuse box Boiler room Shot blast room TOTAL  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  #  (%)  #  (%)  92 312 2 1 8 42 35  (15.5) (53.2) (0.3) (0.2) (1.4) (7.2) (6.0)  14 327  (2.4) (56.0)  5 25 86 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 22 2 1 1 9 1 1 4 1 1 3 1 12 15 11 2 1 12 1 4 1 1 3 2  (0.3) (0.9) (4.3) (14.7) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.9) (0.2) (0.3) (3.8) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (1.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (2.1) (2.6) (1.9) (0.3) (0.2) (2.1) (0.2) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3)  -6 -8 -1  17  (1.0)  (0.2) (1.4) (2.9)  -1 -1  (0.2)  8 12 3  (1.4) (2.0) (0.5)  3  -  16 4  -2  1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  586  -  (0.2)  (0.5)  -  (2.7) (0.7)  (0.3)  (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  -2  —  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  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) TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) 174 149 186 49 22  (36.2) (45.1) (11.9) (5.3)  5 1  (1.2) (0.3)  586  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) 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)  584  - 150 -  the other hand, Table 3.A.18 shows the proportion of i n j u r e d workers who had p r e v i o u s l y submitted a c l a i m f o r any type of i n j u r y .  66% of the  s e v e r i t y #1 claims and 69% of the s e v e r i t y #2 claims were in t h i s  category.  The m a j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s involved the eye, and from the claims that t h i s type of information was g i v e n , i t was found that 50% of the previous s e v e r i t y #1 eye i n j u r y claims and 54% of the previous s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r y claims had occurred w i t h i n one year.  Three s e v e r i t y #2 claims showed  that the workers had claimed compensation f o r a s i m i l a r i n j u r y one week previous.  Twenty-six percent of the claims f o r s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2  i n d i c a t e d previous i n j u r y to another part of the body.  These included the  back, l e g s , r i b s , shoulders and head. Table 3.B.19 gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e l e c t e d s e v e r i t y #1 and seve r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s i n 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 ( s e v e r i t y #3).  Six i n j u r y claims were c l a s s i f i e d in t h 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 i n j u r y as i n d i c a t e d by the p h y s i c i a n . case  in  involve  each  of the s e v e r i t y  the concealment  #1  of facts  and  severity  related  tc  #2 the  grouDS  was  thought  One to  accident.  Table 3.B.21 records that i n one case, there was the p o s s i b l e  involve-  ment of a language Droblem i n the i n j u r y . Table 3.B.22 gives the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s according to the p h y s i c i a n ' s the i n j u r e d person would be o f f work.  estimate of the length of time  Table 3.B.23 gives the actual time  that was l o s t by each worker as.a r e s u 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 l a i m s , coded as s e v e r i t y #1, would involve some l o s t time, somewhere between one and s i x days i n d u r a t i o n .  Table 3.B.23 shows that  -  151  -  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 #  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 TOTAL  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  (%)  #  (%)  (2.7) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.7) (33.6) (15.0)  10 5  (1.7) (0.9)  7 (1*2) (9.0) 53 60 (10.2) (3.6) 21 (0.2) 1 (0.5) 3 (0.5) 3 (0.7) 4 (3.2) 19 (0.2) 1 8 4  (1~4) (0.7)  1 1 2  (0.2) (0.2) (0.3)  2 2  (0.3) (0.3)  53 1  (9.0) (0.2)  6 10 14 1  (i"o)  1  593  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  (1.7) (2.4) (0.2)  1 (0~2) (0.3) 2 (0.3) 2 181 (31.0) 65 (ll.D (0.5) 3 (2.6) 15 72 (12.3) 76 (13.0) (1.7) 10 2 5 9 10  (0.3) (0.9) (1.5) (1.7)  2 10 14 2 2 2  (0.3) (1.7) (2.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3)  2  (0~3)  3 3  (0~5) (0.5)  1 33  (0*2) (5.7)  2 15 17 5 1 1 1  (0~3) (2.6) (2.9) (0.9) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  (0.2) 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  #  (%)  Yes No Not Discussed  TOTAL  #  (%)  1  (0.2)  570  (97.3)  492  (84.2)  15  (2,6)  85  (14,6)  5  (0.9)  1  (0.2)  Uncertain but probable Worker l e f t with corneal scar  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  1  586  (0.2)  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  289  (49.3)  253  (43.4)  No  296  (50.5)  330  (56.5)  1  (0.2)  1  (0.2)  Yes 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  2  (0.3)  Yes  1  (0.2)  581  (99.5)  No  586 TOTAL  586  (100)  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)  ESTIMATED TIME OFF WORK 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 8 days 9 days 10 days 11 days 13 days 14 days No lay off Less than 7 days 7 - 14 days One month or longer Not Discussed TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (X) 93 40 11 4 1  -  -  --  281 84 2  -  70 586  (15.9) (6.8) (1.9) (0.7) (0.2)  -  -  (47.9) (14.3) (0.3)  -  (11.9)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (X) 94 92 50 19 10 6 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 31 208 17 1 42 584  (16.1) (15.8) (8.6) (3.3) (1.7) (1.0) (1.0) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) CO. 2) (0.2) (0.2) (5.3) (35.6) (2.9) (0.2) (7.2)  - 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)  REAL  TIME OFF  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES #  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 164 days TOTAL  577 4 2 1  -  1  -  -  1 586  (%)  (98.5) (0.7) (0.3) (0.2)  -  (0.2)  --  --  (0.2)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES #  40 234 145 64 40 21 12 6 5 8 3 1 1 1 1 1 1  -  584  (%)  (6.8) (40.1) (24.8) (n.o)  (6.8) (3.6) (2.1) (1.0) (0.9) (1.4) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  -  - 156 -  only 1.6% f i n a l l y required compensation, as evidenced by f i n a l reports.  compensation  Table 3.B.22 shows t h a t , f o r i n j u r i e s classed as s e v e r i t y  physicians  #2,  i n i t i a l l y i n d i c a t e d no time o f f f o r 3.8%, time loss of less than  one week f o r 83.4% of the cases, time loss of greater than seven days f o r 5.6%, and d i d not discuss the matter in 7.2% of the s e v e r i t y #2 cases.  As  i t f i n a l l y turned out, 6.8% d i d not i n v o l v e l o s t t i m e , 88.7% i n v o l v e d 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 b u t i o n of eye i n j u r i e s according to the need f o r h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n as a r e s u l t of the i n j u r y . one s e v e r i t y #1 cases were in t h i s category.  Eight s e v e r i t y #2 and  Table 3.B.25 gives the t o t a l  costs of the h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g emergency outpatient s e r v i c e s ) while Table 3.B.26 reports the cost of a l l p h y s i c i a n s ' t r e a t i n g the reported eye i n j u r i e s .  services incurred in  Table 3.B.27 shows a d i s t r i b u t i o n of  eye i n j u r i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o the weekly wage of the worker who received compensation.  This can be r e l a t e d 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 s e l e c t e d serious or unusual  events  causing eye i n j u r i e s that were noted while examining the s e l e c t e d s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #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 t o the number of i n j u r i e s that were studied (1070).  These unusual or serious events, however, are v a r i e d 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 r e s u l t e d 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  1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days No Hospitalization TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) 2  (0.3)  584  (99.7)  586  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (35). 3 2 2 1 576 584  (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (98.6)  - 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 SERVICES (DOLLARS)  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES #  No Costs $ 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 •31.00 35.00 39.00 41.00 42.00 44.00 50.00 54.00 67.00 74.00 78.00 81.00 145.00 198.00 238.00  (%)  215 96 74 20 16 54 38 16 13 7 6 5 4 3 1 3 1 1  -2 -2  (0.3) -  3 1 1  (0.3) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2)  -1  (0.2)  -1 -1 -1  I  (36.7) (16.4) (12.6) (3.4) (2.7) (9.2) (6.5) (2.7) (2.2) (1.2) (1.0) (0.9) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2)  -  "  -  (0.2)  -  (0.2) -  (0.2)  -  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES #  (%)  181 (31.0) 70 (12.0) 43 (7.4) 22 (3.8) 21 (3.6) 54 (9.2) 49 (8.4) (2.7) 16 14 (2.4) 12 (2.1) 6 (1.0) 8 (1.4) 10 (1.7) 5 (0.9) 9 (1.5) 11 (1.9) 6 (1.0) 4 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 4 (0.7) 2 (0.3) 2 (0.3) 5 (0.9) 1 (0.2)  -  -  1 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1  (0.2) (0.3) (0.7) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  1  (0.2) (0.2)  -1  -  - 159 -  TABLE 3.B.25 (Continued) COSTS OF HOSPITAL SERVICES (DOLLARS)  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%)  $284.00 342.00 619.00 TOTAL  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES * (X) 1 1 1  586  *This figure includes the costs of prescription drugs  584  (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  - 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' SERVICES (DOLLARS)  No Cost $ 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) 34  (5.8)  7 7 1  (1.2) (1.2) (0.2)  19 335 6 8  (3.2) (57.2) (1.0) (1.4)  4 8 42 21 4 1 9 22 3 15 1 5 2 6 1 2 7  (0.7) (1.4) (7.2) (3.6) (0.7) (0.2) (1.5) (3.8) (0.5) (2.6) (0.2) (0.9) (0.3) (1.0) (0.2) (0.3)  4  (0.7)  -  -  2  (0.3)  2  (0.3)  1  (0.2)  -  -  -  -  -  -  -1 -  -  -  0.2)  -  -  (0.2) -  —  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) 19 1  (3.3) (0.2)  12  (2.1)  - .  -1  8 185 14 4 5 4 7 36 33 8 5 6 43 18 27 «  7 6 7 11 7 8 2 14 6 7 1 6 3 4 3 1 4 3 5 5  -  (0.2) (1.4) (31.7) (2.4) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (1.2) (6.2) (5.7) (1.4) (0.9) (i.o)  (7.4) (3.1) (4.6)  -  (1.2) (1.0) (1.2) (1.9) (1.2) (1.4) (0.3) (2.4) (i.o)  (1.2) (0.2) (i.o)  (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2) (0.7) (0.5) (0.9) (0.9)  -161 TABLE 3.B.26 (Continued) COSTS OF PHYSICIANS' SERVICES (DOLLARS) 46.00 47.00 48.00 49.00 50.00 52.00 53.00 56.00 58.00 59.00 61.00 63.00 65.00 66.00 68.00 70.00 72.00 73.00 75.00 76.00 78.00 82.00 88.00 171.00 179.00 238.00 TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (X)  -  1  -  —  1  (0.2)  -  1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  -—  1 1 1  (0.2) • (0.2) (0.2)  -  (0.2)  -  -  1 1  (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  -  -  -1 -—  586  (%)  (1-2) (0.7) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2) (0.5)  (0.2)  -  #  7 4 4 3 1 3  1  -1  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES  -  -  -  (0.2)  -  -  -  584  (0.2)  -  - 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 Not classified $ 90.00 93. 00 99. 00 105. 00 110. 00 111. 00 112. 00 113. 00 118. 00 120. 00 123. 00 124. 00 125. 00 126. 00 128. 00 129. 00 130. 00 131. 00 , 132. 00 133 .00 134..00 135..00 136 .00 137 .00 138 .00 139 .00 140 .00 141 .00 142 .00 143 .00 144 .00 145 .00 146 .00 148.00 149 .00 150 .00 151 .00 152 .00 153 .00 155 .00 156 .00  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%) 579  -  (98.6)  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -_  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  _  -—  -  -  _  -  1  -  -_  -  -  .  -  -  (0.2)  -  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) 40 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 11 2 2 1 1 4 3 1 4 3 2 1 6 1 3 2 2 6 3 1 9 2 6 1 2 4 9 2 4 5 4 8  (6.8) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.7) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (1.9) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.5) (0.2) (0.7) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (1.0) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (1.0) (0.5) (0.2) (1.5) (0.3) (1.0) (0.2) (0.3) (0.7) (1.5) (0.3) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (1.4)  - 163 -  TABLE 3.B.27 (Continued) WEEKLY WAGE OF WORKER WITH A LOST TIME INJURY $157.00 158.00 159.00 160.00 161.00 162.00 163.00 164.00 165.00 166.00 167.00 168.00 169.00 171.00 172.00 173.00 174.00 175.00 176.00 177.00 178.00 179.00 180.00 182.00 183.00 184.00 185.00 186.00 187.00 188.00 189.00 190.00 191.00 192.00 193,00 194.00 195.00 196,00 197.00 198.00 199,00 201.00 202.00 204.00 206.00  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (%)  8  (1.4)  --  -  •-  -  -  --  --  -  -  1  (0.2)  -' -  1  -  --  -  -  (0.2) -  —  -  -  1  (0.2)  -  -  1  -  -  -  ... (0.2) -  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%) 2 8 2 6 3 3 3 4 12 3 2 8 3 7 2 4 2 3 3 4 2 4 13 9 5 1 7 3 121 5 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 3 2 2 2 2  (0.3) (1.4) (0.3) (1.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (2.1) (0.5) (0.3) (1.4) (0.5) (1.2) (0.3) (0.7) (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.3) (0.7) (2,2) (1,5) (0,9) (0,2) (1.2) (0.5) (20.7) (0.9) (0.7) (0.2) (0,3) (0.3) (0,2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.5) (0.2) (0.7) (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3)  - 164 -  TABLE 3.B.27 (Continued) WEEKLY WAGE OF WORKER WITH A LOST TIME INJURY $207.00 208.00 209.00 255.00 287.00 TOTAL  SEVERITY #1 INJURIES # (X)  SEVERITY #2 INJURIES # (%)  2  1  586  (0.2)  6 119 1 1 584  (0.3) (1.0) (20.4) (0.2) (0.2)  - 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 1.  Foreign bodies in eye  EVENT 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 f e l l behind safety glasses as helmet was being removed.  6. Severe corneal laceration  Welder was grinding brace. Had been wearing a helmet but removed i t 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  9. Corneal abrasion  10. Corneal abrasion  Worker was welding when he was hit from the side by an unspecified blunt object. Worker was standing about 40 feet from grinder changing his safety glasses for a face shield when metallic foreign body flew into right eye. 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.  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.  11.  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 d r i l l when the drill whipped up striking the side of the eye.  15.  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.  Ultraviolet radiation burns  16. Laceration of eyelid  Worker was hit in the eye with the handle of a wrench.  17.  Worker was transferring chromic acid when i t splashed into the eyes.  Chemical burns to cornea and conjunctiva  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 soda tank exploded.  Caustic burns to eyes  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 r e s u l t s of the study of 1070 personal medical f i l e s of workers who reported eye i n j u r i e s to the W.C.B. i n 1976.  This a n a l y s i s concerns i n j u r i e s w i t h i n the same  high r i s k i n d u s t r y classes t h a t were discussed i n Section 3.A., Part 2. The puroose of t h i s analysis was t h r e e f o l d : f i r s t , to look at these f i l e s i n greater d e t a i l , e s p e c i a l l y in noting sources and natures of i n j u r y ; second, to r e t r i e v e 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 prot 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 i n c i p a l worker i n the job task was injured,and the cost of the l o s t time a c c i d e n t ; and, t h i r d , to examine t h i s information in d e t a i l and v a l i d i t y in r e l a t i o n , to the same p o r t i o n of the W.C.B. s t a t i s t i c a l master f i l e . The presentation of r e s u l t s according t o i n d u s t r y classes shows much the same f i n d i n g s as in the previous s e c t i o n .  