Specialties: safety, psychology, electrical industry issues, health, and a few more.
Doing business for many years as Accurate and Intriguing Writing and Editing.
301-699-8833, 9 a.m. - 9 p.m.
Email me.
This page remains under construction.
If you don't find the information you need, and find it quickly, just get in touch by email or phone.
I have many ways to respond to an editor's question (sometimes implicit, sometimes stated), "How do I know you're qualified for my assignment?"
The links at the top of my writing/editing home page show how broadly my writing has ranged. This offers two benefits. First, if you're not trying to zero in on my experience writing about a particular topic area so much as in reviewing how much of a certain type of writing or editing I've accomplished, you can follow the links. You'll see how widely I've published, and how many editors have been happy to give me repeat assignments. Second, some of the work has drawn on my education and experience; I have backgrounds in widely disparate fields. A forthcoming link will lead to a list of my continuing education activities--primarily subscriptions to journals, trade magazines and newsletters.
This link offers more detail about my primary areas of focus.
My writing honors strongly suggest that I offer more than is required to get by.
My writing references section names current editors who will vouch for my reliability and professionalism. I have no qualms about what former editors will say, either.
My sample clips put my writing before you. If neither seems to offer a good match to your subject matter or your type of audience, simply request a clip that is a better match--you might even select one from the partial publications list, which begins below.
A large part of my writing has the intention of teaching as well as intriguing and entertaining my
audiences. I strive to be clear, to help people understand the world better,
and through this to help them maintain more power over their lives. It is very important
to me not to mislead even by omission. It is essential to respect sources as well as audiences,
by not misrepresenting the meaning of the information, even through shading.
At the same time, when appropriate I like to show my readers the person who is writing rather than to
come across like an automaton. If, given an appropriate context, I can amuse, so
much the better. I work at maintaining a clear idea of my readers' understanding,
because I want to be accessible, neither patronizing nor going way over people's
heads. The two lists below, giving my publications and my qualifications,
bear this out.
Every professional writer and editor has some competence as a generalist, and I am no exception. However, I have more interest and experience in writing about certain areas, and less interest in writing about others. My areas of greater interest include science and technology in general, and more specifically most aspects of the electrical industry; psychology; safety; health; driving; and nutrition. Areas of little interest include sports, personalities, and fashion. I have no knowledge of economics beyond that possessed by any concerned citizen. I have to backpedal on that last. First, behavioral economics certainly are an interest. I followed the work of Daniel Kahnemann long before he received the Nobel Prize. Second, while I have no grounding in financial theory, I edited a quarterly newsletter for an investment firm for several years. See the Outside Editing link.
I am happy to consider any assignment. Nonetheless, If you need a writer
in the Washington, D.C. area to cover a story in one of the areas I am not as familiar with, I can put you in contact with Steve
Ackerman, another broadly experienced writer and one whose interests complement mine. He may well be able to handle the assignment himself or, if not, probably can come up
with a colleague for the job.
"Modern marvel: Rise and shine" (a history of the alarm clock" The History Channel Magazine (January/February 2008)
"Representing All of America's Motorcyclists" XSB (in press)
"Optimizing Office Environments" Public Power (in press)
"When the Work Force Shrinks, So Does Safety" Public Power (in press)
"Redesigning a Utility" Public Power (in press)
"First Line of Defense" Public Power (in press)
"Quacks!" Public Power (in press)
"Does Your Responsibility Stop at the Meter?" Public Power (in press)
"Getting Electrics on the Road" Public Power (in press)
"Uncle Sam Wants You -- to Sell Him Power" Public Power (in press)
"PTSD" Public Power (in press)
"Running the Numbers on Renewable Energy" Public Power (in press)
"Death by Motor Vehicle" Public Power (in press)
"Plugging Safety" Public Power (in press)
"Hackers!" Public Power (in press)
"Saws into Plowshares" The History Channel Magazine (in press)
"The Risk of Incompetent Inspection" Electrical Contractor, (in press)
"Residential Design-Build" Electrical Contractor, (April 2005)
"Power Problems Come Home" Electrical Contractor, (April 2004)
"Counterfeit Tools" Fine Homebuilding, March 2004
"Backfire!"IAEI News, January 2004
"Dangerous Fakes" Electrical Contractor, September 2003
"An Unrecognized Threat to your Eyes" Electrical Contractor, May 2003
"The Microchip comes Home to Play" The History Channel Magazine (February 2003)
"New Rules for Old Wiring" Electrical Contractor January 2003
"Killing Ourselves Bit by Bit" Public Power (May-June 2002)
"Safety Training Isn't a One-Time Deal" Safedriver (January 2000)
"Shed Some Light on Your Workplace" Today's Supervisor (April 1999)
"In the Blink of an Eye" Public Power, 3-4/1999
"Study Finds Link Between Symptoms and Poor Office Conditions" HR Report, Winter 1999: Vol. 15 No.1
"Science and Your Hearing . . . Loss" Metalworking Equipment News, 2/1999 sample - metalworkers' hearing
"What's Tricky About Old Wiring" Fine Homebuilding, 1/1999
"Solving Problems in Old Split-bus Panels" Electrical Contractor, 11/1998
"Emissions" Today's Supervisor, 11/1998
"Whom will noise hurt worst? Look into their eyes." UPI, 11/1998
"Standardizing Standards" EC&EN, 9/1998
"Smoothing Things Over: Occupational Violence" Public Power, 9-10/1998
"Safety Training on a Low Budget" Public Power, 9-10/1998
"Where the Wild Things Are" Public Power, 9-10/1998
"In a Bad Hole" Public Power, 7-8/1998
"Loud Noises SHOULD Hurt" Public Power, 7-8/1998
"A Breath of Fresher Air" Public Power, 5-6/1998
"Holding On to Valuable Employees Goes Beyond Wages" Public Power, 5-6/1998
"Can Solar Technology find a Niche in the Electric Utility Industry?" Public Power, 5-6/1998
"Riding Impaired: Boozing is just the tip of the icecube" Motorcycle Consumer News, 4/1998
"Superconductors: Overcoming Resistance" Public Power, 3-4/1998
"Credo for an Electrical Inspector" Public Power, 3-4/1998
"The Surgeon General Says, 'Shape up!'" Rider, 1/1998
"Spreading Safety from the Podium" IAEI News, 1-2/1998
"Hanging Safety on the Wall" Public Power, 9-10/1997
"Worker Fitness and Health" Public Power, 7-8/1997
"Warnings that Work" Public Power, 7-8/1997
"Updating the NEC" Public Power, 5-6/1997
"Pumping up Your Attitude" Psychology Today 5-6/1997
"Inspect Us, Please." Public Power, 3-4/1997
"Questions About Magnetism and Health" Public Power, 3-4/1997
"Of Trees, Wires, and Children" Public Power, 1-2/1997
"Delegating Responsibility -- Who's Right for What Job?" IEC Quarterly, first quarter 1997
