http://roofingsafetytoolbox.com/safetytalk Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 http://roofingsafetytoolbox.com/safetytalk/?p=287&cpage=1#comment-208 David Buckles Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:42 +0000 http://crsmca.wordpress.com/?p=287#comment-208 By not using a hoist line, the worker increased his chance of having an accident in several ways. Holding the mop meant the worker only had one free hand with which to hold the ladder as he ascended, putting him at increased danger of a fall. Also, the mop provided a distraction for the worker. Instead of concentrating on just the ladder, the worker now had to think about ascending the ladder while keeping track of the mop. This added distraction may have diverted his attention away from the power line. Last of all, the mop increased the chance of electrocution in that it conducts electricity and extended the "reach" of the worker in the direction of the power hazard. Response by David Buckles, Raynproof Roofing, Seattle, Washington. By not using a hoist line, the worker increased his chance of having an accident in several ways. Holding the mop meant the worker only had one free hand with which to hold the ladder as he ascended, putting him at increased danger of a fall. Also, the mop provided a distraction for the worker. Instead of concentrating on just the ladder, the worker now had to think about ascending the ladder while keeping track of the mop. This added distraction may have diverted his attention away from the power line. Last of all, the mop increased the chance of electrocution in that it conducts electricity and extended the “reach” of the worker in the direction of the power hazard. Response by David Buckles, Raynproof Roofing, Seattle, Washington.

]]>