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note,  however, the v a r i a t i o n in s e v e r i t y #2 t o s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s in these det a i l e d classes.  I t may be speculated that a preponderance of s e v e r i t y #2  i n j u r i e s over s e v e r i t y #1 may be due to the nature of the hazards in the p l a n t , or that eye p r o t e c t i o n which could minimize an i n j u r y i s not issued. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that a m a j o r i t y of the i n j u r i e s studied occurred among a few occupational groups.  Age and experience may account  f o r the f a c t that apprentices and helpers were f r e q u e n t l y i n v o l v e d .  A  number of the occupations (e.g. welding) r e l y on teamwork where a lack of communication could e a s i l y r e s u l t i n an accident.  In that so few groups  are involved to any degree, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o speculate on the e f f e c t of s p e c i f i c o c c u p a t i o n a l , educational  programs.  -  1 6 7  -  The r e s u l t s of t h 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 f o r e i g n bodies or welding r a d i a t i o n . Foreign bodies cause more s e y e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s than s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s as would be expected.  Welding r a d i a t i o n caused twice the proportion of  s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s than s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s because most r a d i a t i o n burns require 24 to 48 hours of convalescence.  However, there i s  probably  gross under reporting in t h i s area because r a d i a t i o n (arc eye) i n j u r i e s are often considered a part of the j o b , and s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t o p i c a l anaesthetics i s common. The study of the nature of the i n j u r y (Table 3.B.9)shows that uncomplicated corneal abrasions occur in more s e v e r i t y #1 accidents,while corneal abrasions that are complicated by rust and c o n j u n c t i v i t i s involve compens a t i o n f o r l o s t time.  In g e n e r a l , the nature of the eye i n j u r y in s e v e r i t y  #1 cases i s more well d e f i n e d , p r i m a r i l y because of the s i m p l i c i t y of the causes.  The nature of s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s i s s i m i l a r i n causation  (ex-  cepting chemical and r a d i a t i o n burns which are more prevalent as s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s ) but g e n e r a l l y involve c o m p l i c a t i o n s .  This i s a s i t u a t i o n where  prompt r e c o g n i t i o n and f i r s t a i d of the i n j u r y could reduce compensation claims. Information that was obtained on the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n at the time of the accident was volunteered as the accident reporting forms do not ask t h i s question.  Of those who reported on t h i s aspect of t h e i r a c c i d e n t ,  i t was found that 13% of the s e v e r i t y #1 accidents and 28% of the s e v e r i t y #2 accidents d i d not involve the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n .  These f i g u r e s  are very low i n r e l a t i o n t o a general rate of 59% i n the l i t e r a t u r e . i s reason to b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e , that many non-respondents eye p r o t e c t i o n as w e l l .  There  were not wearing  - 168 -  In both s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , the majority of r e s pondents, 43% and 31% r e s p e c t i v e l y , were wearing safety glasses only.  No  i n d i c a t i o n was given concerning the use of s i d e . s h i e l d s on the safety glasses.  There are cases of improper f i t i n a d d i t i o n to improper use of  the p r o t e c t i o n .  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that only three cases involve a  physical f a i l u r e of the p r o t e c t i o n .  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 j u r i e s that occurred while protection was worn could be prevented by the proper s e l e c t i o n of a p r o t e c t o r and proper fitting. Right hand dominance could be responsible f o r the high proportion of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s to the l e f t eye (Table 3.B.11).  The low incidence of  i n j u r i e s to both eyes follows from the low incidence of chemical and r a d i a t i o n burns in t h i s category, and a preponderance of i s o l a t e d f l y i n g particles.  The presence of nearly equal proportions of s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n -  j u r i e s f o r each eye suggests a random s e l e c t i o n procedure in cases where the i n j u r y source i s severe enough to r e s u l t i n l o s t time.  The higher pro-  portion of s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s to both eyes suggests the presence of a greater proportion of chemical and r a d i a t i o n i n j u r i e s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s section (Table 3.B.12) show that welding machines, grinders and handtools are responsible f o r 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 p r o t e c t i o n .  It i s apparent that carelessness and lack of con-  cern, in a d d i t i o n to non-compliance in the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n , may be responsible f o r a large number of these common i n j u r i e s . In r e l a t i o n to the r e s u l t s shown i n Table 3.B.14 i t i s l o g i c a l that a greater proportion of s e v e r i t y #2 accidents than s e v e r i t y #1 accidents would be reported the next day (e.g. r a d i a t i o n burns, which are generally s e v e r i t y  - 169 -  #2 i n j u r i e s , take four to s i x hours to manifest) but the o v e r a l l high rate of r e p o r t i n g the next day i s not c o n s i s t e n t with the type of i n j u r i e s where t h i s would be expected.  I t i s p o s s i b l e that prompt reporting and  f i r s t aid treatment could reduce or e l i m i n a t e many of the sequellae of these i n j u r i e s that r e s u l t in l o s t time. Table 3.A.15 shows that eye i n j u r i e s are reported to a s u r p r i s i n g l y diverse group of people, the m a j o r i t y without t r a i n i n g in f i r s t a i d .  This  i s of concern e s p e c i a l l y in the case of s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , where prompt f i r s t a i d could reduce the seriousness of a s e v e r i t y #2 c l a i m .  A high  proportion of the s e v e r i t y #2 accidents are reported to personnel w i t h i n the company o f f i c e , j u s t as one might phone i n s i c k .  This proportion i s , how-  ever, f a r higher than i s i n d i c a t e d by the number of people that reported i n j u r i e s the next day.  I n j u r i e s should be reported to designated personnel  and regulations should be developed to ensure prompt r e p o r t i n g . A large proportion of the i n j u r i e s studied i n t h i s s e c t i o n involved workers who had incurred s i m 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 t h i s represents accident proneness, one must consider the worker's occupation, or the r i s k f a c t o r .  The recurrence  of i n j u r y may be c a l l e d job carelessness more accurately where education could be of great b e n e f i t i n reducing eye i n j u r i e s . Table 3.B.19 s e v e r i t y #1 and s e v e r i t y #2 cases are c l a s s i f i e d according 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 s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s were e v e n t u a l l y found to be permanent d i s a b i l i t y c l a i m s . s e v e r i t y #2 claims were c l a s s i f i e d in t h i s way.  In t h i s s e c t i o n , s i x  I f t h i s proportion of i n -  j u r i e s were e x t r a p o l a t e d over the e n t i r e number of s e v e r i t y #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 t h i s way.  - 170 -  T h i s , i n a d d i t i o n to the seven cases already c l a s s i f i e d as s e v e r i t y #3, brings the t o t a l f o r expected s e v e r i t y #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 f o r compensation (days o f f work).  This i s e s p e c i a l l y evident  where many i n j u r i e s estimated i n i t i a l l y to require time o f f work d i d not require compensation at a l l .  I t i s evident that physicians are attempting  to act in the best i n t e r e s t s of t h e i r p a t i e n t s and in doing so, are e x t r a cautious. The t o t a l d i r e c t cost of the s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s was c a l c u l a t e d by adding the costs of h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n , p h y s i c i a n s ' s a t i o n f o r l o s t time. costs per p a t i e n t .  services and compen-  Table 3.B.29 categorizes the magnitude of the t o t a l  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 l e s s .  The  t o t a l d i r e c t cost of 584 s e v e r i t y #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 e c t cost of 4:1  ($69,513 x 4 ) , b r i n g i n g the t o t a l cost of these eye i n j u r i e s to $347,565.00, or $595.15 per person.  The determination of the costs of s e v e r i t y #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 l o s s i n wages, which by d e f i n i t i o n , should be a s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r y ) was $10,683 f o r an average cost of $18.23 per person.  The same i n d i r e c t to d i r e c 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 p r o d u c t i v i t y l o s s , time o f f the job f o r treatment, e t c . To e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s between some of the s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s that have been discussed p r e v i o u s l y , several c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s were performed. C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.30 shows the c o r r e l a t i o n 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)  COST $ 0. $ 26. $ 51. $ 76. $ 101. $ 126. $ 151. $ 176. $ 201. $ 226. $ 251. $ 276. $ 301. $ 326. $ 351. $ 376. $ 401. $ 426. $ 451. $ 476. $ 501. $ 601. $ 701. $ 801. $ 930. $2870. $3140.  _  -  -  -  -  -  -  $ 25. $ 50. $ 75. $100. $125. $150. $175. $200. $225. $250. $275. $300. $325. $350. $375. $400. $425. $450. $475. $500. $600. $700. $800. $900.  TOTAL  NUMBER OF CLAIMS 37 76 152 96 74 41 24 22 14 10 3 8 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 1 1 1  (%)  CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY (%)  (6.3) (13.0) (26.0) (16.4) (12.7) (7.0) (4.1) (3.8) (2.4) (1-7) (0.5) (1.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.0) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2)  584  *DIRECT COST OF INJURY = COST OF PHYSICIANS SERVICES + COST OF HOSPITAL SERVICES (WEEKLY WAGE * 5) X DAYS OF LOST TIME  rnmrnt  19.3 45.3 61.7 74.4 81.4 85.5 89.3 91.7 93.4 93.9 95.3 96.0 96.5 97.0 97.5 97.8 98.0 98.2  --  98.5 98.7 98.9 99.4 99.6 99.8 100.0  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)  MFG OF STEEL FOUNDRY: IRON OR STEEL FAB.MFG,REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL MFG HEATING COOLING EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP MACHINE SHOP MFG OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS MFG OF VEHICLES MFG OF HOLIDAY TRAILERS,CAMPERS MFG OF TRUCK BODIES,CABS.TRAILERS MFG OF WOODEN TRUCK BOXES MFG OF LIME BLACKSMITH SHOP WELDING TOTAL  49 (2.9) 73 (6.4) 55 (9.0) 76 (6.3) 58 (1.8) 56 (5.2) 56 (4.7) 52 (3.0) 54 (3.3) 4 34 (3.0) (0.3) 40 (3.4) 60 (0.3) 12 (0.2) 100 (0.2) 31 (2.5) (0.3) 1(11.6)1(52.2) 16 (0.9) 5 (0.5) 16 (2.7) 9 (0.7) 16 (0.5) 15 (1.4 23 (1.9) 11 (0.6) 7 (0.4) 18 (1.6) 5 (0.4)  5 (0.3) 5 (0.4) 12 (1.9) 6  (0.5) 10 (0.3) 15 (1.2) 19 (1.1) 11 (0.7) 22 (1.9)  3 (0.2) 13 (1.1) 8 (1.3) 10 (0.3) 18 (1.7) 2 (0.2) ' (0.5) 15 (0.9) 21 (1.8) 15 (1.3) 9  3 (0.2) 4 (0.7) 2 (0.2) 5 (0.5) 3 (0.2) 3 (0.2) 2 (0.2)  15 4 (0.3) (1.2) (10.7) (2.5)  (0.2)  2 (0.2)  2 (0.2)  2 (0.2)  2 (0.2)  2 (0.2) (0.2) 2 (0.2)  5 (0.3) 2 (0.2)  5 (0.4) 52 (0.9)  2 (0.2) 40 (0.2)  3 (0.2) 16 (1.4)  (0.4)  (1.9)  18 (i.o) 2 (0.2) 4 (0.6) 4 (0.4)  3 (0.2) 5 (0.3) 5 (0-4) 7 (0.6) 12  (0.2) 4  (0.9)  (0.8)  IS-?! (2.5)  2 (0.2) (4.1)  Row Total  Blunt object  wind blew FB into eye  flying fragment or object  Worker rubbed eyes  3 (0.2)  3 (0.2) 2 (0.2)  12 (0.2) 44 (3.6) 01.95  Harmful liquids and corrosives  Sharp object  O F I N J U R Y  Hot metal splatter  Air blew FB into eye  Foreign body non-metallic  W e l d i n g flash radiation  1  ^" *  Flying sparkpiece of metal  T Q  Foreign Body non-specific  ROW  INDUSTRY CLASS  Not Classified  CAUSE  100 (5.9) 100  (8^81  100 (16.4) TOO "' (8.3) 100 (3.1) 100 (9.4) 100 (8.4) 100 (5.8). 100 (6.1) 100 (8.7) 100 (0.2) (8.6) 100 (0.5) 12 100 (0.2) (1.7) 100 (0.2) 100 (8.1) 10.2) (100)  - 173 -  of industry and the cause of the i n j u r y f o r s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s .  On the  whole, the proportion of i n j u r y causes per industry c l a s s remains f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t among the various industry c l a s s e s , with f l y i n g spark/piece of metal f i r s t , f o l l o w i n g by welding f l a s h or r a d i a t i o n , and f o r e i g n body non-specific.  There are some notable exceptions.  In the foundry and  s t r u c t u r a l s t e e l f a b r i c a t i o n i n d u s t r i e s , there i s a higher proportion of i n j u r i e s due t o pieces of metal from f l y i n g sparks (grinding) 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 .  and sub-  T r a i l e r and camper manu-  f a c t u r e r s 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 r a d i a t i o n .  In t h i s i n d u s t r y , however, there i s  a preponderance of i n j u r i e s due to large and small n o n - m e t a l l i c 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, n a t u r a l l y , t h 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 s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s ( C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.31) the pattern of i n j u r y causes among industry classes i s not as c o n s i s t e n t as i t was f o r s e v e r i t y #1.  About 80% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s in the foundry and  heating i n d u s t r i e s were caused by f l y i n g sparks (probably due to g r i n d i n g ) . T r a i l e r and camper manufacturers and v e h i c l e 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 s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s in the v e h i c l e manufacturing industry are due to welding f l a s h .  The m a j o r i t y of claims (48%) i n the t r a i l e r and  camper industry are due t o n o n - m e t a l l i c f o r e i g n bodies.  These r e s u l t s  show l o g i c a l increases in s p e c i f i c types of eye i n j u r i e s in the i n d u s t r i e s where the respective hazards are present that cause them. C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.32 shows the r e l a t i o n between the i n j u r e d workers' occupation and the cause of i n j u r y , f o r s e v e r i t y #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)  50 (0.2)  MFG OF STEEL FOUNDRY: STEEL OR IRON FAB,MFG,REPAIR METAL PRODUCTS 1 (0.2)  FABRICATION STRUCTURAL STEEL  5 (0.3) 5 (1.5) 4 (0.7)  MFG HEATING COOLING EQUIPMENT 24 (0.5)  AUTOMOTIVE MACHINE SHOP  2  MACHINE SHOP  (0.2)  11  MFG OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS  (0.3)  10  MFG OF VEHICLES  (0.2) 5 (0.2)  MFG OF HOLIDAY TRAILERS,CAMPERS MFG OF TRUCK BODIES,CABS,TRAILERS MFG OF WOODEN TRUCK BOXES  80 (4.5) 58 25 (18.7) (7.7) 59 22 (9.7) (3.5) 78 11 (0.2)  7 (0.4) 2 (0.7)  4 (0.2)  (0.2) 11 (0.2)  14  (0.3)  14  6 (0-7)  (0.7) 66  (0.2)  ( V25)  5 27 (M>  (1.2) 69 (5.7) 50 (0.2)  (0.2) 27 (2.2)  63 (7.4)  22 (2.5)  3 (0.4)  7  4 (0.5)  | TOTAL  (0.2)  (4.4)  (60.0) (20.3)  1 (0.2) 3 (0.5)  3 (0.8) 2 (0.3)  (0.4) 2 (0.4)  2 (0.7) 5 (0.9)  1 (0.2)  100 (0.4) 100 (5.6) 100 31.5) 100 16.5)  g loo 11(1.9) 100  33 (0.7) 3 (0.4)  (2.1) 100 [12.2) 100 (2-8)  4 (0.5)  too  11  47  (0.2)  (0.6)  (0.9)  (2.1) 100 (4.4) 100 (8.2) 100 (0.4) 100 (0.3) 100 11.6)  5 (0.2)  (0.5)  (2.1) 4 (0.3)  (4.6)  TOTAL ROW %  Blunt object  Wind blew FB into eye  Welding flash metallic FB  Flying fragment: object  Welding injury 1 (0.2) 2 (0.3)  10  (0-2)  MFG OF LIME WELDING  Harmful l i q u i d and corrosive  50 (0.2)  4 (0.2)  43  (0.9) 68 (8.3) 57 (1.6)  INJURY  Sharp object  OF  Hot metal splatter  Electrical Flash  Foreign body non-metall ic  Welding flash radiation  %  Flying spark piece of metal  j^ 0  JQ  Foreign Body non-specific  INDUSTRY CLASS  Not Classified  CAUSE  50 (0.2)  100 (0.3) 2 (0.2)  (0.2)  (2.3)  (0.9)  2 (2.2)  4 (0.5)  3 (0.3)  (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  SHIPPING  -  RECEIVING CLERKS  r~ a: UJ UJ I-  CD O  <c  c  DC <C ZC  rLU  WW  CC LO  U-  CC  Q  n_  r— <_> LU  LU LU  CO  CO  CJ  CJ  ZK  CD LU  WIND INTO  ~~)  O  Q «C LU JZ CD CO >-  FLYING OR 0BJI  _j  LU  W0RKE WITH  LU  ZZt > err •—i  :  co  r-  LU  M  HARMf UL L I I AND C:ORROS  O  O C/J  HOT M SPLAT  <J~1 L i .  >- to  CO  <o COMPR ESSE BLEW ro 1  OCCUPATION  TOTAL PCT ROW PCT  D_  FOREI NON-S  ID  £  WELDI NG FL; (RAOI ATION)  eo ^  to  <  FOREI GN BOf NON-MIETALL1  i_>  FLYIN PIECE  >•  OC  ZC  LU >LU  CO  o  z: ZD CO  50 (0.2)  50 (0.2)  o  1— *—3 —• O  CC  0.2  FIRE-FIGHTING  100 (0.2)  JANITORS  50 (0.2)  0.2 50 (0.2)  0.4  50 ;o.2)  50 (0.2)  FOREMEN, MINING: GAS FIELD  <.  0.4  100 (0.2)  SALESPERSON  on  CRUSHING, GRINDING  100 (0.2)  0.4 0.2  22 [0.2)  MOULDING, METAL CASTING  56 (0.5)  PLATING METAL OCCUPATIONS  100 (0.2)  0.2  50 (0.2)  0.4  100 (0.2)  0.2  LABOURING IN METAL OCCUPATIONS  50 (0.2)  METAL PROCESSING  22 (0.2)  78 (0.7)  LABOURING IN CHEMICALS, PETROLEUM  FOREMEN:  22 (0.2)  16 (1.4)  20 (1.7)  58 (5.0)  2 (0.2)  2 (0.2)  85  SHEET METAL WORKERS 7 (3.2)  PLATERS  14 (5.8)  6 (2.5)  1.3 1 (0.6)  1 (0.5)  0 (0.2)  0 (0.2)  2 (1.1)  0 0.2)  45.3 0.2  100 (0.2)  INSPECTING, METAL SHAPING AND FORMING BOILERMAKERS,  69 (31.0)  0.2  15 (0.2)  (l.D  0.4 8.7  2 (0.2) 100 (0.2)  METAL SHAPING AND FORMING  WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING  0.9  50 :o.2)  50 (0.2)  FOREMEN: MACHINING OPERATIONS MECHINIST  0.9  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)  100 (0.2)  MOTOR-VEHICLE FABRICATING ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING  88 (2.8)  100 (0.2)  6 (0.2)  3.2 0.2 0.2  - 176 TABLE 3.B.32 (Continued)  HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS  FOREMEN: PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING  26  49  (1.1)  (2.0)  20 (0.6)  46 (1.4)  29 (0.2)  LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING. ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING - NEC LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING  w  => —j  (*)  zg  TOTALS  [NG FRAGMENT IBJECT —  >—1 OC as zm u. O  cc t — O —'  IT OBJECT  St  :ER RUBBED EYE 1 DUSTY HANDS  S-o  ) BLEW FB 1 EYE  oc  IFUL LIQUIDS CORROSIVES  £t  P OBJECT  h- UJ  HOT 1 SPLA  COMPIRESSED AIR BLEW FB INTO EYE  FORE IGN BODY NON-1METALLIC  WELD ING FLASH (RAD IATION)  <c ce  3  O CC  00  0.2  100 (0.2)  LABOURING IN FABRICATING, ASS EMBLING. INSTALLING ANO REPAIRING ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MOTOR-VEHICLE MECHANICS  FLYII4G SPARK/ PIECIE OF METAL  TOTAL PCT ROW PCT  OCCUPATION  FORE1IGN BODY N0N-! SPECIFIC  CAUSE OF INJURY  6 (0.5)  9 (0.4)  4 (0-2)  4.3  4 4 (0.2 (0.2)  4 (0.2)  7 (0.2)  17 (0.5)  3.0  10 (0.3)  71 (0.5)  0.7  100 (0.2)  0.2  47 (3.6)  9 (0.7)  23 (1.8)  7.8  9 (0.7)  6 (0.5)  0.2  100 (0.2)  EXCAVATING, GRADING  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:  100 (0.2)  0.2  OTHER CONSTRUCTION TRADES  (0.2)  PLUMBING  14 (0.4)  23 (0.3)  :o.2) 0.8  25 (0.2)  25 (0.2)  25 (0.2)  0.4  50 (0.2)  INSPECTING. TESTING, GRADING, AND SAMPLING OCCUPATIONS  100 (0.2)  LABOURING OCCUPATIONS  12 (1.3)  59 (6.7)  (1.2)  6 (0.7)  2 (0.2)  10.4  61.0  8.7  8.8  1.9  (i)  1.3  15  15 (0.2)  MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS  COLUMN TOTALS  0.4  50 (0.2)  47 (0.6) 25 (0.2)  HOISTING OCCUPATIONS  2.8  14 (0.4)  (0.2)  50 (0.2)  STRUCTURAL METAL ERECTORS  LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION  65 (1.8)  0.7  29 (0.2)  71 (0.5)  PAINTERS PAPERHANGERS  PIPEFITTING,  0.2  100  CARPENTERS  50 (0.2)  0.2  11  2  :o.2) 0.9  0.2  1.7  0.6  6 (0.7)  2 (0.2)  2.2  3.2  11.2  0.4  100  - 177 -  few occupations i n c u r the m a j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s where f l y i n g sparks r e s u l t i n g in a piece of metal are the most common causes m a c h i n i s t s , sheet metal workers, metal shapers and formers i n c u r r e d ; and r e l a t e d occupations i n c u r very few r a d i a t i o n i n j u r i e s b u t tend toward i n j u r i e s caused by f l y ing metal p a r t i c l e s and n o n - m e t a l l i c p a r t i c l e s .  G e n e r a l l y , the more  s p e c i a l i z e d types of eye i n j u r y causes occur among occupations where a high population allow t h e i r occurrence by chance.  I t i s n o t a b l e , however, that  welders  Darticles  eyes.  incur  a  large  number  of  injuries  from  being  blown  i n the  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.3.33 shows the same r e l a t i o n f o r s e v e r i t y  #2 i n j u r i e s .  S e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r y causes appear to be more concentrated  around s p e c i f i c causations.  F l y i n g sparks/pieces of metal (from grinders  p r i m a r i l y ) dominate in a l l occupations containing more than four i n j u r i e s . I n j u r i e s due to welding f l a s h are common in the sheet metal working, welding and labouring trades.  Greater than one i n j u r y due to chemicals  occurred in the l a b o u r i n g , p a i n t i n g and machinists occupations.  Non-  m e t a l l i c f o r e i g n bodies play a l e s s e r r o l e i n causing s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s . C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.34 shows the r e l a t i o n between the cause of s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s and the r e s u l t i n g nature of the i n j u r y .  29% of the  s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s were caused by f l y i n g sparks which r e s u l t e d in corneal abrasions.  A high proportion of the remaining i n j u r i e s (10%) were due  to t h i s cause and r e s u l t e d i n various more serious corneal abrasions or conj u n c t i v a l problems.  A m a j o r i t y of the welding flashes (95% of the t o t a l  number of i n j u r i e s ) r e s u l t e d in corneal burns or c o n j u n c t i v a l i r r i t a t i o n . C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.35 i n d i c a t e s that the cause-nature r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s tends to be more dispersed with fewer c e l l s showing high proportions.  This i s because more s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s of the  common causations ( i . e . p a r t i c l e s and welding f l a s h ) 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 I N J U R I E S , PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL F I L E S ) CAUSE OF INJURY  >- o  55  Li-  O e s *-«  Lu  StLU C J  O cc zz* o U_ O IE CC o <c z zc <.  LU  —I  o o —I <c L U OC  TOTAL PCT ROW PCT  OCCUPATION  OC  z  LL.  Z  o o  z _  cn ©  Z  CQ LU  _J  O  O  0.2  100 (0.2)  SHIPPING CLERKS  0.2  100 (0.2)  WEIGHERS  0.2  100 (0.2)  JANITORS  0.2  100 (0.2)  SUPERVISORS: DRILLING OPERATION:  0.2  100 (0.2)  OIL AND GAS F E I L D OCCUPATIONS  0.6  33 (0.2)!  METAL CASTING  66 (0.4)  LABOURING IN METAL PROCESSING  100 (0.2)  0.2  METAL PROCESSING  100 (0.2)  0.2  CRUSHING AND GRINDING CHEMICALS  100 . (0.2)  0.2  3 0.2)  MACHINIST  72 (4.8)  4 (0.3)  4  (0.3)1  3 (0.2)  6.7  10 (0.7)  (0.2)  MACHINE-TOOL OPERATING  100 (0.4)  0.4  METAL MACHINING  100 (0.2)  0.2  FOREMEN: METAL SHAPING AND FORMING  50 (0.2)  50 (0.2)  54 (1.4)  31 (0.8)  66 (0.4)  33 (0.2)  57 28.9)  30 (15.4)  SHEET METAL WORKERS  8  0.2) METALW0RKING AND MACHINE OPERATORS WELDING AND FLAME CUTTING  BOILERMAKERS,  1(1.6)  8  METAL SHAPING AND FORMING  100 (0.2)  F I L I N G , GRINDING, BUFFING  100 (1.7)  2.6  K0.2) 0.6  2 (0.9)  2  5  (0.2)  1(0.9)  2  (0.9)  2  (0.9)!  2  150.9  1(1.2) 0.4  50  50 (0.2)  PLATERS  MOTOR VEHICLE FABRICATING  0.4  (0.2)1 0.2  1.7  0.2  100 (0.2)  OTHER FABRICATING AND ASSEMBLING OCCUPATIONS  100 (0.2)  LABOURING IN FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING WOOD PRODUCTS  100 (0.2)  MOTOR-VEHICLE MACHANICS  61 (1.7)  0.2  0.2  18 (0.5)  7 (0.2  7 (0.2)  2.8  1(0.2)  - 179 -  TABLE 3.B.33 (Continued).  CAUSE OF INJURY  5? 2 OC Ui  u. o O z «c  —1  P  OCCUPATION  I".  TOTAL PCT ROM PCT  t_>  >> UJ —J •  u_ a.  oa UJ  a. ac  s  IS)  5  o-«~ <-• on - J O  LD 3= CO  u. u  I  O  4 (0.2)  1(0.2)1  50 (0.2)  50 (0.2)  55 (2-7)  24 (0.2) (1-2)  4  6 (0.3)  50 (0.2)  CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICIANS CARPENTERS  63 (0.5)  PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS  50 (0.3) 11 (0.6)  67 (3.6)  50 (0.2)  27 (0.3) 50 (0.3) 4 7 (0.4) (0.2)  4 7 (0.2)1 (o.4:  66 (0.4)  STRUCTURAL-METAL ERECTORS LABOURING IN CONSTRUCTION  25 (0.2)  TRUCK DRIVER  100 (0.2)  33 (0.2)1  50 (0.4)  25 (0.2)  50 (0.2)  HOISTING OCCUPATIONS 50 (0.2)  LABOURING IN MATERIALHANDLING  50 (0.2)  50 (0.2) 100 (0.2)  OTHER MATERIAL-HANDLING OCCUPATIONS  100 (0.2)  INSPECTING, TESTING, GRADING AND SAMPLING OCCUPATIONS  100 (0.2)  LABOURING OCCUPATIONS  COLUMN TOTALS (%)  6 (0.3)1  100 (0.2)  EXCAVATING, GRADING, PAVING  MATERIAL-HANDLING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS  a o  100 (0.2)1  FOREMEN: PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING  PIPEFITTING, PLUMBING  CO LU  9  OTHER MECHANICS  LABOURING IN PRODUCT FABRICATING, ASSEMBLING AND REPAIRING  o — SE — J I  7 1(0.2)  85 (2.3)  HEAVY DUTY MACHINERY MECHANICS  35  S  r— UJ LU 1r—X •a; o a. — t/1  CO o  (0.3)  64 (7.5)  18 7 (2.1) (0.8)1  3.9  60.4  20.5  4.5  2 (0.2;  3 (0.2)1 (0.4)1  0.2  0.6  0.9  2.2  0.9  2.4  (0.2)1  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  UJ o a «/>  Ui >-  L w Wt  >- CJ to O «c X CO o. o t/i u. Z Ui o u. CD CL CB »in Z UJ CD  x  NATURE OF INJURY  TOTAL X  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 NUMBER OF INJURIES COLUMN TOTALS (X)  cc u i  < o o z  ZC  52  o ZJ UJ to CO 1  o t3 fUJ Ui u. P cc UJ ) — i_l a o UJ l CL. 3C «c UJ zc g g jju WW 2 _J eg 8 u. tx CJ CO  s g  U-  0.2  z  3-  UJ «E OC  £| -3  OO2C 1/1  3E  1.2 0.3 4.7 29.1 0.2 6.3 0.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.5  0.7 3.8  1.4  0.7  0.2  1.9 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.9 2.1 0.2  1.0  0.9 0.2  1.0  0.2  1.2  0.2  0.3  0.2  sis to  i— —1  g a. OC  -2 J  ac o  Ul cc  UJ  LU ZC £ uj CO >O cc to U. CJ UJ rCO ocE LU z o oc rm £ g  2  =3  ae  t-  UJ  o £8 23 a 31 _COj 3 S5 §5 to  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 1.8  0.2  0.2 0.3  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.7  iSt  j r— O  u. °  CO  ZZ)  •<  t—  I  2  O cc  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  0.2 1.0  0.3  0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.3  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  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2 0.7  1.4  to  o  y-  0.7 0.2 0.2  0.2 0.5  0.2  0.2  0.3  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2 0.3 0.5  0.2  0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2  6.7 1.5 0.2 0.2  0.5 0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.5 2  71 324  0.4 12.0  SS.l  0.2  0.2 55  57  13  5  9.4 10.0 2.2  0.9  2  11  0.4 1.9  4 0.7  16  25  2.7  4.3  1 586 | 0.2  | 100X  181TABLE 3 . B . 3 5 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 I N J U R I E S . PROVINCE OF ALBERTA. 1976 (ALBERTA W . C . B . PERSONAL MEDICAL F I L E S )  h— 'X o •— —i o 21  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 K E R A T I T I S - S U B E P I T H E L I A L SCAR-CONJUNCTIVITIS CONJUNCTIVITIS-MILD CONTUSION TO LIDS IRITIS-CORNEAL ABRASION DEEP CORNEAL A B R A S I O N - I R I T I S - R U S T RING MULTIPLE CORNEAL ABRASIONS CONTUSION-CORHEAL ABRASION & EROSION-CONJUNCTIVAL & C I L I A R Y INJECTION-ECCHYMOSIS OF EYELIDS CONJUNCTIVAL ERYTHEMA-SCLERAL LACERATION CORNEAL ABRASION-MINIMAL I R I T I S CHANGES CORNEAL ABRASION-ULCER ACUTE CORNEAL ULCER ASSOCIATED WITH CORNEAL ABRASION EYE IRRITATION RUST RING FOREIGN BODY: EDGE OF I R I S CORNEAL A B R A S I O N - C E L L U L I T I S 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 H U L T I P L E 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 S C L E R I T I S 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 L I D ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN: CORNEA AND CONJUNCTIVA WITH C I L I A R Y 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 C O N J U N C T I V I T I S & PHOTOPHOBIA DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURN I R I T I S DUE TO ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION B L E P H A R I T I S 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 S K I N NEAR INNER CANTHUS SECOND DEGREE BURN OF EYELIDS WITH SECONDARY INFECTION CORNEAL BURN  LU  0.2  0.2 2.2 0.2 0.3  0.7  0.2  0.2 2.1  -j  LU DC  UJ  —1  O  r~  CO  Z i—i  O  >-  =: o  3g  0.2 0.2  0.3 0.2  0.2 0.2  0.3 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4  0.2  0.2  1.2  0.2  0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2 1.2 0.2 1.0 0.3  0.2  0.2  0.3  0.5 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 6.0 0.3  0.2  1  1 13 1 1 1 1 1 j 1  z  1 2 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36 2  0.2 0.2 0.7  0.2 0.7  1  0.2  0.2 0.2 1.7 0.2 0.3  0.2 1.0  0.2 0.2 0.2  0.3  0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  25 3S3  26 20. S  4.5  13 0.2  0.5  0.9  1 4  0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2  60.4  1  29 2 25 12 3 1  0.2  4.3  1 1 1 1 14  5.0 0.3 4.3 2.1 0.5 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  21 1 1 1  0.3 1.2 0.2 2.2 0.3 1 0.2 i 0.2 ! 0.2 i 0.2 ft 0.2 If 1 . 4 i o.'z" 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 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  0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2  7 113 3 84 3 38 2 1 3 1 1  i i ! i j 0.2  0.2 0.2  0.2  (X) 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  0.5 0.2  0.3  0.2 0.2 2.1  INJURIES  C O L U M N T O T A L S (T.)  <  a  ui O >U . UJ  0.2  DEEP BURNS TO INNER ENDS OF UPPER AND LOWER E Y E L I D S 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 I R I T I S ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS WITH ASSOCIATED HEAT BURNS TO UPPER LID-CONTUSION OF THE GLOBE C O N J U N C T I V I T I S FROM ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION BURNS-CORNEAL ABRASICH-CONJUNCTIVAL HEMORRHAGE  NUMBER OF  0.2 24 3 0.3 13 9 0.5 5.5 0.3  LU  <%  C3 2C  NUMBER OF INJURIES  _J  or  ROW TOTALS  O  s  UJ  BLUNT OBJECT  UJ  XL  OC ID  WELDING FLASH AND METALLIC FOREIGN BODY!  <  >-  FLYING FRAGMENT OR OBJECT  ocau-— cr  HARMFUL LIQUIDS AND CORROSIVES  CAUSE OF INJURY  2.2 I 0 . 9  1 1 1 1 1  ! ;  1 10 1 2  0.5  0.9  0.2  0.2  1  0.2  0.3  2  0.2  0.2  1  13 2 . 2 I 1.2  5  564 1.9  0.2  100  I i C O  I  - 182 -  i n j u r i e s which, in t u r n , are coded s e p a r a t e l y .  Welding flashes  resulted  in a v a r i e t y of corneal and c o n j u n c t i v a l i n j u r i e s accounting f o r 18.7% of the t o t a l .  Nearly 49% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s were caused by f l y i n g  sparks which r e s u l t e d in corneal  abrasions.  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.36 shows the r e l a t i o n between the implement used at the time of the i n j u r y and the cause of the i n j u r y , f o r the severi t y #1 category.  22% of the f l y i n g sparks, which r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r i e s ,  were caused by g r i n d e r s , 3.8% were caused by welding machines,3.4% by d r i l l s , 2.7% by grinders that the i n j u r e d worker was not using, and 3.8% by impact tools.  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that 1.7% of the i n j u r i e s were due to  foreign bodies blown i n t o the eye, while the worker was not using any machine.  This provides adequate r a t i o n a l e f o r the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n at  a l l times and not only when performing a task.  