"But You Told Me . . . "IEC Quarterly, fourth quarter 1996
"OSHA Watch" Public Power, 11-12/1996
"Saying No to Harassment" Public Power, 11-12/1996
"Tips for Making Shift" Public Power11-12/1996
"Why Things go Bump in the Night" Public Power, 9-10/1996
"When the Work Force Shrinks, So Does Safety" Public Power, 9-10/1996
"A National Standard for Lineworkers" Public Power, 7-8/1996
"Fearless Fat" Military Grocer, 7/1996
"After the Accident" Motorcycle Consumer News, 6/1996
"Not in my Backyard -- Put it on my Roof!" Public Power, 5-6/1996
"Lifting Controversy to New Heights?" Public Power, 5-6/1996
"Making Jewelry in Comfort" Lapidary Journal, 3/1996
"Fit to Ride, Part II: Motorcyclists' Bodies" Motorcycle Consumer News 12/1994
"Fit to Ride, Part I: Motorcycling Ergonomics" Motorcycle Consumer News 11/94
"Melted Chocolate and Other Heartaches" CEE News 10/1994
"Cooperation Around the World", IEC Quarterly, fourth quarter 1993
"Architecture Update" IVHS America, III (6), 6/1993
"Accidents Will Happen" CEE News, 1/1993
"Americans with Disabilities" CEE News, 8/1992
"Avoiding the Pain of Cumulative Trauma" CEE News, 7/1992
"Keeping the Customer Satisfied" Military Grocer, 6/1992
"Currents of Concern" CEE News, 5/1992
"A Simcha to Celebrate" I-95 Shuk, 3/1992
"Feeling the Heat CEE News, 2/1992
"Beyond the Old Tool Pouch" CEE News, 12/1991
"Dealing with Officialdom" CEE News, 11/1991
"Developing Industry Standards" CEE News, 10/1991
"Sick buildings, stress ..." The Washington Times, 3/1991
"Wiring Costa Rica: from Third World to NEC," IAEI News, 5-6/1990
"Electrical Safety Begins in the Home" Focus on the Family, 3/1990
"Label your Lines," The Washington Post, 8/1989
"Ceiling Fan Fare," The Washington Post, 9/1989
"When the lights go out" Fort Lauderdale News-Sun/Sentinel, 8/1989
"Blackout!" The Washington Post, 6/1989
"On Massage," Perceptions, Winter 1989
"The Class Job," EC&M, 1/1989
"A History of Wiring," Electrical Construction Technology, 12/1988
"The Old, Bold, Electrician," Electrical Contractor," 8/1988
"Plug in to Safety," Practical Homeowner, 5/1988
"Remodeling Around Electrical Systems" New England Builder, 9/1987
"Private Safety Inspections," Electrical Contractor, 6/1987
"Hints on Wiring Electronic Cash Registers," EC&M, 5/1986
I initiated five columns. For 2½ years, starting in 1989, I was
Residential columnist for Electrical Contractor. In 1992, I started
an International column for Utility Fleet Management. From February
1994 to March 1997, when they took all writing in-house, I was Safety Editor.
I rejoined Electrical Contractor as Residential columnist in 1999,
and have continued there to this date. In the context of this outlet, over the years, I have received lots and lots of positive feedback from readers. In mid-2005, I started writing a column for RexelUSA.com.
It explained applications of social science for members of the electrical industry.
Rexel chose to fold the publication, but its archives remain available. They can be found at
Next, I contributed a bimonthly column on safety to the online newsletter of another electrical distributor, Capital Lighting, under the name,
"Safewatch."
. These columns started in August 2006, and continued until that publisher decided to cease investing in new issues of their newsletter.
UTILITY FLEET MANAGEMENT, Safety:
"Vehicles as Weapons" (Road rage); "Accident Prevention"; "The Weight of
Responsibility" (Legal and emotional consequences for managers arising from
worker injuries); "An Urban Legend" (Dispelling a nasty rumor); "Sick, Slick,
or Just Fed Up?"(litigation response syndrome); "Feds in your Corner' (safety
recalls); "Coming up with Figures"- "Back to Backs" - "Unreasonable Limits?"
(all on OSHA's lifting guidelines); "The Effects of Downsizing"; "Avoiding
Workplace Violence"; "Workplace Violence, Part 2"; "They've Got a Little
List" (Listed products); "Out of the Mouths of Babes -- and Bureaucrats"
(Visual attention); The Eyes Have It (Visual deterioration and driving
safety); "A Bracing Experience"(the controversy over lumbar supports);
"Accident! -- Utility Crews and 911"; "Snips and Tips: Antilock brakes, safer
garages, ..."; "Risky Business"(risk-taking behavior); "Dopey, Sleepy,
Grumpy, and the Docs"(sleep deprivation); "Mixed-up Crews"(gender
discrimination); "Impact Tools for Fleet Managers"((speaking up about
standards); "Gabriel, Blow Your Horn -- But Don't Rely on it" (vehicle
horns); "RE: Liability" (fiduciary responsibility);"Looking for Trouble";
"That Guy's Been Out in the Sun Too Long" (sun protection); "No Easy Answer"
(employee mental health); "Beware of Backup Generators"
UTILITY FLEET MANAGEMENT, International
perspectives:
"Just Charge It" (Japanese electric cars); "Northernmost Exposure"
(Finnish utilities) "Utilities Under Fire in Nicaragua";"Can the Power
Company help Correct Power Inequities?"(South Africa); "The Ivory Coast:
Making do with Mopeds"; "The Land of the Lamborghini"; "A New Germany with
New Problems"; "French Birds" (Helicopters)
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, Residential
"That Listless Feeling" (Nationally Recognized Testing); "Call Before You Dig"; "Accessibility: a
Twofold issue"; "Trust, Part 1: The Problem"; "Trust, Part 2: Communication";
"Facing Employee Substance Abuse"; "The Quest for Consistency" (in rule
enforcement); "To Retorque or not to Retorque?"; "Inspectors and Test
Torques"; "Permits and the Social Contract"; "Alarming Information"; "The
Gray Area of Oral Law"; "Problems with Side Jobs"; "Material Questions"; "The
High Price of Jackleg Work"; "Don't Neglect Supervision"; "Smart Decisions";
"Neon: Part 1: the Problems"; "Neon: Part 2: Responsibility" "Neon: Part 3:
Leadership"; "Replacing Old Wiring"; "Don't be the 'Messenger who gets
Shot'"; "More 'Groundless' Worries; Home Gensets? Really!"; "Voltage Drop:
What do Measurements Really Indicate?"; "Special Considerations Govern
Shallow Recessed Lights"; "Security Lighting Made Simple"; "Protecting
Homeowners from what They Don't Know"; "How Reasonable is the NEC on Voltage
Drop?"; Choosing Sides"; "Male Electrician, Female Customer"; "Feeding a
Fountain"; "A Rigid Approach to Underground Wiring"; "Why Hire an Expert and
Then Ignore Him?"; "Consulting to Consultants." "Preserve Safety Despite
Lenient Inspectors"; "When Voltage Drop Warns of
Hidden Hazards"; Residential Remodeling Referral Roll-outs";"Speculators";
"Needed! AFCIs"; "Too Much Choice"; "Costly Rescue"; "Just Say, 'No, Thank
You'"; "When the NEC is Open to Interpretation"; "Protection, Not Panaceas";
"Water and Electricity"; "Those Home Fires"; "None of Us is
Getting Any Younger"; "Disco Lights"; "Automating Success";
"Bootlegs"; "The Cheapest Safe Fix"; "How Little is Enough"; "Real-World Consults";
"Is the Customer Always Right?"; "The Economics of Good Care"; "Incomplete Repair, a Tricky Choice"; "Foot-in-Mouth Disease";
"Feeling Apologetic"; "Due Diligence"; "Considerate Workmanship"; "Manufacturer’s Instructions: Not Good Enough"; "Peri-Purchase Inspections";
"Bugged by a Bugeye"; "Automating Success?"; "Jobsite Inappropriateness: Smoking and Drinking and Carrying On"; "What Handymen Don’t Realize";
"How Risky Is It?"; "Protecting Homeowners from What They Don't Know"; "Nuisance, Noise, and Hazard"; and "Some Like it Safer."
