Occupational Hygiene

OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE (more correctly - hygiene of labor), a preventive discipline that studies labor and production processes and the tools, raw materials, and products used in them from the perspective of their effects on the health and capacity of workers, as well as the external working and production environment associated with them. On this basis, it outlines ways to eliminate all specific hazards associated with various types of professional activities, creates the scientific basis for establishing hygienic labor regimes and for implementing necessary labor protection measures through legislation, aimed at the maximum preservation of life and health of each individual worker and the improvement of the working class as a whole, and actively participates in increasing labor productivity. From this it clearly follows the close connection of hygiene of labor as a science with social hygiene, as well as with labor protection, with the problems of rational organization of labor and healthcare as practical branches of social policy; from this it also follows that hygiene of labor sets for itself tasks of two kinds - both theoretical-scientific and practical-regulatory. In this field, it develops, on the one hand, a very wide range of problems, so to speak, of a negative nature (along the line of eliminating this or that harmful factor), and on the other hand, a series of purely positive tasks for the most rational organization of labor with the most complete possible account of the biological (anatomical and physiological) features of the human organism in general and of particular groups of workers in particular. Content and scope of hygiene of labor. Hygiene of labor is a relatively young scientific discipline, which has differentiated in the last 10 years into an independent preventive science. Its origins are drawn from general (experimental) hygiene and from social hygiene. The term 'hygiene of labor' has gained recognition only in recent years and mainly in the USSR. Previously, the terms commonly used were: professional hygiene, industrial or trade hygiene (in German Gewerbehygiene, in French hygiene industrielle, in English industrial hygiene) or finally factory hygiene (this term was often used in pre-revolutionary Russia). Each of these terms by itself far from completely covers the entire scope of tasks facing hygiene of labor (in the modern understanding of this discipline). In addition to the labor of workers employed in factory and plant industry, hygiene of labor also studies (and as an applied science seeks to place in the healthiest possible conditions) the labor of all other persons engaged in socially useful productive labor in other sectors of the National Economy (work in transport, agriculture, trade, mental labor, etc.); therefore, the narrowness of defining hygiene of labor as 'factory' hygiene is obvious without further explanation. The limitation of the content of P. g., contained in the term 'factory hygiene', is explained by the fact that in tsarist Russia (as still in a number of capitalist countries) all labor legislation covered only factory and plant workers, and therefore bourgeois hygiene did not consider it possible and necessary to expand its beyond these limits. The term 'industrial hygiene' is somewhat broader, but it also does not cover the entire national economy as a whole. The definitions of 'professional' or 'trade' hygiene, although they provide full opportunity to cover all types of labor, but as if deliberately emphasize the features of individual differentiated branches of labor. Meanwhile, although the study of special working conditions depending on the nature of the work performed, the study of special dangers and hazards of individual industries and detailed professions constitutes a very essential task of hygiene of labor, it still far from covers all its tasks. And one of the main tasks of hygiene of labor is the study of the labor process itself and professional hazards regardless of the specific features of a given production and a given profession, therefore hygiene of labor investigates the general laws associated with the labor process and seeks ways to improve and properly, hygienically expedient organization of labor in general. Hygiene of labor further studies certain features of man as a subject of labor and a source of labor power. Therefore, it also examines a number of such problems as the labor of women and the labor of those who have not yet reached full maturity, minors and adolescents. In this connection, hygiene of labor is divided into two main parts: general and special (private). The general part studies professional hazards and the features of individual age-sex groups of workers and develops the general principles for improving working conditions and hygienic organization of labor. Special hygiene of labor or private: professional hygiene (here this term is quite legitimate, as it does not narrow the scope of the subject), studying individual industries and professions, is divided more in detail into further sections in accordance with the classification of industry and other independent sectors of the national economy. General hygiene of labor, in addition to its direct hygienic part, which covers the study of professional hazards and general production processes from a sanitary-hygienic point of view, also includes a number of sufficiently large and sharply defined in content sections, which are gradually differentiating more and more into independent complexes of problems. These include: a) sanitary statistics of labor, studying the effect of various production processes and working conditions on the health of professional collectives by analyzing sanitary indicators (professional morbidity and mortality, professional disability, professional injuries, birth rate and child mortality, physical indicators of development, etc.); b) physiology of labor, which differs from the physiology of muscular activity in that it considers the effect of labor on the human organism as a whole and on its individual functions in the specific conditions of its actual professional work and develops the most rational forms and methods of mental HYGIENE

49fr

of physical labor, participating in the organization of labor, rationalization of training, standardization of technical norms, etc., regardless of specific professional hazards; b) professional pathology (see), which studies the effects of professional hazards and unhealthy working conditions on the worker's body; c) industrial hygiene (see), which studies the rational principles for the design and maintenance of workplaces*, primarily industrial enterprises, and includes the study and development of measures to eliminate the harmful effects of production processes on the surrounding population (smoke, poisoning of vegetation by harmful gases, wastewater, etc.). Finally, occupational hygiene creates the necessary scientific basis for legislation in the fields of labor and health regarding the improvement of working conditions, the design, construction and maintenance of production enterprises (and generally workplaces), and the prevention of harmful effects of production on the surrounding population, vegetation, and livestock. Methods of occupational hygiene. Occupational hygiene, like all preventive disciplines, uses methods of various related sciences—natural, technical, biological, and social. It widely draws on necessary data from chemistry, mechanics, and various technical fields, studying raw materials, means and instruments of production and processing, semi-finished products* and finished products from the perspective of their hygienic effects on the bodies of