Cutting torches and hand  tools were responsible also f o r a proportion of the f l y i n g sparks which lead to i n j u r i e s .  C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.37 shows that the m a j o r i t y of  s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s are concentrated in a fewer number of implementcausation r e l a t i o n s h i p s than i n s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s .  The m a j o r i t y of i n -  j u r i e s occur from welders and grinders which r e s u l t i n f l y i n g sparks (pieces of m e t a l ) .  20% of the s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s were caused by welding  machines which r e s u l t e d in a r a d i a t i o n f l a s h . C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.38 shows the r e l a t i o n between the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n and the cause of the i n j u r y .  A m a j o r i t y of the s e v e r i t y #1  i n j u r y c l a i m s , however, d i d not report on the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n . About 38% of the s e v e r i t y #1 c l a i m s , that reported on the use of eye prot e c t i o n , i n d i c a t e d that the person was wearing safety glasses when a f l y ing spark entered the eye.  The use of side s h i e l d s 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 e g u 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) CAUSE OF INJURY IS  oi 3 =  UJ  oo  g  nt 5 0.3 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  1.0 6.0 0.9 0.3 22.0 0.2 3.8  0.2  0.3  0.2 0.5 1.7 0.3  0.2  0.2  5.6  0.3 3.4 1.0  0.5 1.7 0.9  0.3  0.3  1.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.7  0.2  0.5 0.3  3.1 0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.3 0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2  2.0  COLUMN TOTALS ( J ) (NUMBER OF INJURIES)  X  St  X mt  327  58  0.3  1.7  0.7  2.4 14  4.1  2.7 |14.0 6.6 1.4 124.7 0.2 0.2 111.1 0.2 0.3 4.6 2.7 0.2 0.3  - 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) CAUSE OF INJURY  _-I  Z  u. o  j o  2Z  13  TOTAL PCT  Z  I — ztz CJ 1/1 UJ <C  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 (NONSPECIFIC) PUNCH MACHINE ROUTER SCREWDRIVER ELECTRIC SANDER AIR HACKSAW AIR DRILL IMPACT GUN ACETELENE TORCH WELDER-THIRD PARTY  0.2  (NUMBER OF INJURIES)  .5 7 1 0  0.9  0.2 .2  0.2  0.5 1.4  4.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1  0.2  0.5  1.7 0.3  0.2  0.9 1.0 0.2 2.9  0.2 0.2  0.2  • J  UJ o o  CD  0.2  0.2 1.2  0.2 1.0  0.2  0. 9 0 2 19 7 0 2 0 ,5 0 .2 0 .3 0 .2 2.7 0.2 2.7 0.5  1.2  0.9  3.0  0.3  0.3  0.3  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2  0.2 1.2 1.0 0.2 4.1  0.2 0.2  0.3 0.2  0.2  0.3  0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 7.7  0.2  0.3 0.2  7.0  4.6  4.5  0.3 0.2 0. 0.2 0.2 0.  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.3  0.2  0.2  0.2 0.2  2.2  4. 25  2.4 0. 0.2 0.  0.2  0.2  0.2  1.0 8.0 6.7 1.5 0.2 27.2 0.2 0.2  0.3  0.5 0.2  0.3 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.7  ~  0.3  0.9  INJURY GRINDER-THIRD PARTY INJURY AIR TOOLS FERTILIZER SPREADER POWER BRUSH SAND BLASTER GREASE GUN MACHINING EQUIPMENT(NON-SPECIFIC) LATHE AXE AIR HOSE CRANE COLUMN TOTALS (%)  0.2 1.2 0.3 0.2  •  0.2  60.4  20.5  4.5  353  120  26  0.  0.9  2.2 13  1.2  1.9 11  0.2  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)  CAUSE OF INJURY  e  a-  EYE PROTECTION WORN  NO GOGGLES:  FLEXIBLE TYPE - POOR FIT  FACE SHIELD (7) 0.9  SAFETY GLASSES HELMET HELMET:  (2) 0.2 (2) 0.2  GOGGLES HELMET:  GOGGLES:  WORKER HAD JUST REMOVED  WORKER HAD JUST LIFTED FACE SHIELO GOGGLES NOT DOWN GOGGLES HAD HOLES IN THEM 'DARK  1  SAFETY GLASSES TOTALS (X)  (84) 8.4 (2) 0.2  (1) 0.5 (2) 1.0 (9) 5.5  (2) 0.2  1.4  o!i  (90) (100) (100) (100) (100) 0.3 1.7 0.7 0.9 1.9 (10) 0.2  (91) 2.2 (9) 0.2  (92) (100)| 3.8 0.2 (4) 0.2  (2) 0.2 (6) 0.7  (1) 0.2 (3) 1.7  SHIELD NOT COMPLETELY LOWERED  FACE SHIELO AND SAFETY GLASSES  (89) 8.4 (7) 0.7  (4) 0.2  l  (1) .3  FOREIGN BODY IN HELMET  WORKER JUST LIFTED HELMET  X  o  (77) (100) (84) 0.3 10.4 44.2 (5) (1) 0.7 0.2  NOT DISCUSSED  ZZt U l a. o OC OC at « co zc o  >» -J u. u.  COL PCT TOTAL PCT  (2) 0.2 0.2  (1) 0.2 (1) 0.2  0)  0.2 (1) 0.2 (1) 0.2  (2) 0.2 (100) TToo) TTobT [100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) 4.1 2.4 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.7 9.4 9.9 2.1 0.9 0.3 12.3 55.7  - 186 -  i n c o r r e c t l y , or the p a r t i c l e dropped i n t o the eye when the protection was being removed.  Nearly 10% of the respondents were wearing welding helmets  at the time of the i n j u r y .  Even face shields were inadequate i n pro-  t e c t i n g against f l y i n g sparks i n 7% of the cases.  Cross-tabulation Table  3.B.39 shows that much the same s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s , with the exception that more compensable i n j u r i e s were caused by large f l y i n g fragments, even when p r o t e c t i o n was being worn.  These occurred in  two cases because of the f i t of the protection and the impact r e s i s t a n c e . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e the need to examine the design of eye protection and the way in which workers use i t , e s p e c i a l l y upon removal. Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.40 reports the r e l a t i o n between the l o c a t i o n of the accident and the implement used, f o r s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s . Most claims were n o n - s p e c i f i c as to the l o c a t i o n of the accident on the employers' premises; but of those that did s p e c i f y , i t appears that i n j u r i e s d i d not take place i n unusual surroundings  ( i . e . grinders were in  grinding booths, welders were i n welding booths).  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to  note that a s u b s t a n t i a l number of i n j u r i e s occurred under vehicles while using hand t o o l s .  Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.41 shows the same s i t u a t i o n  f o r s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s .  Once again a majority of the reports did not  s p e c i f y where the accident occurred.  The c o r r e l a t i o n s between l o c a t i o n of  accident and the implement used are diverse and less concentrated i n comparison  to s e v e r i t y #1 i n j u r i e s .  The same basic r e l a t i o n s e x i s t however.  I t i s notable that a s u b s t a n t i a l number of s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s occurred while using a grinder in large pipes or tanks.  Several other i n j u r i e s were  caused while using welding equipment in open spaces  outdoors.  Cross-tabulation Table 3.B.42 shows the r e l a t i o n between the worktime loss due to s e v e r i t y #2 i n j u r i e s and the occupation of the injured person.  TABLE 3.B.39  UNKNOWN NOT DISCUSSED NO YES: NON-SPECIFIC IMPROPER FIT GOGGLES: FLEXIBLE TYPE-IMPROPER  FIT  s  UJ  —' o £g  — a:  (t) JNT OBJECT  Ul  KD BLEW FB ro EYE  SS u. z: _j LU Lw  _J  c!E  Z  CO  5 100 (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) 100 100 55 56 64 38 91 100 100 59 82 66 76 (3.3) (425) 06.5) (2.6) (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (2.1) (0.5) (1.5) (1.2) (1.0) (0.2) (72.3) 17 38 9 22 4 29 12 11 (7.7) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (2.6) 12.2) (1.4) 1 (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.5) 1 (0.2) (0.2)  YES: BLOWN OFF BY FORCE OF INJURY  (0.2)  10.2) 2  FACE SHIELD  (1.2)  STREET GLASSES SAFETY GLASSES HELHET HELMET AND SAFETY GLASSES HELMET: GLASS BROKEN BY IMPACT GLASSES: NON-SPECIFIC  (0.3) 1 11 7 (0.3) (7.5) (0.2) (0.2) 3 (1.9) (0.3) 1 10.3) 1 1 (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) 1 (0.2)  MONO-GOGGLES HELMET WORN: IMPROPER SHADE OF GLASS HELMET: FOREIGN BODY IN HELMET WORKER HAD JUST LIFTED HELMET GOGGLES  GOGGLES: WORKER HAD JUST REMOVED COLUMN TOTALS  (X)  2 (0.9) 1 (0.3)  24 (0.2)  9 (0.2)  (1.2)  17 10.3) 11 (0.2)  9 (0.2)  (0.7) (8.6) (2.2) (0.5) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2)  1 (0.3)  (0.3)  1 10.5) 1 1 (0.2) (0.3) 2 (0.9) (0.2) (0.2)  HELMET: SHIELD NOT LOWERED FACE SHIELD AND SAFETY GLASSES  ROW TOTALS  * - UJ  EYE PROTECTION WORN  t-  WELDING FLASH & HETALLIC FB  Q  WELDING INJURY  O  HARMFUL LIOUIDS AND CORROSIVES  ac «£  SHARP OBJECT  CO h -  HOT METAL SPLATTER  51  [CTRICAL ISH  X  IEIGN BODY l-HETALLIC  ING SPARK/ CE OF METAL  EIGN BODY: l-SPECIFIC  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)  (0.3)  (0.5) 9 22 (0.2) (0.2)  (0.9) (1.2) (0.3)  4 10.2)  (0.2) (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)  (1.0) (0.3)  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) LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT  2 IMPLEMENT USED  s  TOTAL PCTl  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 COLUMN TOTALS ( J )  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  0.2 0.2 0.2  0.2  0.2  1.1 1.7 0.2  1.7 2-4'  0.2 0.6  0.2h  0.2  1  TABLE 3.B.41 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) LOCATION OF THE ACCIDENT  s  111  a. a. ta ta  2 ]  Ui  £5  a  IMPLEMENT  5  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  0.2  0.3 0.2  0.3 0.) 3.9  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.9  0.2  ;O.S  0.9 0.3 1.0 I  0.2!  0.5 0.3  UE  0.2  0.1  COLUMN TOTALS ( I )  0.2 0.7  0.5  0.3  0.2 0.2  0.2 0.2  0,1  0.2  0.2  o.i  O.t  0.2 0.2  0.2  0.21 0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.2  0.9  0.2  0.2  0.9  327  0.2  0.2  25 85  2.4 5 0 0.3 0.7 4.3' 7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.9  0.2 0.3  0.2  AIR HOSE (THIRD PARTY USING) CRANE NUMBER OF INJURIES  I 0.2  0.2 0.2 I  0.2  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  0.2  0.3  0.3  0.2  J»584  1? 3.6 0.3 0.2 0.2  0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2  1. 8.0 6.7 1.5 0.2 l?7. 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.2 110.2 [115 119.7 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 0.2  2.6 1.9 0.3 0.2 2.1 0.2 0.7 0.210.21'  TABLE 3 . E . 4 2  - 190 ,«. «S1.  A L B E R T A . IN 1976 (ALBERTA W.C.B. PERSONAL MEDICAL F I L E S ) ,  I  N  L  L  A  i  5  E  S  '  COLUMN TOTAL  OCCUPATIONS  Not  ,MJURIES  Known  Shipping  Clerks  Weighers Janitors Supervisors, Operations Oil  Drilling  4 Gas F i e l d O c c u p .  Metal  Casting  LO  Labouring in Metal Processing Metal  Processing  Crushing & Grinding Chemicals  Machinist Machine-Tool Metal  Operating  Machining  Foremen: M e t a l and F o r m i n g Sheet-Metal  Shaping  Workers  Metalworking-Machine Operators Welding I  Flamecutting  Boilermakers-Platers Metal Shaping Forming  and  Filing, Grinding, Buffing Motor V e h i c l e Fabricating Other F a b r i c a t i n g & Assembling Occup. Labouring i n Fab., Assembling & Repairing Wood P r o d u c t s Motor-Vehicle Heavy D u t y Other  Mechanics  Mechanics  Mechanics  Foremen: P r o d u c t F a b . , Assemb. & R e p a i r Labouring i n Product F a b r i c a t i n g , Assemb., and R e p a i r i n g Excavating, Paving Const.  Grading,  Electrician.  Carpenters Painters-Paperhangers Pipefitting-Plumbing Structural-Metal Erectors Labouring i n Truck  Const.  Drivers  Hoisting  Occupations  Material-Handling Equip. Operators Labouring Handling  in Material  Other M a t e r i a l Occupations  Handling  Inspecting, Testing, Grading i Sampling Occupations Labouring  Occupations  ROW TOTALS  (t)  o  - 191 -  Welders and flame c u t t e r s are responsible f o r over 50.5% of the l o s t work days due to s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s , as well as i n c u r r i n g the most lengthy time loss a c c i d e n t s .  There d i d not, however, appear to be any one occu-  pation with a m a j o r i t y of unduly long or short l o s t time a c c i d e n t s .  As  the incidence of i n j u r i e s w i t h i n an occupational category i n c r e a s e d , so d i d the range of time i n 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 s e l e c t e d occupations with a high incidence of s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s (these occupations represent 88% of the t o t a l number of i n j u r i e s studied).  Sheet metal workers, welders, and i n d u s t r i a l and farm machinery  mechanics incurred the greatest oroportion of i n j u r i e s i n v o l v i n g 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 v e h i c l e mechanics i n c u r r e d the greatest proportions of i n j u r i e s i n v o l v i n g 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 i n c u r the more serious i n j u r i e s . C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n Table 3.B.44 shows the r e l a t i o n between the length of time the i n j u r e d person was o f f work and. the cause of the i n j u r y . 3.B.45 shows a graphical representation of t h i s data.  Table  65% of the i n j u r i e s  that were caused by f l y i n g sparks/pieces of m e t a l , involved two or l e s s days o f f work, while 73% of the i n j u r i e s due to welding f l a s h e s were i n t h i s same category.  Although persons i n j u r e d w i t h n o n - m e t a l l i c f o r e i g n bodies  were o f f work two days or less i n 65% of the cases, a much higher proportion were o f f work two days (as compared to one day) than i n the f l y i n g spark (metal) category.  I t i s notable that 70% of the persons i n j u r e d by chemicals  were o f f work three days or greater.  This appears to be the only category  of i n j u r y causation that does not show a m a j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s with a short  -  192  -  TABLE  3.B.43  D i s t r i b u t i o n 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 A l b e r t a , in 1976. (Alberta W.C.B. Personal Medical F i l e s )  (% of t o t a l i n j u r i e s 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  COLUMN PCT TOTAL PCT REAL TIME OFF NO LOST TIME 1 DAY  Z 3 O  s  o z  >- O Q o li-  en Z co »-• UJ  t-.  <_) LU a. co 1  z o o CC  u . ac  100 (0.2)  2 DAYS 3 DAYS 4 DAYS 5 DAYS 6 DAYS 7 DAYS 8 DAYS 9 DAYS 13 DAYS  OC  LU  SCS x  l/l LiCO Z UJ *-» <_J >~  —J u_  LU  M  o_  16 7 (0.7) (4.1) 52 40 12.2) (25.0) 23 20 (0.9) (14.0) 12 8 (0.3) (7.0) 7 4 (0.2) (4.5) 4 (2.2) 2 (1.0) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 2 (1.0) 1  St LL.  O  a  a  CP P z «  LU  S  o « O  _l  m —i  Z rCO UJ  oc z o o  u.  z  4 (0.2) 27 (1.2) 38 (1.7) 4 (0.2) 15 (0.7) 4  < CJ  «-« CO -JO  ac  r- X CJ CO  35  Li-  r-  o X  «f  _i  a. LO  1O- CJ iv L U LO  cc —i cc  Z3 O  i o  CD Z >OC  -J  o  I. U.  G  UJ CO o Z OQ '—' o  >—1  oc u. O  100 (0.2) 60 (0.5) 20 (0.2)  33 (0.2)  20 (0.2)  15 (0.3) 15 (0.3) 23 (0.5)  60 (0.5) 20 (0.2)  23 (0.5)  39 (0.9) 23 (0.5) 8 (0.2) 8  4  8  8 (0.2) 8 (0.2) 8 (0.2)  67 (0.3)  (0.2)  zt:  CO  3£ CJ  CO »-. u_ Z _J UJ X 3T LU  14 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2) 14 (0.2 14 (0.2)  (0.2)  (0.2)  t-  u.  o  LU  Ul UJ _ J 3CO UJ  CO  o o  t= => —1  IS  a  25.0  9 (0.2) 9  11.0 7.0 3.5 2.0  9  1.0  (0.2) 14 (0.2)  0.8 1.3 0.5  (0.5)  0.2 100 (0.2)  22 DAYS  0.2  3 (0.2) 3 (0.2)  69 DAYS  100 (0.2)  100 100 100 (4.3) (60.3) (20.5)  0.2 0.2  (0.2)  61 DAYS  H o o  40.0  (0.2) 14 (0.2)  W  CO  70.0  73 (1.4)  19 DAYS  COLUMN TOTALS (%)  o  20 (0.2)  (0.2)  15 DAYS  •a  LU  O  4  14 DAYS  i— z  o-»-  -J  LU  •  7 (1.4) 40 (8.2) 32 (0.7) 11 (2.4) 5 (1.0) 2 (0.3) 3 (0.5)  co a co *-« UJ  >- CJ  0.2 0.2 100 (4.5)  100 (0.2)  100 (0.5)  100 (0.9)  100 (2.2)  100 (0.9)  100 (2.2)  (0.2) 8  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 i n j u r i e s 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 O f f i c e r s  Rationale The purpose of t h i s study was to obtain p r a c t i c a l , informed responses on the state of eye p r o t e c t i o n and the seriousness of eye i n j u r i e s in i n dustry.  The occupational health and safety o f f i c e r (OHSO) i s , g e n e r a l l y  speaking, a person who i s well experienced i n industry and who has been given s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of occupational health and safety problems.  Most OHSO's v i s i t a wide v a r i e t y of i n d u s t r i e s and, t h e r e -  f o r e , encounter a m a j o r i t y of the s i g n i f i c a n t eye hazards.  