First book: Old Electrical Wiring, McGraw-Hill, April 1998. Currently out of print, after two printings, and much sought-after. Two publishers have offered me contracts to prepare a new edition. You can view reviews of the book below, just after my writing references.
My second McGraw-Hill book, a steady seller first available
December 22, 2000, covers related material.Your Old Wiring is
targeted at non-electricians, including readers who may be novices at dealing
with electrical systems. Of necessity, it has a different focus than the
first book, and complements rather than duplicates its material. The Edward R. Hamilton web
site speaks of it as well-illustrated, and Redwood Kardon, www.codecheck.com, an electrical safety
instructor and author of several well-known inspection checklists, speaks
highly of it.
A third book, Behind the Code, co-authored with the late Creighton Schwan, will go to press either in late 2009 or in 2010.
This returns you to the list of links."Another Vision of the Year 2020": Pulphouse.,(magazine) August 1992
"Poor Devil". In Veritales #1: Ring of Truth.(anthology)Fall Creek Press.
"Harvest". In Veritales #2: Note of Hope. (anthology)Fall Creek
Press.
"Fuse Blews," IAEI News, September/ October 1991
"A Pain to Dr. Rolf," GSI News, Spring 1991.
"To a Trackball," Calliope, Honorable Mention, 1995 contest.
Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.: press release.
International Associaton of Electrical Inspectors, George Washington Chapter: publicity mailings and intra- and
inter-organizational relations, 1993-present.
SAFE (Safety Awareness For Electricity) -- extensively validated.
The JoHari Window Test (personality) -- validated, published
Over the past 25+ years, I have edited and published more than 250 issues
of The Flexible Conduit,
an 8-page monthly international, fraternal trade publication.
For several years, till the 2008 financial crisis, I edited a quarterly customer newsletter published by a financial firm.
"Inspect us, please" on NECA home page, WWW.NECANET.ORG, June 1997
(reprinted from Public Power);
"Illegal Wiring" on the tool-users' web site, WWW.SLOOT.ORG, July, 2000
Finally--although I am not a web developer--in addition to my own sites, I also have designed, created and continue to update the content of the site of the George Washington Chapter, International Assocation of Electrical Inspectors.
This returns you to the list of links.The Journal of Social Psychology
Third Force Psychology; and
The Fight Master
Dr. John Heil, "Lessons Learned" White Paper on campus violence.
Intrepid Capital Corporation (noted under newsletters).
Rodale Press (book chapters).
Creative Homeowner Press (book and pamphlet editing).
Park Publishing (book evaluation).
McGraw-Hill (proposal evaluation).
The Psychology of Sport Medicine (outside reader).
NAHB Press (proposal evaluation and developmental editing).
Mike Holt Enterprises, Inc. (Fact-checking, light editing, integration of readers' critiques).
Although I am neither a professional nor a semi-professional photographer, I have used photographs to document and illustrate important observations for more than a decade. This has resulted in sales and publication.
I sold FNASR for ten photographs to EC&M magazine, published on their web site during 2000.
I shot more than 250 photographs that serve as illustrations for my second book, Your Old Wiring
Finally, I sold EC&EN Magazine a high-quality digital
photograph as part of a trial feature I developed, called "Code Blue."
"The Endless Web" The Guild, 3(2), April-June 1997
"Subsidy, thy name is vanity" Calliope, September-October 1996
"Smart house wiring" CEE News, October, 1992.
"The sophisticated body" Capital M, July, 1992.
CO-AUTHORSHIP AND
GHOSTWRITING:
"UL in for Big Change? NRTL's will Decide" by Joe O'Neil, Executive Director, American Council of Independent Laboratories. IEC Quarterly, fourth quarter 1996
"Sports Psychology & the Physical Therapist: Part I, Mental Practice" by Dr. John Heil (and), Physical Therapy Forum 6/1/94; Part II, Rehabilitation." 6/15/94
Practical Electrical Wiring by Richter and Schwan. Originally
contracted to take over authorship from 1999 (its 60th year of publication)
forward. A challenge to McGraw-Hill's copyright killed the project.
Behind the Code
Noted under Books.
"A Code Day in April." IEC Quarterly, April 1996
"The Code -- and the Job." IAEI News, March-April 1988
Standard-development writer, October 2000 to early 2002, prepared the first draft of a document for adoption by the American National Standards Institute, "NEIS 302," through the National Electrical Contractors Association
Committee writer, February 2001, on TIP 9 Revision: Substance Abuse Treatment for Persons With Co-Occurring Disorders,for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment [CSAT] via CDM, Inc.
Grant review committee writer, September 1996, for U.S. Army Medical Material and Research Command, through United Information Systems (breast cancer).
Grant review writer, November 1995, for U.S. Army Medical Material and Research Command, through United Information Systems
Backup grant review writer, July 1995, for SAMHSA through R.O.W. Sciences, Rockville, MD.
Backup grant review writer, July 1994, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Rockville, MD.
Grant review writer, National Institutes, Spring 1993, United Information
Systems., Bethesda, MD.
"Most Valued Person" award from the American Motorcyclist Association for a safety column in UFM.
"Most-Read Feature" rating by readers of UFM; for my Safety column.
"Maryland Best," 1991 World's Worst Poetry contest.
My editor at IAEI News is Kathryn Ingley, 972-235-3855.
My editor at Electrical Contractor is Andrea Klee, 301-215-4516.
My editor for Standard development was Brooke Stauffer; unfortunately, he died in a small plane crash. He will be missed by many.
This returns you to the list of links.Reviews of Old Electrical Wiring: Maintenance and Retrofit
Electrical Contracting and Engineering News: ". . .an essential guide . . ."
CEE News: ". . . a thorough, sometime humorous, guide . . . Ample photographs, charts, and appendices round out the text. . ."
The Independent Writer: ". . . important information for people who live or work in older buildings . . ."
Electrical Contractor: " . . . a valuable reference work. . .keep the book handy. . . ."
Electrical Construction and Maintenance: ". . . practical . . .valuable resource."
Fine Homebuilding: ". . . a necessary addition to any electrician's library."
Electrical Books: ". . . detailed and valuable resource."
Contractors' Code Letter: ". . . clear guidance. . ."
For permission to reprint any sample feature, please contact
http://www.copyright.com/UseAccount/IconJr/prodchoice.html
Science and Your Hearing . . . LOSS
"Some 3400 members of UAW Local 659 struck a GM metal Stamping Plant June
5, charging that the company had reneged on promises to invest in updating
the facility and deteriorating conditions were hazardous to their health."
Peter Rachleff of the Twin Cities local wrote in "Workday World," which
appeared in American Writer, Fall 1998.
