Hi !
As Brahmaiah I like considere that "Accidents don't happen, they are caused" . I"s wy I said we sould have proactives goals about occupational risks (for safety AND health) rather reactives goals regarding ONLY accident number (but deseases ?).
I agree with Jim Wynne too "The problem with the idea of counting lost-time accidents is that once a streak is going, no one wants to be the one to break it, and people wind up going to work when they should be staying home" and people begins even nor to declare their accidents, neither to have medical traitment of injuries.
Concerning what Somercq said I think he ilustrates the difference between "third" prevention (occupationnal accidents and deseases consequences réduction) and "first" prevention (occupationnal accidents and deseases risks and causes prevention). [I don't know the right way is to use "first/second/third" ou "primary/secondary/tertiary" preventions]
We should have third prevention actions, but we have to privilege especially and fundamentally the primary prevention actions (see any OHSMS standards as the international one or your national standard ANSI CSA BS...).
Yes Qualitytrec, "zero" NDL can be the 2010 goal regarding tertiary prevention, but I prefer have primary prevention goals as zero CMR chemicals in my prossesses, maximum 75dB(A) noice level exposition in my plants, maximum 5kg weight human handling, etc... such goals are motivating all the competenses of functions and hierarchic levels in ours companies (we don't only stigmatise the "accident-fault" of the working subordinates as the NDL or the "zero accident" goals).
Best regards.