Are the safety practices of old state-owned enterprises still useful today?
Thread Content
I remember that in our chemical plant, we used to often study the 41 safety prohibitions set by the Ministry of Chemical Industry. These included 14 things that are not allowed to be done, seven prohibitions regarding hot work, six strict requirements for operators, eight rules that must be followed when entering towers and tanks, as well as seven prohibitions related to the use of motor vehicles. There were also other rules such as the three requirements of keeping the collar, cuffs, and hem tightly fastened, and so on. They were easy to remember and quite practical. Now, with the progress of modernization, concepts such as safety assessment and safety standardization have emerged. But is it still necessary to retain the old methods? Is it possible to endow it with new meaning again? Welcome everyone to discuss; thank you!
Many of the systems we are using now stem from the original systems and requirements.
It still has some reference value, after all, much of it is a summary of practical experience: loveliness:
It’s definitely useful; in terms of safety, state-owned enterprises perform much better than private ones, in my personal opinion.
Are the safety practices of state-owned old enterprises still useful today? What method is the original poster referring to? In my opinion, good things always have practical value; take the ’41 Prohibitions on Safe Production issued by the Ministry of Chemical Industry’ for example – if they aren’t retained, how can they be abolished? ——doubt
The safety practices of state-owned older enterprises mostly stem from practical experience and the wisdom of predecessors, which should certainly be drawn upon. Current safety assessments and safety standardization are also more refined forms of management developed based on past experience.
Similar to the 41 prohibitions issued by the former Ministry of Chemical Industry, the Work Safety Supervision Bureau issued a separate notice requiring all chemical enterprises to continue complying with them. There are also some operating procedures, **which the Safety Supervision Bureau is currently revising and issuing. The safety standardization being implemented now is also an improvement on the original basis.
The existing standards and regulations have also been developed by further revising and standardizing them on the basis of what already existed, in light of actual circumstances. All of these were established as a result of the painful lessons learned from accidents – how can we turn a blind eye to that?
In fact, safety standardization is merely a set of regulations, a framework designed to ensure that production takes place in a regulated environment. However, the specific procedures and precautions involved are exactly the same as those outlined in the 41 safety prohibitions issued by the Ministry of Chemical Industry, as well as those practiced by traditional state-owned enterprises. Anything that can help improve safety should be adopted, regardless of how long it has taken to develop such practices.
Better to have more, never less; safety first
Its usefulness is undeniable; anything unreasonable should be corrected and improved. But experience is still valuable.
There’s nothing to discuss! The answer is yes
Many safety procedures are the result of accumulated experience, sometimes at a high cost in terms of casualties; they are certainly useful, but it is also necessary to adopt traditional safety practices based on actual circumstances
Of course it has uses; safety systems are constantly being improved. How can we ignore the lessons learned over decades? Sinopec’s various companies continue to adhere to various safety regulations, and have recently issued ten prohibitions regarding safe production to impose even stricter requirements. Strictness is love; laxity is harm.
The topic of feeling safe has only become more prominent in recent years; back in the day, during classes, I often heard people say that wherever this issue was most discussed, it was also the area where development was least advanced. Now it seems that this statement still makes sense. There is certainly value to be drawn from the valuable experience of established companies, and aspects related to safety are also constantly being improved; it’s impossible to do everything perfectly right away. So, as the old saying goes: sift out the essential from the redundant.
Comrades, I think we can stop discussing this topic in this building! This shouldn’t have been a problem in the first place! Please stop posting replies once you see this! Let’s discuss and address those more meaningful topics that need your help!
It’s useful not only now but also in the future! Work safety is of utmost importance; it must always be kept in mind.
Banning smoking not only helps protect the environment and reduce pollution, but also prevents fires caused by careless smoking. A single cigarette can destroy a large chemical plant, which is why smoking should be strictly prohibited in such plants. This post was last edited by shaoyou2000 on 2008-1-3 13:37.]