NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy

Occupational and environmental exposures are treated as distinct entities for the purpose of public health protection. Yet workers and community members may experience the same exposures simultaneously or within a very narrow time frame. Agricultural chemicals applied by workers in the field drift into residential communities. Chemicals may be carried from a work site, with or without physical boundaries, into the home and delivered to household members. Meteorological conditions transport agricultural chemicals or stored ashes to residential communities during and after the work day. Occupational standards generally allow a higher level of exposure to workers than environmental standards allow for community exposures. For some chemicals, standards exist for only one exposure group, thus leaving the other exposed group without protection. The distinction between occupational and environmental exposures assumes the identification of specific human activities as work or non-work. However, not all human activity falls clearly into one specific category. The strict separation of occupational and environmental exposures therefore renders public health protection of all exposed people difficult to achieve. An in-depth discussion about the factors and assumptions that are used when occupational and environmental standards are separately applied to exposed populations is needed to enhance the public health of all people.

No body of literature exists related specifically to the occupational health of airport check-in workers. The problems encountered by airport check-in workers are typical of other service-sector occupations with similar work-related health hazards, particularly those characterized by a high level of demand with low worker control, performed predominantly by women. The knowledge gap could be narrowed by broadening the scope in both traditional occupational health and ergonomics studies to take into equal consideration jobs performed by women. In an attempt to reduce the knowledge gap specific to airport check-in workers, literature was reviewed on several other worker populations whose job characteristics include elements similar to airport check-in work: computer clerical workers, supermarket check-in workers, and airport baggage handlers. This cross-population review identified the major elements that have been studied in the comparison groups, compared with the factors examined in a study of check-in workers. The review demonstrates that jobs that may appear completely different from the outside, might, upon closer examination, have numerous common exposures from a variety of sources. Thus, knowledge about one job may be useful for another that has not been investigated. The literature review reveals that it would be useful to extend to airport check-in workers recommendations from studies of the three comparison populations.

Qualitative research is often opposed to quantitative research. But numbers can play an important role in illustrating analyses in qualitative research. Their persuasive, concrete nature can help ensure the success of a workplace intervention, especially in the North American context, where numbers are treated very seriously. We describe a method of work analysis and transformation developed at the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers in Paris, where the meaning of the numbers used is critical. We think that the numbers used in work analysis have a different meaning from that in a “pure” quantitative study, where they are submitted to statistical procedures for hypothesis testing. Using examples from recent studies carried out in Québec and Canada in collaboration with unions or joint health and safety committees, we show that counting can be part of qualitative analysis, enrich our portrait of organizational and physical aspects of the work process, and help indicate pathways for workplace improvement.

During the last several decades, Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) has become a widely used technique in public policy-making. This review examines CBA from perspectives of both advocates and critics; it looks at its theory and practice, its purported advantages and shortcomings in application. It also proposes several ways in which the process can be made more accountable.