The story goes that it's awfully hard to insult a tin-knocker, because he
probably can't hear the insult. It's not much of a joke. The metal-working
trades, and sheet-metal workers in particular, are the "poster children" of
audiologists. Sad to say, hearing damage is a historic tradition in the
industry; it's one that deserves to be eradicated.
One factor sustaining the association of deafness with the metal
industries is the "not me" syndrome. Another, equal in deadliness but
opposite, is the idea, "you can fight it but you can't win." Both come from
the fact that hearing loss creeps up on people -- especially when they don't
obtain regular, accurate testing. It's like smoking a pack of cigs, and
coughing from the irritation. The smoker generally feels recovered the next
day, and the incremental reduction in lung capacity is not going to be
evident without exertion. The increased chance of emphysema and heart disease
other problems is pretty abstract.
Harvard's Dr. Stephen Jay Gould is the incoming president of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. At their September 18, 1998
Founder's Day lecture, he talked about how bad people are at some important
thinking tasks. One part of our make-up that has real consequences in terms
of our work safety practices is that we evolved as good story-tellers,
pattern-inventers. That fact means we have two foibles. We're bad at figuring
probabilities; and we're lousy at finding actual, out-in-the-world patterns,
and therefore at projecting and predicting the future. "If I use gasoline to
clean this greasy tool, will it have any effect on my lungs? Is the chance
that it will cause an explosion or fire 1 in 50 or 1 in 50,000?" Sure, very
broad patterns are predictable. For example, everyone reading this eventually
is going to die. The details, though, the when and how, are "in the realm of
the contingent" -- and we don't have a handle on all the contingencies, the
chance factors, involved.
There certainly are plenty of risk factors that cluster around
metal-working occupations. For instance, Primary metals, SIC Code 3300, and
Fabricated metal products, SIC 3400, are two industries picked out by OSHA as
"most likely to have hand abrasion/laceration injuries," requiring hand
protection under 29 CFR 1910.138.
Getting back to noise, experts at NIOSH and elsewhere have identified
levels of noise that will harm most people's hearing. (An emerging consensus
suggests that current OSHA-approved levels are too generous to fully protect
hearing.)They also have identified means of protecting workers from such
noise, even when the nature of their work means they have to be around it.
What scientists can do, meanwhile, is work towards getting a better handle
on those apparent chance factors. They include differences in individual
sensitivity.
What kind of individual factors may be involved in predicting
susceptibility? According to recent scientific research, race, ear canal size
and shape, and even eye color may be of value in predicting susceptibility to
all hearing loss -- from age as well as from noise. Eye color may also be
correlated with hearing loss due to chemical exposure. Elliott Berger, a
senior audiology researcher for the AEARO Corporation, suggests that
age-related hearing loss may in fact be a subtle, gradual response to noise
rather than totally the touch of time.
Humans -- and Friends -- Who Inherit High Risk for Hearing Loss.The notion of inherited vulnerability to noise may be less startling when you consider related conditions. There are several congenital syndromes resulting in deafness, including "Marshall & Stickler syndrome," which includes hearing loss, myopia, cataract, and saddle nose; Waardenburg syndrome which includes partial albinism -- commonly a white forelock -- and displacement of the inner corners of the eyes; and Usher syndrome which includes retinitis pigmentosa. Similarly, there is an autosomal gene in cats that results in white fur, blue eyes, and deafness. Similar conditions manifesting in the first week of life affect some dogs, including Boston Terriers, Great Danes, Boxers, English Setters, and Dalmatians, according to the Merck Veterinary Manual. Guinea pigs and rabbits show pigmentation-related patterns of differential noise susceptibility similar to those found in humans.]
Not all studies have shown the same significant results when looking at
risk factors. One reason could be that different types of the coloring agent
melanin (pheomelanin and eumelanin), may be important separately. The ratio
of the two chemicals is important elsewhere as well: it can predict sun
sensitivity and cancer risk.
Larry and Julia Royster, two of the scientists who have been pursuing some
of the research on eye color and noise susceptibility, certainly are not
"advocating differential protection of people based on physical
characteristics. We are both deeply committed to excellence in hearing
conservation to protect all employees," Julia Royster told us. Still, their
research presented in mid-October indicates, "Persons with dark skin AND
light eyes from a population of occupationally noise-exposed workers showed
more hearing loss (whether it resulted from noise or from other causes) than
persons with dark skin and dark eyes."
Shaking out what matters to workplace safety, a trend is evident. A
blue-eyed, light-skinned Caucasian male would be most vulnerable to excessive
noise; a brown-eyed, dark-skinned, African American female the least. This
does not mean your dusky stamping machine operator can dispense with her
hearing protection. Taking to heart what Dr. Royster told us, the answer lies
in three areas: engineering noise control; personal protective equipment; and
employee education and monitoring.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration might seem to have very little
to do with metalworkers. Not so: many of their concerns are as much yours. As
part of its ongoing rule-making activities related to occupational noise,
MSHA determined that ". . . engineering/administration controls are feasible.
The Agency has concluded that . . . the metal and non-metal industry as a
whole, can meet this requirement at a PEL set at an 8-hour Time-Weighted
Average of 90 dBA." for 99.4% of workers, based on a 1993 study.
A 1998 reports warns, "[the] present EPA Noise Reduction Rating scheme
over-estimates the amount of protection really available to the average
wearer by as little as 40% and by as much as 2000%. . . Management relies
upon hearing protection to the extent of assuming that if hearing protectors
are used, there is no noise problem. . . the hearing conservation program
becomes a hearing loss documentation program."
What does all this suggest? The latest scientific findings that try to
tease out the biological mechanisms associated with hearing loss are
fascinating, but they don't take us very far yet. The bottom line is giving
risk management or loss prevention or safety or industrial hygiene
departments money and authority to prioritize hearing protection up there
with eye prevention, even though hearing loss tends to be more insidious.
Safety professionals already know what to do.
Lee Hager, editor of The Noise Monitor, agreed: ". . .new factories have
demonstrated some success in significantly reducing noise levels through a
combination of transfer press enclosure technology, part control, and control
of compressed air, but attention must be paid at the design, equipment
acquisition, and layout stages to be truly effective, and older plants need
to pay special attention to their workers to make sure they retain "auditory
functionality". An article by Lindsay Brooke in the November 1997 issue of
Automotive Industries reflects a case study from a Walker plant in Indiana, I
think, that reflects a lot of the good basic engineering required to make a
quiet stamping plant work."
The working draft of the National Occupational Research Agenda says it
very well: "We all have the right to not sacrifice our hearing for a job. We
all have to right to expect good hearing from cradle to grave. We just don't
know it yet."
-END-
(c) 1997 by David E. Shapiro
"The streets are safe in Philadelphia, it's only the people who make them unsafe."
Frank Rizzo, ex-police chief and mayor of Philadelphia
Based on that bit of fatuity, the clear answer to driving dangers is to
remove the people (as in, "If you don't like the way I'm driving, stay off
the sidewalk").
More realistically, we all want to keep the road clear of people who can't
drive safely -- including ourselves, when we're in no condition to drive.
That's why you're supposed to stay off the highway if you don't have a valid
license (unless you have DPL (diplomat) tags), and that's why they warn
against drinking and driving. Unfortunately, to warn only against drinking
and driving is not nearly enough.
Have you ever walked the line? I have. No, I've never been pulled over by
the police and asked to walk a straight line; but then I've never been pulled
over and asked to puff some halitosis into a breath testing device either.