workers, as well as studying in detail the course of production processes with the aim of identifying in them individual moments that are harmful to the worker's body and finding ways to eliminate them. Furthermore, it uses methods of physiology and experimental psychology, studying, for example, changes in the body during mental and physical work, during fatigue, etc. As a clearly distinguished purely methodological branch of occupational hygiene, industrial sanitary chemistry should also be mentioned, which is engaged in developing methods for analyzing workplace air for the quantitative determination of various harmful impurities (dust, vapors, and gases). Relying mainly on analytical chemistry, industrial sanitary chemistry is forced to a large extent to seek out its own methods, since existing ones a) are usually unsuitable for determining the extremely low concentrations that are typically found in the work area and have hygienic significance; b) are mostly unsuitable for detecting harmful substances in the air, or, more broadly, in the gaseous environment, and more often deal with solutions; c) as a rule, even when meeting the above two requirements, they give incorrect readings, because they are unsuitable for detecting these substances in gas mixtures, since the presence in the air of other ingredients besides those being determined either changes the nature of the reactions, making it difficult to accurately determine the given substance (giving underestimated readings), or increases the resulting figures due to the participation of other components of the gas mixture in the analytical reaction. From technological disciplines, occupational hygiene borrows methods for analyzing production processes for their hygienic evaluation and rationalization, as well as methods for evaluating various projects (buildings, production equipment, and auxiliary sanitary-technical installations) in order to make corrections from a sanitary-hygienic point of view. Methods of experimental pathology and pharmacology are also of great importance for occupational hygiene in the form of experiments on animals to determine the nature and mechanism of action of various professional hazards. Experiments on the effects of various types of dust and poisons on laboratory animals played a particularly significant role in clarifying a number of problems in occupational hygiene. Recently, a special discipline—professional toxicology—has begun to gradually develop, which studies not only the specific characteristics of various substances found in the air of industrial enterprises, but also the peculiarities of their action due to both the combination of various toxic agents (combined action of poisons) and their combination with other professional hazards, accumulating materials for establishing the comparative toxicity of various industrial substances and the maximum permissible concentrations of vapors and gases in the air, and for establishing methods for their biological detection, hygienic evaluation, and standardization of complex toxic mixtures. Furthermore, occupational hygiene also uses all the usual methods of laboratory and practical sanitary-hygienic techniques: it cannot do without the usual chemical, as well as bacteriological and biological analysis of water, analysis of workshop air, its exchange rate, determination of temperature and humidity at workplaces, measurement of lighting, etc., in solving both basic theoretical questions and practical specific tasks. Occupational hygiene creates its own complex methods, combining experimental techniques of human physiology and general pathology with hygienic methods (experimental variations of the external environment). Thus, for example, extensive work is carried out on creating in laboratory conditions various experimental variations of meteorological factors (different combinations of temperature, humidity, and air movement) and studying their effects on various functions of the body at rest and under conditions of experimentally varied work; on studying the effect of different lighting levels and various lighting elements (glare, etc.) on visual processes at rest and during work; the effect on the organs of vision and hearing of various types of radiation and noises of different pitches and intensities is studied, etc. Since occupational hygiene deals with the working body of a specific living person and studies, among other things, the effect of labor on the health of an individual, it widely uses all methods of medical diagnosis (particularly laboratory) and in general is closely connected with clinical medicine in the study of occupational diseases, using methods of ordinary and specifically occupational-pathological clinical observations (see Professional pathology). A certain characteristic of the experimental methods used by occupational hygiene is their wide application not only in laboratory conditions but directly in production settings, to solve both practical tasks, primarily in the course of current sanitary-industrial supervision (especially by physicians at health stations), and various questions of professional etiology, as well as when conducting various types of surveys, including experimental ones. This aspect of the application of various methods of occupational hygiene has received exceptionally serious development only in the USSR, because in the conditions of capitalist countries this is impossible, since private entrepreneurs in every way protect their enterprises from any 'outside view' both because of competitive conditions (fear of disclosure and exposure of 'industrial secrets' and 'production secrets') and due to the fear of widespread familiarity with the actual working conditions of 'their' workers. Among the mentioned methods, the methods of comprehensive study in production conditions and sanitary-technical description of all features of the labor process, professional hazards and dangers, and individual maximally differentiated jobs (so-called sanitary characteristics of detailed professions) and the study of the body's reactions during work to labor loads and the effects of individual professional hazards (so-called sanitary-clinical characteristics) have received particularly wide application in the USSR. Finally, occupational hygiene studies not only the environment of labor, the object, the instruments of labor, and the subject of labor in the person of the worker, but also labor itself as a socio-economic factor of enormous importance for the entire society. 'Labor created man himself' (Engels). Therefore, it widely applies the general methods of social sciences. It considers the process of labor not as a category of purely physiological order (as bourgeois labor physiology does), but studies it in the conditions of actual reality and in the specific socio-economic environment surrounding it. Therefore, occupational hygiene, in order to clarify a number of phenomena characterizing the sanitary conditions of labor, also studies the economic conditions and questions of the general position of the entire working class and its individual groups. Here it directly connects with political economy and historical materialism. But even in the sphere of narrower tasks, occupational hygiene applies methods of social sciences. First, in developing issues of improving working conditions, occupational hygiene also works out questions not only of narrowly hygienic but also of the economic effectiveness of various sanitary-technical measures. Furthermore, occupational hygiene widely uses the statistical method, through which it determines a number of sanitary-hygienic regularities and the effect of individual hazards not on an isolated organism but on the entire proletariat as a whole.

