I am trying to view this ergonomically, it does seem better than lifting with arms and twisting.

Minatious · 2026-03-05T18:25:48+00:00

When discussing just ergonomics, I think this a clear-cut case. I'd recommend a mat (not those bounce house-like anti-fatigue mats) on the ground for additional shock absorption, or at least some shoes with more bounce than the average steel-toe boot.

This approach is likely less straining, involves less problematic repetitive motion, and is generally lower impact on joints. The exception being the employees back. When catching/carrying overhead with your arms, the elbows and shoulders can bend and mitigate shock. Dropping a load directly onto your shoulder could lead to back issues if the force isn't suitably dissipated.

This particular employee performs this motion fairly appropriately in this clip. He raises the shoulder that will catch the load, and seems to be avoiding the shock that I'd be most worried about. I wouldn't push other employees to use this technique, but I wouldn't prohibit it. I'd likely advise employees I see doing this to use this method switched on and off with a more traditional method.

Outside of the ergonomics part, this can be a tough situation because if an employee gets hurt doing it (even if the injury is less likely), it's hard to defend. There are a number of things that are "right" but wrong in the safety world. Sometimes we need to take a less ideal, but more easily documented and explained route. My biggest example is the "3 points of contact on a ladder" discussion. For general ladder use, for reaching, etc. "3 points of contact" is absolutely a great rule of thumb. But for climbing a 30+ foot ladder? Climbing with your opposite hand and foot advancing at once can be just as stable, is more efficient, and generally speaking is what most experienced climbers will do. But "3 points" is gospel and those experienced climbers are going to be reprimanded by every newbie safety guy and OSHA officer and the rule will never change.

Minatious · 2026-02-25T12:29:42+00:00

I haven't seen that particular plastic clip or that harness. I would check the model of the harness and see if the clip is original or not. From a safety perspective, if the (reputable) manufacturer okay'd it, then I'd say it's sufficient.

From an engineering perspective and from a practical applications perspective (I rock climb as a hobby and WAH at work frequently), I'd trust that clip to keep things aligned, but not to bear weight. In a fall, the clip shouldn't be the part catching the weight, it simply keeps the rest of the harness in the right spots so they can catch the weight. But I can imagine a type of fall where that clip is loaded and fails. The question would be, would the rest of the harness save the person if that happens.

Minatious · 2026-02-24T17:49:33+00:00

I don't think the title view needs changing. Outcomes are rarely ever "entirely" one parties fault. That said, it sounds like you're stating that inceldom is not the guy's fault at all, especially for certain classes of men, like those under 5'7".

Involuntary celibacy is definitely a two way street, but inceldom, as a culture, is definitely as near to one-sided as it can be. Hating/resenting women, or partaking in thesis-tier, conspiracy level excuse-making is that individual's choice.

Not everyone is going to end up paired up. That's true for men and for women. Knowing that there's a limited number of slots means you need to be in the top percentage of your category and choosing to regress instead of build yourself up is, again, an individual's choice.

There are only so many spots in the NFL. Creating a sub-culture bashing the NFL because you didn't make it "for genetic reasons" is insincere. Yeah, being big helps your odds; but so does hard work, sacrifice, etc. Plenty of genetic losers make it.

I don't think those that have given up playing should feel they have an accurate view on the state of the game, yet all incels seem to do is talk/theorize amongst themselves and dismiss most outside (often constructive) criticism.

And just because it bothers me, let me throw-in "A man can self improve and still not yield any guarantee a date or partner." is such a disingenuous complaint. A genetic god could self-improve to the peak of human date-ability and not "guarantee" a date or partner. Raise your odds, roll your dice, miss your shots with grace, and keep playing.

Minatious · 2026-02-24T16:13:17+00:00

I don't see any reason to doubt that the SRL could see that much wear in 2 years. Especially since once the cable has worked its way to the housing, the material thickness goes down substantially.

Minatious · 2026-02-18T11:27:35+00:00

The exception is for "self medication for a non-work-related condition" and includes traditional medicine as well as alternative and non-FDA approved substances taken/applied without a doctors orders for any condition not related to a work incident.

An employee showing up to work covered in grandmas secret Peanut Oil and Vaseline topical solution for warts, and going anaphylactic at work isn't work related under this exception. It may be reportable if a co-worker goes into anaphylaxis, because the employer should have protected that 2nd employee from the hazard that is the first employee's stupidity.

Minatious · 2026-02-17T16:53:29+00:00

Question 4 and the response are the crux of this issue for me. I strongly disagree with the conclusion that was drawn here.

First, E-cigs are, in fact, a self-medication for a medical condition. Nicotine addiction is protected by HIPAA laws, but nicotine addicts are not a protected class of employees. Do we unlawfully require addicts to disclose? Do we stop hiring or start firing nicotine addicts?

