As words go, they are what you define them to be in the context of your industry and workplace. . Not to be insulting, but also look and your dictionary, that is place OSHA starts and while they may streamline the definition for their purposes, they leave the definitions intent intact. Also, if OSHA does not write its own definition, it is relying the the accepted definition that is now in your dictionary.

Here are the definitions I use, and OSHA’s

Hazard: Any facility, location, equipment, tool, job, task, or action that presents a potential of serious injury or death to any employee. This is the OSHA view. Serious injuries are those that result in time loss (beyond the three day grace period) and/or hospitalization beyond an emergency room visit.

OSHA: A hazard is the potential for harm. In practical terms, a hazard often is associated with a condition or activity that, if left uncontrolled, can result in an injury or illness.

Risk: It is related to Hazard, it is the potential of harm or loss (generally economic) and its impact to the company or individual from a potential hazard.

OSHA: The term risk is usually associated with medical conditions or exposure and is therefore centered on the health impact to employees. It does not define risk.

Incident/accident: Same thing! Some executives prefer one or the other and have specific reasons why. Another word that will be thrown at you is "event", same thing too.

OSHA: OSHA does not define accident or incident, but if you rely on “Hazard” as a base for defining any accident, incident, event or near miss, you will have a better idea of what it means.

Near Hit: The accident, incident, or event that did not happen, but would have happened except for the luck of the draw. Many believe that these occur only because of bad employee behavior. Not true, they can be the result of individual action, established process or procedure, maintenance failure, and a few others.

OSHA: OSHA does not define the term.
4/27/2011 08:56:10 am

And in New Zealand we call safety management OSH! Good luck with the blog.

6/6/2011 04:00:59 pm

I really appreciate your post and you explain each and every point very well.Thanks for sharing this information.And I’ll love to read your next post too.
<a href=""title="NABH">NABH</a>

7/8/2011 08:48:35 pm

Thanks for brining this to light. I've noticed that it is better to get quicker changes rather than focusing in on a perfect solution. Much like like the "50% solution 100% implemented is better than a 100% solution that is 0% implemented." The key is to make sure there are mechanisms put in place to make sure the changes can be easily changed.
<a href="" title="iso 9000"><b>iso 9000</b></a>

9/9/2012 03:29:28 pm

kudos! A trustworthy blog, thanks for putting an effort to publish this information. very informative and does exactly what it sets out to do. thumbs up! :)

Joseph Aidan

10/1/2012 11:42:28 am

I am really impressed from this post! The person who created this post is a generous and knows how to keep the readers connected. Thanks for sharing this with us, i found it informative and interesting. Looking forward for more updates.

<a href="">progtech</a>

6/21/2016 08:07:29 am

Your information may be "dated". I would suggest that you include the section & revision level of the OSHA clause you are stating. For example, the Jan 2016 revision of 19CFR 1904.7 is where you can find the definitions of "injury", "first aid" and so on.

7/2/2017 08:58:28 pm

Thanks for sharing and looking ack


Leave a Reply.