How much “risk” do organisations accept at work?
This new Swedish study of scaffolders estimated a projected working-life risk of around 3.1 to 3.6% for a “very serious injury” (e.g. a fatal fall from height or fall resulting in at least 1 year sick leave).
Interestingly, and perhaps provocatively, the authors compare this estimate with occupational carcinogen risk limits.
They note that the Dutch Health Council’s prohibition benchmark for carcinogens is “four additional cases of cancer due to occupational exposure over a 40-year working life period per 1,000 cases from all causes”, equivalent to a lifetime risk of 0.4%.
In their words:
“The estimated risk of very serious injuries in Swedish scaffolders is today around ** ten times higher ** than a prohibition risk level for exposure to direct-acting carcinogens” (emphasis added).
I’m not sure what to make of the comparison… Is there a logical, scientific, or perhaps simply risk governance link between lifetime exposure risks and lifetime injury risks of fall from heights vs carcinogen risks?
But, it seemed unusual and interesting enough to share.
It seems to raise the point that if we routinely debate whether a chemical exposure risk is acceptable (and set limits), should we, or could we, apply similar thinking to SIF risks?
Ref: Järvholm, B., amp; Pettersson, H. (2026). Risk of very serious injuries in Swedish scaffolders-What is an acceptable risk?. Injury Epidemiology, 13(1), 59.
PS. Check out my YouTube: https://youtube.com/@safe_as_pod?si=V2dbdmW–WbnhzA9
Shout a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/benhutchinson
#sif #constructionsafety #safetyscience #workplacesafety