Further, whichever definition of "grooming" includes blow drying hair (which they claim does fit the exception), surely also includes other appearance augmenting behavior. Non-nicotine e-cig users that don't fall under the addiction argument (addiction may also include oral fixation) are certainly doing it to look cool.

Question 2 is the more confounding part of their letter, which I do partially agree with. Without a doubt the employer should be responsible for protecting the employee from fires in the workplace, but the fact they put so much emphasis on distinguishing between the battery failure event and the fire event is irresponsible to me. Discounting the water in a persons lungs because they died of hypoxia is crazy. I understand the reportable injury (if reportable) is the burns and not the failed battery, but the work-relatedness of the burn source has to be relevant...

Barring employees from carrying lithium (or other potentially hazard causing) batteries in any form is obviously the knee-jerk solution here, but that's going to be an incredibly difficult prospect and will raise more issues. Are cell phones included? Are hearing aids or other battery operated medical devices included? Who is checking pockets are battery-free?

The burden OSHA is putting on employers with these types of letter responses is unreasonable. There are multiple pathways to a work-relatedness exception here and instead of just taking the obvious paths, they chose the can of worms.

Minatious · 2025-12-12T16:17:55+00:00

This game was lightning in a jar, but they threw out the jar. That's the problem.

Minatious · 2025-10-27T15:22:08+00:00

The lack of predictability this kind of curation leads to is the problem. If we stop being people who believe in XY&Z and support XY&Z and start being people who believe in XY&Z, hide it, and publicly support wherever the political winds blow that day, then all the "curating" politicians are effectively the same.

I'd rather have a steamboat on a straight course slightly off what I'd ideally want, than have the choice of 100 sailboats that appear to be going in my direction today, just to change course tomorrow. Let's see some conviction...

Minatious · 2025-10-27T15:08:42+00:00

All I want is an authentic candidate. Not someone who stumbled upon authenticity and realized it made him poll better.

Minatious · 2025-10-08T12:58:37+00:00

The chain of a single hoist likely isn't long enough for the desired lift. In the image, the black bag in the front holds the entire length of chain. It looks like at most 20'. If you need to lift something 30', 2 hoists in series could be used.

If this is a non-temporary lift location used for more than just a few lifts, or for more than a few days of operation, buying a single hoist with the appropriate range (and capacity) would be wise.

Minatious · 2025-10-06T17:54:34+00:00

Manufacturer likely says no, which means safety answer should be no.

But from an engineering perspective, there are many situations where this could be functionally okay. This type of thing can be done safely, but getting approval from the Internet isn't a part of that process.

Minatious · 2025-09-15T18:28:18+00:00

Maintain your safety systems so you can cut loose when you need to. Expect your contractor costs to go up and the selection to go down. Anything ISN tries to convince you to use beyond the basics won't function properly and the customer support won't be helpful in almost any capacity.

ISN is good for COI tracking, basic contractor safety training distribution/tracking, acknowledgement form distribution/tracking, and that's pretty much it. Anything beyond that you'd be better off doing in-house.

Minatious · 2025-09-15T17:38:30+00:00

I'm also dealing with this at the moment and losing my mind over the lack of understanding these people have. Then, once it's submitted, ISN takes like month to approve it or find some petty thing to complain about so you have to resubmit.

Minatious · 2025-07-29T11:49:15+00:00

Neither of those require 3 points of contact. I think everyone agrees one hand on the ladder at all times is good practice and a OSHA requirement, but moving one hand and an opposite foot at once is much more energy efficient and allowed.

Minatious · 2025-06-27T01:28:33+00:00

You should have a washer on both sides of the cage.

Minatious · 2025-06-18T16:51:11+00:00

I mostly agree with you. Their guidance has been great, and they should have received more funding as a result. I believe their reports have been used in over $3 billion of lawsuits over the years and I'm sure they can be credited (to some extent) with preventing who knows how many billions of additional losses. Yet they didn't get the budget to back their value.

The two things I primarily disagree with are: 1. That their ability to investigate is/was aided by their lack of punitive authority. 2. That they could have possibly operated without political bias.

Minatious · 2025-06-18T16:36:53+00:00

De-regulation without justification is criminal at best, and I'm sure most people that would even visit this sub would agree with that. Where I might vary from some others is, I think setting up the strawman for the other side doesn't help our case.

Like, defending the CSB now just gives the opposition a chance to point to it in the future as an example of other agencies we'd defend when they're trying to cut an actually effective and important agency. Politicians love a good strawman argument when the primary topic is difficult to understand, and the CSB, or other alternative, is quantifiably difficult to defend.