Occupational hygiene, setting for itself the tasks of concretely implementing the practical conclusions derived from various research and scientific investigations, also uses the following means of practical influence: 1) instructions on necessary measures for the personal prevention of diseases among workers and for preventing the influence of occupational hazards and dangers on them; 2) conducting appropriate agitation-propaganda and health education in its field; 3) providing guidance to practitioner-organizers, leaders of industry, and the entire national economy on necessary technical and sanitary measures for improving labor and production; 4) enforcing its requirements through appropriate industrial-sanitary legislation. History. Individual references to the influence of harmful working conditions on health, as well as to occupational diseases themselves, are found even in Egyptian writings, in the Talmud, and among classical Greek and Roman writers—Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle, Pliny, Juvenal, etc. In the Renaissance era, individual works specifically devoted to occupational diseases and occupational hygiene first appeared. Thus, in 1556, a book by S. Stockhausen on lead poisoning (Huttenkatze) and on mountain sickness (Bergsucht) was published. In 1567, Paracelsus issued a special booklet entitled "Von der Bergsucht und anderen Bergkrankheiten". In 1614, a booklet by the Saxon city physician Martin Pans appeared under the title "A faithful advice in difficult mountain and lung breathing". Bernardino Ramazzini is usually considered the creator and father of truly scientific occupational hygiene, whose classic work (Ramazzini B., "De morbis artificum diatriba", Ultrajecti, 1700; French edition—"Essai sur les maladies des artisans", Paris, 1777) contains a detailed description of occupational hazards and occupational diseases of 52 diseases. After Ramazzini's death, his main work was repeatedly significantly supplemented and corrected, and at times even rewritten by his followers. Such valuable revisions were made in Germany by Ackermann in 1783, in France by Fourcroy in 1776, Patissier in 1823, and many others. In the first half of the 19th century, approximately from the mid-1840s, a number of special studies on occupational diseases appeared in Germany (works of Kussmaul, Delpech, Hilliard, Schuchardt, Zenker, Merkel, etc.). Starting from the second half of the 19th century, a number of detailed systematic works were published in Germany, written by very major specialists and systematically presenting all the achievements of contemporary scientific thought regarding occupational diseases and generally occupational hygiene. In France, it is necessary to mention the largest work of this kind, published in 1876 by A. Laïe, professor at the Naval Medical School in Rochefort. With a very small general part, it very details occupational diseases (about a hundred separate professions, with the latter arranged in alphabetical order). Despite its great age, this book of a completely classical character still represents considerable interest for workers in the field of hygiene and labor protection, as it provides for each profession (which are very detailed) an extremely rich material, supported wherever possible by available statistics, concrete facts, and abundant references to the literature on the subject. Among later or contemporary workers in the field of occupational hygiene, the following should be noted: in Germany—Albrecht, Sommerfeld, Adler, Lehmann, Holtzmann, Engel, Ikert, Weme, Kelsch, Teleki, Hayes, Baader; in Austria—Brüszin, Dürig, Adler-Herzmark; in Czechoslovakia—Rambužek, Levi; in Switzerland—Schuler, Zänger, Zollinger; in Italy—Devoto, Carocci, Loriga; in France—Amar, Heim, Agasse-Lafon, Martin, Frouin; in Belgium—Yoteyko, Glibert; in Holland—Geijermans, Kranenburg; in England—Collis, Legg, Vernon, Newman, Kettle, Oliver, Hill; in America—Alice Hamilton, Kober, Hegorst, Henson, Lee, Henderson; in South Africa—Mavrogordato, Irwin, Orenstein. In Russia, occupational hygiene as a scientific discipline and as a practical problem in the pre-revolutionary era naturally did not occupy the place due to it according to the importance and significance of the questions it covered. This is explained by the comparative backwardness of Russian science and especially by the general socio-political situation of tsarist Russia: naturally, the landowner-noble state power cared very little about the interests of labor and the working class, and the bourgeois intelligentsia (including so-called "social medicine") followed in the same direction. For the first time in the specifically Russian medical literature, questions of occupational hygiene were addressed by A. N. Nikitin, who first published a series of articles in the Moscow medical journal "Drug zdorovia", and then published a special guide to occupational hygiene as a separate edition, in which up to 100 professions were examined in detail from the point of view of occupational hygiene, and they were classified according to occupational hazards and the diseases they cause: This work, however, had in essence only purely literary interest and was based mainly on Ramazzini's book. The actual beginning of the development of occupational hygiene in Russia, as part of practical social medicine and as an independent theoretical-scientific problem, was laid by Erisman. In the history of the development of occupational hygiene in Russia, the significance of Erisman manifested itself in two respects: 1) his book "Occupational Hygiene or Hygiene of Mental and Physical Labor" had enormous scientific importance for almost a whole generation; 2) the materials from the investigation of factories and plants of the Moscow Province, carried out by him together with Dementiev and Pogozhev (published in 17 volumes and two additional summary issues) not only represented exceptional interest for the richness of the material, the seriousness and depth of the treatment, while at the same time being very captivating and engaging in its presentation, but also had a particularly important significance in that they created a whole school of Moscow sanitary doctors engaged in industrial sanitation. Erisman's closest assistants in turn made very valuable contributions to the field of occupational hygiene. Dementiev himself conducted a series of works to clarify the influence of labor on the physical development of workers, developed the topic of the muscular strength of workers in connection with their general physical development, and wrote a work of enormous social significance on the influence of factories on the health of workers, which combined socio-economic research with purely sanitary. At the same time, it is necessary to point out that all the works of Erisman and his students, as well as generally of the entire Moscow zemstvo school, were very far from Marxist methodology and could not reveal the true essence of capitalist exploitation and make consistent socio-hygienic, resp. socio-political, conclusions from their own very rich factual material. The same was true of the works of a number of sanitary organizations of other zemstvos that studied various types of industrial labor, handicrafts, and itinerant trades (Kherson, Saratov, Yaroslavl, Yekaterinoslav). Another source from which occupational hygiene began to develop in Russia was the factory inspection, created in 1882, initially only for supervising the working conditions of minors. It first attracted a number of representatives of the socially oriented bourgeois-liberal intelligentsia. Among the first factory inspectors were several doctors (Gorodkov in the Vilna factory district, Peskov in the Vladimir district, Svyatlovsky in the Kharkov district). The first reports, published by them in the form of solid volumes in a literary-descriptive form (only later did the government abolish this 60".

OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE

-

50*

form, as containing much oppositional material, and replaced them with dry numerical summaries), represented very interesting studies of the living conditions and labor conditions of factory workers. One of these first pioneers of factory inspection, V. V. Svyatlovsky, subsequently published a whole series of works on occupational hygiene, including in 1889 a dissertation titled 'The Factory Worker' (a study of the health of the Russian factory worker), placed a large number of articles in the medical press, gave a series of special professional hygiene essays on individual industries, and two systematic guides to occupational hygiene (one very extensive with a specially developed section in 1891 and a 'Brief Outline of Factory and Plant Hygiene' in 1901). In addition to these founders of factory sanitation and occupational hygiene in Russia, it is necessary to mention a number of names, the majority of whom were zemstvo doctors, directly or indirectly belonging to the Erismansky school (D. N. Zhbankov, who studied industrial enterprises in the Smolensk province; Rostovtsev, Sokolov, Sosnin, etc. of the Moscow province; Bertenson, who conducted research in the Urals, Poland, and Baku, etc.). Many doctors were engaged in factory sanitation and the study of sanitary conditions of labor in various regions of Russia, or studied and described occupational hygiene of individual industries and professions (Dombrovsky, Sulima, Spassky, Kosvintsev, Lozhilov, Schmidt, Skibnevsky, Kastorsky, Lebedev, Moroshkin, Telyakov, Svionetsky, Yakovenko, etc.). It is necessary to note the outstanding significance of D. P. Nikolsky (later a professor, died in 1918), who devoted his entire life not only to the study of issues of occupational hygiene, but also to the broad propaganda of the idea of occupational hygiene, understood by him very broadly as part of the social protection of workers, already linked with the class struggle. Further, it is necessary to point to the great importance in the development of occupational hygiene of Prof. Khlopin (died in 1930), who gave a series of experimental works in the field of the study of industrial poisons and a number of articles and books in other areas of occupational hygiene, Dr. S. M. Bogoslovsky (died in 1931), known for two sanitary-statistical works on the industrial morbidity of workers in the Moscow province and the development of methodology for compiling sanitary characteristics and studying industrial morbidity, Dr. M. Ya. Lukomsky (died in 1931), who gave a series of works in the field of industrial pathology and created the only scientific research institution in the USSR for the study of the physiology of labor and industrial diseases in transportation, Drs. I. S. Veger and A. N. Vinokurov - Bolsheviks, who before the revolution appeared in the legal press (mainly insurance) and at legal congresses (factory doctors) with articles and reports on general and specific issues of occupational hygiene. Among contemporaries who greatly contributed to the development of occupational hygiene with their works, it is necessary to mention Prof. A. F. Nikitin, who gave a series of works in the field of the study of the labor of porters; Dr. V. A. Levitsky, known for his research on hat makers in the Podolsky district and the development of measures of the Moscow provincial zemstvo for the removal of mercury from the processes of cottage production of felt hats; Dr. Lyashchenko, who studied the labor of miners. Finally, among those who played a serious role in the dissemination of ideas of labor protection at a time when the entire socio-political conjuncture was by no means favorable to this, it is also necessary to mention the engineer-technologist Prof. A. A. Press (died in 1930), who as early as 40 years ago first appeared in print with propaganda of technical safety and the fight against industrial traumatism and published and edited a number of the most extensive multi-volume guides in this field and always linked the matter of technical labor protection with occupational hygiene. Occupational hygiene in bourgeois countries and in the USSR. Occupational hygiene, like any other practical discipline, is closely connected with the specific conditions of the socio-historical formation in which it develops. Occupational hygiene in bourgeois society began to develop more or less widely during the period of the development of capitalism and labor legislation, which was the result of stubborn class struggle. Occupational hygiene as a discipline developed by bourgeois scientists always proceeded from incorrect methodological premises about its 'above-class' nature, asserting that it serves the interests of all humanity and above all the working masses. Completely not understanding the basic roots of occupational diseases, in the fight against which it saw its main task, bourgeois occupational hygiene did not want to understand the elementary truth for Marxism that unhealthy working conditions are an inevitable companion of the capitalist organization of production. Marx writes: 'Capitalist production, if we consider it in isolation, abstracting from the process of circulation and depletion caused by competition, relates extremely carefully to labor already accomplished, embodied in commodities. On the contrary, it is to a much greater degree than any other mode of production a squanderer of people's living labor, a squanderer not only of the body but also of nerves and brain' ('Capital' vol. III, part 1, p. 55, GIZ, 1929). Therefore, occupational hygiene in capitalist countries cannot correctly outline the fundamental paths of improving working conditions, inevitably associated with the elimination of ownership of the means of production, and is forced everywhere to scrape by, outlining only pitiful, completely ineffective palliative measures. At the same time and precisely for this reason, occupational hygiene (and especially the physiology of labor and industrial pathology) in capitalist countries is a typically class science, often directly or indirectly carrying out direct social orders of the bourgeoisie. Occupational hygiene, on the other hand, contributes to blurring the class self-consciousness of workers, spreading among the masses (with the active assistance of social-fascist organizations) assertions about the possibility of significant and almost complete improvement of working conditions within the framework of the capitalist system, and in every way smears the social roots of industrial hazards, turning the question of their essence of origin and ways of elimination from a social one exclusively into a technical-biological problem. Along with this, individual bourgeois workers in the field of occupational hygiene often directly and directly serve the interests of individual entrepreneurs or their groupings, consciously concealing not only the problems of the influence of the capitalist organization of labor on the health of the proletariat as a whole, but also eulogizing as slightly harmful or completely harmless individual production processes, individual mechanisms, and individual substances used in production. At the same time, occupational hygiene (especially in the part concerning the physiology of labor) along with bourgeois psychotechnology often directly participates in the development of all sorts of sophisticated methods of intensification of labor, going beyond all physiological limits ('scientific sweating,' Lenin). And not without reason, for example in Germany, the society of occupational hygiene is actively supported by large industry and social-fascism and exists mainly on the funds of entrepreneurial organizations. Even relatively modest scientific achievements of occupational hygiene are often not realized in bourgeois conditions in practice, because their implementation runs into the fundamental contradictions of capitalist 'order.' Thus, Lenin pointed out that a number of serious technical improvements having great health-improving significance (for example, the introduction of machine glass blowing) is not only not implemented, but the corresponding patents are specially purchased by interested firms so that they cannot see the light. And the fundamental improvement of working conditions on the basis of truly decisive, technique-revolutionizing discoveries is already quite unthinkable under capitalism (about this Lenin wrote back in 1913 in connection with Ramsay's discovery of the possibility of underground gasification of coal) (this idea, promising in the perspective the complete elimination of underground work in coal mines, began to be realized only in the USSR in our days). It is therefore quite understandable that the problems of occupational hygiene are posed in a completely different way in the USSR, in a country building socialism, during the period of completing the construction of its economic foundation. The very fact of the October Revolution sharply changed the situation, tasks, and possibilities of occupational hygiene. Instead of minor palliative amendments, the questions of the most serious study of industrial hazards for the purpose of their fundamental elimination, their truly complete destruction, and radical prevention in the very process of new construction were put on the agenda, as well as the tasks not only of a sharp reduction, but in the future and complete elimination of occupational diseases and injuries, but also of the most active participation of sanitary-hygienic competence in the organization of labor and production and a close connection with the issues of professional consultation and selection. Labor before our very eyes is already 'becoming the first necessity of man' (Engels), 'labor for oneself' (Lenin), 'a matter of honor, a matter of glory, a matter of valor and heroism' (Stalin).

