7th April 2013, 11:44 AM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:There are specific site risks that could affect pregnant staff more than non-pregnant staff. The first and most obvious is one the risk of zoonotic agents that might threaten the health of the embryo. Where it is known that there is a risk of contact, there should be a specific risk assessment above and beyond the generic 'don't eat the cowshit' warning. Secondly there are certain heavy metal that whilst risky to everyone, are particularly dangerous where trans-placental exposure might be a possible outcome. Thirdly I guess is just the requirement that all of the necessary sanitary and hygiene requirement should be in place and all that implies...
Fascinating, thanks for the info. Though I would point out don't zoonotic agents threaten the health of other people too.
I agree though that such risks are often not taken seriously enough.
The heavy metal issue is most interesting to me.....do you know which heavy metals and where they are likely to be?
The third point i agree should always be in place.
Dino (grin) I was listening...but good point. It is key that all staff make their supervisors/managers of any potential life threatening health problems.
It is important that we all have a legal obligation to look after our own safety and the safety of others at work too......the onus is not all on the employer.
What also interests me is a debate I have been having with myself since this thread started......haven't posted yet as I can sense it will be controversial to even mention it, but I am going to in order to get, hopefully, a range of opinions........
When is someone who is pregnant physically unable to work on an archaeological site, and what should happen when they can't?