The OHSO i s  a l s o able to assess the presence and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of any personal t e c t i v e program.  pro-  On t h i s b a s i s , the inDut of these personnel was f e l t to be  essential. Access to  Information  Permission was obtained from the D i r e c t o r of the Inspection Branch of the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a Labour to i n t e r v i e w a number of occupational health and safety o f f i c e r s .  This permission was  obtained i n e a r l y March of 1978, two weeks p r i o r to the i n t e r v i e w s .  The  OHSO's who p a r t i c i p a t e d were informed that a l l i n d i v i d u a l information would be anonymous and c o n f i d e n t i a l . Population I t was o r i g i n a l l y intended to i n t e r v i e w a l l the OHSO's in A l b e r t a , who t o t a l 47.  However t h 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 h i g h l y experienced and constantly exposed to eye hazards, a sample was taken.  A t o t a l of 38 o f f i c e r s were s e l e c t e d to be interviewed.  Of  these, i t was possible to i n t e r v i e w 31(66%). The  Instrument  An i n t e r v i e w survey instrument was designed to q u a n t i f y the opinions  -  1 9 8  -  of the o f f i c e r s i n regard to eye i n j u r i e s and eye p r o t e c t i o n , while s t i l l allowing s u b j e c t i v e comment.  A s e r i e s of questions were posed and r e s -  ponses requested i n accordance with a five-degree L i k e r t s c a l e .  Abroad  range of topics r e l a t i n g to eye i n j u r i e s and eye protection i n industry were covered.  The interview questionnaire i s shown in Figure 3.C.I.  Method of C o l l e c t i o n A research a s s i s t a n t previously t r a i n e d and experienced i n i n t e r viewing was commissioned to conduct the i n t e r v i e w s .  The research  assistant  was i n s t r u c t e d i n the objectives of the interviews and the method of i n t e r view.  This researcher performed four p r e - t e s t s i n the presence of the  research a s s i s t a n t (the interviewer) and also observed the interviewer c a r r y i n g out the survey in two a d d i t i o n a l p r e - t e s t s . used to modify the instrument s l i g h t l y .  The r e s u l t s were  The i n t e r v i e w , which was arranged  with the OHSO by appointment, l a s t e d approximately h a l f an hour.  The L i k e r t  scale questions were asked in a consistent fashion throughout the i n t e r views,and i n every case respondents were encouraged to follow up t h e 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 f o r each OHSO. Possible  Bias  Most of the questions were worded to allow o b j e c t i v e responses based on t r a i n e d observation. f o r as much as p o s s i b l e .  The OHSO's background, t h e r e f o r e , was compensated There were a few questions, however, which  allowed responses based on personal bias or background.  For t h i s reason,  the OHSO's were c o n t i n u a l l y reminded to respond on the basis of o v e r a l l perceptions gained on the problem in t h e i r present p o s i t i o n .  I t was d i f f i -  c u l t to i s o l a t e a response that was based on a recent, s e r i o u s , i s o l a t e d  -  FIGURE  INSPECTORS SURVEY  199  -  3.C.1  OK EYE INJURIES AND EYE PP.C7"TI0::  1. Previous experience and background i n industry  - jobs, years worked, ere.  2. In which i n d u s t r i e s are hazards to the eyes most prevalent?  3 . What are the most common types of hazards i n these  industries?  (lead with mechanical, chemical and radiation i f necessary)  4. What are the most p o t e n t i a l l y serious hazards found i n these  industries?  (lead with mechanical, chemical and r a d i a t i o n i f necessary)  Please note: ASK THE INSPECTOR TO RESPOND ON THE BASIS OF HIS GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND  EXPERIENCES.  - 200 -  FIGURE 3.C.1 SCALED  cont'd  QUESTIONS  -  Ask i n  that  the  b e h a v i o r  person or  o u t s t a n d i n g ASK  THE  RESPONDENT  AGREES,  EYE  NEITHER  INJURIES  A  Eye  p r o t e c t i o n  2.  The  proper  The  d e s i g n  though  4.  The  5.  A  f e l l o w  of  the  does  i s  not  worker  i f  equipment s a f e t y  and  7.  The  worker  does  8.  The  worker  becomes  9.  C e r t a i n  10.  or  not  are  i s  and  worn.  WHETHER  does  not R  n o t i c e a b l e of  trend  s p e c i f i c ,  HE  AGREES  STRONGLY  DISAGREES,  WITH  FOLLOWING  THE  DISSTATEMENTS.  b e i n g  poor,  (P  i f  A  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  eyes.  X  X  X  X  X  i n j u r y .  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  worn  a l l o w i n g or  s a f e t y  not  X  (P  i f  A  or  SA)  hazards)  i s  adequate  an  i n j u r y  even  SA)  p r e c a u t i o n s .  take  adequate  s a f e t y  SA)  machine  a f f o r d s  TO  STRONGLY  p r o t e c t i o n  or  a  that  is  l i t t l e  care  about  f a t i g u e d  hazardous  the  and  to  being  used  p r o t e c t i o n  s a f e t y  i s  the  more  eyes  i s  at  of  designed  source  h i s  prone  and  p o o r l y  the  to  i n j u r i e s  (P  are  if-  A/SA)  bound  o c c u r .  E n v i r o n m e n t a l working  11.  M,C,  being  take  A  OR  p r o t e c t i o n for  of  because  worn.  ( i e . w e l d e r )  (P  f o r  jobs  eye  l i g h t not  BECAUSE:  being  eye  The  to  INDUSTRY not  i n  and  i n c i d e n t s .  ACCORDING  AGREES,  examples  of  p r e c a u t i o n s .  6.  i s  p r o t e c t i o n  worker  D,  IN  type  (perhaps  REPLY  NOR  OCCUR  1.  3.  TO  respond  c o n d i t i o n s  Poor  c o n d i t i o n s  c o n d i t i o n s .  c o n t r a s t ,  formance  A d d i t i o n a l  g l a r e ,  f a c t o r s  comments  (P  A  or  dust,  any  a  of  e t c . )  p r o v i d e  f o r  unsafe  SA)  inadequate  c r e a t e  f o r  (smoke  i f  l i g h t i n g ,  or  o t h e r  v i s u a l  p e r -  hazard.  the  q u e s t i o n s .  S p e c i f y  q u e s t i o n  number.  - 201 -  FIGURE 3.C.1 cont'd PLEASE  REOUERT  OF  THE  FOLLOWING  THAT  IN  GENERAL,  MANY  1.  Commonly  t h e r e  THE  RESPONDENT  REPLY  ON  THE  P.ASIS  OF  GENERAL  PRECEFTTONS  SITUATIONS.  WORKERS  i s  DO  no  NOT  eye  WEAR  EYE  p r o t e c t i o n  PROTECTION  p o l i c y  BECAUSE:  e s t a b l i s h e d  i n  the  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  p l a n t .  2.  Eye  p r o t e c t i o n  p r o t e c t i o n  3.  4.  There  i s  o f  d i s c i p l i n a r y  Management,  Peer  i s  a  l a c k  Unions  do  9.  Unions  do  are  programs  The  eye  the  eye  an  s a f e t y  s u p e r v i s o r s , themselves  m o t i v a t i o n  4ve  e d u c a t i o n  or  and  -ve  about  the  s e l f - c o n c i o u s  promote  to  have  h e a t ,  the  eye  eye  r u l e s  by  of  do  not  w h i l e  the  show  i n  worker  the  to  a  good  p l a n t .  wear  aspects)  importance  i s  c o l d ,  set  up  the by  g e n e r a l l y  or  about  s a f e t y  r e - e n f o r c e been  p r o t e c t i o n  E x c e s s i v e v e r y  o f  l i n e  on  of  of  r e - e n f o r c e m e n t )  of  wearing  (expand).  l i t t l e t h a t  a f f e c t  support  f o r  measures)  p r o t e c t i o n  (expand  v a i n  not  enforcement  f i r s t  eye  can  p r o t e c t i o n  8.  It  wearing  p r e s s u r e  Workers  12.  i n c l u d i n g  by  p r o t e c t i o n ,  There  r i g i d  the  mechanism  ( i e .  7.  11.  without  no  l a c k  eye  10.  ( i e .  a  eye  6.  s u p p l i e d  management  example  5 .  i s  p o l i c y  dust  wearing  of  eye  the  eye  worker  p r o t e c t i o n  p r o t e c t i o n .  on  the  p o l i c y  j o b .  and  management.  p o o r l y  makes  f i t t e d  wearing  and  u n c o m f o r t a b l e .  eye  p r o t e c t i o n  of  p e r i p h e r a l  d i f f i c u l t .  i n h i b i t s  A d d i t i o n a l  t h e i r  comments  work  f o r  any  performance  of  the  ( i e .  l a c k  q u e s t i o n s .  S p e c i f y  q u e s t i o n  v i s i o n )  number.  - 202 -  FIGURE 3.C.l cont'd G E N E R A L  1.  Q U E S T I O N S  Management, Standards  2.  Management, approved  3.  5.  1.  i s  eye  are  p e r s o n n e l ,  know  and  how  to  i n f o r c e  p e r s o n n e l ,  one  lenses  of  the  p r o t e c t i o n  are  p e r s o n n e l ,  aware  of  the  X  X  X  X  p r o t e c t i o n  X  that  CSA  X  X  what  i d e n t i f y  the  i n d u s t r i a l l y  i t .  X  X  X  wearing  of  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X  —  eye  other  and  workers  represent  best  for  ways  i t s  o f t e n  t h i n k  i n d u s t r i a l  to  ensure  workers  eye  that  (expand  on  s t r e e t  p r o t e c t i o n .  management t h i s ,  i f  p r o v i d e d  i n  D/BD  .  ways).  PROTECTION PKOGK.---5 v  A r e  t h e  eye  If A r e  t h e any  p r o t e c t i o n  i n  y o u r  If  y e s ,  If  no,  o f  t h e If  programs  t h a t  are  b e i n g  i n d u s t r y  o p i n i o n ? why?  how  q u e s t i o n  can  has  they  not  programs  y e s ,  X  measures.  s a f e t y  L e g i s l a t i o n  is  s t r i c t l y  hardened  w i t h  adequate  2.  should  frames  what  s a f e t y  p r o t e c t i o n  Management,  why?,  safety  p r o t e c t o r s .  d i s c i p l i n a r y  p r o v i d e s  Z.'Z  eye  i n c l u d i n g  eye  Management w i t h  4.  i n c l u d i n g f o r  how  be  been you  are  improved  answered are  they  i n d i r e c t l y  f a m i l i a r i d e a l ?  —  w i t h  a l r e a d y  i d e a l  i n  p l e a s e  y o u r  ask:  o p i n i o n ?  - 203 -  FIGURE 3.C.1  cont'd  >1  LD  LU  ZZZ LU <= ca CL. IS>  LTV  oo  LU LU  «=c  LU LU LU LU CC — LU or LD p— cc c <r • LD a : oo  cd  —  «r  LU  l_i_J LD Cd <C OO  Csl  ca  >1  LU LU  (_3 LD ce  Z  cr  OS  <x oo  OO  Q  r—I  - 204 -  i n c i d e n t , although they were cautioned on t h i s as w e l l . Method of A n a l y s i s The r e s u l t s of the interviews were hand-tabulated.  The L i k e r t ques-  tions were tabulated on the basis of the degree of agreement with the s t a t e ment, on a scale from 1 to 5.  The anecdotal comments from the L i k e r t ques-  tions and the open-ended questions were analyzed, using content  analysis.  In these cases, the recorded responses were c o r r e l a t e d i n t o broad c a t e gories.  - 205 -  Part 3.C.R.  -  Results of a Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Officers  The f i r s t interview question asked the worker's background i n industry. This question was asked i n order to "break the i c e " and the r e s u l t s are not recorded. Table 3.C.1  shows the most prevalent l o c a t i o n s of eye i n j u r y hazards  i n the opinion of the inspection personnel. m u l t i p l e answers.  The men were allowed to give  Occupational health and safety o f f i c e r s reported that  eye i n j u r i e s were most prevalent in machine shops, construction s i t e s (which include welding, g r i n d i n g , woodwork), foundries, metal manufacturing operations, welding and woodwork shops.  A number of other i n d u s t r i e s were  reported but the majority of these were of a s p e c i a l i z e d nature. Table 3.C.2 shows a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the most common types of eye hazards found in the i n d u s t r i e s c i t e d in Table 3.C.I.  The o f f i c e r s  reported that the most common types of hazards i n these i n d u s t r i e s are those from machine work operations, welding and chemicals. category, f l y i n g p a r t i c l e s and dust was noted.  As a general  A v a r i e t y of other hazards  were noted, a m a j o r i t y of which were associated with the construction industry. Table 3.C.3 gives a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of what inspection personnel saw as the most p o t e n t i a l l y serious eye hazards in industry.  These  were chemicals, l a s e r beams, machining, power-actuated tools and welding operations.  Many other hazards were noted but, again, the majority were  associated with the construction i n d u s t r y . Table 3.C.4 shows i n d i v i d u a l frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of responses to the s i x questions pertaining to the occurrence of eye i n j u r i e s in industry. The responses to the questions were given on a L i k e 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:  14  RADIATION  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 CHEMICALS  FREQUENCY OF OHSO RESPONSE 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) 1  -~>^___QUESTION NUMBER LIKERT RESPONSE 1.  I  "  <*)  0 (0)  Strongly Disagree  # (*)  #  0 (0)  0 (0)  0 (0)  0 (0)  1  1  (5) 10 (32)  T  (3)  2  3. Neither 1 nor 5  2  (5)  5 (16)  5.  10 (32) 18 (58) 10 (58)  Strongly Agree |  TOTAL  31  5  4  (t)  »  2. Disagree  4. Agree  3  2  6 (19) 31  5 (16)  6  |  7  8  (%) # (%) J (*)| # (%) I  (3)  0 (0)  0 (0)  4 (13)  (*)  0 (0)  4 (13)  0 (0)  12 (39) 11 (35) 16 (52)  8 (26)  6 (19) 15 (48]  4 (13) 19 (62) 14 (45) 31  31  7 (22) 31  3 (10) 31  2 (7)  2  (5)  31  | 10  11  1 («| *  it)  # (X)  (5)1 0  (0)  0 (0)  1 (3)  5 (16)  1  4 (13)  2  (3) 12 (39) 18 (58) 12 (39) 19 (63)  0 (0)  31  9  2  J  (5)  (3)  8 (27) 20 (65) 13 (41) 0 (0) 31  9 (29)  1  31  9 (29) 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 l i t t l e 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 -  i n t e r v i e w e r , to a scale 5 response i n d i c a t i n g strong agreement with the statement.  A m a j o r i t y of the o f f i c e r s (90%) agreed with the statement  that eye i n j u r i e s were occurring in i n d u s t r y because eye p r o t e c t i o n i s not being worn.  77% of the o f f i c e r s agreed, or s t r o n g l y agreed, that i n j u r i e s  occurred because the proper type of eye p r o t e c t i o n i s not being worn.  It  was noted by nine o f f i c e r s that side s h i e l d s on safety glasses were nececcary.  A m a j o r i t y (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 t h i s statement. Those who disagreed f e l t that the use of side s h i e l d s 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 f e l l o w workers also c o n t r i b u t e d 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 s p e c i a l l y v u l n e r a b l e . 48% of the respondents agreed with the statement that i n j u r i e s occur because of poor implement design and, t h e r e f o r e , poor p r o t e c t i o n at the source.  However 39% disagreed with the statement.  that guards on machinery were often removed. and the l i k e are very d i f f i c u l t to guard.  Inspectors  reported  Others noted that hand t o o l s  I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that  71% of the inspectors disagreed with the notion that the workers' concern f o r the health of t h e i r eyes caused i n j u r i e s . agreed with the statement.  lack of  29% of the inspectors  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 .  Still  more would rather "take t h e i r chance", w h i l e the r e s t simply d o n ' t care at all.  The m a j o r i t y of inspectors (55)% agreed that i n j u r i e s can occur be-  cause of worker f a t i g u e , while 39% d i d not agree.  Three o f f i c e r s noted the  - 211 -  r e l a t i o n between fatigue or boredom and accident trends through the working day. .;Nearly 70% of the o f f i c e r s disagreed that i n j u r i e s were i n e v i t a b l e in c e r t a i n hazardous j o b s . case.  Only 26% of the inspectors thought t h i s was the  Most of the o f f i c e r s f e l t that a majority of hazards can be pre-  vented. 94% of the o f f i c e r s agreed that smoke, dust and other factors could r e s u l t in unsafe working conditions and, t h e r e f o r e , eye i n j u r i e s .  Wind and  dust were c i t e d as the greatest hazards, i n addition to smoke and fumes. Excessive heat sometimes caused the worker to remove his p r o t e c t i o n .  The  o f f i c e r s (71%) agreed that poor l i g h t i n g and other detrimental v i s u a l performance f a c t o r s caused i n j u r i e s to occur.  16% did not agree.  