OSHA Fines Massachusetts Firm over Ice Machine Death November 12, 2009 Email This Subscribe to Newsletter Email to a friend Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Print Article Article 6 Comments November 12, 2009 at 10:16 am wudchuck says: Like or Dislike: 0 0i guess it was a frozen one! Reply November 12, 2009 at 12:20 pm enough all ready says: Like or Dislike: 0 0wudchuck you need to get a job or hobby other than posting inane comments on this site on a daily basis. Reply November 12, 2009 at 1:27 am JM says: Like or Dislike: 0 0Wudchuck. Please, please get a life! Reply November 12, 2009 at 2:47 am donna says: Like or Dislike: 0 0Maybe I’m too common sense, but I would not just turn off a large machine but also UNPLUG IT whilst performing maintenance on it… Reply November 13, 2009 at 5:53 am wudchuck says: Like or Dislike: 0 0i remember we used to not only do that but tag the switch as well. (military in me)… Reply November 15, 2009 at 6:32 am Buck Lyn says: Like or Dislike: 0 0Sounds like HAL. The Machine , ” when it unexpectedly turned on .” Osha is not any beter. ” machine could not accidentally become active .” The Description of the Loss is not written properly. These were ACTS of PEOPLE , not the acts of the Machine. The man did not properly de- energize the Machine. Another employee violated the principle of not activitating a machine someone was working on. Reply Add a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Name * Email * Comment ΔNotify me of comments via e-mail
i guess it was a frozen one!
wudchuck you need to get a job or hobby other than posting inane comments on this site on a daily basis.
Wudchuck. Please, please get a life!
Maybe I’m too common sense, but I would not just turn off a large machine but also UNPLUG IT whilst performing maintenance on it…
i remember we used to not only do that but tag the switch as well. (military in me)…
Sounds like HAL. The Machine , ” when it unexpectedly turned on .”
Osha is not any beter. ” machine could not accidentally become active .”
The Description of the Loss is not written properly. These were ACTS of PEOPLE , not the acts of the Machine.
The man did not properly de- energize the Machine.
Another employee violated the principle of not activitating a machine someone was working on.