Thanks Terry! Appreciate you guiding me to this information. How are things are FIOSA-MIOSA?

I had a problem accessing the first ILO link..might be my mac. The 2nd link is quite interesting and, as you say, does suggest that we\'re not comparing apples to apples, as in Canada we count injuries AND illnesses in the fatality numbers, whereas many of the other countries do not. Thanks for the links Terry!

I looked a little bit more into the footnotes and I\'m wondering if note 5 reflects the sources where the graph data was aggregated from - one link is to an online bulletin from a consulting firm that references a UK HSE file and the other link appears to reference an ILO document.

Hi Terrence...good comments...the source of that graph doesn't show in the footnotes...I checked the OSHA stats notes from the stats immediately above and couldn't identify the source. Not sure of the date of the source information either. You might be right about the HRSDC inspectorate - they are the only national based health and safety inspectors in Canada...one of the challenges of our provincial focus when compared to other countries.

I think the fatality rate in Canada is higher than the 2.7 you mentioned. We've been hovering around 1000 fatalities/year (traumatic and illness) for a few years now and we've been ranging at !7+ million workers in the workforce for a few years as well.

When I originally posted the info graphic I emailed the authors and asked for the source of the data, but haven't heard back.

I think the moral of the story and your comments capture it so well is ... there are a lot of statistics out there that we need to question ... the truth is out there and sometimes our understanding of the numbers may obscure the facts ...

Do you have a link to the ILO statistics? It would be a good addition to the conversation.

Thanks for your thoughts and time to comment...it's good to hear from other practitioners...Andrew

Thanks for the comment David. Good observations. I think we need to get a lot more folks thinking about safety and the toll its taking on our families, workplaces and communities. Workers have a role to play, but so do employers and supervisors, governments and unions, and safety practitioners.

I believe that we need to understand these numbers a lot better because they represent individual Canadian workers and families that have been left without a loved one. Not only do we need to understand, we need to act. When discussing this with a safety colleague of mine he made a comment about "worst first". We've spent a lot of effort with driving down lost time injury rates. We need to focus on "worst first". Too many of our friends and family members are paying the ultimate price.

Thanks for sharing these links. You are right the first one is graphic. The second one is priceless. I added these to my video page under Quebec Safety. Take care Elise!

Found some updated numbers for 2009 and 2010 from CCOHS (referencing the Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada).

http://www.ccohs.ca/events/mourning/

2009 - 939 fatalities

2010 - 1014 fatalities

Hi Wayne,

I can't really recommend a specific course. You might want to try some of the health and safety associations or google "hazard assessment training". The Alberta Government has a great online course (it's a touch dated, but has some good information). You can find it here:
http://www.employment.alberta.ca/whs/learning/haz...

Good luck!...Andrew

test

Hi Ryan,

Interesting comment. Thanks for taking the time to share.

I think that some individuals read a lot into the hazard assessment process in Alberta. You can make it as hard or easy as you want...as long as you comply with the law. Hazard assessment or identification is one of those foundational activities in all health and safety programs/systems. I see a lot of people taking the requirement in the Alberta OHS Code and using it to justify field level risk assessment or something akin to critical task analysis. Its extremely important for all of us to do things for the right reasons...if we're trying to generate paper, but getting no value from the activity then you're right; it is a waste of time. If your hazard assessment process provides you with useful information about potential harm in your workplace and then you develop new control measures to prevent injury or illness...that is good.

The hard thing for a lot of us safety folks is matching the cure to the illness. We need to do the best possible job giving the workplace the right medication at the right dosage. Doing the wrong thing or too much of the right thing is not helpful. It sounds like you've had this experience.

I sometimes get frustrated with the safety culture of one size fits all in a lot of Alberta workplaces. All workplaces are different. There are many ways to get to safety. I like your comment about the effectiveness of safety meetings. This is a great way of engaging workers...again, as long as its done for the right reasons and not because the company has to.

As to the cop thing, I think I wanted to be one when I was ten, but I'm glad I grew up to be a safety guy.

Have a good one....Andrew...a Canadian Safety Guy