Enola Gay and her atomic bomb

A journey to Tinian Island sparks reflection on humanity’s failure to learn from history, connecting the devastating impact of war with today’s workplace safety challenges.

During the last three weeks of December 2024, I went scuba diving in the Mariana Islands of Saipan and Tinian, exploring ship and plane wrecks from World War II. During my two visits to Saipan in 2024, I had noticed an island just a couple of miles off the south coast. When I enquired about it, I learnt that – similar to Saipan in 1944 – Tinian Island had also been captured from the Japanese by the US Navy. Being interested in military history, within days we had boarded a five-seater plane for the 10-minute flight to the smaller island. We noticed two US military personnel and two construction contractors boarding the small plane with us; we would later discover why they were travelling to Tinian.

Upon arriving at the airport, our guide drove us to the first historical site – the communications offices of the Japanese army. We then visited the bombed-out officers’ mess and accommodation facilities before exploring the beaches on the northern side of the island where, on 24 July 1944, the US Fourth Marine Division Task Force 52 landed after a month-long naval gunfire and aircraft bombardment.

I was dumbstruck when we parked on an old aircraft runway strip with the Pacific Ocean visible in the distance. Our guide, Peter, explained that this was the exact runway from which the aeroplanes Enola Gay, carrying the atomic bomb “Little Boy”, and Bockscar, carrying “Fat Man”, had taken off in August 1945 to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In the months that followed, the atomic bombings killed between 90,000 and 166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki, with roughly half of these deaths occurring on the days of the bombings. Over the ensuing decades, many survivors would face leukaemia, cancer, or other terrible side effects from radiation exposure.

Do we learn from the past?

Flying over Tinian, it was clear that the US military was constructing a large base and extending the airport runways. This explained why the military and construction-related passengers were sitting behind us on the plane. These developments clearly relate to our current global situation, with conflicts raging in many countries including Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon, as well as continued tensions between North and South Korea, as well as China and Taiwan. 

One can’t help feeling that the world is a boiling pot at the moment. By early December, approximately 46,000 people had perished in Gaza, including more than 220 humanitarian workers. The death toll in Ukraine at this stage likely exceeds 80,000 soldiers and civilians combined. 

In every war-affected country I visit, I try my best to visit memorials and gravesites of fallen soldiers. I have done so in the US, South Africa, Poland, Russia, Australia, Belgium, France, Austria, Italy, and recently Saipan and Tinian. All have monuments to remember the fallen, many strategically placed as reminders of the atrocities of war. But do these make any difference? I have my doubts, as wars continue worldwide, with more countries joining the conflict. When these wars eventually end, more monuments will be erected to remember those who lost their lives. And the cycle will continue when narcissistic politicians with inflated senses of self-importance decide to invade another country.

Sadly, these monuments are erected at enormous cost to taxpayers, while little consideration is given to the immense sacrifice of families and loved ones of soldiers killed in action and civilians caught in the fighting. Politicians and generals focus strategies on winning wars and maintaining control – the physical aspects – with little consideration for psychological or social impacts. The fact remains: there are no winners in war. How often do we see statues commemorating fallen soldiers? Yet we rarely see memorials for innocent civilians who have lost their lives. 

What has war got to do with safety and health?

You are probably wondering why I am writing about World War II and the battles in the Pacific islands in a column focused on safety and health. To be clear, I am not comparing the atrocities of war with occupational health and safety issues. However, I want to highlight that millions of people die each year while performing workplace tasks. Like war casualties, those who die at the workplace leave behind loved ones deeply affected by their loss – a loss that can never be replaced.

Various statistics exist regarding workplace-related fatalities and occupational disease deaths, but the figures from the International Labour Organization (ILO) are probably the most accurate. Tragically, there are approximately 2.6 million work-related deaths per year. Most result from occupational diseases, though around 12% are due to incidents. This equates to an average of 7,123 people dying daily due to work activities, with about 900 deaths resulting from incidents. As industry leaders, we must make every effort to reduce these numbers as much as possible. However, I believe this can only be achieved through a well-balanced approach to risk, safety, and occupational health.

Do we learn from occupational health disease cases and fatal incidents?

I suspect that many workplace fatalities, whether through occupational diseases or incidents, are repeat cases. This raises the question: as an industry, do we learn from the past?

For example, the highest-risk occupations are well known, so what is being done to reduce these risks? Consider logging operations: one of the highest-risk professions, where employees work in harvesting areas among tall trees and heavy machinery, facing risks such as falling trees; dangers from operating heavy equipment like harvesters, skidders, and trucks; and exposure to extreme weather conditions, including lightning strikes. 

Physical controls alone will not prevent repeat incidents. One can establish safe distances from equipment, designate no-go areas, require seatbelt use, and provide training for operating heavy machinery. However, failing to address psychological and cultural elements is like taking one step forward and two steps backward. Until we focus on these elements alongside traditional controls, we will sadly continue to experience repeat incidents. Without addressing the culture, we tend to tackle specific issues in isolation, leading to unnecessary risks in other areas and, eventually, fatalities.

Do we have a well-balanced approach and focus?

In many of my articles, I emphasise the importance of a balanced approach to leadership and to managing risk, safety, and occupational health in the workplace. Unlike politicians who invade other countries for their own ego or benefit, without regard for the psychological impact on communities and citizens, we as leaders need to balance our decisions by considering their human aspects and impacts. In risk management, safety practices, and leadership generally, we should balance management controls with attention to psychological factors, group dynamics, and cultural issues.

Conclusion

I recall speaking with a technical director twenty-odd years ago who had experienced a fatal injury at his site. He had to knock on the family’s door and inform the wife that her husband had been killed in a workplace incident. He said it was the absolute worst experience of his professional life and that it haunted him for years afterwards. It was, he said, the worst thing he ever had to do.

In 2003, I attended a conference in Nashville, Tennessee. During one discussion, the managing director of a construction company stood up in a hall of about 300 people. He shared a similar experience: a young construction worker had fallen from a scaffold on his site and was fatally injured. The director described driving to the young man’s home, knocking on the door, and informing the parents that their son had died. He, too, said it was the worst experience of his professional life.

When he sat down, another man in the audience rose, looked at the director, and after a brief moment said, “What you just described is not the worst experience.” The room fell silent as he continued, tears in his eyes: “Sir, when you knocked on that door, I was the one who opened it. It was my son who had died. Receiving that message is the worst experience of all.”

You could hear a pin drop as the man sat down, wiping his tears with a handkerchief from his pocket. After the session, I noticed the two men talking near the coffee station, ending their conversation with an embrace. We can only hope that this encounter led the managing director to view risk and safety in a different light – not only focusing on physical controls, but also considering the human aspects.

As leaders, we can make a difference. As a safety industry, we need to change by finding balance in what we do. The outdated traditional approach to safety, focusing primarily on controls, will not make that difference. We need to consider the human aspects – the psychological and cultural elements. Only then will we begin to make a difference.