But I have been sleepy enough, or worn out enough, or even wiped out
enough by hayfever back when I suffered from it that bad, that before taking
to the road I did a rough check on myself by walking a line to see how my
balance, coordination, and concentration were holding up. That's what I think
of as impairment testing. (Note that safety experts, like medical school
professors, say, "You can't self-administer our tests.")
Sobriety is necessary but not sufficient for safe driving. Face it:
alcohol is a major cause of highway deaths, so looking for alcohol impairment
is only reasonable. In fact, when police departments follow the guidelines of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), it is very much their
prime suspect. Only when initial observations suggesting impairment are not
supported by subsequent breath test findings, said NHTSA sources, do they
look for evidence of impairment by other recreational -- or therapeutic --
drugs.
To stop and test someone, the police need to have a probable cause to
suspect impairment. That means something behavioral, such as wandering out of
your lane, as opposed to something actuarial or prejudicial such as, "Nine
out of ten drivers leaving that biker bar at closing time are going to be
half in the bag."
Note that I said, "To stop and test someone." The authorities I spoke to
consider it just fine to set up a roadblock, and simply stop everyone (so
long as it is everyone, as opposed to just those nasty motorcyclists leaving
Spartanburg). At a sobriety checkpoint, each jurisdiction has different laws
that determine what questions can be asked to help in establishing probable
cause to suspect impairment -- and test. Then if one of those people they
stop behaves in such a way as to suggest impairment (C'mon, she wouldn't
address an officer of the law as 'Mo'fo' if she was sober, now would she?"),
why, that calls for a little further investigation.
Now we get to walking the line. Not closing your eyes, spreading your arms
as though you were going to make snow angels, and thumbing your nose with
alternate hands. Not even walking along a crack in the pavement, or balancing
on a curb, as I do in self-test when I'm tired and don't have time for a
little Tai Chi.
Out of all the possible goofy behaviors that have been used to check how
well people can navigate, a battery of three tests was validated for NHTSA at
the Southern California Research Institute in the 1970s. They are called the
Standardized Field Sobriety Test, or SFST. The test protocols are uniform,
provided by NHTSA and the IACP. The states, not NHTSA or the IACP, provide
the training and any certification.
This may one reason, we could speculate, that the results of the SFST hold
up better in some states, and are more likely to be thrown out of court in
others. Any psychometrician (tests-and-measurements person) will tell you
that validating a test battery as originally developed does not take us very
far. Tests are only as good as their administration and interpretation.
Initial validation does not justify the assumption that trainers working for
different states turn out uniformed personnel making uniform assessments.
Still, the SFST may offer the fairest evaluation a driver will get when
stopped by a patrol car.
This doesn't mean anyone has to take the SFST, or any other test. For
instance, sports figure Rod Strickland of the Washington Wizards was arrested
in Washington, D.C. early Wednesday morning, September 3, 1997, and charged
with DUI and disorderly conduct. He was asked to produce identification, and
refused, said the police; he was asked to take a Breathalyzer test, said the
Washington Post, and refused that. Because he refused the latter, the police
had no Blood Alcohol reading and he could not be charged with DWI under D.C.
law.
In Maryland, if the police decide a driver shows evidence of DUI, they
also cannot force a breath, urine, behavioral, or blood test. They can,
however, confiscate a license, and as a purely administrative matter suspend
it -- 120 days for a first offense, a full year for a subsequent offense.
This is in addition to charging the driver with DWI, a charge they can
sometimes make stick based on observations of the driving and appearance, and
on the odor of alcohol.
Most commonly, though, a driver will cooperate with the roadside test.
Here's the SFST, in most of if not all its glory:
1) "Walk and Turn"
The police person describes and demonstrates the following process.
"Take 9 steps, heel to toe, on an imaginary line, take a turn in the
manner I describe and show you, and then take another 9 steps along the same
line."
Then it's your turn to walk the walk.
2) "One leg stand"
The police person describes and demonstrates this process.
"Stand on one leg, hands to the sides, one foot up about 6"; look at the
raised foot, and count out loud in the following manner."
Then it's your turn. (You don't really need those crutches, do you?)
3) "Horizontal gaze nystagmus"
The police person holds something about 10-12" from your face, and asks
you to track it with your eyes. He or she looks for clues in the moves of
your baby blues.
In some states, the police also use a breath-analyzer such as the
digital-readout "Alcosensor (R)." In most of the country, though, the results
of field instruments are not considered good legal evidence.
What's next? well, it is called the Standard Field Sobriety Test. So if a
driver fails any portion of it, he or she earns a trip to the police station
or barracks and exhalation into the official, stationary version of a breath
analyzer: a Breathalyzer (R), Toximeter (R) or an Intoximeter 3000(R), which
will yield an evidentiary printout of Blood Alcohol Content. The forerunner
of these instruments was developed in the 1930s, and the station-house
versions are considered quite reliable. Incidentally, especially with
sobriety checkpoints, that stationary, evidentiary, breath analyzer may be as
near as a police van.
What if the quantitative output of the instrument does not show a Blood
Alcohol Level (BAC) consonant with the more-qualitative SFST? The immediate
presumption in many states is not that the police were mistaken, not that the
driver was under the weather or distracted, but that the he or she is under
the influence of some drug other than alcohol! Of course, it helps when the
police smell the hemp, see the telltale single-edged razor, or hear the
driver talking the drug trash talk; or if they can look into saucer-like or
pinpointed pupils as she talks about how she's perfectly sober.
So something doesn't match up. Following the approved protocol, the
arresting officer then calls in an officially qualified Drug Recognition
Expert (DRE), unless he or she has personally completed that additional
training. In Maryland, for instance, only 80 police have completed the
training statewide. Therefore, it may be an hour after a driver arrives at
the station before a DRE is available. That's way long enough for cocaine --
but not a related drug such as methamphetamine or dexamphetamine - to work
its way out of a driver's system. The arresting officer may still charge the
driver with drug impairment, but may not have a DRE's evidence for backup.
The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DECP), administered by
that expert at the station, consists of twelve steps, taking maybe
three-quarters of an hour. (with apologies to Alcoholics Anonymous, I do hope
that number is a coincidence.)The test includes looking at the motorist's
pupil size under four different lighting conditions: normal room light,
near-total darkness, indirect light, and with a penlight aimed right into the
eye; checking their blood pressure, recording their temperature (you want to
stick that thing where??)and, to allow for the stress they might be
experiencing from all this, taking their pulse at three different times. They
claim that the testing is done in a non-threatening environment, so that if a
driver does NOT calm down it shows the influence of drug abuse. I wonder
about that, though Sergeant Tower of the Maryland State Police assures us
that he is convinced it is quite the case.
This array of evaluations is considered to provide reliable indicators of
drug impairment, and to pinpoint to which of seven categories the drug
belongs. For instance, some categories of drugs increase nystagmus (the
normal involuntary eye movement as the driver's eye tracks a vertically-held
penlight), which is monitored in both the SFST and the DECP; others do not
affect it.
As the last of the series of tests, the police take a blood or urine
sample, and send it off to the lab. This twelfth step doesn't determine
whether someone is charged, but it may provide evidence later used to
substantiate the charges. (Of course, there are many drugs that do not show
up on a blood test or urinalysis.)
