John Muir Health

John Muir Health is a health care service headquartered in Walnut Creek, California and serving Contra Costa County, California. It was created in 1997 from the merger of John Muir Medical Center and Mt. Diablo Medical Center

The hospital was conceived in the early 1950s by a group of physicians who wished to bring quality health care to Contra Costa County. In 1959, the board of directors of this new hospital bought some land overlooking the Ygnacio Valley in Walnut Creek, California. On June 16, 1965 the hospital finally opened. It began with 150 beds and could care for 75 patients per day. Today the hospital is a 321 bed full service facility that specializes in many services such as cardiovascular, neuroscience, orthopedics, oncology, and obstetrics. It is also the only trauma center serving Contra Costa County. A newly-expanded facility, more than doubling the square footage, will begin opening in April of 2011.

In 1930, Concord Hospital was opened by Edna Haywood in Concord, California. The hospital was the first in the area and got off to a slow start. But six years later the hospital had outgrown its building and a new two-story building was added. It contained Concord's first elevator, as well as a surgery room and a birthing room. In 1941 it was admitted to the American Medical Association.

Australasian College of Health Informatics

Australasian College of Health Informatics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Australasian College of Health Informatics is the professional body for health informatics in the Asia-Pacific region. It consists of credentialed fellows and members as well as associate and student members. The college is an academic institutional member of the International Medical Informatics Association and a full member of the Australian Council of Professions.[1] It was founded in 2002 and regularly provides comment and input to papers, proposals and legislative drafts in the region.[2] The college sees its functions as: standards setting for education and professional practice in health informatics support of health informatics initiatives facilitation of collaboration community mentoring The college sponsors the electronic Journal of Health Informatics.[3] It has also supported the Australian Health Informatics Education Council since its founding in 2009.[4] [edit] References ^ "Membership list". Australian Council of Professions. Retrieved 2011-06-13. ^ "Documents published by the Australasian College of Health Informatics". Australasian College of Health Informatics. Retrieved 2011-06-13. ^ "Journal Sponsorship". electronic Journal of Health Informatics. Retrieved 2011-06-13. ^ "Homepage". Australian Health Informatics Education Council. Retrieved 2011-06-13. [edit] External links Official website Australasian College of Health Informatics on Twitter Categories: Health informatics | Learned societies | 2002 establishments in Australia Log in / create account Article Discussion Read Edit View history Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Toolbox Print/export This page was last modified on 14 June 2011 at 06:58. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki

Faculty of Public Health

Faculty of Public HealthFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Faculty of Public Health is the standard setting body for specialists in public health in the United Kingdom.The Faculty of Public Health (formerly the Faculty of Community Medicine and then the Faculty of Public Health Medicine) was formed in 1972 by the three Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom (London, Edinburgh and Glasgow).The Faculty seeks to promote public health through: Promoting the education of public health doctors and other public health practitioners. Examining public health doctors and other public health practitioners. Promoting the profession of public health. Developing and advocating policies for improving public health.The Faculty has around 3,000 members in several classes: Fellows (FFPH) (formerly FFPHM) Members (MFPH) Trainee Members Diplomate Members (DFPH)The Faculty is a registered charity.The Faculty is an official supporting organisation of HIFA2015 (Healthcare Information For All by 2015).[edit] External links Faculty of Public Health websiteCategories: British medical associations | Healthcare in the United Kingdom | Professional associations based in the United Kingdom Log in / create account Article Discussion Read Edit View history Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to WikipediaInteraction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact WikipediaToolboxPrint/export This page was last modified on 17 May 2011 at 13:43. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki

Overweight



Overweight Overweight is generally defined as having more body fat than is optimally healthy. Being overweight is a common condition, especially where food supplies are plentiful and lifestyles are sedentary. As much as 64% of the United States adult population is considered either overweight or obese, and this percentage has increased over the last four decades.[1] Excess weight has reached epidemic proportions globally, with more than 1 billion adults being either overweight or obese.[2] Increases have been observed across all age groups. A healthy body requires a minimum amount of fat for the proper functioning of the hormonal, reproductive, and immune systems, as thermal insulation, as shock absorption for sensitive areas, and as energy for future use. But the accumulation of too much storage fat can impair movement and flexibility, and can alter the appearance of the body. Classification See also: Body fat percentage The degree to which a person is overweight is generally described by body mass index (BMI). Overweight is defined as a BMI of 25 or more, thus it includes pre-obesity defined as a BMI between 25 and 30 and obesity as defined by a BMI of 30 or more.[3][4] Pre obese and overweight however are often used interchangeably thus giving overweight a common definition of a BMI of between 25 -30. There are however several other common ways to measure the amount of adiposity or fat present in an individual's body. Body mass index The body mass index (BMI) is a measure of a person's weight taking into account their height. It is given by the formula: BMI equals a person's weight (mass) in kilograms divided by the square of the person's height in metres. The units therefore are kg/m2 but BMI measures are typically used and written without units. BMI provides a significantly more accurate representation of body fat content than simply measuring a person's weight. It is only moderately correlated with both body fat percentage and body fat mass (R2 of 0.68.)[5] It does not take into account certain factors such as pregnancy or bodybuilding; however, the BMI is an accurate reflection of fat percentage in the majority of the adult population. Body volume index The body volume index (BVI) was devised in 2000 as a computer, rather than manual, measurement of the human body for obesity and an alternative to the BMI Body volume index uses 3D software to create an accurate 3D image of a person so BVI can differentiate between people with the same BMI rating, but who have a different shape and different weight distribution. An obese man on a motorcycle Childhood obesity BVI measures where a person’s weight and the fat are located on the body, rather than total weight or total fat content and places emphasis on the weight carried around the abdomen, commonly known as central obesity. There has been an acceptance in recent years that abdominal fat and weight around the abdomen constitute a greater health risk.[6] Simple weighing The person's weight is measured and compared to an estimated ideal weight. This is the easiest and most common method, but by far the least accurate, as it only measures one quantity (weight) and often does not take into account many factors such as height, body type, and relative amount of muscle mass. Skinfold calipers or "pinch test" The skin at several specific points on the body is pinched and the thickness of the resulting fold is measured. This measures the thickness of the layers of fat located under the skin, from which a general measurement of total amount of fat in the body is calculated. This method can be reasonably accurate for many people, but it does assume particular patterns for fat distribution over the body which may not apply to all individuals, and does not account for fat deposits which may not be directly under the skin. Also, as the measurement and analysis generally involves a high degree of practice and interpretation, for an accurate result it must be performed by a professional and cannot generally be done by patients themselves. Bioelectrical impedance analysis A small electrical current is passed through the body to measure its electrical resistance. As fat and muscle conduct electricity differently, this method can provide a direct measurement of the body fat percentage, in relation to muscle mass. In the past, this technique could only be performed reliably by trained professionals with specialized equipment, but it is now possible to buy home testing kits which allow people to do this themselves with a minimum of training. Despite the improved simplicity of this process over the years, however, there are a number of factors which can affect the results, including hydration and body temperature, so it still needs some care when taking the test to ensure that the results are accurate. Hydrostatic weighing Considered one of the more accurate methods of measuring body fat, this technique involves complete submersion of a person in water, with special equipment to measure the person's weight while submerged. This weight is then compared with "dry weight" as recorded outside the water to determine overall body density. As fat is less dense than muscle, careful application of this technique can provide a reasonably close estimate of fat content in the body. This technique does, however, require expensive specialized equipment and trained professionals to administer it properly. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) Originally developed to measure bone density, DEXA imaging has also come to be used as a precise way to determine body fat content by using the density of various body tissues to identify which portions of the body are fat. This test is generally considered to be very accurate, but requires a great deal of expensive medical equipment and trained professionals to perform. The most common method for discussing this subject and the one used primarily by researchers and advisory institutions is BMI. Definitions of what is considered to be overweight vary by ethnicity. The current definition proposed by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the World Health Organization (WHO) designates whites, Hispanics and blacks with a BMI of 25 or more as overweight. For Asians, overweight is a BMI between 23 and 29.9 and obesity for all groups is a BMI of 30 or more. BMI, however, does not account extremes of muscle mass, some rare genetic factors, the very young, and a few other individual variations. Thus it is possible for an individuals with a BMI of less than 25 to have excess body fat, while others may have a BMI that is significantly higher without falling into this category.[7] Some of the above methods for determining body fat are more accurate than BMI but come with added complexity. If an individual is overweight and has excess body fat it could, but won't always, create or lead to health risks. Reports are surfacing, however, that being mildly overweight to slightly obese – BMI being between 24 and 31.9 – may be actually beneficial and that people with BMI between 24 and 31.9 could actually live longer than normal weight or underweight persons.[8][9] Health-related implications Animals can suffer from obesity as well. This German Shepherd dog is noticeably overweight. While the negative health outcomes associated with obesity are accepted within the medical community, the health implications of the overweight category are more controversial. The generally accepted view is that being overweight causes similar health problems to obesity, but to a lesser degree. Adams et al. estimated that the risk of death increases by 20 to 40 percent among overweight people,[10] and the Framingham heart study found that being overweight at age 40 reduced life expectancy by three years.[11] Flegal et al., however, found that the mortality rate for individuals who are classified as overweight (BMI 25 to 30) may actually be lower than for those with an "ideal" weight (BMI 18.5 to 25).[12][13] Being overweight has been identified as a cause of cancer, and is projected to overtake smoking as the primary cause of cancer in developed countries as cases of cancer linked to smoking dwindle.[14] Psychological well-being is also at risk in the overweight individual due to social discrimination. However, children under the age of eight are normally not affected.[15] Being overweight does not increase mortality in older people.[16] Causes Being overweight is generally caused by the intake of more calories (by eating) than are expended by the body (by exercise and everyday living). Factors which may contribute to this imbalance include: Alcoholism Eating disorders (such as binge eating) Genetic predisposition Hormonal imbalances (e.g. hypothyroidism) Insufficient or poor-quality sleep Limited physical exercise and sedentary lifestyle Poor nutrition Metabolic disorders, which could be caused by repeated attempts to lose weight by weight cycling Overeating Psychotropic medication (e.g. olanzapine) Smoking cessation and other stimulant withdrawal Stress People who have insulin dependant diabetes and chronically overdose insulin may gain weight, while people who already are overweight may develop insulin tolerance, and in the long run type II diabetes. Treatment A large number of people undergo some form of treatment to attempt to reduce their weight, usually either in an attempt to improve their health, to improve their lifestyle, or for cosmetic reasons. The generally recommended treatment for being overweight is a modified or controlled diet in conjunction with increased physical exercise. For those who are obese rather than overweight, more intensive therapies such as anti-obesity drugs and/or bariatric surgery are sometimes used. Recent evidence indicates that the spice turmeric may help prevent growth of new fat tissue without making other changes to the diet. The evidence is based on studies with mice. Researchers next will attempt studies in humans.[17] Studies suggest that reducing calorie intake by itself (dieting) may have short-term effects but does not lead to long-term weight loss, and can often result in gaining back all of the lost weight and more in the longer term. For this reason, it is generally recommended that weight-loss diets not be attempted on their own but instead in combination with increased exercise and long-term planning and weight management. The health benefits of weight loss are also somewhat unclear. While it is generally accepted that for significantly obese patients, losing weight can reduce health risks and improve quality of life, there is some evidence to suggest that for merely overweight patients, the health effects of attempting to lose weight may actually be more detrimental than simply remaining overweight.[18] Moreover, for all individuals, repeatedly losing weight and then gaining it back ("weight cycling" or "yo-yo dieting"), is believed to do more harm than good and can be the cause of significant additional health problems. This is caused by the loss of more muscle than fat. See also Body image Body Volume Index (BVI) Canadian Obesity Network Childhood obesity Fat acceptance movement Physical attractiveness Obesity Underweight References ^ Flegal, Katherine M.; Carroll, Margaret D.; Johnson, Clifford L.; Johnson, CL (2002). "Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2000". JAMA 288 (14): 1723–1727. doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1723. PMID 12365955. ^ Obesity and overweight, World Health Organization, 2003, retrieved 2009-04-27 ^ Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO convention, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999, PMID 11234459 ^ Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report., National Institutes of Health, September 1998, retrieved 2009-04-27 ^ Gray, D. S.; Fujioka, K. J. (1991). "Use of relative weight and Body Mass Index for the determination of adiposity". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44 (6): 545–50. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90218-X. PMID 2037859. ^ Craver, R.(10 September 2008) "Location, not volume, of fat found to be key" www.journalnow.com. Retrieved on 2008-10-09 ^ Gallagher, Dympna; Heymsfield, Steven B.; Heo, Moonseong; Jebb, Susan A.; Sakamoto, Yoichi; S (1 September 2000). "Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72 (3): 694–701. PMID 10966886. ^ Being Overweight may be Good for Your Health, Statesman, retrieved November 26, 2009[dead link] ^ [www.wndu.com/mmm/headlines/37227054.html Experts say being moderately overweight may be good for you], WNDU, retrieved Nov 26 2009 ^ Adams, Kenneth F.; Schatzkin, Arthur; Harris, Tamara B.; Kipnis, Victor; Mouw, Traci; Ballard-Barbash,, Rachel; Hollenbeck, Albert; Leitzmann, Michael F. (2006). "Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Persons 50 to 71 Years Old". NEJM 355 (8): 763–788. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa055643. PMID 16926275. ^ Peeters, A.; Barendregt, J. J.; Willekens, F.; Mackenbach, J. P.; Al Mamun, A.; Bonneux, L.; NEDCOM, the Netherlands Epidemiology and Demography Compression of Morbidity Research Group (January 2003). "Obesity in adulthood and its consequences for life expectancy: a life-table analysis". Ann. Intern. Med. 138 (1): 24–32. PMID 12513041. ^ Flegal, Katherine M.; Graubard, Barry I.; Williamson, David F.; Gail, Mitchell H. (2005). "Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity". JAMA 293 (15): 1861–1867. doi:10.1001/jama.293.15.1861. PMID 15840860. ^ Kolata, Gina (7 November 2007), Causes of Death Are Linked to a Person’s Weight, New York Times, retrieved 2009-04-27 (requires free registration) ^ Wanjek, Christopher (19 February 2008), Scientists Agree: Obesity Causes Cancer, LiveScience, retrieved 2009-04-27 ^ Kirschenbaum, Daniel S. (2006). "Effect of Obesity or Being Overweight on Self-Esteem". My Overweight Child. Retrieved 2009-05-20. ^ Flicker L, McCaul KA, Hankey GJ, et al. (February 2010). "Body mass index and survival in men and women aged 70 to 75". J Am Geriatr Soc 58 (2): 234–41. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02677.x. PMID 20370857. ^ Ars.usda.gov ^ Sørensen, T. I.,; Rissanen, A.; Korkeila, M.; Kaprio, J. (2005). "Intention to Lose Weight, Weight Changes, and 18-y Mortality in Overweight Individuals without Co-Morbidities". PLoS 2 (6): e171. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020171. PMC 1160579. PMID 15971946. External links Obesity Epidemic: U.S. Temporal Trends 1985-2004 Ranking of Most Overweight Countries in the World 2005 World Health Organization fact sheet on obesity and overweight Ideal Weight Calculator Obesity weight loss diets preventive measures precautions and safety considerations for reducing weight Nutrition Calorie Counter [hide]v · d · eNutrition disorders (E40–E68, 260–269) Hypoalimentation/ malnutrition Protein-energy malnutrition Kwashiorkor · Marasmus · Catabolysis Avitaminosis B vitamins B1: Beriberi/Wernicke's encephalopathy (Thiamine deficiency) · B2: Ariboflavinosis · B3: Pellagra (Niacin deficiency) · B6: Pyridoxine deficiency · B7: Biotin deficiency · B9: Folate deficiency · B12: Vitamn B12 deficiency Other vitamins A: Vitamin A deficiency/Bitot's spots · C: Scurvy · D: Hypovitaminosis D/Rickets/Osteomalacia · E: Vitamin E deficiency · K: Vitamin K deficiency Mineral deficiency Sodium · Potassium · Magnesium · Calcium · Iron · Zinc · Manganese · Copper · Iodine · Chromium · Molybdenum · Selenium (Keshan disease) Hyperalimentation Overweight · Obesity Childhood obesity · Obesity hypoventilation syndrome · Abdominal obesity Vitamin poisoning Hypervitaminosis A · Hypervitaminosis D · Hypervitaminosis E Mineral overload see inborn errors of metal metabolism, toxicity M: NUT cof, enz, met noco, nuvi, sysi/epon, met drug(A8/11/12) Categories: Body shape | Nutrition | Obesity Log in / create account Article Discussion Read View source View history Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Toolbox Print/export Languages Ænglisc Català Česky Deutsch Español Français Italiano עברית Lietuvių Simple English Slovenčina Svenska 中文 This page was last modified on 28 May 2011 at 17:59. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us

