"The transportation of explosives, and especially their distribution from the supply magazines of the manufacturers or dealers to the mines, quarries, or other points where they are to be used, by means of horse-drawn vehicles is an old-time practice, and the records of accidents of the past show this to have been a hazardous undertaking requiring for safety the taking of many precautions not required in the transportation of other merchandise.Displacement of the horse-drawn vehicle by the motor vehicle for the transportation of explosives is increasing rapidly. A consideration of the facts that the vehicle is operated by an explosion engine, using easily vaporized liquid fuel; that the charges in the engine are fired and the vehicle lighted by electricity; and that the vehicle, being operated insulated from the ground, may accumulate static charges led to the conclusion that new hazards are being introduced into the transportation of explosives through the use of motor-operate& vehicles, and that therefore additional special precautions must be taken against these additional hazards.That accidents have already occurred in this use of motor-vehicle transportation is evidenced from the following examples:Recently in California a driver loaded a box of granular powder in the rear of an automobile truck and a box of electric detonators in the front. Suddenly, while traveling along a highway, the explosives detonated, demolished the truck, and blew the body of the driver into small pieces. No evidence was left to show the cause of the explosion, but it is assumed that a jar or other means caused the detonators to fire, and that they in turn detonated the explosive. It should be recognized that it is unsafe to transport detonators and explosives in the same compartment, and this rule should be strictly enforced. At present this rule appears to be either unknown or, at least, frequently ignored.There are usually so many possible causes of ignition or detonation of a truck load of explosives that it is often impossible to state definitely the exact cause in a given case. This is well illustrated in the following account of an accident: A trucking company was hired to haul a truck load of explosives about 200 miles. The driver had had experience in driving trucks of explosives, and it was stated that he inspected the truck carefully before leaving the garage. Eighty 50-pound boxes of explosive were placed in tiers on each side of the truck and 265 25-pound kegs of black blasting powder were placed in the center of the truck. The boxes were placed flat and the kegs were placed on end, arranged in tiers. While the truck was being driven along the highway there was a muffled explosion. When some men, who were about a quarter of a mile away, arrived at the scene the truck was in flames and they could get no nearer than 100 feet. The driver was sitting in his seat and had apparently been killed instantly either by shock or fumes. When the flames were finally quenched, the driver's body was recovered, badly charred. It was, found that several boxes of explosives had been thrown about 40 feet by the initial explosion but were uninjured. A total of half a ton of dynamite was recovered. The cover to the gasoline tank could not be found."
If we consider ergonomics to be an exercise in matching job demands to worker capabilities, one of the principal capabilities we must be concerned with is that of human strength. Our ability to evaluate different characteristics of muscular strength has increased dramatically over the past couple of decades with the development of new and increasingly sophisticated instrumentation. One would think that armed with such advanced techniques, we might be able to develop methods to conclusively identify workers at risk of injury in physically demanding jobs. Unfortunately, this has not yet proven to be the case. Instead, what these instruments have continued to point out is how intricate a function muscular strength really is, and how complicated and ambiguous its relationship is to musculoskeletal injury. While we cannot just use isolated tests of strength to specify precisely who may be at risk of injury, studies have indicated that strength testing can be a useful tool for job design and, under certain circumstances, selection of workers for demanding jobs. However, because strength is such a complex phenomenon, there has often been some confusion regarding the proper application and interpretation of strength tests in ergonomics, especially among persons not thoroughly familiar with the limitations and caveats associated with the available procedures. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss some of the fundamental principles of strength assessment in ergonomics, so that these procedures can be better applied to control the risk of musculoskeletal disorders in the workplace 1.1. What is Strength? (And what are we Measuring?) Many of the complications associated with strength assessment arise from the simple fact that even our most sophisticated machinery does not directly measure the force or tension developed by a muscle in a living person. Instead, we can only observe the consequences of force development by a contracting muscle, or more likely, by a combination of muscles There are many ways in which we can measure the effects of muscular contraction, and the techniques we use can have a dramatic impact on the strength readings we will obtain. Consider the situation illustrated in Figure 1. In this example, the muscle exerts a constant force of 1000 Newtons (N). However, the forces we measure can vary quite dramatically depending on where we place the force cuff - from 167 N if we place it near the wrist to 500 N if we place it near the elbow. Which value should we select as properly representing the muscular strength for this elbow flexion exertion? The preceding example illustrates some important points with regard to strength assessment. Perhaps the most important is that "muscular strength is what is measured by an instrument" (Kroemer et al. 1999). It should also be clear from this example [ ] that two researchers could perform an elbow flexion strength experiqent on the same group of subjects, but if each selected different force cuff positions, they might end up with wildly differing estimates of strength. Differences in the strengths of various muscle groups in the published literature may be the results of differences in the procedures and measurement methods used by the experimenters Thus, it is critical that any strength data presented be accompanied by a detailed account of the manner in which the data were obtained. A few additional points need to be made with regard to the testing of human strength. We must be clear that what we are obtaining in such tests are not a person's maximal strength capability, but their maximal voluntary strength. The voluntary nature of the exertion introduces an unknown, but surely substantial, amount of variability in our measurements of strength. One can imagine two subjects with identical muscular strength capabilities, but with varying levels of motivation or discomfort tolerance, for example. We are likely to observe considerable differences in the voluntary force exerted by the two, but it should be understood that such results may be largely the result of psychological factors, and not differences m muscular strength per se. The important point to be made here is that not only are we unable to directly measure muscular force, what we are able to measure is modified by an invisible filter - a filter subject to a wide variety of influences and which will differ considerably for every person we test To make matters worse, this filter would be expected to change even within a given individual on a given day. From the foregoing discussion, one can perhaps better appreciate some of the difficulties with establishing a definitive relationship between an individual's measured strength and that individual's risk of injury.
IC 6330 Some Hazards of Transporting Explosives in Automobile Trucks