Lighting  was noted as the most important v i s u a l performance f a c t o r . Table 3.C.5 shows a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of L i k e 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 p r o t e c t i o n i s not worn by workers because there i s no eye 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 in the company in which they work, while 23% disagreed with the statement.  Some o f f i c e r s recommended that the  use of eye p r o t e c t i o n be a condition of employment.  A majority (84%)  of  the o f f i c e r s agreed, however, that eye protection that i s supplied i s done without the support of a management eye p r o t e c t i o n p o l i c y .  Only 16%  of the inspectors disagreed with t h i s statement. 90% of the o f f i c e 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 n e 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) 1  ^JJUESTION NUMBER  |  2  3 , 4  (%)  §  (%) «  (0)  0  (0)  7 (23)  5 (16)  2  0  0  LIKERT RESPONSE  #  (X)l #  1. Strongly Disagree  0  (0)  2. Disagree 3. Neither 1 nor 5  0  (0)  (0)  #  (X)  f  (%) i  0  (0)  0  (0)  0  (0)  (6)  2  (6)  2  (6)  3 (10) 14  1  (4)  2  (6)  5 (16)  (32)  13  (42) 11  (35) 10  5. Strongly Agree  11  (35) 15  (49) 18 (58) 19  31  31  TOTAL  31  8 (26) 15  31  (61)  (48)  0  31  131  0  1  (0)  9 (29)  9 (29) |19  8  7  (%)  4. Agree  |  6  llO  (61)1  (%) «  (*) # (0)  1  (45)J  5  (3)  ||31  1  (3)  10 #  (X)  *  (X)  »  (X)  (3)  0  (0)  0  (0)  1  (3)  5 (16)  (48) 14  4 (13) 31  1 1131  12  11  (X)  (16) 10 (32) 11  6 (19)  (32) 15  6 (20)  9  0  (45) 11 (3)  (35) (0)  i  5 (16) 17 (55) 0  (35) 13  9 (30) 13 31  (0)  0  (0)  (42) 10 (32) (42)  31  3  (10)  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 p r o t e c t i o n because management does not show a good example by wearing eye p r o t e c t i o n themselves while i n the p l a n t .  A m a j o r i t y (77%) agreed a l s o  that peer pressure can a f f e c t the motivation of the worker to wear eye protection.  Of those who answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y , 50% thought the e f f e c t  was p o s i t i v e . In the opinion of 90% of the o f f i c e r s , many workers do not wear eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 s t a t e d that workers were not being  educated about the hazards of t h e i r j o b s . 52% of the o f f i c e r s agreed with the statement that eye p r o t e c t i o n i s often not worn because workers are s e l f - c o n s c i o u s about t h e i r appearance, while 45% disagreed with the statement.  One o f f i c e r commented that t h i s  a t t i t u d e was dependent on whether everyone was wearing the p r o t e c t i o n 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 j u r i e s ) was most prone to t h i s  self-consciousness.  A m a j o r i t y (61%) of the o f f i c e r s agreed that eye p r o t e c t i o n i s not worn because unions do not a c t i v e l y promote the eye safety of the worker on the j o b . case.  19% were undecided, while 19% d i d not agree that t h i s was the  There was optimism from the inspectors that more unions were pro-  moting eye s a f e t y , although some unions s t i l l p o p u l a r i t y with the workers.  did not want to r i s k t h e i r  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 r e i n f o r c e the eye p r o t e c t i o n p o l i c y and programs set out by management. with the statement.  35% of the inspectors did not agree  A few inspectors noted that unions were g e n e r a l l y  cooperative i f properly approached, while others stated that unions t i o n a l l y oppose management p o l i c y .  tradi-  -214  -  65% of* the inspection personnel agreed that eye p r o t e c t i o n i s not worn because of discomfort and poor f i t , while 35% disagreed with the statement. A few o f f i c e r s noted that t h i s was simply an excuse while others that f i t t i n g was very important.  felt  I t was the consensus (84%) that excessive  heat, cold and dust made wearing eye p r o t e c t i o n d i f f i c u l t . p r o t e c t i o n was c i t e d as the most common problem.  Fogging of eye  I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to  note that nearly 60% of the o f f i c e r s disagreed with the statement that eye p r o t e c t i o n i n h i b i t s work performance. Table 3.C.6 shows a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of L i k e r t scale responses by inspection personnel to statements concerning general aspects of eye protection in industry.  A majority of o f f i c e r s (87%) disagreed with the  statement that management and safety personnel are aware of the CSA Standards f o r eye p r o t e c t o r s .  Only 13% of the o f f i c e r s thought that there was  some awareness of the standards.  In a s i m i l a r v e i n , 74% of the o f f i c e r s  f e l t that management does not know what i n d u s t r i a l l y - a p p r o v e d eye prot e c t i o n i s or how to i d e n t i f y i t .  I t was pointed out that safety  do counsel management i n some cases.  suppliers  I t was noted, however, that some  companies want the cheapest p r o t e c t i o n .  On the same s u b j e c t , 94% of  the o f f i c e r s agreed with the statement that a l l persons i n industry often think that s t r e e t frames with hardened lenses represent i n d u s t r i a l eye protection. I t was the consensus of 97% of the o f f i c e r s that management should enforce the wearing of eye protection with d i s c i p l i n a r y measures. spectors noted that enforcement was e s p e c i a l l y important i n  A few i n -  hazardous  areas, while others were vehement that i t should be a c o n d i t i o n of employment. 77% of the o f f i c e 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 p r o t e c t i o n f o r  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) 1  QUESTION NUMBER  3  2  (*)  #  (%)  #  (%) #  2  (6)  0  (0)  0  (0)  0  (0)  (68)1 0  (0)  2  (6)  5  (17)  1  (3)| 0  (0)  2  (6)  3  (10) 18  (58) 15  (48)  0  (0) 27  (87) 11  (36)  (29)  31  31  31  #  1.  Strongly Disagree  3  2.  Disagree  3.  Neither 1 nor 5  0  (0)  1  (3)  4.  Agree  4  (13)  7  (23)  5.  Strongly Agree  0  (0)  QUESTIONS  24  TOTAL  31  (10)  (%)  #  LIKERT RESPONSE  (%)  5  4  (77) 21  9 31  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 s t r i c t l y 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 t h 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 c e r s thought that education was more important than legislation.  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 r o t e c t i o n , and on safety supply houses to s e l l proper eye p r o t e c t i o n . Table 3.C.7 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to the general quest i o n : Are the eye p r o t e c t i o n programs that are being provided i n industry adequate i n your opinion?  The d i s t r i b u t i o n of suggestions as to how these  programs can be improved i s given a l s o . reported that in g e n e r a l , eye p r o t e c t i o n in industry are not adequate.  A m a j o r i t y of the inspectors  (97%)  programs that are being provided  The m a j o r i t y of o f f i c e r s f e l t that education  was a key to a successful program, i n a d d i t i o n to enforcement and making the use of p r o t e c t i o n a c o n d i t i o n of employment. Table 3.C.8 gives the responses of i n s p e c t i o n personnel concerning the most important components of i d e a l eye p r o t e c t i o n programs.  74% of  the o f f i c e r s stated that they had seen an ideal eye p r o t e c t i o n program.  The  inspectors noted that a key element i n these ideal programs was making the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n a c o n d i t i o n of employment.  Cooperation between a l l  persons in i n d u s t r y was seen as a very important f a c t o r i n the i d e a l program. The inspectors were encouraged to give a d d i t i o n a l comments, i f they wished, a f t e r each question.  This anecdotal data i s not shown but i t w i l l  be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the discussion of the r e s u 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 1  (3)  30  (97)  YES NO TOTAL  (%)  31  REQUIRED MAJOR COMPONENTS OF AN EYE PROTECTION PROGRAM, AS SUGGESTED BY THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY OFFICERS:  PROGRAM COMPONENT  NUMBER OF 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 i t s comfortably  1  Research necessary to design better protection  1  OHSO's, management and safety personnel should work together  1  - 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 Compliance condition of employment  NUMBER OF OHSO RESPONSES 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 f u l l support  2  Local schools involved in eye safety education  1  Proper protection is provided and f i t t e d by trained personnel  - 219 -  3.CD.  -  Discussion of the Results of a Survey of Occupational  Health  and Safety O f f i c e r s The nature of the r e s u l t s of t h i s s e c t i o n a c t u a l l y provide a discussion i n themselves.  I t was the consensus of the occupational health and safety  o f f i c e r s that the a t t i t u d e toward, and s t r u c t u r e around, eye p r o t e c t i o n programs i n industry was not good.  The o f f i c e r s were c o n s i s t e n t with the  s t a t i s t i c a l data i n c i t i n g common and serious eye i n j u r y hazards. o f f i c e r s emphasized the dramatic (e.g. 1asers),which  Some  may r e f l e c t a t e n -  tency to note the s p e c i a l i z e d and downplay the r o u t i n e , which accounts  for  a m a j o r i t y 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 p r o t e c t i o n problems in industry. are not b e t t e r .  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate, then, why conditions  I t may be that there i s a lack of personnel to inspect  and enforce on a regular b a s i s .  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 o u t " to ensure  Dermanent  resolvement of  the problems. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate on the r o l e of the o f f i c e i n r e l a t i o n to the enforcement of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs.  I f eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 p r o t e c t i o n p o l i c y (a real basis.  Drogram)  as a  The degree of enforcement of rules and education i s secondary  if  the company has s a t i s f i e d the l e g i s l a t i v e r e q u i s i t e of supplying the prot e c t i o n ; yet i t i s well known that t h i s , in i t s e l f , i s not enough.  Regu-  l a t i o n must u l t i m a t e l y concern the i n d i v i d u a l worker, and only r e c e n t l y have inspection personnel attempted to charge the i n d i v i d u a l f o r v i o lations. It i s apparent that i n d u s t r i e s must be made responsible f o r providing  - 220 -  an e n t i r e eye p r o t e c t i o n program (e.g. p o l i c i e s , education, enforcement) and not j u s t the skeleton (e.g. supplying p r o t e c t i o n ) .  By the same token,  the worker must be given more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r his own safety.  -  221  -  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 f o r the health and safety of the worker on the j o b .  This f i r s t - h a n d information i s e s s e n t i a l to the under-  standing of the problem and would a i d t h i s researcher in p u t t i n g the W.C.B. s t a t i s t i c a l data i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e . i s also p o l i t i c a l l y advantageous  S o l i c i t i n g information from t h i s group  i n that i t would make them more aware  of the problems and i t would also involve them in the planning  process.  Population I t was impossible to i d e n t i f y every occupational health worker i n A l b e r t a , but three address l i s t s were acquired that i d e n t i f i e d the m a j o r i t y . The Medical Services Branch of the Occupational Health and Safety  Division  keeps an up-to-date l i s t i n g of every nurse and physician who i s known to be p r i m a r i l y involved i n occupational h e a l t h .  A l i s t i n g of members was ob-  tained from the Secretary of the A l b e r t a 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 A l b e r t a A s s o c i -  ation of Safety Personnel.  The l i s t s were examined f o r d u p l i c a t i o n s .  A  master m a i l i n g l i s t of 620 names r e s u l t e d . The  Instrument  A survey questionnaire was designed f o r m a i l i n g to the personnel on the master l i s t .  This questionnaire was not designed to f i n d 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 r a t h e r , to gather perceptions of the eye i n j u r y and  protection s i t u a t i o n that the resDondents had gained through experience.  For t h i s reason, a l o o s e l y s t r u c t u r e d questionnaire was designed around a l i m i t e d set of questions.  This would a l l o w the data to be analyzed i n a  s t r u c t u r e d f a s h i o n , 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 i n 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 i n j u r y prevention and safety  programs.  Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n Questionnaires were sent by m a i l .  An i n t r o d u c t o r y l e t t e r o u t l i n e d 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 r e -  spondents were requested t o return the questionnaire to the Medical Services Branch of the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n .  A collect  phone number was given f o r the use of any person who wished f u r t h e r 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 v a r i e t y of backgrounds  i n the health and s a f e t y f i e l d .  There was, however, no attempt  made to ensure t h i s c r o s s - s e c t i o n in the responses or to f o l l o w up the questionnaire to obtain a higher rate of response.  For the purpose of t h 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 m a i l i n g with no f o l l o w - u p . Method of A n a l y s i s Content a n a l y s i s was used t o analyze the r e s u l t s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Within s p e c i f i c questions, responses which r e f l e c t e d the respondent's major idea were c a t e g o r i z e d .  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 LABOUR  OccuDaiionBl Healm  403/427-672*  and Safely Oivinon  February 28,  1978  Medical Servicea Branch  3rd Floor. Oxbridge Place 9820 - 106 Sueei Edmonton. Alberu. Canada TSK  2J6  Dear Colleague: 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, i t would be appreciated i f 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 coiments to these questions on the following pages.  Please place your written  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 machines, 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 8 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  - 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, i f required.  - 226 FIGURE 3.D.l cont'd  >4fbcaia  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-toDerson 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 A l b e r t a Association of Safety Personnel, and members of the A l b e r t a Occupational Health and Safety Society. were returned, a response rate of 14.0%.  10 questionnaires were returned  with no useful information, leaving 76 v a l i d Table 3.D.l  86 questionnaires  responses.  shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to the questionnaire  according t o the occupation of the health worker.  A wide v a r i e t y 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 i v i s i o n of A l b e r t a Labour. Table 3.D.2 shows the various i n d u s t r i e s or organizations in which these workers are located.  A number of respondents worked i n the con-  s t r u c t i o n and petro-chemical i n d u s t r i e s .  Hospitals and community health  f a c i l i t i e s were represented well in a d d i t i o n .  The remainder of respon-  dents came from a wide v a r i e t y of i n d u s 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 t u a t i o n i n i n d u s t r y .  A majority (72%)  of the respondents thought that the number of eye i n j u r i e s occurring i n industry was a serious problem. Table 3.D.4 gives a d i s t r i b u t i o n of the causes of eye i n j u r i e s that were reported to appear most frequently i n i n d u s t r y . sequent t a b l e s , m u l t i p l e responses were permitted.  