Talk:Occupational disease

Merge with Occupational illness
The terms "occupational disease" and "occupational illness" are merely two ways of naming the same thing. Separate articles, especially as undeveloped as these two are, are not needed. Pzavon 00:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In Australia - disease or injury???
The Australian Safety and Compensation Council says the following: "The more effective prevention of occupational disease is one of the five agreed national priorities to be tackled over the life of the National OHS Strategy. At the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission’s (NOHSC) meeting in March 2004, members agreed that, under this national priority, eight disease categories would be considered. Profiles for each of the disease categories would be developed to inform the priority setting process and the formulation of the National Occupational Disease Prevention Action Plan 2005-2012. The categories are: (a) respiratory diseases including asthma; (b) cancer; (c) contact dermatitis; (d) infectious and parasitic diseases; (e) cardiovascular disease; (f) musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs); (g) mental disorders; and (h) noise induced hearing loss

But I dispute the contention that injuries, such as hearing damage, are diseases, despite the fact that Wikipedia vaguely defines "disease" as just about anything. And how does a disorder become a disease? It is a disorder! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.213.210 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether a condition such as noise induced hearing loss is disease or injury is more a matter of legal definitions and workers compensation administration than it is of science. Since a disease is often something that developes over time and may not be immediately recognized in its early stages, there is a reasonable rationalle for the legal and administrative types to class noise induced hearing loss as a disease.  If you disagree, fine, but the Wikipedia is intended to describe what is, in this case how the condition IS classified, rather than how it ought to be. Pzavon (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We could add a mention of potters
They can be recognised from their skeletons due to damage on one side of their body. Could also go for other professions, adding a section about importance of occupational trauma in archeology.

Sources: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/female-potter-ancient-crete https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/analysing-the-bones-what-can-a-skeleton-tell-you.html https://www.science.org/content/article/skeleton-keys-how-forensic-anthropologists-identify-victims-and-solve-crimes BetweenCupsOfTea (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)