Each state, incidentally, decides whether to use the tests in the SFST
(and perhaps the DECP) as intended, to use only some of them, or to augment
them with different measures. Less information has been provided on the
validation of the DECP than of the SFST, but to qualify as a Drug Recognition
Expert, one does have to personally do at least six evaluations, detecting at
least three different drug categories, with at least 75% laboratory
confirmation. It seems highly likely, though, said my NHTSA source, that once
you have shown what the police consider reasonable cause for suspicion of
impairment, and failed some part of the SFST, you've got yourself a ticket.
What you're doing subsequently is determining what the ticket will say.
There's something missing in all this testing. As Linda Lewis of the
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators pointed out before I could even
ask her, "impairment" is used to refer to two types of condition. One is
"driving under the influence"; the other is, well, everything else that can
hamper driving. We can include distractions, the inexperience of youth, the
slowing of age, limits to hearing and vision, illness, fatigue, anxiety,
depression, temper, even deep thought. Impairment related to the
more-permanent characteristics such as age and sensory deficit will have to
be the subject of another article. Meanwhile, let's finish up with the what
the police do and move on to taking responsibility for ourselves.
The problem is that when you hire scientists to come up with tests, they
have to validate the tests against some criterion. In the 1970s, for the
SFST, the criterion was inebriation. For the DECP, it was other drugs that
can affect driving -- and that doesn't even include drugs such as java,
unless you use it "in extremely high doses," in the not-very-specific
language of a NHTSA Highway Safety Specialist. I asked her (the "camera-shy"
source of much of the testing information reported above), about other types
of impairment. She said, "As far as impairment due to lack of sleep or
exhaustion, I'm not aware that anything has been done on those."
(Incidentally, Sergeant Tower was a whole lot more helpful in that regard.
When we talked about Central Nervous System stimulants, he said that to be
picked up for that category of impairment by a DRE you have to take in the
equivalent of 35-40 cups of coffee or caffeine pills -- and you are by-golly
impaired. And yes, some people do just that, he added.)
Our NHTSA specialist didn't mean that the federal government closes its
eyes to the importance of shuteye. The Department of Transportation does
study the effects of fatigue; it simply has no tests for that kind of
impairment, nor any immediate prospects of developing them. Carnegie-Mellon,
under contract to perform very preliminary research for DOT, has some
possibilities in the baby stages.
Under a Dr. Rau, the Office of Crash Avoidance has a $1.2 million Drowsy
Driver Program to, initially, develop, test, and evaluate a drowsiness
warning system for commercial drivers. We'll get back to the commercial
drivers -- and no, they aren't including motorcycle messengers under that
head -- in a bit.
Meanwhile, the police test for those characteristics they have instruments
to test. And that determines what and whom magistrates prosecute. With only
the SFST and DECP available, the consequences can be dicey.
I don't know what it is about me and mine (clean living and lots of fiber,
maybe, plus regular oil changes), but my motorcycling friends don't seem to
collect tickets. Recently, though, I talked with two older friends who drive
four-wheelers, both of whom appear unusually vulnerable to flaws in the
present system of impairment testing.
Walt is a retired workers' compensation hearing examiner. He was stopped,
a few months back, on his way home from the airport. He knew he hadn't been
speeding or otherwise driving recklessly, and he asked the officer what he
was being pulled over for. He was told to wait while his license and
registration were checked, and he began to get a bit riled. When the officer
returned, if we can believe the story, Walt said, "Look, I'm feeling a bit
tired. . . "
At that point, the duck came down and Harpo gave Walt a wedgie. (If you're
not familiar with the Marx Brothers, that's an allusion to Walt's having said
the magic word; and I don't mean "Please.") Walt was immediately told, "Well
then, sir, you have already committed a crime [a crime?!]; because if you're
tired you should pull over to the side of the road and then rest until you're
able to resume driving. We had three phone calls describing your car and
complaining that you were driving irresponsibly"; and Walt was forthwith
given a ticket for negligence with a "collateral (a fine)," if Walt wished to
accept the charges and pay it, of $120.
If this story is accurate as it was related to me, here is a big-picture
view of what happened. The police were given reason to suspect impairment,
secondhand. They stopped Walt, and, I speculate, decided based on the initial
brief conversation that there was no justification for administering the
SFST: no reason to believe Walt would fail it. Lacking any other way to
measure impairment, and not having actually tailed him and personally
observed unsafe driving, they had to latch on to Walt's words in order to
find a basis for writing a ticket.
I imagine that the charge would have thudded to ignominious death when any
judge with integrity asked what-for. As it happened, Walt showed up for a
preliminary hearing and the officer did not, which terminated the whole sorry
mess. The federal magistrate said, "The case is dismissed. I assume that
you're happy." (Walt bit his tongue.)
Sam's our other example. Sam's a semi-retired State Department safety
consultant who, a month or so back, came down with a bad case of shingles (a
medical condition that inflames the skin and can thoroughly wipe you out).
His skin is back to normal, but it will take as much as six months before he
is steady on his feet. He's now at the point where he can drive safely -- the
dizziness is gone -- but just imagine a policeman watching him waver towards
his car! His appearance would certainly seem to justify administering the
SFST, and can you picture Sam trying to stand on one leg?
So drowsiness is an impairment risk factor for which there is no test,
and, as in Walt's case, when they suspect it the police have to make do.
There are many additional types of impairment that are not easily evaluated.
No, the police aren't necessarily so very short-sighted as to assume
alcohol, other drugs, or nothing. First Sergeant Bill Tower, an information
officer with the Maryland State Police tells a different story about fatigue.
He says that when a driver is stopped, training and experience may lead the
officer in a completely different direction than assuming drug impairment.
Was the driver fatigued? No, there's no test. In fact, if fatigue is the
problem, Sergeant Tower believes that being stopped probably will cause
enough of an adrenalin rush to wash that fatigue away for the duration of the
SFST, unless drugs are also involved. He says it's very, very rare for
someone to be arrested for simply driving when too tired.
Or there could be a medical or psychological problem, he says. Police are
trained to gather data from talking with drivers, observing them as they get
out of their cars or off their bikes, watching them walk, all this will
provide information to help judge the likely source of impairment. When the
cause of the erratic driving does seem likely to be a medical problem, they
will be quickly brought to where they can receive diagnosis and treatment;
lives have been saved. If indeed fatigue seems to be the cause, pure and
simple, the driver has still earned a ticket for tailgating or running a
light, but may be told to pull over and take a nap, instead of being
arrested.
So what about those medical problems? If you're one of the rare persons
who doesn't make the effort to do what you know can be done to take charge of
your Lupus, or diabetes, or epilepsy, or narcolepsy, or schizophrenia, or
whatever, so that you can drive safely, it's not simply a "too bad." in
Maryland, and in other states, the police can take you off the road, if you
have been driving unsafely. They can refer you to the Motor Vehicle
Administration for retesting, or to the Medical Advisory Board for
evaluation.
Being awake and fully-functional is not enough to make for safe driving.
In February 1997, University of Toronto researchers reported that talking on
a cellular phone while driving (we're back to Walt's case from another angle)
increases accident risk four-fold, to a level equivalent to that associated
with drunk driving. The research was based on analysis of what happened
during 27,000 cell-phone calls, so we're not talking a mock-up experiment
with undergraduates, but bloody reality.