Full body scanner



A full-body scanner is a device that creates an image of a person's nude body through their clothing to look for hidden objects without physically removing their clothes or making physical contact. They are increasingly being deployed at airports and train stations in many countries.

One technology used under the name "full-body scanner" is the millimeter wave scanner, the active form of which reflects extremely high frequency radio waves off the body to make an image on which one can see some types of objects hidden under the clothes. Passive millimeter wave screening devices rely on only the raw energy that is naturally emitted from the human body or objects concealed on the body; passive devices do not transmit millimeter waves.[1][2] Another technology in use is the backscatter X-ray.

Two advantages of full-body scanners over a physical strip search are that it is quicker (takes only 15 seconds) and that people do not have to be touched in a manner that some might consider offensive. A disadvantage is that the scanners are being used to perform routine, virtual strip searches without probable cause which opponents claim are illegal unreasonable searches that violate basic human rights.[3] Furthermore, the true long-term health effects of the active, radiating technologies are unknown. Passive millimeter wave screening is known to be safe because its technology does not require radiating the subject.[1][2]

History

The first full body security scanner was developed by Dr. Steven W Smith,[4][5] who developed the Secure 1000 whole body scanner in 1992. He subsequently sold the device and associated patents to Rapiscan Systems, who now manufacture and distribute the device.

