E
apologies to OP (orig. poster) if moved on.
Hand grinders are safe, not dangerous and don't cause whole industries to be unsafe.
First, I'm an advocate of health and safety at work. I've walked the talk. There is not 'but' coming.
PGTIPS8 I'm troubled your argument may be using an extreme example to undermine the points. From handle-less ported grinders, to dangerous, to authority has a right to, to a large workforce and company behaving unsafely and stopping altogether. That's a big snowball and I don't accept it's valid. There may be reasons for you using it though? Is it exasperation? Is it because of apparent UK H&S ferment?
A number of others (posts in this thread including yours) have explicitly or implicitly mentioned that a body needs to have a right to. So, we have mentioned ideas like scope of audit, the mgmt systems concerned, regulations etc. In my first post I was implicit in mentioning the right of the skilled/experienced to their ways. Briefly (incorrectly put) to their hand-eye skilled coordination during grinding operations.
Many people are restricted from employing their skills by other people. I'm aware of criticisms and ridicule of the Health and Safety Executive in the UK. However, we cannot lay blame solely there, part of those negatives are the reactions of people affected. They are restricted from doing.
I hope we'll support (together) extreme caution in overly prescriptive and proscriptive doctrines. And with legislation, let us ask is it that specific, does it mention grinders, what is meant and in clause (e.g. ...modification of equipment...)?
Trying to insist handle-less grinders are dangerous is a red-herring and a dangerous route to better health and safety.
best
Hand grinders are safe, not dangerous and don't cause whole industries to be unsafe.
First, I'm an advocate of health and safety at work. I've walked the talk. There is not 'but' coming.
PGTIPS8 I'm troubled your argument may be using an extreme example to undermine the points. From handle-less ported grinders, to dangerous, to authority has a right to, to a large workforce and company behaving unsafely and stopping altogether. That's a big snowball and I don't accept it's valid. There may be reasons for you using it though? Is it exasperation? Is it because of apparent UK H&S ferment?
A number of others (posts in this thread including yours) have explicitly or implicitly mentioned that a body needs to have a right to. So, we have mentioned ideas like scope of audit, the mgmt systems concerned, regulations etc. In my first post I was implicit in mentioning the right of the skilled/experienced to their ways. Briefly (incorrectly put) to their hand-eye skilled coordination during grinding operations.
Many people are restricted from employing their skills by other people. I'm aware of criticisms and ridicule of the Health and Safety Executive in the UK. However, we cannot lay blame solely there, part of those negatives are the reactions of people affected. They are restricted from doing.
I hope we'll support (together) extreme caution in overly prescriptive and proscriptive doctrines. And with legislation, let us ask is it that specific, does it mention grinders, what is meant and in clause (e.g. ...modification of equipment...)?
Trying to insist handle-less grinders are dangerous is a red-herring and a dangerous route to better health and safety.
best