In t h i s , and sub75% of the respondents  reported that foreign bodies were the most frequent causes of eye i n j u r i e s . Nearly 20% of the respondents c i t e d 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 Nurses Nursing Instructor Physician Occupational Health & Safety Officer Other Occupational Health & Safety Personnel Not Specific  19 6 1 5 2 35  TOTAL  76  8  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 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS  INDUSTRY  Construction Pulp, Paper, Lumber Public Service (Utilities,Road Maint) Food Industry Agriculture Chemical; Petro-Chemical Metal Industry Railway Office Workers, Retail Stores Manufacturing Hospital, Student Health, Community Health Safety Professionals TOTAL  13 5 6 4 2 12 3 3 4 4 13 8 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 RESPONDENTS .  RESPONSE  #  %  YES  55  (72)  NO  21  (28)  TOTAL  TABLE  76  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  FREQUENT CAUSES OF INJURY Foreign bodies Chemicals Flying object Welding: Radiation Rubbing eyes Radiation (non-specific) Molten metal Wind Direct blow  # OF RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED THE CAUSE 57 15 14 10 3 2 1 2 1  - 230 -  juries.  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, i n the opinion of the respondents, serious eye i n j u r i e s .  38% of the respondents  caused the most serious eye i n j u r i e s .  r e s u l t e d in the most  reported that chemicals  In the opinion of 46% of the r e s -  pondents, m e t a l l i c and other f o r e i g n bodies caused serious eye i n j u r i e s . In a d d i t i o n , 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  Drovides  a d i s t r i b u t i o n of opinions of the respondents  to how eye i n j u r i e s can be prevented. by the greatest number of respondents injuries.  28% of the respondents  The use of eye p r o t e c t i o n was c i t e d (40%)  as a way of preventing eye  stated that education was also important  i n 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 b e t t e r q u a l i t y and design of eye p r o t e c t i o n . respondents  as  Other  (24%) noted that the use of proper p r o t e c t i o n f o r the task  was important while 13% of the respondents were of the opinion that prot e c t i o n at the source and the c o r r e c t i o n of unsafe work procedures was most important i n the prevention of eye i n j u r i e s . Table 3.D.7  shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to the question: Why  do so many i n j u r i e s occur, even when eye p r o t e c t i o n i s being worn? the opinion of 76% of the respondents  I t was  that i n j u r i e s occur even while pro-  t e c t i o n i s worn because the eye p r o t e c t i o n i s inappropriate f o r the task. However, 26% reported t h a t i n j u r i e s occur (with the use of p r o t e c t i o n ) because of the poor design or q u a l i t y standards  of eye p r o t e c t i o n .  Others  noted that the poor f i t and inappropriate use of eye p r o t e c t i o n caused eye injuries.  Nearly 15% of the respondents  s t a t e d that unsafe work con-  d i t i o n s caused eye i n j u r i e s even though eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 a i r , 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 s t a t e d that i n j u r i e s occur with the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n because of over-confidence, rubbing the eyes, or allowing f o r e i g n bodies to enter the eye a f t e r the eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 f o r i n i t i a t i n g eye p r o t e c t i o n programs, w h i l e Table 3.D.9  reports on who should be respons-  i b l e f o r maintaining these programs once they are e s t a b l i s h e d .  A variety  of responses was g i v e n , r e v o l v i n g around the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of management, the worker, unions, and government.  In g e n e r a l , the respondents  felt  that management should be responsible f o r i n i t i a t i n g and maintaining eye p r o t e c t i o n programs.  I t was c l e a r from t h e i r responses, however, that a l l  concerned groups had a part t o play i n the success of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs. Table 3.D.10 reports on the respondents' essful  perception of the most succ-  methods or approaches that should be used to ensure that the worker  wears proper eye p r o t e c t i o n .  Education was c i t e d by the m a j o r i t y of r e s -  pondents (92%) as an important approach.  Showing an example was noted as  being important, as well as worker i n c e n t i v e s .  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 RESPONDENTS WHO NOTED 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  70  EXAMPLE OF WORKERS AND MANAGEMENT  41  INCENTIVES  21  DISCIPLINE  21  DISCIPLINE AS A LAST RESORT  15  OTHER APPROACHES MANAGEMENT POLICY IS MOST IMPORTANT  7  SEEKING ENDORSEMENT OF POLICY BY UNION  1  INVOLVING THE WORKER IN THE PROGRAM  4  UTILIZING CONSTANT FOLLOW-UP  2  COMPLIANCE CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT  4  PROVIDE COMFORTABLE PROTECTION  4  - 238 -  3.D.D.  Discussion of the Results of a Survey of Occupational Health and Safety Personnel  The m a j o r i t y of respondents to the questionnaire were p r o v i n c i a l occupational health and safety employees, or nurses.  I t was l o g i c a l , t h e r e f o r e ,  to expect they would consider eye i n j u r i e s to be a s i g n i f i c a n t problem in industry.  Although t h e i r backgrounds were d i v e r s e , there was c o n s i s t e n t  agreement on the most frequent and serious causes of eye i n j u r i e s . The use of eye p r o t e c t i o n to prevent i n j u r i e s was an obvious and may have been overlooked by some respondents.  solution  I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to  note that the use of proper p r o t e c t i o n and b e t t e r equipment design was emphasized on a magnitude comparable t o the need f o r employee education.  This  i n d i c a t e s a r e a l i s t i c and informed approach to the problem. The respondents were well informed of the reasons f o r the occurrence of eye i n j u r i e s , even when eye p r o t e c t i o n was being worn.  This knowledge  i s not r e f l e c t e d i n the current p r a c t i c e s of i n d u s t r y toward eye p r o t e c t i o n , however, and one must speculate that there i s bias in the r e s u l t s . I t i s apparent from the responses to questions #6 and #7 that the r e s pondents were aware of the e s s e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n that was needed f o r the i n i t i a t i o n and maintenance of eye p r o t e c t i o n programs.  There was, however,  a notable lack of perspective as to what the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the agencies should be, and how they would come about.  However, t h i s may be due to the  manner i n which the auestions were phrased. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t o r i e n t a t i o n towards education as a means of gaining worker compliance. i n gaining compliance.  Example was seen as another important feature  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 r e s o r t .  This may  - 239 -  reflect the  a significant  more p a s s i v e  difference  approach  i n government  of those  i n the  attitudes  field.  as compared  with  -  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 J o i n t Work  S i t e Committees in A l b e r t a Rationale A method of evaluating the concern f o r eye i n j u r i e s and the e f f o r t s that are being made to prevent them i n the i n d i v i d u a l company i s t o examine the mechanisms f o r discussing  health and safety in the workplace.  In  A l b e r t a , by l e g i s l a t i o n , a number of companies have been required t o form j o i n t work s i t e health and safety committees composed of worker and management 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 p o s s i b l e t o determine the uns o l i c i t e d concern f o r eye i n j u r i e s and t h e i r prevention. Access Permission was obtained from A l b e r t a 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 c e s of A l b e r t a Labour. Population There were 19 companies with j o i n t work s i t e committees that were also categorized w i t h i n the Standard I n d u s t r i a l  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s p r e v i o u l y des-  ignated f o r f u r t h e r study i n Part A because of high eye i n j u r y r a t e s .  These  were s e l e c t e d f o r study in t h i s s e c t i o n . Data C o l l e c t i o n - 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 i v i s i o n of the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n , on standard r e p o r t i n g forms. Figure 3.E.I.  The data was taken from these forms.  This form i s shown in  - 242 -  FIGURE 3.E.1  ydlbOTtQ •nd Safety Ohiiion  JO'NT WORK SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE  MINUTES  —  OF MEETING DATED .  —  AOORE5S  V  SITE CODE  11 EMPLOYER MEMBERS  WORKER  IM M V O P I N I O N . T M t A I O V « IS A M  A C C U H A T 1  nicoffo o»» T M S MarriMQ: 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  I F O R O X X C M V I S I O N UM  NUMBER OF WORKERS AT SITE  MEMBERS  ONLY  - 243 -  The Content Data was taken from the minutes where there was any mention of eye i n j u r i e s and t h e i r prevention. Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n A l i s t i n g of companies w i t h i n the high eye i n j u r y r i s k i n d u s t r i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d in Part A was obtained. j o i n t work s i t e s was obtained.  A current l i s t i n g of '  Company names from these two l i s t s were  cross-matched, the common companies being designated f o r 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 ( i n c l u d i n g eye i n j u r i e s ) are selected t o have j o i n t work s i t e committees.  These com-  panies, t h e r e f o r e , do not always represent the average company w i t h i n t h e i r industrial classification.  The general apathy of companies with poor  accident experiences toward safety i s o f f s e t by the f a c t 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 meeti n g s , looking f o r phrases which i n d i c a t e d discussion of i n c i d e n t s or p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v i n g eye p r o t e c t i o n , or r e l a t e d safety f a c t o r s such as plant lighting.  - 244 -  3.E.R.  -  Results of a Review of Selected J o i n t Work S i t e Committee Minutes  In accordance with the c r i t e r i a set out i n the methodology, 19 companies i n the Edmonton and Calgary area were selected f o r a review of t h e 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 p r o t e c t i o n , eye s a f e t y , or personal p r o t e c t i v e equipment in g e n e r a l , which included eye p r o t e c t i o n . Table 3.E.1  shows a l i s t i n g of the companies selected and the dates, over  a seven-month p e r i o d , i n which j o i n t work s i t e committee meetings were held.  The X marks i n d i c a t e the s p e c i f i c t o p i c areas that were discussed  at the meetings. 3.E.D.  -  Table 3.E.2 defines the t o p i c areas from #1 to #11.  Discussion of the Results of a Review of Selected J o i n t Work S i t e Committee Minutes  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that i n 65% of the j o i n t work s i t e meetings s t u d i e d , the minutes i n d i c a t e d that some aspect of eye safety or v i s u a l performance was s t u d i e d .  Table 3.E.2 shows that topics of discussion were v a r i e d , but  eye p r o t e c t i o n when using grinders and the general problems of eye prot e c t i o n and worker compliance was discussed i n the greatest number of meetings.  Eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 b e t t e r l i g h t i n g , f o r safety.  A few companies tended toward the discussion of more i s o l a t e d i n -  cidents. I t appears that concern f o r the protection of the eyes, in these companies, i s present.  The d i s c u s s i o n , in many cases, centers on problems  that are common to many i n d u s t r i a l groups (e.g.  grinders).  - 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.  DATES OF MEETINGS  11  JAN 26/78 DEC 21/77  12  JAN 17/78 DEC 13/77 NOV 9/77 NOV 2/77  #3  JAN 11/78  14  JAN DEC NOV Oa  13/78 16/77 18/77 19/77  #5  FEB JAH NOV Oa  2/78 4/78 23/77 27/77  #6  FEB 15/78 JAN 5/78  #7  JAN 19/78 DEC 14/77 NOV 8/77  ta #9  2  SUBJEa OF DISCUSSION AT MEETINGS 4 5 6 7 8 9  3  JAM DEC NOV OCT  OEC 7/77 NOV 16/77 OCT 19/77 SEPT 21/77  112  JAN 17/78 DEC 6/77 NOV 8/77 Oa 21.77  113  JAN 16/78 DEC 19/77  114  JAN 6/78 NOV 18/77 O a 14/77 JAN DEC NOV Oa SEPT AUG  X X  X X X X X  X X X  X  X X I X X X X X  X X  X X  X X X  X  X X  X X X  X  I  X  X X  17/78 22/77 14/77 14/77 12/77 15/77  X X X X  JAN  9/78  X  JAN DEC NOV Oa  17/78 13/7716/77 18/77  X X X  JAN DEC NOV SEPT AUG  9/78 7/77 8/77 29/77 29/77  JAN 9/77 DEC 12/77 NOV 1/77 Oa 17/77  EYE SAFETY NOT DISCUSSED  X  117  119  12  5  116  #18  11  X  25/78 25/77 30/77 19/77  #11  10  J  JAN 20/78 DEC 16/77 NOV 26/77  110  115  1  X X  X  X  X  X  X  X  X X  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. 1. .2.  MAJOR TOPIC AREAS THE USE OF SHIELDING, OR LACK THEREOF, AROUND WELDING OR GRINDING OPERATIONS 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, i t 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 industry.  For this part of the project, i t 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 advertisement 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 Classifications.  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 f o r the interviews.  They were, how-  ever, very unstructured, in l i n e with the i n t e n t of the i n t e r v i e w , which was to gain p r a c t i c a l p o l i c y perspectives on the eye p r o t e c t i o n s i t u ation i n A l b e r t a industry. The Content The interviews were quite unstructured although questions r e l a t i n g to broad subject areas were posed.  The researcher, at his d i s c r e t i o n , probed  in various content areas where i t was appropriate.  The subject areas were  s i m i l a r to those areas of questioning in the questionnaire of Part D.  A  p o l i c y and implementation perspective was stressed. Method of Data C o l l e c t i o n A pre-arranged interview time was arranged with every person.  The  interview s t a r t e d with a b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n of the researcher and the obj e c t i v e s of the study.  A l l interviews l a s t e d 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 d e t a i l e d summary  w r i t t e n immediately f o l l o w i n g .  A l l recorded comments were s u b j e c t i v e .  Bias Due to the nature of the groups, i t was not expected that they'would give e n t i r e l y o b j e c t i v e opinions.  The purpose, however, was only to gather  perspectives on the problem from a c e r t a i n 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 i n t o account.  - 250 -  Advertisement in the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n B u l l e t i n Figure 3.F.1  shows a copy of the news c l i p p i n g published in the Occu-  p a t i o n a l Health and Safety D i v i s i o n 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 i n occupational health and safety in A l b e r t a aware of the p r o j e c t and to s o l i c i t t h e i r opinions.  Approximately  35,000 copies of each issue are p r i n t e d , with a very diverse readership. 3.F.R. and 3.F.D.  -  Results and Discussion, Anecdotal Data  One month a f t e r the p r i n t i n g of the Occupational Health and Safety D i v i s i o n B u l l e t i n , no responses had been received to the advertisement c a l l i n g f o r opinions on eye p r o t e c t i o n problems.  This was not e n t i r e l y  unexpected and i t was f e l t that f o r the purposes of planning, the a r t i c l e had achieved i t s o b j e c t i v e (of informing the i n d u s t r i a l p u b l i c ) . Interviews were held with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , or in two cases a past r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , of three management sponsored safety c o u n c i l s . 