The first passive, non-radiating full body screening device was developed by Lockheed Martin through a sponsorship by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)'s Office of Science and Technology and the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. Proof of concept was conducted in 1995 through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Rights to this technology were subsequently acquired by Brijot Imaging Systems, who further matured a commercial-grade product line and now manufacture, market and support the passive millimeter wave devices.[6]

Safety aspects of the Secure 1000 have been investigated by the FDA and NCRP since the early 1990s.[citation needed]
[edit] Usage
TSA- How It Works.ogv
A video from the TSA explaining how their machines work at US airports security.
Passive millimeter wave image and subject being screened.

Schiphol in the Netherlands was the first airport in the world to implement this device on a large scale after a test with flight personnel the previous year. On May 15, 2007 two of 17 purchased security scans were installed. A longer list of airports with full-body scanners can be found on bigbrotherwatch.org.uk.

Full-body scanners have been installed in at least one Florida courthouse[7] and are starting to appear in courthouses around the US.[8]

At least one New Jersey PATH train station used full-body scanners in 2006.[9] This was a two week trial.[10]

As of November 20, 2010, the TSA reported that there were 385 full-body scanners now in use at 68 United States airports, which were listed in an article of that date on USAToday.com and ABCnews.com.

The United States plans to deploy 1,000 full body scanners by the end of 2011.[11] The US Government has also hinted at the possibility of deploying the full body scanners at train stations and subways.[12]

The Italian government had planned to install full-body scanners at all airport and train stations throughout the country,[13] but announced in September, 2010 plans to remove the scanners from airports, calling them "slow and ineffective."[14]

Because of the privacy issues, in some locations people are allowed to refuse this scan and opt for a traditional pat-down. In other locations, use of the full-body scanners is mandatory and refusing to submit to a scan at the airport will bar the person from taking the flight.[15] A bill called the S.A.F.E.R. A.I.R. Act has been introduced in the United States by Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). If it passes it will make full-body scanners mandatory in the U.S. by 2013.[16][17]

It is claimed that the head is excluded from the scan and the images are instantly erased, though in one case, images had been stored and 100 of them were later leaked online.[18][19]

The analyst is in a different room and is not supposed to be able to see the person being scanned, but is in contact with other officials who can halt the scanned person if anything suspicious shows up on the scan.

The European Union currently allows member states to decide whether to implement full body scanners in their countries:[20]

    It is for each member state to decide to authorise the use of scanners in national airports. That will not change ... But where this scanning technology is used it should be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as common safeguards to ensure compliance with EU health and fundamental rights provisions.
    —EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas

[edit] Controversies

The implementation of widespread full-body scanners has raised a public controversy.
[edit] Public opinion

A Gallup poll given just after the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt suggested that 78% of American airline travelers approved of body scanners while 20% disapproved. 51% indicated that they would have some level of discomfort with full-body scans, while 48% said they would not be uncomfortable with the idea.[21] The poll was given in the context of the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attempt, some opponents of full body scanners say that the explosives used in that bombing attempt would not have been detected by full-body scanners.[22]

An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Associates and released November 22, 2010 found that 64 percent of Americans favored the full-body x-ray scanners, but that 50 percent think the "enhanced" pat-downs go too far; 37 percent felt so strongly. In addition the poll states opposition is lowest amongst those who fly less than once a year.[23] As of November 23, 2010 an online poll of 11,817 people on The Consumerist website, 59.41% said they would not fly as a result of the new scans.[24] Additionally, as of November 23, 2010 a poll of MSNBC 8,500 online readers indicated 84.1% believe the new procedures would not increase travel safety.[25] While according to a CBS telephone poll of 1,137 people published on November 15, 81% (+/- 5%) percent of those polled approved TSA's use of full-body scans.[26]
[edit] Privacy
An image from an active millimeter wave body scanner.

Opponents of full-body scanners argue that strip searches without probable cause violate basic human rights. Governments do not have the right to make strip searches routine and mandatory, regardless of whether the strip search is done by physically removing clothes or by using technological means to remove the clothes.[27][28][29]

Full-body scanning technology allows screeners to see the nude surface of the skin under clothing,[30] prosthetics including breast prostheses and prosthetic testicles, which may require a potentially embarrassing, hands-on physical inspection once detected. The scanners also can detect other medical equipment normally hidden, such as colostomy bags and catheters.[31] Other privacy concerns come from transgendered community, who may feel that the routine full-body scans are embarrassing[32] and could potentially lead to harassment.[33]

Airport employees in Lagos have been caught using full body scanner images as a type of porn.[34][35]

Travelers at U.S. airports have complained that when they opted not to be scanned, they were subjected to a new type of invasive pat-down that one traveler described as "probing and pushing ... in my genital area."[36][37] Another traveler in the United States complained that the TSA employee "inserted four fingers of both hands inside my trousers and ran his fingers all the way around my waist, his fingers extending at least 2-3 inches below my waistline."[38]

In November, 2010, a female traveler who opted out of a full body scan at Fort Lauderdale International Airport claims that TSA agents handcuffed her to a chair and ripped up her plane ticket when she asked them questions about the new type of invasive pat down she was about to receive.[39] In response, the TSA posted the security camera footage on their blog, though there is no sound in the video and the passenger is not directly in the camera during most of the incident.[40]

Opponents in the US argue that full body scanners and the new TSA patdowns are unconstitutional.[41] A comprehensive student note, and possibly one of the first on the topic, *"Full-Body Scanners: Full Protection from Terrorist Attacks or Full-On Violation of the Constitution?" came out in the Fall 2010 issue of the internationally distributed University of Denver Transportation Law Journal that argued that the full-body scanners are unconstitutional in the United States because they are (1) too invasive and (2) not effective enough because the process is too inefficient. [42]

On July 2, 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of full-body scanners at airports in the United States:[43]

    EPIC argued that the federal agency has violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment. EPIC cited the invasive nature of the devices, the TSA's disregard of public opinion, and the impact on religious freedom.
    —epic.org

EPIC claims that the full-body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they subject citizens to virtual strip searches without any evidence of wrongdoing.[44]

The American Civil Liberties Union has called the machines an invasion of privacy: "This doesn't only concern genitals but body size, body shape and other things like evidence of mastectomies, colostomy appliances or catheter tubes. These are very personal things that people have every right to keep private and personal, aside from the modesty consideration of not wanting to be naked."[45]

In Idaho a bill has been introduced to prevent the use of full-body scanners as a primary screening method, and to allow people to request alternative screening methods:[46]