Henceforth, the tasks of its positive organization are increasingly coming to the forefront, using it as a powerful factor for health and harmonious holistic development of all somatic and psycho-physiological functions and aptitudes. The fundamental reconstruction of industry, the powerful new construction over the course of the first five-year plan victoriously completed in 4 years, work on creating the foundations of 'new socialist technology', the broad mechanization of production—primarily of heavy and harmful work (according to the resolution of the XVII Party Conference), the powerful manifestation of the creative enthusiasm and heroism of the working masses, most vividly expressed in the widespread dissemination of socialist forms of labor (socialist competition and shock work)—all this has already led to a significant reduction in occupational diseases and occupational injuries. Currently, occupational hygiene is setting for itself increasingly grandiose tasks—the tasks of eliminating specific occupational diseases and occupational poisonings during the second five-year plan, eliminating occupational injuries as a mass phenomenon in the main branches of industry, and sharply reducing the overall morbidity of the working masses. The stages of development of occupational hygiene in the Soviet Union were closely linked with the main stages of socialist construction. Immediately after the October Revolution, at the very first steps in drafting new labor legislation, especially in the field of labor protection, the necessity of relying on preliminary scientific study of a number of materials became completely obvious. The issuance of a number of mandatory decrees of the People's Commissariat of Labor on 'industrial sanitation and safety engineering', the compilation of a number of lists of detailed professions that entitle one to certain legal or material benefits, in connection with the establishment of compensation for harmful working conditions (special clothing, additional vacations, soap, fats, the right to extended maternity leave for certain categories of persons and mental workers, prohibition of certain work for women and minors, etc.), required the study and accounting of the comparative harmfulness of different types of work. Hence, at the first stage of the development of labor protection in the USSR, the study of individual types of work in the form of sanitary characteristics of detailed professions, according to a special card compiled by the Labor Protection Department (NKT), received very widespread dissemination. In 1918, a technical labor inspection was created within the network of the People's Commissariat of Labor, and in 1919—a sanitary labor inspection (see Labor), which contributed to the broad development of Occupational Hygiene both in the practice of Soviet work and in the part dealing with the development of various scientific-practical and scientific-theoretical issues. The further development of legislation in the field of labor protection led to the need not only to expand the corresponding scientific work but also to significantly deepen it. This was also brought about by the circumstance that around 1923-24, in connection with the end of the Civil War and severe mass epidemics, Soviet healthcare set for itself the task, which naturally followed from the main tasks of the entire Soviet system—to move to 'improving the health of labor and daily life'. To this period belongs, on the one hand, the beginning of the broad development of special scientific institutions (see below), and on the other hand—the creation within the network of People's Commissariats of Health of sanitary-industrial physicians, physicians for studying occupational morbidity and occupational dispensaries. From 1931, a network of health stations on enterprises began to develop on a broad front, the tasks of which also include serious practical work on improving working conditions and delimiting functions in the field of industrial sanitary supervision between labor and health authorities (see Industrial Sanitation). Developing in the USSR mainly on the basis of Marxist-Leninist methodology, occupational hygiene did not avoid a number of serious distortions, errors, and deviations from dialectical materialism. Thus, idealistic views (Levitsky, Vigdorchik, Shpil'rein), mechanistic views (Bogolepova, Obuk, Koyranetsky, Kagan and others) developed in it, and there were also a number of errors along the line of Menshevik idealism (a number of works by Kaplun). The discussion that took place in 1931 in the field of hygiene and physiology of labor revealed the sources of these errors, their class origins, and led to a serious reorganization of this area of work. Scientific institutions and museums. In the part of special scientific research institutions, capitalist countries naturally made very little. The first scientific institution of this kind was the clinic of prof. diseases, founded in Milan by Prof. De-voto in 1910, in which, along with the study of occupational diseases, issues of labor physiology are developed, primarily fatigue, and experimental study of the effect of various harmful substances on animals is conducted. In 1913, in Berlin, the Institute of Labor Physiology was organized by Prof. Rubner, as part of the physiol. institute of the university, after the war transformed into an independent institution, as part of the Kaiser Wilhelm Academy, a scientific institution headed by Prof. Adler; in 1929 it was moved to Dortmund in a specially built for it building at the expense of large Ruhr industrialists. In 1925, in Berlin, on the funds of a private firm (Joint-stock company for the manufacture of railway brakes Knorr-Brems), a clinic of prof. diseases was organized, representing a small clinical department of the hospital 'named after Queen Augusta-Victoria' headed by Dr. Baader. In 1928, an outpatient clinic (Untersuchungsstelle) for occupational diseases was organized at the Berlin general hospital insurance fund on private funds by Prof. Hayes. In addition to this, issues of occupational hygiene are studied in some general scientific and university institutions (in this respect, the clinical laboratory of Prof. K. B. Lehman in Würzburg became known). In 1929-30, from the university laboratory in Münster, a small Institute of Occupational Hygiene was organized under the leadership of Prof. Ikert. However, very little is known about the work of this institute. In 1916, in Johannesburg (South Africa), in connection with the exceptional development of pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis in South African mines, a special 'medical bureau for miners' tuberculosis' was organized, which, working in constant closest contact with the South African Institute for Medical Research, is in fact the only specialized scientific research institute for pneumoconiosis in the world. Somewhat more attention is paid in the West to the organization of various museums in the field of occupational hygiene, however, issues of occupational hazards and occupational diseases are usually represented less than problems of safety engineering and injuries. The largest institution of this kind is the Charlottenburg Museum in Berlin, founded in 1903 under the name of a permanent exhibition on labor protection. Following it should be placed the Bavarian Workers' Museum in Munich, directed by Prof. Kels, founded in 1900. Even earlier, museums of much less importance and smaller scale were founded—the Zurich museum (founded in 1883), the Vienna (founded in 1889), the Amsterdam (founded in 1891) and the Budapest (founded in 1928). It should also be mentioned a special department devoted to issues of occupational hygiene in the Paris Museum of Arts and Crafts (Conservatoire des arts et métiers). In accordance with the general place of occupational hygiene, in socialist construction and among other scientific disciplines, the development of scientific institutions for occupational hygiene in the USSR has no equal in any bourgeois country either in scope or in depth. The largest scientific institutions working in the field of hygiene and pathology of labor are: 1) The Central State Institute for Labor Protection of the NKT, NKZdr. and VSNKh, founded in 1925 and having in it a number of departments in the field of occupational hygiene in the narrow sense _g labor physiology, occupational toxicology, safety engineering, sanitary engineering, psychotechnology, occupational consultation and selection, labor expertise, use of labor of disabled persons, etc. In 1932 it was merged with the Institute of Labor Economics and, coming under the jurisdiction of only the NKT of the USSR, was renamed the All-Union Institute of Economics, Health Improvement and Organization of Labor. It has branches in Magnitogorsk, Kuznetsk, Yaroslavl, Bobriki and Nadezhdinsk. 2) The All-Ukrainian Institute of Hygiene and Pathology of Labor of the NKZdr. (founded in 1924; until 1928 it bore the name of the Institute of Working Medicine), consisting of a hospital, a number of departments on issues of physiology and labor hygiene and having branches in Stalino, Odessa, Kyiv and Dnepropetrovsk; which were then transformed into independent institutes. 3) The Ukrainian Institute of Labor of the NKT, working in the field of labor hygiene and labor economics since 1930; has branches in a number of major industrial centers of Ukraine. 4) The Institute for the Study of Occupational Diseases named after Obuk of the Moscow Health Department (organized in 1923), consisting of a number of clinical departments, a number of auxiliary scientific laboratories, a sanitary-hygienic department and the largest physiological laboratory, with the entire work of the institute closely intertwined with the activities of Moscow medical-sanitary institutions. 5) The Central Institute of Occupational Diseases of the NKZdr.

RSFSR, reorganized in 1928 from the Clinic of Social and Occupational Diseases, organized by the People's Commissariat of Health, People's Commissariat of Labor, and People's Commissariat of Education in 1923; since 1931 renamed the Institute of Industrial Hygiene and Industrial Sanitation. 6) The Central Laboratory for the Study of Occupational Diseases in Transport of the People's Commissariat of Health (founded in 1925), which since 1930 has been under the jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat of Railroads under the name of the Central Laboratory for Physiology and Industrial Hygiene in Transport. 7) The Leningrad Institute of Occupational Diseases, consisting of a hospital and a polyclinic and specializing exclusively in questions of occupational pathology (founded in 1925). 8) The Leningrad Institute of Industrial Hygiene and Safety Engineering (founded in 1927), renamed in 1932 the Institute of Economics, Organization, and Protection of Labor (merging with the Leningrad Institute of Labor). 9) The North Caucasus Institute for Labor Protection and Occupational Diseases of the People's Commissariat of Labor, People's Commissariat of Health, and Supreme Council of National Economy, organized in 1928 in Rostov-on-Don. 10-11) The Ural Institutes of the People's Commissariat of Health and People's Commissariat of Labor (in Sverdlovsk), which were formed on the basis of the former interdepartmental institute. 12) The All-Union Institute for the Organization and Improvement of Labor in Mining Industry (in Makeyevka). 13) The All-Union Institute for Hygiene and Organization of Labor in the Oil Industry (in Baku). In addition, there are up to 30 peripheral institutes working in the field of industrial hygiene in the systems of both the People's Commissariat of Labor and the People's Commissariat of Health (Minsk, Tashkent, Tiflis, Baku, Gorky, Saratov, Samara, Stalingrad, Kazan, Novosibirsk, Magnitogorsk, Tula, Ivanovo, Vladivostok, Dnepropetrovsk, etc.). Recently, a number of institutes for the study of occupational diseases working on industrial hygiene in the system of the People's Commissariat of Health have been included in associations (or united institutes) of socialist health care and hygiene. A feature of all institutes working on industrial hygiene in the USSR is the comprehensive and integrated approach to the improvement of labor problems, involving in this work a very wide range of diverse specialties (clinical physicians, hygienists, engineers, physicists, chemists, physiologists, psychotechnicians, statisticians, toxicologists, experimental pathologists, etc.). The second feature is their close connection, based on the unity of theory and practice, with enterprises, with labor protection agencies, with health posts, and with medical institutions. One of the weak links in the work of industrial hygiene institutes, on which both they themselves and the working public and state agencies constantly focus their attention, is the insufficient implementation of their achievements on a broad scale in production practice. In addition to institutes, scientific and practical work is also carried out by a number of peripheral institutions, industrial hygiene laboratories, labor departments, occupational dispensaries, and departments for occupational diseases in some clinics and hospitals.

After the revolution in the USSR, special museums for industrial hygiene began to be created for the first time. The largest of these is the Central Museum of Labor Protection and Social Insurance of the People's Commissariat of Labor of the USSR, created in 1922 and developed into a powerful, European-type institution, with its embryo being the museum named after Pogozheva, created by Professor Pogozhev even before the revolution at Moscow University (renamed in 1930 to the Museum of Labor). Museums and exhibitions on industrial hygiene, as well as special departments in general social hygiene museums and health museums, now exist in almost every major industrial center. Congresses and societies. The First International Congress on Hygiene and Pathology of Labor was held in 1906 in Milan, the second in 1910 in Brussels, the third congress was to be held in Vienna in September 1914, but could not convene due to the outbreak of the imperialist war (however, its proceedings were published under the editorship of L. Teleki). After the war, the fourth congress was held jointly with traumatologists in Amsterdam. The fifth congress_< jointly with traumatologists was held in September 1928 in Budapest, the fourth congress on industrial hygiene and occupational pathology was held in the spring of 1929 in Lyon, the sixth international congress (united with traumatologists) was held in August 1931 in Geneva. Questions of industrial hygiene are also specifically dedicated to the annual congresses of the German Society of Industrial Hygiene (organized in 1923 by a group of large industrialists, mainly from the chemical industry), as well as special congresses on 'labor medicine' in Italy. In addition, these issues (mainly from an organizational point of view) were the subject of special discussion at the First International Conference of representatives of industrial sanitary supervision (Düsseldorf, in September 1925). At present, there are two permanent international organizations: 1) Permanent Committee of Congresses on Traumatology and Occupational Diseases, to which from the USSR belong Professor Kagan (Kharkov) and Professor Kaplun (Moscow), and 2) International Commission on Occupational Diseases under the chairmanship of Professor Devoto and with Secretary Professor Carocci, in which the Soviet Union is represented by Professor Kaplun.

In the USSR, questions of industrial hygiene are specifically addressed by the All-Union Congresses on Occupational Hygiene and Safety (the first congress was held in 1924, the second in 1927), convened by the People's Commissariat of Labor. Special sections on Occupational Hygiene were organized at the IX, X, and XI All-Union Congresses of Sanitary Physicians, Bacteriologists, and Epidemiologists (1924, 1926, and 1928). In addition, these questions are specifically and regularly raised at All-Union Congresses of Physiologists (1926, 1928, and 1930), pathologists (congress in Baku in 1930), therapists (All-Union and republican congresses), gynecologists (a program question since 1926 was also discussed in 1928), laryngologists (a program topic since 1927), and a number of congresses on other clinical specialties. For a long time, there was no special society for questions of industrial hygiene in the USSR, and these questions were within the scope of the All-Russian Society of Social-Experimental Hygiene. In January 1933, the All-Union Society of Hygiene and Labor Safety was organized. Teaching of industrial hygiene in higher education, After the October Revolution in the USSR, for the first time in the world, the question of teaching industrial hygiene in medical faculties was raised. Initially (from 1921), it was taught as one of the sections of social hygiene. Independent departments were first introduced in Ukraine. In 1923-1924, the first department of industrial hygiene was organized in Kharkov (Professor Kagan). To the RSFSR, an independent department of industrial hygiene was introduced as a compulsory subject in the 2nd Moscow State University in 1924-25 (Professor Kaplun), and teaching of industrial hygiene was introduced into the compulsory curriculum of all medical faculties of the Main Professional Board of the RSFSR only in 1926. In the spring of 1928, the medical commission of the Main Professional Board of the RSFSR approved the first compulsory curriculum for industrial hygiene, taught to fourth-year students (54 annual lecture hours and 54 practical hours). The Second All-Union Conference of Preventive Departments held in Leningrad in May 1928 considered it desirable to transfer the teaching of industrial hygiene to the fifth year in the future, to strengthen the teaching of elements of occupational pathology in this course, and to establish 2 weekly lecture and 2 weekly practical annual hours of teaching. When reviewing the curricula in connection with the reorganization of medical education (reorganization of medical faculties into medical institutes, creation of separate preventive and sanitary-prophylactic faculties), industrial hygiene was included in the curricula of all departments of the medical faculty, and clinics of occupational diseases were included in the departments of industrial hygiene where they had been created earlier (then being part of the departments of social hygiene), and the corresponding departments on the preventive faculty and the faculty of protection It, OCCUPATIONAL PATHOLOGY, 512;

Departments of hygiene of motherhood and infancy were renamed into departments of labor hygiene and clinics of occupational diseases (with the inclusion of teaching of labor expertise in this department). According to the latest curricula of the People's Commissariat of Health of the RSFSR, this subject is allocated: in the medical-profilactic department 90 hours, in the stomatological department-30 hours, in the faculty for protection of motherhood and infancy-30 hours, in all sanitary-profilactic departments except sanitary-industrial department-90 hours, and in the sanitary-industrial department-680 hours. (in the last department, the department of labor hygiene also includes as mandatory subjects for associate professorships: in technology with safety techniques, in lighting and ventilation, in sanitary-industrial construction, in industrial toxicology, in professional consultation and professional selection, in organization of labor). In all departments, mandatory examinations in this subject were introduced according to the curricula of the RSFSR of 1932. Besides medical institutes, labor hygiene is taught in a number of higher technical schools, technical schools, and in FZU. In Europe and America, there are no special departments of labor hygiene in medical faculties anywhere, and only in a few places private courses are given. The V International Congress of Occupational Diseases adopted a special resolution on the need for the introduction of mandatory teaching of labor hygiene everywhere, based on the corresponding reports (by Prof. Kaplun and Associate Prof. Kalmus from Prague). Lit.: V. Igordchik, Essays on Occupational Hygiene, L.-M., 1925; V. Dementiev, The Factory, what it gives to the population and what it takes from it, M., 1897; S. Kaplun, Labor Hygiene-a subject, brief history and main tasks, Soc. Hyg., 1922-23, № 1-2; ibid., Questions of hygiene and protection of labor in Germany and France, M., 1925; ibid., Labor and Health, 3rd ed., M., 1925; ibid., Foundations of General Labor Hygiene, pt. 1-2, M.-L., 1925-26; ibid., Works of the II All-Union Congress on Occupational Hygiene and Safety Engineering, M., 1930; ibid., Marx and questions of labor hygiene, Hyg. and Safety of Labor, 1933, №2; K. Karaffa-Karbut, Lectures on Occupational Hygiene, M., 1922; F. Kely, General Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Pathology, M.-L., 1927; D. Kober and V. Henron, Occupational Diseases and Hygiene of Professions, pt. 1-2, M., 1925; A. Laye, Occupational Hygiene, Warsaw, 1888; P. Lashchenkov, Occupational Hygiene, Tomsk, 1923; K. Leiman, Brief Textbook of Working and Occupational Hygiene, M.-P., 19-23; J. Lowy, Occupational Diseases, vol. 1, M.-L., 1925; A. Nikitin, Industrial Labor and Social Hygiene, L., 1925; D. Nikol'sky, Occupational Hygiene in connection with technology, Med. Beseda, Voronezh, 1900, № 18-19; ibid., Occupational Hygiene among the social sciences, ibid., 1903, № 21-22; ibid., Course of Occupational Hygiene (lithographed lectures), pt. 1-3, OPB, 1907; A. Pogov, Interaction of technology and medicine in protecting the life and health of workers, M., 1901; E. Rot, Introduction to Occupational Hygiene, vol. 1-2, M., 1924-1925 (transl. from German ed. 1904); V. Svyatlovsky, Essay on Factory-Plant Hygiene, SPB, 1901; Works of I and II All-Russian Congresses of factory doctors and representatives of factory-plant industry, M., 1910 and 1912; Works of the I All-Union Congress on Occupational Hygiene and Safety Engineering, M., 1926; M. Uvarov and L. Lyalin, Protection of life and health of workers, M., 1907; G. Khlopin, Labor regime and occupational hazards, L., 1926; II International Congress of Occupational Diseases, Brussels, 1910; F. Bremond, Precis of Industrial Hygiene, P., 1898; J. Breton, Occupational Diseases, P., 1911; B. Chayes, Grundriss der Berufskunde u. Berufshygiene, B., 1929; H. Eulenberg, Handbuch der Gewerbehygiene auf experimenteller Grundlage, B., 1876; L. Ferranini, Medicine del lavoro, Milano, 1930; A. Halfort, Krankheiten der Kunstler u. Gewerbetreibenden, B., 1845; Handbuch der sozialen Hygiene und Gesundheitsfursorge, hrsg. v. A. Gottstein, A. Schlossmann u. A. Teleky, B. II-Gewerbehygiene u. Gewerbekrankheiten, B., 1926; Hygiene du travail, Encyclopedia, v. I-II, Geneva, 1930-32; S. Kaplun, Uber Forschung u. Forschungsanstalten auf dem Gebiet der Gewerbehygiene u. Unfallverhutung in der USSR, B., 1925; ibid., Arbeiterschutz u. Gewerbehygiene in der USSR, Arch. f. soziale Hyg., B. II, H. 5, 1926; ibid., Arbeitshygiene als Unterrichtsfach nach den Erfahrungen der U.S.S.R., Arch. f. Gewerbehygiene und Gewerbepathol., B. I, H. 4, 1930; Leclerc de Pulliure, Boulin, Courtot-Suffit, Bourgeois et Courmont, Industrial Hygiene (Traite d'hygiene, sous la dir. de P. Brouardel, A. Chantemese et E. Mosny, fasc. 7, P., 1927); Opera collecta congressus V internat. medicorum pro artificibus calamitate afflictis aegrotisque, Budapest, 1929; G. Parus, Hygiene et securite du travail industriel, P., 1905; F. Rambousek, Gewerbehygiene, Wien, 1909; IV reunion de la commission internationale permanente pour l'etude des maladies professionnelles, Lyon, 1929; Schriften des III internationalen Kongress fur Gewerbekrankheiten, Wien, 1918; T. Soranierfeld, Handbuch der Gewerbekrankheiten, B., 1898; ibid., Atlas der gewerblichen Gesundheitspflege, B. I-II, B., 1926-27; F. Syrup, Handbuch des Arbeitsschutzes u. der Betriebssicherheit, B. I-III, B., 1925-28; Vierde international Congress voor ongevallen gaeskunden beroepsziekten, Amsterdam, 1925; Weyl's Handbuch der Hygiene, Band VII-Gewerbehygiene, Leipzig, 1917-1921; J. Zielinski, Hygiena praci, Warsaw, 1929. Periodicals.-Hygiene of Labor and Health, M., 1923-28 (from 1929 under the name Hygiene, Pathology and Safety of Labor, and from 1922-Hygiene and Safety of Labor); Industry and Health, M., 1902-03. Besides the special journal of Occupational Hygiene in the USSR, the works of a number of institutes are also dedicated to this subject. Since 1923, the works of the Kazan Institute of Labor have been regularly published (from 1932 under the name "Hygiene and Safety of Labor and its Factors") and since 1930 ("Bulletin of the Leningrad Institute of Organization and Labor Protection"). Their works are also published by institutes: All-Union Institute of Economics, Organization and Improvement of Labor in Moscow (former Institute of Labor Protection) (about 40 titles), Moscow Institute named after Obukh (about 25 titles), Leningrad institutes (each published about 10 titles), Rostov Institute (3 volumes), Makeevsky (about 20 titles), Baku (about 15 titles), Ural (2 volumes) and others. Bibliographie d'hygiene industrielle, Geneva, since 1923; Il lavoro, Roma, 1921-1925 (from 1926 under the name-Medicina del lavoro); Journal of Industrial Hygiene, Baltimore, since 1919; Journal of Science of Labor (biological studies), Kurashiki (Japan) since 1928; La medicine du travail, Paris, since 1929; Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Unfallmedizin und Berufskrankheiten, Bern, since 1906; Zeitschr. f. Gewerbehygiene, Wien, since 1906; Zentralb. f. Gewerbehygiene u. Unfallverhutung, B., since 1913. See also lit. to the articles Occupational Pathology and Occupational Diseases.

S. Kaplun