To Mr. Paget, et al:
It would appear that my droll-to-the-point-of-dessicated,
world's-smallest-violin, incredibly self-righteous BS segue to covert
tattoo/piercing advertisement actually found a market .. ..  .. or at least
a few takers.   And for the first 2 takers, a free Prince Albert awaits
y'all equipped to handle it -- a PA cures most jerks.  And "white-bred" is
not a laboratory term of art.





Harry Paget <[log in to unmask]>@[log in to unmask]> on 08/01/2000 06:36:53
PM

Please respond to Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>

Sent by:  Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>



To:   [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject:  Re: Manual Lifting Limits


Actually, I think the commentary was on the simple undeniable fact that the
equation from NIOSH was laughable, and by no torture of logic, one of the
conclusions correctly arrived at is that the government wastes much money
analyzing the obvious.

I see that your ox has been gored; or in any event, your lumbar discs and
various and sundry vertebrae have felt the figurative horn.  If you want to
get into a Purple Heart contest, I start out with a slight advantage,
having
been born WITHOUT my fifth lumbar vertebra, which I blame on those
unfeeling
sweatshop "doctors" at Louisville's Baptist General Hospital, who could've
shoved one in there.  Furthermore, I have an on-the-job,
lost-a-fight-with-a-box-weighing-50-pounds permanently bent and broken
finger which would no doubt qualify me for a lucrative career as a
gynecologist - until I got caught, anyway. That willing digit rests
immediately to the right of the finger that got caught between the water
roller and the plate cylinder of an Addressograph-Multigraph 1250 printing
press running at 10,800 impressions per hour.   And I suffer from all the
back pain that anyone else suffers from who lifts 150 - 200 boxes once
every
seven days or so; this very day I moved, lifted, and stacked (eight high)
168 of said boxes ("If you don't manage your boxes, they'll manage you".)
None of this changes the fact that the equation was goofy.

The goofiness of the equation does not equate to any suggestion that there
is innate humor in on- or off-the-job injuries, and no one implied
otherwise.  We will chalk up your melodramatic Death Scene from "Manon
Lescaut" to testiness - and you are allowed to be testy - , and, if you so
desire, will acknowledge that you are a Victim.  We do not, however,
acknowledge that we are victimizers - since we are not -, nor do we insist
that we will only go to Scrooge's funeral if lunch is provided and if we
can
toss our empty beer bottles atop Tiny Tim's
cold, lonely grave, in which he lies a-molderin'.

Finally, I know I am not alone in deducing that you are an otherwise jolly
sort of happy-go-lucky fun-lovin' kinda guy - a laff-riot, I daresay - ,
and
I would be delighted to buy you a drink in Las Vegas, assuming, of course,
that you are not on a strict regimen of dill pickles and alum-and-lemon
soaked painkillers.

And since you brought it up (and you did) what is it with that tattoo
business, ladies?  I mean, if you've got a rose etched right in the middle
of one side of your fanny, doesn't that mean that you had to, like, you
know, ... in order to, as it were, provide access to the .. um, designated
area...?   I'm shocked; that's what I am.  But up until
now, I thought all tattoo artistes looked like the harmonica player from
"Blues Traveler" - eGAD - , but I see that TM (Tattoo Management) is
inclusive enough to welcome even the most lumbarly-challenged into its
ranks.   A rose by any other location....

By the way; "white-BREAD"; duh.  Unless you are implying that Peter is some
sort of albino laboratory rodent.  He's been called worse.

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

Harry F. Paget


>From: Douglas G Venable/VENADG/CC01/INEEL/US <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Manual Lifting Limits
>Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 09:53:45 -0600
>
>Thanks for your caring effort to convey and consider this information as
>significant to those of us facing repetitive movement of files and storage
>boxes all-too-often overloaded by diligent but uninformed document
>handlers.  Following your thoughtful contribution, I note with some
concern
>(buffered by jaded expectations) the sophomoric criticisms and semi-solid
>witticisms of others on the listserv.  Commentators quipped in sardonic
>tones on everything from trial lawyers [America's forgotten and denied
>alter egos] to the underlying research on apparently insignificant matters
>such as work-related injuries connected directly to work many of us do.
>For those of us who have had serious work-related injuries arising from
>dangerous lifting and corresponding falling situations [4 so-called
>"ruptured" lumbar discs and 3 cervical vertebrae permanently damaged],
this
>combination of elementary school humor and thoughtless ignorance simply
>points out the primitive culture and poorly monitored working conditions
of
>those benighted commentators.  Luckily, I can look forward to an
>alternative career in a tattoo and body piercing shop where lifting
hazards
>are limited to a 7-ounce tattoo machine [heavy-duty shader, including
power
>cord], a half-ounce nipple spike, or some self-imagined "massive" body
part
>requiring a PA.  Wise-ass mainstream white-bred CRMs are few and far
>between in that employment milieu.
>Illegitimi non carborundum.
>
>
>
>
>
>"Wilson, Charis" <[log in to unmask]>@[log in to unmask]> on 07/31/2000
>12:46:04 PM
>
>Please respond to Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Sent by:  Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>To:   [log in to unmask]
>cc:
>Subject:  Manual Lifting Limits
>
>
>For a process management class I needed to justify my assertion that a 40
>lb
>limit should be placed on boxes being sent to an offsite storage facility.
>I came across the following http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/94-110-b.pdf.
>This document, put out by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
>and
>Health (NIOSH), details the formula for and calculation of an action limit
>or recommended weight derived from the lifting equation.
>
>The formula is as follows:  RWL = LC x HM x VM x DM x AM x FM x CM.
>
>RWL:  Recommended Weight Limit
>LC:  Load Constant. 51 lbs.  The ideal weight under ideal conditions.
>HM:  Horizontal Multiplier.  How far away from the body is the load being
>held?
>VM:  Vertical Multiplier.  How high from the floor is the load being held?
>DM:  Distance Multiplier.  What is the distance between the origin and
>destination of the lift?
>AM:  Asymmetric Multiplier.  Does the body have to rotate at the waist or
>hips to complete the lift?
>FM:  Frequency Multiplier.  How often must a lift occur?
>CM:  Coupling Multiplier.  How hard is it to hold the item being lifted?
>
>The CM multiplier figure was useful when trying to account for the
>difference between lifting a 1 cf box and a bankers box.
>
>Hope you find this as helpful as I did.
>
>Charis Wilson
>Document Control Specialist
>ICG Communications
>303-414-8066
>[log in to unmask]
>"The next best thing to knowing something is knowing where to find it."
>-Samuel Johnson

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com