    Wholebody imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary method of screening persons, nor may it be used to screen any person unless another method of screening, such as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing such person from boarding an aircraft or entering a public facility or government building.
    —Idaho House Bill no. 573

In the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has argued that full-body scanners are a risk to human rights and may be breaking the law.[47][48]

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea opposes the use of full-body scanners and has recommended that they are not deployed at airports.[49]

In the United States, the TSA requires that their full-body scanners "allow exporting of image data in real time",[50] and cases of the government's storing of images have been confirmed.[51]

In August 2010, it was reported that United States Marshals Service saved thousands of images from a millimeter wave scanner.[52][53] TSA — part of the Department of Homeland Security — reiterated that its own scanners do not save images and that the scanners do not have the capability to save images when they are installed in airports.[54] However, these statements contradict the TSA's own Procurement Specs which specifically require that the machines have the ability to record and transmit images, even if those features might be initially turned off on delivery.[50] Opponents have also expressed skepticism that if there were a successful terror attack that the machines would not have the capability to save images for later inspection to find out what went wrong with the scans. On November 16, 2010, 100 of the stored 35,000 body scan images were leaked online and posted by Gizmodo.[19]
[edit] Equal Treatment of Minorities

Current Backscatter and Millimeter wave scanners installed by the TSA are unable to screen adequately for security threats inside turbans, hijab, burqas, casts, prosthetics and loose clothing.[55][56] This technology limitation of current scanners often requires these persons to undergo additional screening by hand or other methods and can cause additional delay or feelings of harassment.[57]

The next generation of backscatter scanners are able to screen these types of clothing.[58] The next generation of scanners can equalize the screening process for all persons so that religious minorities can travel through the AIT process as easily as other passengers.
[edit] Health
[edit] Backscatter X-ray scanners
Some backscatter technology produces an image that resembles a chalk etching, though other configurations produce much more detailed images, and there is still a possibility that the lower quality images can be easily switched to a higher resolution.[59]
Proponents of backscatter x-ray scanners say that a single scan using backscatter technology produces exposure equivalent to two minutes of flying on an airplane.[60] Opponents say that the radiation doses are much higher than claimed due to the way the radiation is measured.[61]
See also: Health effects

Several radiation safety authorities including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, The Health Physics Society, and the American College of Radiology, have stated that they are "not aware of any evidence"[62] that full-body scans are unsafe.[63] However, other radiation authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency recommend against using ionizing radiation on certain populations like pregnant women and children,[64] and opponents of the devices say that no long-term studies have been done on the health effects of either backscatter x-ray or millimeter wave scanners:[65]

    I don't think the right questions have been asked. We don't have enough information to make a decision on whether there's going to be a biological effect or not.
    —Douglas Boreham, professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Richard Morin, a medical physicist at the Mayo Clinic has said that he is not concerned about health effects from backscatter x-ray scanners:[66]

    "From a radiation standpoint there has been no evidence that there is really any untoward effect from the use of this device [backscatter scanner], so I would not be concerned about it from a radiation dose standpoint — the issues of personal privacy are a different thing," he said. The health effects of the more common millimeter wave scanner are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted. "I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems," said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president. However, no long-term studies have been done on the health effects of millimeter wave scanners.

Opponents of backscatter x-ray scanners, including the head of the center for radiological research at Columbia University, say that the radiation emitted by some full-body scanners is as much as 20 times stronger than officially reported and is not safe to use on large numbers of persons because of an increased risk of cancer to children and at-risk populations.[67][68][69][70]

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) have argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues:[71][72][73]

    The majority of [the scanners'] energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high. The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high. In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.

However other professors in the UCSF radiology department disagree, saying that the radiation dose is low.[74]

    "The conclusions are wrong," Ronald Arenson, professor of radiology, tells SF Weekly of his own institution's letter. "People who are totally unrelated to radiation wrote it. ... It was senior faculty at UCSF. They're smart people and well-intended, but their conclusions, I think, were off-base. They don't understand how radiation translates to an actual dose in the human body."

Dr. Steve Smith, inventor of the body scanner in 1991, and president of Tek84, one of the companies that that produces the machines, has stated that the concerns of Dr. Brenner and UCSF Scientists regarding the skin dose of backscatter scanners is incorrect. He states the values used for X-ray penetration were incorrectly based on the description of the imaging depth which describes what the instrument sees and is a few mm into the skin and the dosage depth which is deeper. He describes experimental proof that the X-rays have the same properties as any other X-Rays and the penetration is correct to be averaged over the whole body. Dr. Smith has provided measured data from an operating body scanner to explain his position.[75]

In October 2010, The TSA responded to the concerns of UCSF researchers via the White House science advisor.[76][77]

Scanners also concentrate the dose in time, because they deliver a high dose-rate at the moment of exposure. High dose-rate exposure has been shown to cause greater damage than the same radiation dose delivered at lower rates [4]. This raises further questions about comparisons to background radiation.

The FDA report states:

    Since general-use x-ray systems emit ionizing radiation, the societal benefit of reliably detecting threats must be sufficient to outweigh the potential radiation risk, if any, to the individual screened. The dose from one screening with a general-use x-ray security screening system is so low that it presents an extremely small risk to any individual. To put the radiation dose received into perspective:

        Naturally occurring ionizing radiation is all around us. We are continuously exposed to this background radiation during ordinary living. In 42 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from screening with any general-use x-ray security system.
        The national radiation safety standard (see below) sets a dose per screening limit for the general-use category. To meet the requirements of the general-use category a full-body x-ray security system must deliver less than the dose a person receives during 4 minutes of airline flight. TSA has set their dose limit to ensure a person receives less radiation from one scan with a TSA general-use x-ray security system than from 2 minutes of airline flight.
        A person would have to be screened more than a thousand times in one year in order to exceed the annual radiation dose limit for people screening that has been set by expert radiation safety organizations (see below).
        Millimeter wave security systems which comply with the limits set in the applicable national non-ionizing radiation safety standard (see below) cause no known adverse health effects.

