Hi Tony

My initial thought is that the 85dB levels are all about protecting hearing. However, if you are working below that threshold but find it a relief when you leave the noise zone then the noise is a hazard to stress levels and may need to be treated from that perspective also. (which is way more subjective than dB readings!)

However to answer your question directly: The fact that you raise it for discussion means that it is a hazard!

So yes, include it in your risk register. It may end up ranking quite low compared to other risks, as Stuart K-K says it depends on where the lion is, but putting it on the register allows visibility to other people that it has been considered, it has been rated and that it is on the register to be reviewed whenever your review dates are.

Bwahaha!

Give him a one inch heart attack (when you walk off the end of overlapping planks and the next plank is not where your foot expects it)

We're doing the same as Alex.
Basic hygiene practices, business continuity and conversations.

Am also using the MoH influenza pandemic "be prepared" pamphlet for people to prepare their own houses in case they have to quarantine at home.

Bwahahaha! Brilliant!

Great work. Thanks Tania!

There is a whole lot of serious in the world.

Have you tried a Mens Shed?

I think the one thing the risk assessment matrix does well are the traffic light colours.

Generalised examples: If your initial risk is red and the controls change the residual risk to orange then the controls are working, with room for improvement. If the initial risk is red and the residual risk is red then the controls need more work or consideration, and it is possibly urgent.

Using the traffic light colours is a great tool for people that are less experienced in the risk assessment process but are the ones you need to talk to because the are experienced in the task!

Congrats on the Grad Dip Tania! I would be willing and able to review this work.
I approach H&S from an organisational change management perspective (not always successfully but more successful than a traditional approach).

WorkSafe would only follow up on work place incidents, so could only prosecute a landlord or property manager for unsafe work practices for anyone working on the property. As such WorkSafe prosecutions won't be categorised for "landlord" or "property manager" and would likely be a building work breach of some sort so it will be a large research task to find your targets!

Why do you ask?

Awesome information! There is the business case for why they are a good idea! Thank you for that.

Kia ora koutou

Ko Trudy tōku ingoa. I look after H&S for the Methodist Church of NZ. Background in commercial construction and NZTA. New to the forum but am enjoying the topics.

It is certainly an innovative idea. I wouldn't call it practical. It would be interesting to see the original buisness case to see what they considered for the whole of life cost - machine purchase, sugar/health implications, cleaning, maintenance, replacement, plumbing(?), predicted ongoing levels of use, morale boost levels.
We all know what its like buying gadgets for domestic purposes let along putting them into the workplace where it is less guaranteed that someone will administer and look after them.
It would also be interesting to revisit how they are going in 12 months time!