mdf/custom wood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HJ0

Not unusual for me, because if they don't cut mdf it will not fit in my vechicle which means no sale for them.

OHS risk maybe, but I'm not paying approx 40% more to buy little pre cut managable mdf sizes.

Running a business is about taking risks in some form or another. When people purchase(are employed or run) anything there will always be some kind of risk involved before during and after.

---

Sorry but I disagree :mad:
Business is not about taking risks but managing those risks. Maybe your a sole trader and think that the only person's neck your normally risking is your own.

Managing risk means understanding the risk then applying a control whether its eliminating the risk ie don't use MDF or at the low end of the scale using PPE such as using a dust respirator.

Personally if I was in the management of Bunnies Lumber section I wouldn't give two hoots if you purchased a mingey piece of MDF somewhere else cause in the grand scheme of things that purchase is negligible. Obviously Management has failed in their responsibility to their staff to provide a safe system of work or an employee has failed to perform work in a safe manner in accordance with Safe Work Methods.

If your an employer and you take risks with your employees because you think risk is part of work life, then sooner or later the dice will roll against you. Can you bear telling the family of an injured or dead employee "hey that was a risk I expected him/her to take".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignum

The latest reserch from the UK staits their is no problem with MDF as the chemicals dissipate and lose any harmfull effect almost as soon as its cut.

---

Lignum
I suppose it might be different at the factory where the formaldehyde stuff is dissipating out as it comes out of the cooker thingys or in the warehouse ready to be shipped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markw

Sorry but I disagree :mad:
Business is not about taking risks but managing those risks. Maybe your a sole trader and think that the only person's neck your normally risking is your own.

Managing risk means understanding the risk then applying a control whether its eliminating the risk ie don't use MDF or at the low end of the scale using PPE such as using a dust respirator.

Personally if I was in the management of Bunnies Lumber section I wouldn't give two hoots if you purchased a mingey piece of MDF somewhere else cause in the grand scheme of things that purchase is negligible. Obviously Management has failed in their responsibility to their staff to provide a safe system of work or an employee has failed to perform work in a safe manner in accordance with Safe Work Methods.

If your an employer and you take risks with your employees because you think risk is part of work life, then sooner or later the dice will roll against you. Can you bear telling the family of an injured or dead employee "hey that was a risk I expected him/her to take".

---

......................................................................




Don't be sorry.

We can manage all the risks we like. But the fact remains they are still risks which need to be taken, In order to get through the working/business day.

Funny you talked about the manager , because The manager of the timber section is the guy who mostly cuts the mdf for me.

MINGEY? maybe if I was the only private customer in the stores area, who didn't have the means of carrying home 8x4 sheets of mdf in their vechicle.(But i know i'm not)

I would love a dollar for everytime some other customer has been in the store, waiting infront or behind me for mdf to be sized. So they can fit it in their cars.

Take away bunnings wood sales to non trades people and see how fast their risk management goes into overdrive. (DIY ww is big business lol)

Mingey little pieces of anything sold all add up to dollars and cents.

HJ0 Damn my wife makes great rockcakes... yummy:D

This thread has focused on the danger of inhaling dust from MDF.

There is little point on highlighting this danger as somehow being different from the danger of inhaling any foreign particle into ones lungs. The more I read and the longer I live, the more I conclude that particles of any substance are a danger to ones health if inhaled into the lungs.

Things like asbestos, tobacco, MDF dust, wood-dust (read http://tinyurl.com/2ab2f ), read the article in the current issue of THE TRITON WOODWORKER http://www.tritonwoodworkers.org.au/ (scroll down to Newsletter) and read the article entitled "Wood Dust - Don't be Complacent", page 14.

Woodworkers need to be very careful. If nothing else, wear a small face mask of the medical variety. If you spend hours blowing blood out of your nose and have hacking dry cough-fits following a session in your shed - your body is trying to tell you something. :eek:

slow down folks

government to take notice and legislate, common!

it is only when the accountants of these entities notice the cost of fixing it is less than the cost of the problem is when things change, governments do not care a rats #### for lives, even more so business

or am i just cynical :rolleyes:

Not cynical Looney, just an astute observer unafaid of reality!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markw

Lignum
I suppose it might be different at the factory where the formaldehyde stuff is dissipating out as it comes out of the cooker thingys or in the warehouse ready to be shipped.

---

Ive seen it being made in Perth and its controlled and sealed enclosures. And at the warehouse their would be no danger whatsoever.

Interesting though, when it leaves the manufacturer it is wrapped in plastic with the wording that "It may be harmfull to your health" clearly covering them in case of the worst case senario, but that is quickly taken of and disposed of when it gets to the warehouses for public sale.

