PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3799462

Confined spaces--a case for ventilation.

R P Garrison·D R McFee
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many exposures, some leading to deaths and injuries, in confined spaces could have been prevented by ventilating the space prior to and during the entry. Current standards and guidelines generally do not require ventilation. Nor do they sufficiently emphasize the need for ventilation or provide guidance on how to ventilate confined spaces. Mechanical ventilation is a positive engineering control action that can usually be taken and that will reduce the hazards of adverse atmospheric conditions inside a confined space. Natural ventilation usually is not sufficiently reliable to serve as a primary means of control. Unfortunately, very little specific information is available for designing and implementing ventilation strategies for confined spaces. More published information is needed, such as examples of effective policy and procedures in use by industry and findings from research on confined space ventilation. Basic and applied research can help to demonstrate effective ventilation actions and develop useful design guidelines. Additional published information should increase hazard awareness and reduce the likelihood of accidents.

Explore related subjects

IndustryMethodsReference StandardsResearchUnited StatesUnited States Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationVentilationComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R P Garrison, D R McFee. 1986. Confined spaces--a case for ventilation.. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668691390557

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

The university-promoted patent at the crossroads of the research results and immediate industrial use.

The departments, indeed the laboratories of the public research institutions, no longer are satisfied with displaying a certain number of annual scientific publications meant to highlight their expertise and know-how. In effect, for some years now, a new trend has been in vogue: stimulated by all the national and international public bodies, they are calling increasingly on the "patent pending" solution to make optimum use of the results of specific researches on the one hand and, on the other hand, to assert their excellence vis-à-vis the Ministry of Research of their country which is supposed to finance them. However, caught up in the euphoria of the research results, and lost in their formulae and practices, these researchers lose sight of the basis for a patent and its real reason for being (patent charter). A patent necessarily must be of service to the community, that is to say that essentially it must contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of the population. To achieve this goal, going through certain stages is a must, namely that to start with a patent must be absolutely profitable to industry in order that, subsequently, it be consistent with its being of service to the community. In this context, its validity is set at 10 years renewable for another 10 years based on specific parameters as stipulated by the national and international patent institutions, indeed by the EPO (European Patent Office) the headquarters of which is in Munich. Its use by industry ensures proceeds for 10, even 20 years and must represent the material fruit of the applicant's effort. Beyond this period, the patent becomes public and therefore available to everyone. But the crucial problem is this: when can a patent really be used and how to do so as best as possible to guarantee profits for both parties involved and thus justify its reason for being? The purpose of this work thus is to incite university researchers to think about the real usefulness of a patent on the one hand and, on the other hand, to ponder over the best way of using, in close cooperation with industry, the fruit of the research and the registering of the patent, both financed by public funds. For the latter, owing to their nature, demand that there be no wastage and cautious management thereof.

Industry↗