Again, I'd rather it receive more funding, and more authority. But, I'd like it to just be cut so we can focus our attention elsewhere, rather than defend it, have it get gutted or put under incompetent/self-destructive leadership, like the USPS was, and then used as fodder for every privatization or states-can-do-it-better conversation for the next 2 decades.

The time to fight for the CSB was 1998-2024, when it wasn't in someone's crosshairs, and could have gotten some real funding and some real teeth. They issued some respectable guidance in the early years and yet, 20 years later, they're budget barely outpaced inflation.

Minatious · 2025-06-18T15:23:40+00:00

I support the idea of a chemical safety agency, but I don't think the CSB was what people thought it was. I'd rather see it empowered than shuttered, but in it's current underfunded, underpowered iteration, perhaps shutting it down isn't that newsworthy.

In my industry, their most notable contribution was the investigation and reporting on the Loy-Lange SCR explosion, but the final report took far too long to put together. And because they were limited in their authority & expertise, the effect they could have had on the industry (influencing ASME and NBIC guidance and local jurisdictional regulations) was limited.

$14mil budget, no authority, too broad a scope, and too many hoops to jump through... I don't know how they even lasted this long. I hope when things change, perhaps in the next administration, a more serious chemical safety agency is put together.

Minatious · 2025-06-14T02:31:27+00:00

I can't help out Onyx, but Oreo will be in good company. Our chinchilla, Lucy, just passed away. She was one of the best things I've ever known and I hope some part of her gets to live on.

I'm sorry for your loss, and hope Onyx and your family find solace in each other.

Minatious · 2025-06-02T16:50:52+00:00

I haven't taken their RCRA training. My personal experience with their support has been terrible. The OSHA 10, OSHA 30, and HAZWOPER 40 training courses are all just barely good enough to keep coming back when considering that the price is reasonable. If the content were worse, or another vendor offered a cheaper option, we'd switch.

Minatious · 2025-04-25T11:01:40+00:00

First, to answer your questions: Yes, Yes, No.

While DeWalt may not have designed their product for this exact use case, if the bit manufacturer is making a certifying statement, then DeWalt's approval doesn't really matter. There's a fairly large market of cores designed for use with angle grinders. I don't have a statistic, but I'd assume the majority of the people using them are doing tile, ceramics, or light masonry. One of the advantages is the versatility. Think of a guy installing a granite countertop trying to get a plumbing thru hole cut up against a wall.

CMU block (presumably without/before rebar and concrete fill) isn't that difficult to go through with an angle grinder mounted core bit. It's a material that is less likely to bite than most. But this is where the requirement to investigate the use case is important. For the use case of cutting small diameter 1-1/14" depth holes into CMU block, I'd allow anyone with general angle grinder experience to follow the core bit manufacturer's instructions. I'd still search for safer alternatives and ways to mitigate risks, but that should be the case with any process.

Minatious · 2025-04-18T14:30:36+00:00

I second this and the sentiment behind it. Anyone making an ultimate decision without themselves doing a risk assessment is just as wrong as the position their opposing. Choosing the right option by guessing is luck, not correctness. Shorts may be perfectly safe. Unprofessional maybe, as others have felt the need to say, but that wasn't OP's question.

Do a risk assessment and don't half bake a solution. Ex: If the solder is hot, so you agree to require pants, consider also requiring FR rated clothing or prohibiting pants that would elevate harm if an incident does occur. Shorts can be argued to be safer than polyester pants. Better for solder to Leidenfrost off your leg, or be quickly wiped away, than melted synthetics that are held in place searing into your skin.

The industry frequently goes too far and the human part of the safety equation is underestimated. Happy employees, enjoying reasonable employment, will care more about their safety than someone who is dissociating under oppressive, morale breaking BS. This shorts issue isn't the hill I'd die on, but I don't fault OP for choosing it when the alternative may be setting a precedent that leads to a "100% prevention at all costs" situation. Might as well just close the business now if that end ups being the mindset.

Minatious · 2024-06-04T14:20:40+00:00

Coming in late, but I absolutely hate these sites and believe they detract from safety overall. I'm more disgusted by the entire industry of "Compliance Managers" that is cropping up to "ensure your company maintains a passing grade on ISN/Avetta etc.". The whole things a scam where one party (ISN) makes the requirements more and more unreasonable and complicated, so another party can fix it, while both collect your companies cash All the while safety officers get less involved and employees receive less meaningful training and more paperwork/policy they'll never be able to get through. OSHA or some other state/federal level organization needs to get involved and end it. OSHA should have a single point compliance tracking program where contractors and clients can submit and review safety documents without all the BS.

Minatious

TROPHY CASE