1)  The A l b e r t a B u i l d i n g M a t e r i a l s Safety Council  -  These were:  representing  companies  w i t h i n occurrence classes 8-03 and 8-04. 2)  The A l b e r t a Automotive Safety A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h i n occurrence class  3)  -  representing  companies  5-01.  The A l b e r t a Metal Trades Accident Prevention Association  -  represen-  t i n g companies w i t h i n occurrence classes 8-02, 8-03 and 8-04. An i n t e r v i e w was held with union personnel, who were representatives of the A l b e r t a Federation of Labour and the A l b e r t a B u i l d i n g Trades C o u n c i l . The minutes of these meetings are not submitted as data r e s u l t s but, r a t h e r , w i l l be r e f l e c t e d in t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ' s opinions and conclusions concerning the eye p r o t e c t i o n problems in i n d u s t r y .  - 251 -  FIGURE 3.F.1 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY BULLETIN - ALBERTA LABOUR VOL. 2. NO. 1 MARCH 1978  COMMENT S W A N T E D riQNAL G N OCC1 EYE INJURIES He forgot to put his safety glasses on, but luckily a friend reminded him.  Dr. Brian Schmidt is currently carrying out a review of occupational eye injuries and prevention programs for the Occupational Health and Safety Division, and is looking for your suggestions and observations. He has been asked to examine the causes of eye injuries in occupational environments and to develop standards and programs directed to vision protection in industry. In order to obtain as much information 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 persons 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,' Alberta 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 programs. 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 t e V i s i t s  Rationale To b e t t e r understand the conditions which lead to eye i n j u r i e s and the problems i n 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 i n j u r y r i s k Standard I n d u s t r i a 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 t h i s researcher was assured, by government personnel, that they were representative of companies i n 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 r a v e l l e d to Calgary where the s i x s i t e v i s i t s had been arranged by A l b e r t a Labour personnel. plants were v i s i t e d .  Four of the  In March of 1978, as a r e s u l t of discussions  with  management safety council personnel, t h i s researcher made two more s i t e visits. 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 p a r t i c u l a r format was  used in observing the hazards and safety c o n d i t i o n s .  The researcher looked  f o r evidence or the lack thereof of eye p r o t e c t i o n , and f o r eye hazards which had been previously i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e (and from the data the researcher had c o l l e c t e d ) . site v i s i t .  B r i e f notes were recorded at the end of each  - 254 -  Bias In four cases, the researcher v i s i t e d the plants with an inspection officer.  Because the v i s i t s were prearranged, the true p i c t u r e may not  have been shown.  However, a considerable number of i n f r a c t i o n s were  evident and worker behaviour did not appear to have been a l t e r e d .  3.G.R. and3.G.D.  -  Results and Discussion of S i t e 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 submitted as data r e s u l t s but, s i m i l a r to the anecdotal data, the information received w i l l be included i n the general discussion on eye p r o t e c t i o n .  - 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 problems in eye protection and causes of eye injuries.  As this was a nlanning  study, i t 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 Alberta.  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 review of selected W.C.B. personal medical files (Section 3.B.). Although these same cases had been identified and reviewed in Section 3.A., view (Section 3.B.)  this re-  allowed for a more detailed analysis of eye injuries,  and the collection of information from a preventive point of view. Significant 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, provided 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 relating to the seriousness of eye injuries.  Both the inspectors (Section C)  and the occupational health personnel (Section D) were able to provide information 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 concern 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 discussion 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 o n between the rate of eye i n j u 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 i n d i c a t e s the presence of hazards which are s p e c i f i c to the causation of eye i n j u r i e s (e.g. f l y i n g p a r t i c l e s ) and which appear i n industry d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y to the hazards (and o v e r a l l i n j u r y rates) which determine the insurance premiums. Industry The high eye i n j u r y r i s k i n d u s t r i e s include those which are a s s o c i ated with the manufacture or processing of metals or metal products, the lime manufacturing i n d u s t r y , and the construction industry.  There i s no  r e l a t i o n between the average s i z e of a company w i t h i n an industry c l a s s and the rate of eye i n j u r i e s . In g e n e r a l , however, i t i s n e i t h e r advantageous or appropriate to study eye i n j u r i e s on the basis of industry c l a s s .  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 indust r y class which simply contain them. Occupati on The m a j o r i t y of high eye i n j u r y r i s k 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  c o n s t r u c t i o n occupations, such as carpentry and masonry, are also " a t r i s k " because of the presence of stone and wood p a r t i c l e s .  A large number of eye  i n j u r i e s are incurred by helDers of persons who are in metal r e l a t e d occupations 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 j u r i e s w i t h i n s p e c i f i c occu-  pational groups suggests that they receive s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n concerning education and/or enforcement of s a f e t y rules on the use of eye protection.  This i s a departure from past p r a c t i c e , where such e f f o r t s were  d i r e c t e d at the industry as a whole. In metal r e l a t e d occupations the sources of worker i n j u r y remain stable and are f a i r l y p r e d i c t a b l e .  In occupational groups with large mem-  berships, however, a greater v a r i e t y of i n j u r y sources are evident because odd i n j u r i e s can occur by chance. Age and Work Experience of the Injured Worker Nearly 75% of the i n j u r e d workers were less than 35 years of age, and over 45% were less than 25 years of age.  I t i s l i k e l y that these findings  are d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high in r e l a t i o n to the s i z e of the work force i n these same age categories.  More than h a l f the workers (who reported t h i s  information) stated they had less than one year of work experience i n the industry. Nearly 70% of the workers who incurred i n j u r i e s that r e s u l t e d 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, t h e r e f o r e , that the greatest proportion of  eye i n j u r i e s occur in young and inexperienced workers, and educational and enforcement e f f o r t s d i r e c t e d toward these workers should be given special a t t e n t i o n . Time of Accident and Length of S h i f t A majority of the eye i n j u 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 t h i s high pro-  portion i s congruent with the proportion of the workforce who a c t u a l l y work nine hour s h i f t s , but the data to substantiate t h i s f i n d i n g would be d i f f i -  - 259 -  c u l t to o b t a i n . The incidence of eye i n j u r i e s i s highest at c e r t a i n times of the day, with a mid-morning peak and a higher mid-afternoon peak.  The majority of  eye i n j u r i e s occur i n 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 h a l f of the s h i f t is present i n some i n dustry c l a s s e s .  This data, and the information concerning the length of  the workers' s h i f t , i n d i c a t e s that boredom and/or f a t i g u e may be f a c t o r s which contribute to the causation of eye i n j u r i e s . Cause (Source)and Nature of Eye  Injuries  The m a j o r i t y of eye i n j u r i e s are caused by metal (mainly s t e e l ) and other p a r t i c l e s , followed by r a d i a t i o n and chemicals.  In most cases these  i n j u r y sources r e s u l t i n corneal abrasions, r a d i a t i o n burns and chemical burns to the eye r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Metal and other p a r t i c l e s cause a higher  proportion of m e d i c a l - a i d - o n l y accidents than chemicals and r a d i a t i o n , which cause a higher proportion of the i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g in l o s t work time.  The source and r e s u l t i n g nature of most i n j u r i e s are p r e d i c t a b l e ,  and control measures are therefore p o s s i b l e . Over the years 1974 to 1976, i n j u r i e s due to chemicals, welding equipment (radiation),, and p a r t i c l e s increased in prevalence,while only the less common i n j u r y sources decreased i n prevalence.  There may be some c e n t r a l i -  z a t i o n of i n j u r i e s toward the more common e t i o l o g i e s and away from the r a r e r events.  This may i n d i c a t e the use of eye p r o t e c t i o n in the s p e c i a l  cases, but the same contempt f o r safety i n "everyday  situations".  .Implement or Machine Used at the Time of the Accident The greatest number of eye i n j u r i e s from a s i n g l e implement occurred while the worker was using a grinder or welding equipment.  These imple-  ments often r e s u l t e d in i n j u r i e s when the i n j u r e d worker was not d i r e c t l y  - 260 -  involved in i t s use.  Handtools and explosive-actuated t o o l s are other im-  plements v/hich caused a s i g n i f i c a n t number of i n j u r i e s . Directed enforcement and education programs concerning g r i n d e r s , w e l ding equipment, and other implements could have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the occurrence of eye i n j u r i e s i n industry. Many i n j u r i e s were reported to have been caused by p a r t i c l e s being blown i n the eyes, even when the worker was not using any equipment.  This  i n d i c a t e s the need f o r appropriate eye p r o t e c t i o n at a l l times when the worker i s in a hazardous area.  The minimum standard f o r p r o t e c t i o n should  be safety spectacles with side  shields.  Use of Eye P r o t e c t i o n when the Accident Occurred On the basis of a v a i l a b l e data, i t appears that the majority of workers who incurred eye i n j u r i e s were not wearing eye p r o t e c t i o n 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 p r o t e c t i o n were not wearing any at the time of the accident.  The majority of workers  who were wearing eye p r o t e c t i o n at the time of the accident were wearing safety spectacles only.  No information could be obtained concerning the  use of side s h i e l d s or whether the spectacles used were appropriate f o r the task.  Safety spectacles with side shields should be considered the  minimum standard.  An evaluation of the hazard, which may i n d i c a t e the  need f o r a d d i t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n , should also be performed. In a s i g n i f i c a n t number of cases, however, accidents occurred even though the proper type of p r o t e c t i o n was being worn.  In these cases, metal  p a r t i c l e s f e l l behind the p r o t e c t i o n or f e l l i n t o the eye as the p r o t e c t i o n was being removed.  The design of c e r t a i n types of eye p r o t e c t i o n , notably  face s h i e l d s and welding helmets, should be evaluated.  -  261  -  In many cases, although p r o t e c t i o n was worn, the f i t was poor.  This  may be as much a hazard as using the i n c o r r e c t type of eye p r o t e c t i o n . Few eye i n j u r i e s occur as a r e s u 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  a t t e n t i o n must be placed upon the design, f i t and s e l e c t i o n of the protectors. Reporting of Eye I n j u r i e s and F i r s t Aid The review of s e l e c t e d W.C.B. personal medical f i l e s showed that accidents are reported to a diverse group of people, from j a n i t o r s to management executives. ting also.  There i s great inconsistency in the time of repor-  Reports are frequently made the day a f t e r the event despite  the small number of i n j u r i e s (e.g. r a d i a t i o n burns) that might normally be reported the next day.  Inappropriate reporting or delays i n treatment  may lead to more serious i n j u r y .  This idea is supported by the f a c t that  a low proportion of l o s t work time i n j u r i e s receive f i r s t a i d .  F i r s t aid  was given i n only 56% of the cases which r e s u l t e d 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 i s needed than i s presently being given. Many of the i n j u r i e s that r e s u l t i n l o s t work time are simply complications of common i n j u r i e s that normally require medical a i d only (e.g. unattended metal f o r e i g n bodies that can cause rust deposition in the cornea). Prompt reporting to s p e c i f i e d occuoational health and safety personnel, with f i r s t aid leading to medical care i f necessary, could reduce or eliminate many of the i n j u r i e s that r e s u l t in l o s t work time. Prevalence of S i m i l a r I n j u r i e s 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 f o r eye i n j u r i e s in the past.  A past h i s t o r y of other types of i n j u r i e s was also  - 262 -  common.  The most l i k e l y explanation i s that there are p a r t i c u l a r job tasks  and occupational classes that receive more exposure to the threat of i n j u r y than others.  The concept of job carelessness or i n d i f f e r e n c e to  safety may a l s o be a f a c t o r , but apart from anecdotal r e p o r t s , was not examined i n t h i s study.  A more d e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the cause of eye  i n j u r i e s with appropriate education and/or equipment should be made in the case of each eye i n j u r y to prevent recurrences. The Cost of Eye I n j u r i e s The t o t a l cost of the m a j o r i t y of i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g in l o s t work time i s approximately $400, while the cost on average i s $600.  The review of  personal medical f i l e s shows that the majority of l o s t work time eye i n j u r i e s are between one and two days in duration. j u r i e s of high cost.  There are r e l a t i v e l y few eye i n -  I t i s apparent, t h e r e f o r e , that a general reduction in  the incidence of the common eye i n j u 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 I n j u r i e s In g e n e r a l , the r a t i o of s e v e r i t y #1 to s e v e r i t y #2 eye i n j u r i e s i s four to one.  This r a t i o , however, varies widely among industry classes and  bears no r e l a t i o n to t h e i r s i z e or type.  The incidence of permanent d i s a -  b i l i t y i n j u r i e s ( s e v e r i t y #3) i s minute in comparison and, once again, these cannot be a t t r i b u t e d to any p a r t i c u l a r industry. It has been hypothesized t h a 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 j u r i e s v a r i e s by chance (70).  This i s supported by data from t h i s study  which i n d i c a t e s that the m a j o r i t y of eye i n j u r i e s are caused by common and e a s i l y recognizable sources. events.  Few i n j u r i e s can be a t t r i b u t e d to unusual  The more serious i n j u r