The U.S. TSA has also made public various independent safety assessments of the Secure 1000 Backscatter X-ray Scanner.[78][79][80][81] Dr. David Brenner, head of Columbia University's center for radiological research, said although the danger posed to the individual passenger is "very low", he is urging researchers to carry out more tests on the device to look at the way it affects specific groups who could be more sensitive to radiation. He says children and passengers with gene mutations — around one in 20 of the population — are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA.[82] Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University, has made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[66]

    "A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said. "I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning," he added. For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said.

In May 2010 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements issued a press release in response to the health risk claims from UCSF and Columbia University (claims of excessive skin dose and risks to large populations vs. individuals). The NCRP claims that cancer risks cited by opponents are completely inaccurate, stating that:[83]

    the summation of trivial average risks over very large populations or time periods into a single value produces a distorted image of risk, completely out of perspective with risks accepted every day, both voluntarily and involuntarily.

and that

    ... general-use systems should adhere to an effective dose of 0.1 microsievert (μSv) (0.01 millirem) or less per scan, and can be used mostly without regard to the number of individuals scanned or the number of scans per individual in a year. An effective dose of 0.1 μSv (0.01 mrem) per scan would allow 2,500 scans of an individual annually [i.e., if each scan required 0.1 μSv (0.01 mrem)] without exceeding the administrative control of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to a member of the general public for a single source or set of sources under one control. Assuming 250 workdays per year, this would correspond to an average of 10 scans each day, a frequency that is unlikely to be encountered.

However, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety which includes the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization, reported that, "Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is 'extremely small'".[84]

Opponents have also argued that defects in the machines, damage from normal wear-and-tear, or software errors could focus an intense dose of radiation on just one spot of the body. The researchers write:[71]

    Moreover, there are a number of 'red flags' related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems? The TSA is already complaining about resolution limitations; who will keep the manufacturers and/or TSA from just raising the dose, an easy way to improve signal-to-noise and get higher resolution? Lastly, given the recent incident (on December 25th), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

Proponents of backscatter X-ray scanners argue that the ANSI N43.17 standard addresses safety requirements and engineering design of the systems to prevent the occurrence of accidental high radiation due to defects and errors in hardware and software. Safety requirements include "fail-safe" controls, multiple overlapping interlocks and engineering design to ensure that failure of any systems result in safe or non-operation of the system to reduce the chance of accidental exposures. Furthermore, TSA requires that certification to the ANSI N43.17 standard is performed by a third party and not by the manufacturer themselves.[85][citation needed]

There are cases where types of medical scanning machines, operated by trained medical personnel, have malfunctioned, causing serious injury to patients that were scanned.[86] Opponents of full-body scanners cite these incidents as examples of how radiation-based scanning machines can overdose people with radiation despite all safety precautions.[87]

In March 2011, it was found that some of the full body scanners in the US were emitting 10 times the normal level of radiation:[88][89][90]

    Contractors charged with routinely examining the scanners submitted reports containing discrepancies, including mathematical miscalculations showing that some of the devices emitted radiation levels 10 times higher than normal... "In our review of the surveys we found instances where a technician incorrectly did his math and came up with results that showed the radiation readings were off by a factor of 10," said Peter Kant, executive vice president of Rapiscan Systems.

The x-rays from backscatter scanners "are a form of ionizing radiation, that is, radiation powerful enough to strip molecules in the body of their electrons, creating charged particles that cause cell damage and are thought to be the mechanism through which radiation causes cancer."[91] Humans are exposed to background radiation every day, anywhere on earth,[92] and proponents of backscatter X-ray scanners say that the devices expose subjects to levels of radiation equivalent to background radiation. Furthermore, when traveling on an airplane, passengers are exposed to much higher levels of radiation than on earth due to altitude. Proponents say that backscatter X-ray scan is equivalent to the radiation received during two minutes of flying.[93] But background radiation compares to backscatter X-ray scanners as diffuse light compares to focused light, and the same amount of radiation experienced in four minutes of background exposure (the TSA limit) is delivered in 10 seconds with a body scan—a 2400% increase in energy concentration. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains the importance of focus and energy concentration in underscoring the difference between diffuse light (example: light bulb) and focused light (example: laser): "Laser light travels in a very narrow, highly focused beam which does not spread out as light from a bulb does. Because it is very concentrated ... laser light can be harmful."[94]

The UK Health Protection Agency has also issued a statement that the radiation dose from backscatter scanners is very low and "about the same as one hour of background radiation".[95]

The European Commission issued a report stating that backscatter x-ray scanners pose no known health risk, but suggested that backscatter x-ray scanners, which expose people to ionizing radiation, should not be used when millimeter-wave scanners that "have less effects on the human body" are available:[96]

    Assuming all other conditions equal, there is no reason to adopt X‐ray backscatters, which expose the subject to an additional – although negligible – source of ionizing radiations. Other WBI [Whole Body Imaging] technologies should be preferred for standard use.

However, the European Commission's report provides no data substantiating the claim that "all other conditions are equal". One area where backscatter X-ray scanners can provide better performance than millimeter wave scanners, for example, is in the inspection of the shoes, groin and armpit regions of the body.[97]

The European Commission also recommended that alternate screening methods should be "used on pregnant women, babies, children and people with disabilities".[11]

In the United States, Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee sent a letter on August 6, 2010 to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Administrator of the TSA, requesting that the TSA "have the Department’s Chief Medical Officer, working with independent experts, conduct a review of the health effects of their use for travelers, TSA employees, and airport and airline personnel."[98] The TSA has completed this review.[citation needed]

The U.S. Government is also supplying at least two African countries with higher-radiation, through-body x-ray scanners to use at African airports[99] which has caused some opponents of full-body scanners to question how far the U.S. Government intends to go with the technology.[100]

Unions for airline pilots working for American Airlines and US Airways have urged pilots to avoid the full body scanners.[101]
[edit] Millimeter wave scanners

Millimeter or GHz scanners are often wrongly cited as emitting terahertz radiation. Currently adopted scanners operate in the millimeter or sub terahertz band. The use of terahertz radiation (between 1 and 10 THz) shows promise but is currently not commercially available for body scanning.

Safety studies on terahertz scanners have produced mixed results. Researchers at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have used simulations to show a way that terahertz radiation may affect DNA:[102]

    Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.

The work was not experimentally verified. The work has subsequently been shown to be inapplicable to humans.[103].