But the UK report i read was aimed at the end user who is cutting it and the fact that their is no harmfull efects of the chemicals. But fine dust is still fine dust and its still not good to breath, so just use a mask.

DPB I remember watching a show years back, they had an expert walking through a newly built house with a meter.Obtaining VOC ratings from floor coverings/paint/furniture/new car(in the garage lol)/ etc etc.

Then he went outside the house and tested the air quality, I know where we all should be living and sleeping lol, and it's not in a house or car.

New car rating was a shocker, ie all them chemicals/plastics/glues/foam/etc leech our for at least 5 years, wether driving safely or not lol.






HJ0

But new cars smell so good.......

Bunnings has a strict policy of wearing appropriate PPE, ie. cartridge mask, safety specs & earmuffs when cutting panels to size.

Yeah, I know, it's probably only worn half the time (if that :rolleyes: ) but it's the policing, not the policy that is at fault there. Also the "she'll be right" attitude of many, you can lead a horse to water...

With regard to the fomaldehyde exposure, the MDF that is carried at Bunnings (and possibly all that is on sale in Oz anyway ? ) is Low Formaldehyde Emission (LFE), which I think is different to the stuff that was sold years ago when it first came out (& may be what Mark's BIL was subject to).


Cheers..............Sean, LFE :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuart_lees

But new cars smell so good.......

---

30 Years ago I was an apprentice mech and fitting out new vehicles with all the lights and racks and storage containers for the electrical workers (linesmen, specialist electricians etc). In the end I grew to hate that sickly sweet smell of a new vehicle and now I wouldn't have one. Its not the cost or depreciation, its that damned smell. SWMBO can't seem to understand it. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by looney

it is only when the accountants of these entities notice the cost of fixing it is less than the cost of the problem is when things change, governments do not care a rats #### for lives, even more so business

or am i just cynical :rolleyes:

---

Sometimes its the cost of the employee taking the risk.

There's the cost of immediate medical treatment, then on-going care which of course is the compensation part. Maybe $20M if the employee was pregnant and it cause TPI of the mother and this child. Oh but the insurance pays this? Yes this year then adds this amount to next years premium. Might of been cheaper if the contaminant had of killed both of them outright when you think of these costs.

Then there is the cost to train a new employee and the advertising to get a new employee and down time for the factory while he learns the local proceedures even if he was qualified.

Then there is WorkCovers investigation and your need for a solicitor to defend the indefencible. It was not a safe system of work, no if, no buts, no maybes. So now the Industrial Court has fined you tens of thousands for an unsafe work practice and you still have to fix the problems which caused it in the first place. How longs a piece of string for this cost?

So now the company is in receivership.

Would have been easier to avoid taking the risk by managing it.

Insurance companies own half the damn country, why you worried about their fiancial welfare so much.

Fines are a part of life, so is receivership.

But the wheels keep on turning, if not for one company then the one who takes it's place.

Don't you watch acurrent affair lol:D









HJ0 It's all so basic to me.Damn my wife makes great pizza's....Yummy:D

Tell that to ?Carter Holt Harvey? 30+ years ago when they were manufacturing the then next best thing - asbestos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HJ0

Insurance companies own half the damn country, why you worried about their fiancial welfare so much.

Fines are a part of life, so is receivership.

But the wheels keep on turning, if not for one company then the one who takes it's place.

Don't you watch acurrent affair lol:D

---

HJO
I cant see your side of this discussion as valid from either the employee or the employer perpective. Maybe I'm looking through the wrong glasses and missing something. Do you actually own or manage a business that employs staff or are just saying this to bait me.

Firstly I don't give a damned about insurance companies profitability, personally I think the're the scum of the earth but in most cases they are unfortunately necessary. The organisation I work for is sufficiently large enough to be self insured but this doesnt eliminate underwriters etc.

Next your views of fines and receivership don't make sense, not from a business point of view. My company has a budget for next years projects in excess of $400M and about $2B over the next five years. Our protective clothing (trousers, shirts, overalls, jackets etc) expenditure for a year is about $1M. If we were fined $100K as a result of negligence or stupidity then there would be serious changes in the management even though $100K is not a significant amount compared to turnover. But that $100K still has to come out of profits and all business needs to profit to continue.

Fines are not part of business. They are an avoidable overhead that directly affects the company profit margin. Most fines are scaled, 1st offence small, next one larger, following one larger again. All coming out of profit. Can you afford it? Maybe you dont have shareholders/stakeholders/business owners.

Business need to profit to continue to employ staff, but your view is receivership is the norm. What a load of crap. You don't start a business with expectations of ending up bankrupt.

Lastly I watch either ACA or TT every night and swap between the most interesting stories. Generally companies go toes up through gross mis-management or through the dealings of others such as refusal to pay for goods or services etc. Gross mis-management like fines is avoidable, normally just takes a bit of common sense.