Here are some of the pros and cons of eliminating the hazard or substitution as a means of hazard control:

Pros:

• These methods are the most effective way to control hazards because they remove the hazard from the workplace altogether.
• They can also be more cost-effective in the long run, as they can prevent accidents and injuries.
• They can also improve employee morale, as workers are less likely to be exposed to hazards.

Cons:

• These methods can be more expensive to implement than other methods, such as engineering controls or administrative controls.
• They can also be more difficult to implement, as they may require changes to the design of the workplace or the products used.
• They may not be feasible in all situations, such as when the hazard is a naturally occurring substance.

In general, eliminating the hazard or substitution is the most effective way to control hazards. However, it is important to consider the pros and cons of these methods before implementing them.

Here are some additional examples of where elimination of the hazard or substitution could be applied as a means of hazard control:

• Eliminating the use of chemicals that are known to be hazardous to human health.
• Replacing machinery that is considered to be a safety hazard with newer, safer models.
• Changing the layout of a workplace to eliminate blind spots and other potential hazards.
• Using non-toxic cleaning products.
• Providing employees with personal protective equipment (PPE) only as a last resort.

It is important to note that the hierarchy of controls is not always a linear process. In some cases, it may be necessary to use a combination of methods to control a hazard. For example, a company may eliminate the use of asbestos in its products, but it may also provide employees with PPE to protect them from exposure to any remaining asbestos.

The important thing is to choose the most effective methods to control hazards and to implement them in a way that is safe and efficient.