The Jury is Still Out on Wind Turbine Noise

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Occupational hearing loss claims have been have been associated with exposure to sources of loud noise for decades. One would think that new technology would limit noise exposure but maybe not so for energy production. A new study from Canada reflects that more research is need to determine whether wind turbine can produce adverse medical conditions.

Public Health Campaign of the Month: ‘Don’t Mess With Mercury’ Campaign

Mercury is a very toxic chemical in the occupational exposure to mercury produces serious disability.Today's post was shared by RWJF PublicHealth and comes from www.rwjf.org

Glass thermometers. Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Medical equipment. Gauges and other science equipment. Thermostats, switches and other electrical devices. Mercury lives in all of these devices—and all can be found in schools. While it may be common, mercury is also incredibly dangerous. Mercury poisoning can negatively impact the nervous system, lungs and kidneys. It can even lead to brain damage or death. Often mercury poisoning is the result of a kid thinking it’s “cool”— taking it, playing with, passing it around to friends. Metallic mercury easily vaporizes into a colorless, odorless, hazardous gas. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has released a new website that brings together a suite of tools to educate kids, teachers, school administrators and parents about the dangers of mercury poisoning. They include an interactive human body illustration and facts sheets, as well as a 30-second “Don’t Mess With Mercury” animated video to raise awareness about the dangers of mercury.

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Found on

Related articles

• U.S. National Lead Poisoning Prevention Week Goes Global (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Roche to Pay Up to $548 Million for Antibiotic Against Superbug (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• OSHA releases new resources to better protect workers from hazardous chemicals (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Violence Occupational Hazards in Hospitals (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Obama Selects Health Policy Advocate as Surgeon General (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

It is Time To Do The Right Thing

A recent decision by the NJ Courts illustrates the weaknesses of the present workers' compensation system when dealing with occupational exposures. The social remedial system called workers' compensation was designed before recognition of the compensability occupational illnesses. 


The initial system was to furnish benefits without fault and in a summary and remedial fashion to injured workers. For the most part, that system worked from 1911 until the 1950's when the legacy of asbestos, used in World War II to insulate ships, came back to haunt the American worker by the manifestation of latent asbestos diseases including mesothelioma, a rare and fatal cancer.


Recently a NJ court denied the compensability of an asbestos related condition based upon the claimant's own knowledge of the causal relationship of an asbestos related medical condition and his own occupational exposure. Additional the court held that medical expert testimony was not required to support a motion to dismiss for the failure to meet the requirement of the statute of limitations.


In the 1970's the US Department of Labor was concerned with the same weaknesses and unavailability of benefits. The US DOL commissioned the Environmental Sciences Center at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine under the leadership of the late Irving J. Selikoff, MD to study and analyze the problem. The weaknesses of the system, even though less dramatic than present, led to the conclusion that the workers' compensation systems just didn't work for occupational disease conditions. Additionally, costs for medical treatment of asbestos related conditions were being shifted at an estimated $10 Billion dollars, at that time, to the Medicare system.


Dr. Selikoff studied two major cohorts in analyzing the inadequacies of the  workers' compensation system. One group were insulators, and another group were 933 former plant workers at The Union Asbestos and Rubber Company of Paterson NJ who worked in war production between 1942 and 1944. Strikingly, the dormant medical conditions caused by the occupational exposure to asbestos fiber, and the latent condition of the disease for decades, caused major problems in filing claims. Those included the statute of limitation and diagnosis by medical professionals. Some professional were Grade B readers certified by The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and even those experts in the field were challenged in Court. 


The report, that was submitted to the US Congress, concluded that the failure of the workers' compensation system to provide benefits to many who were exposed to asbestos, and the inadequate benefits to others. Their low rates were based on extremely low wages at the time of exposure. For these and other reasons, the report concluded, that the workers' compensation had failed to adequately provide treatment and other benefits. Since workers' compensation was not meeting the needs, claimants flocked to the tort system in epidemic proportion resulting in "the longest running tort" in American judicial history, "asbestos litigation." That litigation continues to this day. Even scores of companies that have reorganized under bankruptcy to avoid liability exposure are now providing benefits under a claims procedure.


While the NJ Court's decision may have been on point with regard to the Rules adopted to govern workers' compensation cases, it is time to revisit whether the Rules are too strict and defeat the social and remedial goals of the system that was envisioned by the creators in 1911. On a global scale, the failure of the workers' compensation to provide benefits results in the inequitable shift of responsibility to the general taxpayer. 


To meet the needs of those exposed occupationally, Congress needs to act now upon a global and unified solution. One path to the goal of correcting inequities of the system is to advance a system of universal medical care.  The US government must do the right thing. The medical delivery system for occupational diseases must come under a national universal medical care program. Additionally Congress must meet its moral and social responsibility and finally ban asbestos use in the US once and for all.


Read the decision: Russo v. Hoboken Board of Education, A-1861-10T4 (App. Div. November 29, 2011)

"...the WCJ found that he knew asbestos could cause lung disease and other medical problems as early as "the 70s." She noted that Russo "made complaints about the exposures to harmful substances . . . while still teaching." The WCJ further found that Russo "was well aware of the potential harmful effects of asbestos exposure," and she rejected his claim that the petition was not time-barred "because he was never informed by any of his treating physicians that his cancer was related to this exposure."

...