Thomas S. Tenforde, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said that more research needs to be done into the safety of millimeter wave scanners.[66]
[edit] Child scanning

There is controversy over full-body scanners in some countries because the machines create images of virtual strip searches on persons under the age of 18 which may violate child pornography laws. In the UK, the scanners may be breaking the Protection of Children Act of 1978 by creating images or pseudo-images of nude children.[104][105]

Parents have complained that their young children are being virtually strip searched, sometimes without their parents present.[106]
[edit] Ineffectiveness

Opponents of full-body scanners claim that the technology is ineffective because terrorists have already evolved their tactics with the use of surgically implanted bombs or bombs hidden in body cavities.[107][108]

In one test of the full-body scanners, the machines failed to detect bomb parts hidden around a person's body.[109]

In another test in 2011, an undercover TSA agent was able to carry a handgun through full body scanners multiple times without the weapon being detected.[110]

Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security expert who helped design security at Ben Gurion International Airport, has said: "I don't know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747... That's why we haven't put them in our airport."[111]

Despite the scanners, the TSA has been unable to stop weapons like box cutters and pistols from being carried onto airplanes, raising questions about whether the agency needs more oversight in general.[112]

Two alternatives that have been argued for by experts, such as Prof Chris Mayhew from Birmingham University, are chemical-based scanners and bomb-sniffing dogs.[113] Others have argued that passenger profiling, as done by Israeli airport security, should replace full body scanners and patdowns.[114]
[edit] Full-body scanner lobbyists

Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has been criticized for heavily promoting full-body scanners while not always fully disclosing that he is a lobbyist for one of the companies that makes the machines.[115][116] Other full-body scanner lobbyists with Government connections include:[117]

    former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank
    former assistant administrator for policy at the TSA, Chad Wolf
    Kevin Patrick Kelly, "a former top staffer to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee"
    Former Senator Al D'Amato

[edit] TSA's expansion of scanning program

Forbes magazine reported, in March, 2011, that:[118][119]

    Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians on city streets.

and that the TSA had research proposals to:

    bring full-body scanners to train stations, mass transit, and public events. Contracts included in the EPIC release showed plans to develop long-range scans that could assess what a subject carried from 30 feet away, along with studies that involved systems for x-ray scanners mounted in vans and “covert” scans of pedestrians.

[edit] No nudity full-body scanner

The new software for scanners has been applied by US Aviation Security, so the new full-body scanner will not give image of nudity of the person who is scanned, but only give the image as a generic male or female figure with no features. It has been applied at Washington, Atlanta and Las Vegas airports.[120]
[edit] Technical countermeasures

Some people wish to prevent either the loss of privacy or the possibility of health problems or genetic damage that might be associated with being subjected to a backscatter X-ray scan. One company sells X-ray absorbing underwear which is said to have X-ray absorption equivalent to 0.5 mm of lead.[121] Another product, Flying Pasties, is "... designed to obscure the most private parts of the human body when entering full body airport scanners", but its description does not seem to claim any protection from the X-ray beam penetrating the body of the person being scanned.[122]
[edit] See also

    Backscatter X-ray (for security scanning applications)
    Explosives trace-detection portal machine (puffer machine)
    Full-body CT scan (in medical imaging)
    Millimeter wave scanner (for security scanning applications)

Health Labrador Corporation

Health Labrador Corporation


Health Labrador Corporation is the governing body for healthcare regulation in an area of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The area region includes the communities of:

    Labrador City
    Happy Valley-Goose Bay
    Nain
    Rigolet
    Cartwright
    Churchill Falls

External links

Health Labrador Corporation

Stub icon     This Newfoundland and Labrador-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Categories: Health regions of Newfoundland and Labrador | Newfoundland and Labrador stubs

Concordat between bodies inspecting, regulating and auditing health or social care

Concordat between bodies inspecting, regulating and auditing health or social care

The Concordat between bodies inspecting, regulating and auditing health or social care (2004) is a "voluntary agreement between organisations that regulate, audit, inspect or review elements of health and healthcare in England"[1]. It is made up of 10 objectives designed to promote closer working between the signatories. Each objective is underpinned by a number of practices that focus developments on areas that will help to secure effective implementation.

Signatories

There are full[2] and associate signatories[3] to the concordat.

A similar agreement was concluded by bodies reviewing health and social care in Wales in 2005.
[edit] Full signatories

    Audit Commission
    Care Quality Commission (CQC) - from April 2009
    Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans (COPMeD)
    General Medical Council (GMC)
    Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)

    National Audit Office (NAO)
    NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (NHS CFSMS)
    NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA)
    Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board (PMETB)
    Skills for Health

[edit] Former full signatories

    Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) - until March 2009
    Healthcare Commission - until March 2009
    Mental Health Act Commission (MHAC) - until March 2009

[edit] Associate signatories

    Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
    Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence
    Department of Health
    Information Centre for Health and Social Care
    Healthcare Inspectorate Wales
    NHS Confederation
    Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
    United Kingdom Accreditation Forum

Health Insurance Authority

Health Insurance Authority

The Health Insurance Authority (Irish: An tÚdarás Árachas Sláinte) is the regulatory body for private health insurance in Ireland. The Authority's remit is to monitor and research health insurance generally; operate the risk equalisation scheme; advise the Minister on health insurance generally; monitor the operation of other relevant regulations as prescribed and safeguard the interests of current and future health insurance consumers.[1]

The Authority was established on 1 February 2001 in accordance with the terms of the Health Insurance Act, 1994 by Micheál Martin TD, then the Minister for Health and Children. The Members were appointed following consultation with relevant industry, professional and consumer rights representatives. It is meant to be independent in the exercise of its functions and it is required to make a report of its activities to the Minister who will lay the report before each house of the Oireachtas.

It is composed of a chairperson and four members.

Environmental Health Australia

Environmental Health Australia

Environmental Health Australia (EHA) is the premier professional body for Environmental Health Officers or Environmental Health Practitioners (Public Health Inspectors) in Australia. Established as a non-profit organisation in 1935, it is governed by a board of nine directors, who elect a National President to be the Chairman of the Board. The Board administers a Constitution and By-Laws that allow six branches (each an independent Association incorporated under their State legislation)of Environmental Health Australia to deliver services to members and feedback to the Board. Branches are based in New South Wales(including Australian Capital Territory), Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia (Northern Territory members are served by the National office). Each branch has its own Branch Council, and many branches also have sub-groups representing local issues and special interests.