There's not a whole lot that can be done about people's driving and
drinking -- or eating, or chatting, or . . ., except to say, "Bad Idea!"
(Yes, in some areas it is illegal to drive with an open container in the car,
but it has to be an open container of alcoholic beverage. You can bury your
face in a coffee or a ginger ale or a root beer and not get hassled, if you
avoid crashing.) Alcohol impairment is the one to watch for, in terms of
tickets. The SFST is validated, and pretty widely accepted. A breath testing
instrument is relatively non-invasive, and it yields a reading, a number,
that is hard to argue with in court.
So much for tickets. Let's step back and just think about safety. Ignoring
your body's signals and cycles is serious risk-taking. While most of us have
to keep going, on occasion, even when we'd rather chill out, there's a point
where "tired" segues into "sleepy."
When it comes to the realm of Bad Ideas, driving when exhausted is hard to
top. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported in 1990 that
many more accidents in over-the-road driving are related to sleep deprivation
than was previously estimated. In fact, although their study of 182 fatal
truck accidents actually was looking for the effects of alcohol and illegal
drugs, they discovered fatigue to be a much greater factor. It was indicted
in about 31 percent of the deaths.
(Why are we back to commercial drivers? Willie Sutton kept visiting banks because that's where the money is. Researchers look at Commercial Vehicle Operators because truckers are the people who put in the long hours and miles. There are several more specific reasons that NHTSA focused on truck accidents. First, over-the-road truckers have to pass far more rigorous standards to get and keep their commercial licenses. Second, a higher proportion of truck than passenger vehicle crashes are due to drowsy driving, especially per mile, per vehicle life, and per amount of night driving. And a sizable proportion of the fatalities and injuries associated with crashes due to drowsy trucking are suffered by people outside the trucks. But only a fool would assume NHTSA's data are irrelevant to bikers.}
In early 1996, the NTSB reported on a follow-up study of non-fatal truck
accidents. If driver fatigue is a driving danger, what's key in creating that
fatigue?
To identify fatigue-related accidents, researchers tallied physical
evidence showing not just driver error, but theabsence of specific driver
errors or vehicle problems. Did their brakes fail, were they going too fast
for road conditions, did they hit gravel, or patches of oil? Or did they
simply drift off the road? Tire marks can sometimes tell the tale. Now we're
looking not just at impairment, but at the types of impairment that cause
inattention rather than recklessness.
The drivers investigated in the second study were extensively grilled to
determine which of 18 suspect factors contributed most to driver fatigue
accidents.
Which elements emerged?
Number of hours at the wheel, for example, was not a significant
contributor. The biggest factor researchers found was how little sleep they
got the last time their heads hit a pillow.
The next biggest factor was how much sleep they had gotten in the last 24
hours.
The third was whether their sleep was in one stretch, broken up over the
24 hours.
You wouldn't consider those who nodded off to be terribly underslept.
Compared with drivers whose accidents did not involve fatigue, they were
short only two-and-a-half hours of sleep, on average, the last time they lay
down -- and likewise short about the same amount over 24 hours.
These "sleep-deprived" drivers are people who may have slept
reasonable-sounding amounts. What's more, all considered themselves
well-rested.
Put those factors together, and the result was an 80% hit rate (pun
definitely intended) in predicting whether or not an accident was
fatigue-related or not fatigue-related.
No, I did not say fatigue gives you an 80% chance of having an accident.
We don't have numbers for overall increased risk -- this was not
epidemiological research. But if you are in an accident, telling those
researchers what your sleep pattern has been will give them an 80% hit rate
in predicting whether the evidence will show your accident to have been
caused by fatigue or by other factors. With that strong an effect, I think
you'll agree that we're talking about real impairment.
How much is enough?
What's enough sleep? A shade under seven hours, drivers agreed. Yet those
"well-rested" drivers with fatigue-related accidents actually averaged 5.5
hours the last time they tucked themselves in. The drivers whose accidents
were not fatigue-related, according to the investigations, averaged eight
hours. According to Dr. Mark Rosekind of NASA's Ames Laboratory, the average
need is for eight hours -- and most Americans are shy an hour-and-a-half of
sleep each night during the work week.
How much sleep is enough varies from person to person. The way to
determine your own needs is to see how much you sleep on vacation. Throw away
the alarm, wait until your body has stopped automatically waking up for work,
send the kids off on a sleep-over if you're a parent, and sleep in a couple
of mornings. That's all it takes, says Rosekind - sleep in until you've
caught up any sleep deficit. After that, however many hours you find yourself
sleeping naturally is about the amount for which your body is programmed.
Quality of sleep
The quality of sleep, Rosekind told me in a late-evening interview, is
almost as important as the quantity. If you have a sleep disorder, or an
infant who wakes you each night, or a wakeful bladder due to pregnancy or
prostate problems -- you may be at risk for fatigue-related accidents, even
though you total eight hours' slumber. My experience, and that of
acquaintances, says that bodily discomforts can also make it hard to "sleep
in" so as to catch up and even to determine how much your body really
needs.
We needn't rely on government scientists. Members of the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers have it worse than a motorcycle messenger during a
telephone strike. Federal rules say that they can be required to drive 12
hours at a stretch. No, forget about a stretch. The train is supposed to stop
if they want to stretch -- or pee. (Not likely that it will, of course.)
Federal rules say that in one scenario engineers can be told to drive 112
hours in one week. The result can be falling asleep at the throttle -- just
for a moment, but sometimes for a long enough moment to kill a few people,
injure a bunch, and wreak a few million dollars damage.
One of the factors most contributing to fatigue, the locomotive engineers'
representative Stephen FitzGerald told me, is the fact that they are on
24-hour call. Engineers' rest can be -- and is -- disrupted at any time. For
the first time in history, "human factors/fatigue" is overtaking "track
conditions" as the primary cause of train accidents.
According to the New York Times, "Experts estimate that 100 million
Americans maintain a serious sleep debt ... they also say that most
sleep-deprived people do not realize just how prone they are to falling
asleep at the drop of a hat they really are."
The Times went on to quote psychologist James Maas of Cornell. In a
Detroit study, 1/3 of subjects who denied ever getting sleepy during the day
showed evidence of sleep deprivation. Dr. Maas told the Times, "God help them
if they are struck by a sleep seizure while driving a car..."
Maas did have some good news. He said that exercise helps sleep patterns.
The best time to take exercise, in terms of improving your night's rest, is
between noon and 6 p.m.
Coffee
Something that doesn't help is that old standby, coffee. Most people get
sleepy twice a day: in the hours approaching midnight, and in mid-afternoon.
Coffee, the University of Pennsylvania's Dr. David Dinges told me, might get
you through that midday lag if you can't take a nap, but it also can mean
your night's sleep will be less restful. John Hughes, M.D., of the University
of Vermont performed research showing that six million Americans are
dependent on caffeine to the point where they get withdrawal symptoms if they
quit.
That is where coffee may be most dangerous: withdrawal. Dr. Hughes's
research shows that besides irritability, withdrawal can result in headaches,
muscle soreness, impaired concentration, drowsiness, anxiety and depression.
