Topics

Tek 585A -

Jack
 

Thanks Chuck Go on eh, well that's something, who'd have thought it. I'm well versed with both of those ISO's and the ISO requirements for Compliance and
Certification. Compliance is not Certification and the ISO expects claimants to state exactly where they comply, not give the misleading and typically unaudited
'complies with', and there is no particular demand for 'form' in compliance, the idea being that you make a plan to meet a goal you set in achieving the ISO target.
I'm quite familiar with the processes, the difficulties recognised within some ISOS and so on ISO18001 having for example been replaced by ISO 45001some
years ago.14001 was more like an index. Others may not know, as you of course will, that seeking International pro-action ISO's take quite a long time to pass
through the International System of review and then has to try to build a useful tool from the responses which will encourage compliance...thus it does not dictate
the form. The outcome is that the ISO may be inadeq

I wish you well in getting up to speed on OHS at some stage and understanding what I wrote but it's all water under the bridge. Claims that 110vrms is not an
electrocution hazard are unsustainable as Mssr. du Val underlined The bottom line is that one should err on the side of safety if error is acceptable,(and invoke)
the "precautionary principle" sensibly and genuinely and proactively come to conclusion . Being blasé about risk and hazard and using extremist argument is
not an indicator of commitment to safety".
--
Jack

Chuck Harris
 

If you were truly well versed, you would know that OHSAS 18001 is not
an ISO, but let's leave that alone.

Words can only be compliant. It is only when they are implemented by
a business, and audited to show the businesses continued compliance, that
the business can be certified by the standards organization.

So, my management system was written to be compliant, and the business that
implemented it was certified by the standards organizations.

But I am sure you know that.

If you are truly well versed, you also know that the systems are documents
that describe what the business does, not perfection as proscribed by the
standards organization.

I love that slam where you wished me well in getting up to speed. Shows real
class. Keep up the good work.

-Chuck Harris

Jack wrote:

Thanks Chuck Go on eh, well that's something, who'd have thought it. I'm well versed with both of those ISO's and the ISO requirements for Compliance and
Certification. Compliance is not Certification and the ISO expects claimants to state exactly where they comply, not give the misleading and typically unaudited
'complies with', and there is no particular demand for 'form' in compliance, the idea being that you make a plan to meet a goal you set in achieving the ISO target.
I'm quite familiar with the processes, the difficulties recognised within some ISOS and so on ISO18001 having for example been replaced by ISO 45001some
years ago.14001 was more like an index. Others may not know, as you of course will, that seeking International pro-action ISO's take quite a long time to pass
through the International System of review and then has to try to build a useful tool from the responses which will encourage compliance...thus it does not dictate
the form. The outcome is that the ISO may be inadeq

I wish you well in getting up to speed on OHS at some stage and understanding what I wrote but it's all water under the bridge. Claims that 110vrms is not an
electrocution hazard are unsustainable as Mssr. du Val underlined The bottom line is that one should err on the side of safety if error is acceptable,(and invoke)
the "precautionary principle" sensibly and genuinely and proactively come to conclusion . Being blasé about risk and hazard and using extremist argument is
not an indicator of commitment to safety".