EHA provides the following services to Environmental Health Practitioners: training workshops, Conferences (National and Branch), Environmental Health Policies, Continuing Professional Development Scheme, Certified Practitioner Scheme, Branch-based Achievement awards Accreditation of Australian Environmental Health University Degrees and Post graduate vocational courses, Professional Tools (such as the Food Safety Standard of Practice, Australian Food Safety Assessment and education programs such as FoodSafe and I'M ALERT ), Lobbying to government agencies.

Environmental Health Australia is a member of: The Commonwealth Government's enHealth Council , The Australia Council on Smoking and Health The International Federation of Environmental Health

and has previously been a member of important Committees created by: Standards Australia and Food Standards Australia New Zealand

The name 'Environmental Health Australia' was announced at the International Federation of Environmental Health 10th World Congress, hosted by EHA in May 2008. Previously the organisation had been known as the Australian Institute of Environmental Health, and before that the Australian Institute of Health Surveyors.

Court hearing after artwork deaths

Court hearing after artwork deaths

The creator of an inflatable artwork that flipped over and killed two people has appeared in the Peterlee Magistrates Court yesterday charged with manslaughter by gross negligence and one offence under the Health & Safety at Work Act. Maurice Agis (76) was committed to the Crown Court and will be joined by two more defendants, promotions council Brouhaha International Ltd and Chester-le-Street District Council who were also charged under the Act. Tony Galloway (48) the Council's director of development services has been charged with a separate breach of the Act and he was remanded on unconditional bail. The charges are in connection with an incident when the Dreamspace sculpture flipped into the aire at Chester-le-Street, Co Durham, in July 2006 killing two adults who were inside the sculpture. A further 15 visitors were injured.

Company in dock for third time

A waste disposal, construction and demolition company has been fined £20,000 after an employee was run over by a dumper truck. The company pleaded guilty to contravening s2(1) of HSWA by failing to ensure the safety of an employee, it was also ordered to pay full costs of £6,580. Gloucester Crown Court was told that the incident occurred on 9 August 2004 at a waste transfer station in Gloucester, where rubbish is brought by skips and lorries for recycling or landfill. A dumper truck being driven out of the waste transfer station struck the man as he stood with his back to the doors, running him over and fracturing his pelvis and femur. The driver had been unable to see the supervisor, as the truck had a high load of wooden pallets in the bucket at the front, and he was coping with changes in light between the two areas. In mitigation, the company said it had put a lot of work and investment into health and safety since the incident. The court was told that this incident was the third for which the company had been prosecuted in the last two years. Its construction division was fined £5,000 in January 2005 after an untrained worker overturned a dumper truck while reversing it without wearing a seatbelt, breaking his leg. Its demolition division was fined £12,500 in September 2005 after an untrained and unsupervised operative fell through a fragile roof.

Health and safety law

Health and safety law

Health and safety law is a body of law that protects the health, safety and welfare of the general public and certain defined sectors of the population such as employees. Most jurisdictions have a framework of health and safety law which will usually be enforced by the state using an inspectorate, regulatory control and the criminal law.

The regulatory framework for health and safety will usually operate alongside a civil law system which would allow individuals to bring a law suit against a person, company or organisation which may have been liable for personal injury or even death. Thus where an employee has been injured through an accident at work in the UK the Health & Safety Executive may instigate a criminal prosecution which may result in a financial penalty (fine) and now in certain circumstances of corporate manslaughter could result in imprisonment of those individuals responsible – however the injured employee can also seek damages for the injury caused in the civil courts under areas of civil law such as negligence and occupiers liability.

A recent example has been the ‘Great White’ disaster in the USA. Here a nightclub caught fire after the rock band ‘Great White’ set off pyrotechnics which in turn ignited the club’s sound proofing which was highly flammable. One hundred people, including one band member, died. The band’s manager, Daniel Biechele and club owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian were each charged with 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter with criminal negligence, and 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter in violation of a misdemeanor. Michael Derderian was sentenced to a four year jail sentence with eligibility for a work release programme and Jeffrey Deridian received a suspended ten year sentence and a community sentence whilst Biechele also received a prison sentence. In the civil courts over $1 billion in claims have been made by the families of the dead and injured with defendants including the manufacturers of the soundproofing, the maker of the pyrotechnics, the band and the venue.

The regulatory framework in the UK only began to develop towards the end of the industrial revolution and clearly employers and business at the time had a vested interest to oppose legislation and regulatory control which might affect their business. But progressive societies clearly wish to protect their population and workforce and almost all now have comprehensive legislation. In the United States the law developed in a similar manner. For example In 1891 Congress passed the first federal statute governing mine safety, marking the beginning of what was to be an extended evolution of increasingly comprehensive federal legislation regulating mining activities. The 1891 law was relatively modest legislation that applied only to mines in U.S. territories, and, among other things, established minimum ventilation requirements at underground coal mines and prohibited operators from employing children under 12 years of age. But many would say that after a golden age of health and safety legislation there is now a major problem as legislation and regulation often does nothing to actually protect the public and employees, and indeed has led to the development of a compensation culture .

In the United Kingdom the primary legislation governing the enforcement of health and safety is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Section 1 of the Act sets out the preliminary purposes of the act. These are for (i) securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work and (ii) protecting others against risks to health and safety in connection with the activities of persons at work and (iii) for controlling and managing the use of dangerous substances and (iv) for controlling certain emissions into the atmosphere.


The European Union has instigated a series of Directives in the field of health and safety which must be brought into domestic legislation by all the member countries within agreed time limits. Recent Directives cover noise at work, the manual handling of loads, carcinogens and biological agents.

Health board

Health board might mean in the following countries a current or historical body concerned with health services and/or public health.

    Australia
    Canada
    Denmark - a National Board of Health
    England - a Board of Health (obsolete by 1894)
    Republic of Ireland- a Health Board
    New Zealand - a District Health Board
    Scotland - a Health Board
    South Africa
    Wales - a Health Board
 
Copyright © 2011 - The Medical Research - is proudly powered by Get A Blogger
Design By Blogger Community