HOME / SOURCES
Every verdict on Still Grafting is built from the published positions of the bodies that study workplace safety, physical health, and trade-specific risk. This is the full list.
The HSE enforces the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 and the Manual Handling Operations Regulations. Their published position is that anti-vibration gloves are not an effective measure against hand-arm vibration, and their MSD statistics are the definitive UK dataset on work-related ill health.
NIOSH reviewed the available research on back support belts and concluded they cannot recommend back belts as a preventive measure against back injury. They are equally clear that back belts should not be considered personal protective equipment (PPE). Their position has not changed with subsequent studies.
CCOHS advises against relying on back belts for injury prevention, reaching the same verdict as NIOSH through independent review. Their reasoning aligns with the mechanical argument: intra-abdominal pressure from belts does not meaningfully reduce spinal load.
→ ccohs.ca
WorkSafe BC and WorkSafe New Zealand publish consistent guidance: back belts are not recommended for preventing injury. Their position mirrors NIOSH and CCOHS, adding international weight to a unanimous verdict.
The standard a glove must pass to carry the “anti-vibration” label. It tests two frequency ranges: medium (31.5–200 Hz, must not amplify, score <1.0) and high (200–1250 Hz, must cut by at least 40%, score <0.6). It says nothing useful about the low frequencies where breakers and heavy hammer drills do their damage, which is the honest catch.
The European standard for knee protection at work. Type 1 = strap-on knee pads; Type 2 = trouser pocket inserts. Level 0 = no penetration resistance; Level 1 = basic; Level 2 = protection against sharp objects including stones, rubble and metal debris. A pad and a trouser are a certified system. The certification is void if you mix brands.
The Cochrane systematic review on lumbar supports for preventing back pain pooled the available studies and found moderate-quality evidence that back belts are no more effective than no intervention. The review is regularly updated. The verdict has held.
The largest single study on back belts, published in JAMA in 2000, followed 9,377 employees at a major retail chain. The result: no statistically significant difference in back injury claims between workers who wore belts and those who did not. Not a small effect. No effect. This is the study that closed the argument.
Independent lab testing of anti-vibration glove performance has consistently shown that gloves certified to EN ISO 10819 meet the standard's narrow criteria but do not provide meaningful protection against the low-frequency vibration produced by breakers, jackhammers and heavy hammer drills. The standard is a floor, not a guarantee.
Every guide on Still Grafting is built from these bodies' published positions. We cite, not invent. When a guide references a study or a standard, you can trace it back to the source listed here. When new research changes a body's position, we update the guide and note the change.
We do not accept manufacturer claims, marketing materials, or retailer descriptions as authoritative sources. If a manufacturer disputes a body's published position, we note the dispute but side with the evidence until the evidence changes.
Spotted a source we've missed, or a study we should be citing? Email [email protected] and we'll review it.