SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND VETERINARY SANITARY EXAMINATION OF AQUATIC MAMMAL HARVESTING PRODUCTS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhail Butko ◽  
◽  
A. Gerasimov ◽  
Tatyana Poskonnaya ◽  
Petr Popov ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Miller ◽  
Raymond Anthony ◽  
Gail Golab
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
K.O. Kobzev ◽  
S.A. Vyalov ◽  
E.S. Bozhko ◽  
I.A. Zolotuhina ◽  
◽  
...  

This article discusses the General safety requirements for the main production equipment, as well as General safety requirements for the tool and die tooling. Possible difficulties in hot-die forging shopsand ways to solve them in various situations are described.


2020 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 19-31
Author(s):  
D. V. Zobkov ◽  
◽  
A. A. Poroshin ◽  
A. A. Kondashov ◽  
◽  
...  

Introduction. A mathematical model is presented for assigning protection objects to certain risk categories in the field of fire safety. The model is based on the concepts of the probability of adverse effects of fires causing harm (damage) of various extent and severity to the life or health of citizens, and the acceptable risk of harm (damage) from fires. Goals and objectives. The purpose of the study is to develop the procedure for assigning protection objects to a certain category of risk of harm (damage) based on estimates of the probability of fires with the corresponding severity consequences, to determine the acceptable level of risk of harm (damage) due to the fires, to calculate and develop numerical values of criteria for assigning objects of protection to the appropriate risk categories. Methods. The boundaries of the intervals corresponding to certain risk categories are determined by dividing the logarithmic scale of severity of adverse effects of fires into equal segments. Classification methods are used to assign objects of protection to a specific risk category. Results and discussion. Based on the level of severity of potential negative consequences of a fire, risk categories were determined for groups of protection objects that are homogeneous by type of economic activity and by functional fire hazard classes. The risk category for each individual object of protection is proposed to be determined using the so-called index of "identification of a controlled person" within a group of objects that are homogeneous by type of economic activity and class of functional fire hazard. Depending on the risk category, the periodicity of planned control and supervision measures in relation to the specific object of protection under consideration is determined, taking into account its socio-economic characteristics and the state of compliance with fire safety requirements by the controlled person. Conclusions. To develop criteria for classifying protection objects that are homogeneous in terms of economic activity and functional fire hazard classes, the probability of negative consequences of fires, that are causing harm (damage) of various extent and severity to the life or health of citizens, and the acceptable risk of causing harm (damage) as a result of fires, is used. The risk category for each individual object of protection is determined taking into account socio-economic characteristics of the object that affect the level of ensuring its fire safety, as well as the criteriaof integrity of the subordinate person that characterize the probability of non-compliance with mandatory fire safety requirements at the object of protection. Calculations are made and numerical values of criteria for assigning protection objects that are homogeneous in terms of economic activity and functional fire hazard classes to a certain category of risk are proposed. Key words: object of protection, probability of fire, acceptable level of risk, risk category, dangerous factor of fire, death and injury of people.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document