Of course, caffeine itself can increase depression and anxiety. That is a
subjective effect. (If you think those are strong claims, here's an even
wilder one from the other side of the puddle. According to The Guardian,
major David Senior was caught with his hands in the till, bilking Britain's
Army Air Corps to the tune of $30,000 in inflated claims for the rations he
purchased for his men. His defense is that he made the mistake because of
caffeinism, due to swigging up to a gallon of tea a day for 20 years.)
Caffeine withdrawal can also impair psychomotor performance. That's not
subjective. It means a reduction in job-type competencies such as eye-hand
coordination. Hughes surveyed a large sample of doctors. More than
three-quarters of them recommended that patients cut, or cut out, caffeine if
they suffer from a wide array of physical and emotional symptoms, from
fibrocystitis to esophagitis. And what could cutting it out mean?
Withdrawal.
Roland Griffiths, PhD, is a behavioral pharmacologist who teaches in the
psychiatry and neuroscience departments at Johns Hopkins University. He
points out that caffeine has a saving grace, compared to other addictive
drugs. There is a point where enough is enough: its use is self-limiting, and
not because it puts you in a coma, as some drugs would. After all, you can
only drink so much of the stuff.
Dr. Griffiths has also done research on caffeine withdrawal. He finds that
about half of caffeine users experience moderate to severe headaches on
withdrawal. What's more, he sees only a moderate correlation between how much
caffeine you're used to and how bad a headache you will get going cold
turkey. Tapering off is much less likely to create problems than is going
cold turkey.
Here's a trick question. How many cups of coffee are recommended as part
of a normal daily intake? Well, a cup of decaf has about 5 milligrams of
caffeine, about the same as a cup of cocoa. A cup of regular, tetraethyl
coffee has ... oh, 100-150 milligrams of caffeine per six ounce cup. (And do
you know anybody who drinks out of a six-ounce cup?)
The American Dietetic Association recommends that daily caffeine intake
range between 50 and 200 milligrams.
The gift that keeps on giving
Unfortunately, it really is the caffeine, not just the sugar or the
comforting act of drinking, that keeps you going, physically. In fact,
serotonin release from sugar intake can have the reverse effect and make you
tired, and do so far more quickly than will the rebound from caffeine.
I asked a dietitian, "Where is caffeine use advisable?" I thought she
might say, "Well, if you have to stay alert, a cup of coffee could help." She
didn't. Reflecting back to the days when I was an alcoholism counselor, I
recalled what people in that business say about a drinker who has a couple of
cups of coffee in an effort to "sober himself up for the road." He's called a
"wide-awake drunk." The coffee is not going to keep him alert -- just awake.
That's why I've spent so much time talking about coffee.
Remember how "microsleep" bedevils the railroad engineers? Well, more than
80% of the fatigue-related accidents investigated by the Federal Railroad
Administration, in a recent report, did not involve dozing off. The driver's
eyes were open, but he just didn't observe that signal. Anything that blurs
the distinction between awake and alert is a safety problem.
What can we do?
Rosekind says there's no magic bullet. People find it very hard to
accurately report their level of alertness. According to Rau's group at the
Office of Crash Avoidance, "Drowsiness has recently been detected with
impressive accuracy, e.g. fluctuations in lateral lane position, 'drift and
jerk' steering, eye closure, etc. . . Incipient drowsiness can be observed
and measured well before the occurrence of episodes of involuntary sleep. . .
. "
Of course, all that is more certain to be observed by someone else than by
the drowsy driver. And frankly, by the time I am likely to start behaving
that way, I want to have pulled off. I asked Rosekind for some guidance. He
said to look for three somewhat related factors that make an accident likely:
Prevention
The only means of prevention is getting enough good quality, deep sleep.
For operational purposes, sure, sometimes caffeine will get you through your
last stretch of road. Sometimes you'll need a nap. Sometimes an interesting
conversation with your passenger can keep you going.
Rosekind is emphatic about the principle that sleep is as vital as food or water. If your body tells you you're tired, he warns, you may need to get our passenger to take over as driver, if that option is available. If you don't, sometimes your body will just put you out -- regardless of personal countermeasures such as guzzling high-test coffee.
-END-
"JUST SAY, 'NO (THANK YOU).'" Electrical Contractor Magazine Residential column June, 2001
(C) 2001 by David E. Shapiro
Adults have the responsibility to maintain boundaries. Within the
framework of this principle, I'm going to take a column to discuss something
that can be habit-forming and dangerous. Yes, I am still on the subject of
contracting. I'm thinking about a temptation that comes up in the one-on-one
interaction with customers so common in residential contracting. I'm talking
about"going along to get along."
When a customer asks you to do something against Code, or otherwise
illegal, or unsafe, or simply contrary to the way you've decided to do
business, what are your options? Let's take the first type of case, where
you're asked to dispense with the rules. Kenny Greenberg's an electrician I
respect quite a bit, though I've never met him. Here's what he has to say:
"I don't want to wait until my neighbor's view of how to construct his
house somehow inadvertently destroys mine. If he's around to compensate me
for the damage, and I happen to be successful after some time in the courts,
that does not somehow make it right.
"I'd like some level of quality control applied to things that might
affect me. In my case, where my house is under major renovation, I have an
architect who has been around so long that he has every license imaginable.
At the same time he has a healthy dose of suspicion of authority. But the
best part is that he can usually explain every reason for every bit of code
we follow. What I often find is (surprise!) most regulations are not
arbitrary. This is not to say that they are all correct and absolute. Things
change."
Kenny gave us a good clue to how and why to say, "No thank you" when asked
to violate Code, skip the permit, or play fast and loose in some other way.
Customers may not care that they're asking us to put our licenses in
jeopardy. They may not care that they're asking us to do something dangerous
to ourselves or them and their families and maybe even their neighbors, or
that they're being unfair -- it seems none of their immediate business. But
it is ours.
An earlier column talked about the short-sighted way most people make
decisions. If we want to budge people so they'll risk looking beyond their
noses, we've got to help them understand that burying their heads puts them
in danger. Sometimes, like Kenny's architect, we'll have enough insight into
the background of the rules to be able to convince customers that ignoring
the Code is dangerous. Other times we have to "Just say no" or, more
gracefully, "Sorry, no" or "No, thank you."
I put myself in a relatively weak position if I say, "I would be happy to
do it that way, but I'm afraid I'd get nailed by the inspector" or "If I
don't do it to Code, or don't pull a permit, the insurance company might balk
about paying if something goes wrong." It's a matter of tone as much as
content. It sounds stronger, more upright to say "I work to Code. For one
thing, if I didn't, the inspector might require that it be redone. For
another, doing it right minimizes risk-both mine and yours."
While I'm not planning to change my "Just say, 'No, thanks.'" policy, I'm
not always delighted with its results. Ron's a plumber with whom I have a
good relationship. He installed a dishwasher and washing machine for Willow,
and told him I'd be a good person to run circuits for the new equipment.
Willow called, but when I mentioned that a permit and inspection would be
required, he sounded disgruntled. I called the day before our appointment, as
agreed, to firm up the time I would come over. "Oh, I'm going to have to put
it off." he said.
I'd lay strong odds that this was bull, in part because Willow had agreed
he would call if cancellation proved to be necessary. He never did call. I
expect that he found someone willing to skirt the law, someone who saved him
the money and hassle involved in inspection. A gamble; still, the odds are
that this won't cause him or the other contractor a problem.
We all make our own policy calls.
-END-
My rates vary in accordance with a number of factors. These include: