British Safety Council 16 June 2016 - IOSH

British Safety Council 16 June 2016 - IOSH

Working at Height IOSH Chiltern Branch 15 September 2016 Weightmans LLP Key contact: Chris Green Partner DDI: 0121 200 8125 Mobile: 07894 462112 Twitter: @weightmansRSU [email protected] All photos Google Weightmans LLP Anytime, any place, anywhere?

Weightmans LLP Dont try this at work Weightmans LLP A day in the life Companies, landlords, councils, directors, managers, employees Advise, represent, defend, investigate, advocacy Accident, investigation, arrest, interview, summons Police Station, coroners / Magistrates Court, site, HSE Defend and Prosecute Weightmans LLP Todays Menu

Introduction Background Legal Summary and Statistics Guidance on Work at Height, Use of Ladders and Scaffolding Cases of Note Sentencing Guidelines Q and A Weightmans LLP Introduction Falls from height are one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities and major injuries. Common causes are falls from ladders and through fragile roofs. Work at height means work in any place where, if there were no precautions in place, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. For example you are working at height if you: Are working on a ladder or a flat roof;

Could fall through a fragile surface; Weightmans LLP Brief Legal History Work at Height is governed by the Work at Height Regulations 2005 which implement EU law, the Temporary Work at Height Directive 2001/45/EC (TWAHD) Previously, we had industry-specific legal requirements to control work at height e.g. in construction, shipbuilding, docks and offshore regulations. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 combine the vast majority of earlier regulations into a single set of regulations. They apply to all work at height activities across all sectors. Weightmans LLP Summary of the Law

Employers must make sure any work at height activity is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people. Employers and those in control must first assess the risks. Employees have general legal duties to take reasonable care of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions, and to co-operate with their employer to enable their health and safety duties to be complied with. Weightmans LLP What the statistics tell us Recent figures show that falls from height are the most common cause of fatalities, accounting for approximately 30% of fatal injuries to workers. Approximately half of these fatal WAH falls are reported in construction. Falls from height account for approximately 60% of

construction fatalities. Over the past decade or so ladders have accounted for about one in seven reported fall injuries and nearly a quarter of fatal incidents. Most fatalities are from scaffolds, work platforms and fragile roofs. Weightmans LLP HSE Guidance The HSE has published guidance in relation to working at height. INDG401 (rev2), published 01/14 Following this guidance is normally enough to demonstrate compliance with the Regulations. Employers are free to take other action, except where the guidance says you must do something specific e.g. the hierarchy of control measures Weightmans LLP Hierarchy of control measures

For every task that needs to be done at height you need to assess the risk and put appropriate control measures in place. There is a hierarchy of control measures that you need to follow. You only move down the hierarchy when you decide that the control is not practicable. Before working at height duty holders must work through these simple steps: Avoid work at height where it is reasonably practicable to do so; Where work at height cannot be avoided, prevent falls using either an existing place of work that is already safe or the right type of equipment; Minimise the distance and consequences of a fall, by using the right

type of equipment where the risk cannot be eliminated. Weightmans LLP Hierarchy step by step - AVOID Can you AVOID working at height in the first place? If NO, go to PREVENT You can avoid working at height by doing as much work as possible from the ground. For example by using extendable tools from ground level to remove the need to climb a ladder. Weightmans LLP Hierarchy - step by step PREVENT Can you PREVENT a fall from occurring? If NO, go to MINIMISE

You can prevent falls by: Using an existing place of work that is already safe, eg a non-fragile roof with a permanent perimeter guard rail or, if not Using work equipment to prevent people from falling. Some practical examples of collective protection when using an existing place of work: A concrete flat roof with existing edge protection, or guarded mezzanine floor, or plant machinery with fixed guard rails around it.

Weightmans LLP Hierarchy step by step PREVENT (2) Some practical examples of collective protection using work equipment to prevent a fall: Mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs) such as scissor lifts Tower scaffolds Scaffolds An example of personal protection using work equipment to prevent a fall: Using a work restraint (travel restriction) system that prevents a worker getting into a fall position. Weightmans LLP Hierarchy step by step - MINIMISE Can you MINIMISE the distance and/or consequences of a fall?

If the risk of a person falling remains, you must take sufficient measures to minimise the distance and/or consequences of a fall. Weightmans LLP Hierarchy step by step MINIMISE (2) Practical examples of collective protection using work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall: Safety nets and soft landing systems, e.g. air bags, installed close to the level of the work Practical examples of personal protection used to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall: Industrial rope access, e.g. working on a building faade Fall-arrest system using a high anchor point. Weightmans LLP Collective before Personal For each step, consider what is reasonably practicable and

always consider measures that protect everyone who is at risk (collective protection) before measures that protect only the individual (personal protection). Collective protection is equipment that does not require the person working at height to act to be effective, for example a permanent or temporary guard rail. Personal protection is equipment that requires the individual to act to be effective. An example is putting on a safety harness correctly and connecting it, via an energy-absorbing lanyard, to a suitable anchor point. Weightmans LLP Deciding if someone is competent to work at height Employers should make sure that people with sufficient skills, knowledge and experience are employed to perform the task, or, if they are being trained, that they work under the supervision of somebody competent to do it. In the case of low-risk, short duration tasks involving ladders, competence requirements may be no more than making sure employees receive instruction on how to use

the equipment safely (e.g. how to tie a ladder properly) and appropriate training. When a more technical level of competence is required, for example drawing up a plan for assembling a complex scaffold, existing training and certification schemes drawn up by trade associations and industry is one way to help demonstrate competence. Weightmans LLP Ladders There is a common misconception that ladders and stepladders are banned, but this is not the case. There are many situations where a ladder is the most suitable equipment for working at height. Weightmans LLP Using ladders and stepladders For tasks of low risk and short duration, ladders and

stepladders can be a sensible and practical option. If your risk assessment determines it is correct to use a ladder, you should further MINIMISE the risk by making sure workers: Use the right type of ladder for the job Are competent (you can provide adequate training and/or supervision to help) Use the equipment provided safely and follow a safe system of work Are fully aware of the risks and measures to control them Weightmans LLP When is a ladder the most suitable equipment? (HSE guidance INDG455 01/14) The law says that ladders can be used for work at height when a risk assessment has shown that using equipment offering a higher level of fall protection is not justified because of the low risk and short duration of use; or there are existing workplace features which cannot be altered.

Short duration is not the deciding factor in establishing whether use of a ladder is acceptable or not you should have first considered the risk. As a guide, if your task would require staying up a leaning ladder or stepladder for more than 30 minutes at a time, it is recommended that you consider alternative equipment. Weightmans LLP When is a ladder the most suitable equipment? (2) You should only use ladders in situations where they can be used safely, e.g. where the ladder will be level and stable, and where it is reasonably practicable to so, the ladder can be secured. Who can use a ladder at work? To use a ladder you need to be competent, i.e. have had instruction and understand how to use the equipment safely. Appropriate training can help. If you are being trained, you should work under the supervision of somebody who can perform the task competently. Training can often take place on the job.

Weightmans LLP Checking ladders before use Before starting a task, you should always carry out a preuse check to spot any obvious visual defects to make sure the ladder is safe to use. A pre-use check should be carried out: By the user; At the beginning of the working day; After something has changed, e.g. a ladder has been dropped or moved from a dirty area to a clean area (check the state or condition of the feet) Weightmans LLP Ladders Checklist (1) Check the stiles make sure they are not bent or damaged, as the ladder could buckle or collapse. Check the feet if they are missing, worn or damaged the ladder could slip. Check the rungs if they are bent, worn, missing or loose

the ladder could fail. Check any locking mechanisms if they are bent or the fixings are worn or damaged the ladder could collapse. Ensure any locking bars are engaged. Weightmans LLP Ladders Checklist (2) Check the stepladder platform if it is split or buckled the ladder could become unstable or collapse. Check the steps or treads on stepladders if they are contaminated they could be slippery; if the fixings are loose on steps, they could collapse. If employees spot any of the above defects they should notify their employer and not use the ladder. Weightmans LLP Guidance - using leaning ladders Safely

Only carry light materials and tools - read the manufacturers labels on the ladder and assess the risks; Dont overreach make sure your belt buckle (navel) stays within the stiles; Make sure the ladder is long enough or high enough for the task. Dont overload it consider workers weight and the equipment or materials they are carrying before working at height. Make sure the ladder angle is at 75 degrees.

Weightmans LLP Case Study Weightmans recently acted for a County Council following an incident at a primary school where a caretaker sustained serious injuries after falling 8 feet from a flat roof whilst transferring from step ladders. The Head teacher was in attendance at the time of the fall and had been

supporting the step ladders whilst the caretaker attempted to gain access to the roof. Step ladders had been selected by the caretaker due to them being more accessible and lighter than an extending ladder that was stored nearby in a locked container. The step ladders were 8 feet high and the same height as the flat roof area being accessed. The major cause of the accident was the fact that incorrect access equipment had been used for the task. It is recognised good practice for the ladder to extend 1 meter above the height of the flat roof so that the individual has a hand hold as they transfer from ladder to roof. The step ladders had also been located on an uneven surface. The Council were fortunate in the end not to face charges under Regulation 6(3) and 7(2) of the WAH Regulations. Weightmans LLP Guidance - using leaning ladders Safely (2)

Always grip the ladder and face the ladder rungs while climbing or descending Dont try to move or extend ladders while standing on the rungs. Dont work off the top three rungs and try to ensure the ladder extends at least one metre above where you are working. Maintain three points of contact when climbing (this means a hand and two feet) and wherever possible at the work position. Dont stand ladders on moveable objects, such as pallets, bricks, lift trucks, tower scaffolds, excavator buckets, or mobile

elevating work platforms. Weightmans LLP Textbook or one for the wheelie bin? Weightmans LLP Scaffold Checklist When is a scaffold design required and what level of training and competence is expected of those erecting, dismantling, altering, inspecting and supervising scaffolding? Scaffold Design

It is a requirement of the Regulations that unless a scaffold is assembled to a generally recognised standard configuration, the scaffold should be designed by bespoke calculation, by a competent person, to ensure it will have adequate strength, rigidity and stability where it is erected, used and dismantled. Weightmans LLP Scaffold Design At the start of the planning process, the user should supply relevant information to the scaffold contractor to ensure an accurate and proper design process is followed. Prior to installation , the scaffold contractor or scaffold designer can then provide relevant information about the scaffold.

All scaffolding must be erected, dismantled and altered in a safe manner. This is achieved by following the guidance provided by the National Access & Scaffolding Confederation SG4:15 Preventing Falls in Scaffolding Operations for tube for tube and fitting scaffolds or by following similar guidance provided by the manufacturers of system scaffolding. Weightmans LLP Scaffold Design (2) For scaffolds that fall outside the scope of a generally recognised standard configuration the design must be such that safe erection and dismantling techniques can also be employed throughout the duration of the works. To ensure stability for more complex scaffolds, drawing should be

produced and, where necessary, these may need to be supplemented with specific instructions. Any proposed modification or alteration that takes a scaffold outside the scope of a generally recognised standard configuration should be designed by a competent person and proven by calculation. Weightmans LLP Competence and supervision of scaffolding operatives All employees should be competent for the type of scaffolding work they are undertaking and should have received appropriate training relevant to the type and complexity of scaffolding they are working on.

Employers must provide appropriate levels of supervision taking into account the complexity of the work and the levels of training and competence of the scaffolders involved. As a minimum requirement, every scaffold gang should contain a competent scaffolder who has received training for the type and complexity of the scaffold to be erected, altered or dismantled. Weightmans LLP Competence and supervision of scaffolding operatives (2) Trainee scaffolders should always work under the direct supervision of a trained and competent scaffolder. Operatives are classed as trainees until they have completed the approved training and assessment required to be deemed competent.

Erection, alteration and dismantling of all scaffolding structures (basic or complex) should be done under the direct supervision of a competent person. For complex structures this would usually be an Advanced Scaffolder or an individual who has received training in a specific type of system scaffold for the complexity of the configuration involved. Scaffolding operatives should be up to date with the latest changes to safety guidance and good working practices within the scaffolding industry. Giving operatives job specific pre-start briefings and regular toolbox talks is a good way of keeping them informed. Weightmans LLP Scaffold Inspection

It is the scaffold users/hirers responsibility to ensure that all scaffolding has been inspected as follows: Following installation/before first use At an interval of no more than every 7 days thereafter Following any circumstances liable to jeopardise the safety of the installation e.g. high winds All scaffolding inspection should be carried out by a competent person whose combination of knowledge, training and experience is appropriate for the type and complexity of the scaffold. Competence may have been assessed under the Construction Industry Scaffolders Record Scheme or an individual may have received training in inspecting a specific type of system scaffold from a manufacturer/supplier.

Weightmans LLP Scaffold Inspection (2) A non-scaffolder who has attended a scaffold inspection course (e.g. a site manager) could be deemed competent to inspect a basic scaffold structure. The scaffold inspection report should note any defects or matters that could give rise to a risk to health and safety and any corrective actions taken, even when those actions are taken promptly, as this assists with the identification of any recurring problem. Weightmans LLP Up to date with latest guidance? Weightmans LLP Cases of Note - Sixteen year old worker falls through skylight

R (HSE) v Storm Roofing Ltd (sentenced February 2016), Newcastleunder-Lyme Magistrates Court The defendant roofing company, based in Stoke on Trent, faced two charges under the Work at Height Regulations 2005 Regulation 6(2) and 6(3) after a young employee fell through a skylight opening whilst working at a privately owned house. The injured party, who was working for his uncle during the summer holidays when the incident happened, suffered three cracked vertebrae and was in hospital for three and a half weeks. One of the main aggravating features in this case was that the company failed to implement any additional safeguards to prevent falls from height when they returned to carry out work at the site two days after the initial incident. The defendant was fined a total of 14,000 and ordered to pay 6,919 costs.

Weightmans LLP Firm fined 250,000 over worker fall death at Wythenhawe warehouse R v Aramex (UK) Ltd and Gary Edwards (sentenced January 2014), Manchester Crown Court The victim was cleaning out guttering at logistics firm Aramex (UK) Ltd when he stepped on a fragile panel and fell to the concrete floor below. Aramex and the victims employer, Mr Edwards, were both prosecuted by HSE after an investigation found no safety measures had been put in place. Mr Edwards admitted that in interview that the only safety equipment he had provided for cleaning the warehouse roof had been a pair of gloves.

Safety measures could have included placing boards over the fragile roof panels, using harnesses, erecting scaffolding or hiring a cherry picker. However, Mr Edwards failed to implement any of these or to carry out a risk assessment for the work. Weightmans LLP Firm fined 250,000 over worker fall death at Wythenshawe warehouse (2) The investigation found Aramex had also ignored its own health and safety guidelines. The company failed to supervise the work or assess how it would be carried out, despite knowing the roof was fragile.

Aramex (UK) Ltd and Gary Edwards each pleaded guilty to single breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Aramex was fined 250,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of 20,000. Gary Edwards received a four-month prison sentence suspended for one year. Weightmans LLP Workers six meter fall lands two Kent businesses in court

R v Richard Parker and Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Ltd, Sentenced 2013, Canterbury Crown Court The victim was working for Richard Parker, trading as Ovenden Engineering, which had been contracted by Allied Domecq to fix a leak in the roof and clean the gutters of their bonded warehouse. The victim was on the roof when he fell through one of the 80 skylights and hit the concrete floor below. He suffered multiple injuries and died later in hospital. There was no safety equipment in place for anyone working on the roof, which was itself fragile. This was despite Mr Parkers employees working on the warehouse roof every month. There were no crawling boards, scaffolding boards, harness or nets to protect workers from the risks. Weightmans LLP

Workers six meter fall lands two Kent businesses in court (2) As the owner of the warehouse, Allied Domecq had responsibility for the site and should have ensured contractors planned their work and carried it out safely and that proper control measures were in place. Richard Parker, t/a Ovenden Engineering was fined 26,667 and ordered to pay 4,000 in costs after admitting breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Ltd, t/a CG Hibbert was fined 266,677 with costs of 10,752 after admitting breaching Section 3 (1) Mr Parker should have provided his workers with suitable

equipment to work on the roof and Allied Domecq were under a duty to ensure that there was a safe system of work before the job started and that their contractors followed agreed safe procedures. Weightmans LLP Company Director fined after workers ladder fall R v Martin Jacobs, director of MP Jacobs Limited (sentenced December 2015), Portsmouth Crown Court An employee of MP Jacobs fell from a ladder whilst replacing guttering on a two storey block of residential flats. The 30 year old victim fractured his skull, broke his collar bone and suffered a brain haemorrhage. His injuries caused brain

damage. Mr Jacobs was fined 5,000 and ordered to pay 5,004 in costs after pleading guilty to an offence under Section 37 of The health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. He was also give a sixmonth custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months. The work replacing the guttering in this case was not low risk or short duration and other equipment such as a mobile scaffold tower or mobile elevated working platform should have been used. Weightmans LLP Worker fractures spine in roof fall R v Montway Ltd, (sentenced September 2016), Southwark Crown Court

A Romanian labourer was seriously injured when he fell off a roof during demolition work. The victim fell five metres and sustained a series of injuries including a fractured spine. He was in an induced coma for two weeks and remained in hospital for three months. No scaffolding had been provided and the work was not being supervised. The site was inspected by the HSE two weeks after the incident and unsupervised demolition work was still being carried out. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the HSWA 1974 and was fined 144,000 and ordered to pay 43,606.15 in costs. This serious incident could have been avoided if scaffolding had been provided and the companys site documents even identified it was needed. Weightmans LLP BT PLC fined 600,000 after workers injured

R v BT PLC, (sentenced May 2016), Teeside Crown Court Two employees were seriously injured in falls from height One of the engineers was installing a cable through a hole on the first floor along a ceiling level cable tray to the Main Distribution Frame on the ground floor. In order to carry out this work he was working on a stepladder in amongst the lighting system. He felt a pain in his right arm and fell from the stepladder. He was taken to hospital with head and back injuries. The accident was not properly investigated and later that day the work was allowed to continue. The second engineer continued with the work himself, from a different ladder. However, he too fell to the ground and was taken to hospital with serious skull and back injuries. Weightmans LLP

BT PLC fined 600,000 after workers injured (2) The investigation found that the work had not been properly assessed or planned, despite workers being exposed to serious risks from working at height close to an electrical system. BT PLC pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined 600,000 and ordered to pay costs of 60,000. The message from this case is that work at height and working close to electrical systems needs to be properly assessed and planned so that adequate controls can be put in place. This duty rests firmly with the employer. Weightmans LLP

Sentencing Guidelines Executive Summary Higher Fines Size really IS important All safety offences whether fatal or not Turnover is key Main focus is risk, whether actual harm or not Formula and certainty Specific tariff figures are now required as norm Mandatory

Weightmans LLP How the Inspectors will judge standards and decide on actions Weightmans LLP How the Inspectors will judge standards and decide on actions Weightmans LLP Sentencing working example for turnover 50 to 100m Weightmans LLP Sentencing working example for turnover 50 to 100m

Culpability = Harm = Start Range Weightmans LLP medium B3 300,000 130,000 - 750,000 Very Large Organisation Where an offending organisations turnover or equivalent greatly exceeds the threshold for large organisations, it may be necessary to move outside the suggested range to achieve a proportionate sentence. >1 bn turnover?

Weightmans LLP What does it mean for you? Fines directly linked to turnover Fines increase substantially for large/very large organisations Greater public scrutiny of true financial position Fines to have a real economic impact on organisations to bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with the legislation. Weightmans LLP Conclusion Given the potential penalties following the new sentencing guidelines, companies need to be prepared and have appropriate systems in place otherwise the penalties could be severe. Weightmans LLP

Post-Guidelines Fines Tracker DEFENDANT Vitacress Salads Ltd COURT Basingstoke Mags FACTS (and Link) Put hands under guard on bagging machine Lost 2 fingers g-machine/ GLines Low Culp Harm 4 Large Plea

FINE G 60k Hand pulled into unguarded roller machine finger had to be removed ITW Ltd chinery-3/ Falcon Crane Hire Ltd Southwark Crown

Severfield (UK) Ltd Teesside Crown Sandvik Constructio n Mobile Crushers & Screeners Morecambe Bay NHS Trust Derby Crown Travis Perkins Amersham Crown

Balfour Beatty Utility Solutions Preston Crown 20k Large Crane overturned killing operator and member of public bolts failed due to metal fatigue 750k FLT overturned fatal but non-causative 135k d/ Series of HAVS G 280k G 100k G 2m Carlisle Crown

Failure to comply with IN re management of bed rails ement-bedrail-improvements/ Fell off vehicle and run over by another fatal SENTNECING TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE Trench collapse - fatal hed-in-trench/ Weightmans LLP Med Culp Harm 1 V Large 2.6m Post-Guidelines Fines Tracker H20 Plumbing Services Ltd

Birmingham Crown Fell 5 stories fatal no fall arrest G 100k McCain Foods Peterborough Crown Arm pulled into conveyer nearly lost arm limited use of hand 800k

Greatdale Ltd Preston Crown Unguarded drill lost finger 15k o-worker/ Extreme Handling Ipswich Crown Assett International Newprot Crown

Parsons & Joyce Contractors Bournemouth Mags Sheet of marble fell on worker crushing injuries G 100k usly-injured/ Series of vibration syndromes 200k

Fall from height broken ribs 20k hree-metres-from-ledge-of-building/ GFT Frames 6k Haydens Bakery Swindon Mags Royal Mail Medway Mags Bupa Care

Homes (CFC Homes) Ltd Carlisle Crown British Telecoms PLC Teesside Crown Unguarded machine lost part of finger 40k Truck ran over foot no segregation 50k Inadequate Management of bed rails at care home failed to train

staff - vulnerable patient died drail-failures/ V Large Weightmans LLP 400k G 600k Large (~100m) Work at height 2x falls broken bones etc 0000-after-workers-injured/

G Any questions? Key contact: Chris Green Partner DDI: 0121 200 8125 Mobile: 07894 462112 Twitter: @weightmansRSU [email protected] Weightmans LLP

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Summer 2018 Partner Toolkit Table of Contents  Messaging3

    Summer 2018 Partner Toolkit Table of Contents Messaging3

    is a national public education campaign from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Drowning is the number one cause of unintentional death among children ages 1-4; According to 2018 CPSC data, approximately 350 children tragically drown in pools and...
  • Project Bliss Boundary Layer In Situ wind Sensing

    Project Bliss Boundary Layer In Situ wind Sensing

    Project Objectives . Deliver Northrop Grumman a 3 dimensional U-,V-,W- inertial wind vector in a measurement cylinder defined by a 100 meter radius and 200 meter height computed from in-situ measurements.
  • Abiotic stress investigation methods of horticultural plants cDNA

    Abiotic stress investigation methods of horticultural plants cDNA

    EcoR I has a 6-bp recognition site, and Mse I has a 4-bp recognition site. When used together, these enzymes generate small DNA fragments that will amplify well and are in the optimal size range (<1 kb) for separation on...
  • Graph theory as a method of improving chemistry and ...

    Graph theory as a method of improving chemistry and ...

    Comic Sans MS Book Antiqua CMR10 Wingdings Times New Roman Arial Symbol Default Design Microsoft Equation 3.0 CorelDRAW 12.0 Graphic ChemDraw.Document.6. Graph theory as a method of improving chemistry and mathematics curricula Problem(s) Fun in school Graphs Basic notions Graphs...

    Superhero Power: _____ Name: Sniffle Signature: _____ Learning Style: _____ ... Choose one or two patterns that appeal to you Look up descriptions for each of your patterns Enter adjectives that describe you best on Personality Type line Favorite sports,...
  • Students transforming Student enga gement throu gh working

    Students transforming Student enga gement throu gh working

    Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education by Mick Healey, Abbi Flint and Kathy Harrington; HEA 2014. UEA's Code of practice for student representation. Any questions?
  • Designing your own experiment - Ecological Society of America

    Designing your own experiment - Ecological Society of America

    Promoter Transcribed region Terminator Figure 3: A simplified diagram of the structure of a eukaryotic gene that encodes a protein. drt2-promoter GFP (green fluorescent protein) coding region NOS-ter Figure 4: Structure of a cold inducible chimeric gene.
  • Folie 1 -

    Folie 1 -

    General Observation Period (GOP) Susanne Crewell & GOP Partner Meteorologisches Institut Ludwig-Maximillians-Universit√§t (LMU) M√ľnchen GOP Characteristics General Observation Period from January to December 2007 Comprehensive data set suitable for testing hypotheses and new modeling techniques developed within the QPF-Program.