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

• Changing the Fundamental Rules of Workers Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Dr. Yasunosuke Suzuki, A Pioneer of Mesothelioma Medical Research (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Why is the US Still in the Asbestos Business? (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The Gingrich Revival and The Future of Workers' Compensation (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Fallout From The Failure of Super Committee May Cascade Into Workers Compensation Medical Delivery (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Gingrich: Workers' Compensation is History (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)

How To Determine If A Substance Causes Cancer at Work

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is seeking public input to determine what substances cause cancer and at what level of occupational exposure.

"The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) intends to review its approach to classifying carcinogens and establishing recommended exposure limits (RELs) for occupational exposures to hazards associated with cancer. As part of this effort, NIOSH is requesting initial input on these issues (including answers to the 5 questions in the following section), to be submitted to the NIOSH Docket number 240, for a comment period lasting through September 22, 2011. This information will be taken under consideration and used to inform NIOSH efforts to assess and document its carcinogen policy and REL policy regarding occupational hazards associated with cancer. NIOSH has also created a new NIOSH Cancer and REL Policy Web Topic Page [see http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/policy.html] to provide additional details about this effort and progress updates."

"NIOSH is announcing a Request for Information on key issues identified and associated with the NIOSH Carcinogen and REL policies. Special emphasis will be placed on consideration of technical and scientific issues with the current NIOSH Cancer and REL Policies that require further examination including the following:Show citation box

(1) Should there explicitly be a carcinogen policy as opposed to a broader policy on toxicant identification and classification (e.g.carcinogens, reproductive hazards, neurotoxic agents)?Show citation box

(2) What evidence should form the basis for determining that substances are carcinogens? How should these criteria correspond to nomenclature and categorizations (e.g., known, reasonably anticipated,etc.)?Show citation box

(3) Should 1 in 1,000 working lifetime risk (for persons occupationally exposed) be the target level for a recommended exposure limit (REL) for carcinogens or should lower targets be considered?Show citation box

(4) In establishing NIOSH RELs, how should the phrase “to the extent feasible” (defined in the 1995 NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit Policy) be interpreted and applied?Show citation box

(5) In the absence of data, what uncertainties or assumptions areappropriate for use in the development of RELs? What is the utility of a standard ”action level” (i.e., an exposure limit set below the REL typically used to trigger risk management actions) and how should it be set? How should NIOSH address worker exposure to complex mixtures?

Public Comment Period: Comments must be received by September 22, 2011.

The concept of a compensable industrial disease has developed only recently and its acceptance has lagged far behind that of industrial accidents. The original Workers' Compensation Acts, as promulgated from the year 1911 forward by many of the states, did not provide for the recognition of occupational illness and disease as compensable events. As demands have been placed upon the medical system to treat and to prevent occupational illness, the legal system, under social, economic, and political pressure, has sought to provide a remedy for the thousands of injured workers who have suffered and who are continuing to suffer from occupational illness and disease. 

For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

• NIOSH Fails to Link Cancer as Zadroga Fund Compensable (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Cites Manufacturers and Distributors of Formaldehyde Hair Products (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Cell Phones and Cancer: The Static in the Debate (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Industrial Disease: The Quest for Recognition - The Need for Adequate Benefits (gelmans.com)

NIOSH to Propose New Criteria for Diacetyl Exposure

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) invites public comment on a draft document, "Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione.”


For public review and comment, the draft document summarizes current scientific knowledge about the occupational safety and health implications of the food flavorings diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, and recommends occupational exposure limits and measures for controlling work related exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, based on the current state of knowledge.


The draft document is available athttp://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/review/docket245/default.html for written public comment until Oct. 14, 2011. NIOSH will also hold a public meeting to discuss and obtain comments on Aug. 26, 2011, in Washington D.C.


"Occupational exposure to diacetyl has been associated with severe obstructive lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans, and decrease in lung function," said NIOSH Director John Howard, M.D. "NIOSH has provided over a decade of research and leadership in this important scientific area. In addition to the recommended exposure limits (RELs), this draft document provides for public comment a comprehensive review of scientific literature, a quantitative risk assessment, and valuable guidance to reduce occupational exposures to diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione. We invite public comment on the draft Criteria Document to help us develop final recommendations."

The draft document includes, for comment:
For Diacetyl, a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 5 parts per billion (ppb) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average, (TWA) during a 40-hour work week. To further protect against effects of short-term exposures, NIOSH recommends in the draft document a short-term exposure limit (STEL) for diacetyl of 25 ppb for a 15-minute time period.


For 2,3-pentanedione, a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 9.3 parts per billion (ppb) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average, (TWA) during a 40-hour work week. The REL for 2,3-pentanedione in the draft document is based upon the lowest level at which the substance reliably can be detected using the existing analytical method, and should not be misconstrued to imply that 2,3-pentanedione is of lower toxicity than diacetyl. Further, NIOSH recommends a STEL of 31 ppb to limit peak exposures for 2,3-pentanedione on the same basis of analytic method limitation.

Related articles

• CDC Seeks to End NeedleStick Injuries (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• OSHA Issues Bulletin on the Hazards of Exposure to Flavoring Substance 
• California Becomes the First State to Set Safety Guidelines for Flavoring Chemical
• $30.4 Million Verdict in Popcorn Flavoring Lawsuit
• Candy Makers Found to Have Popcorn Lung Flavoring Illness

Sun Exposure, Prevention and Workers Compensation

The first day of summer brings attention to working outside, sun exposure and the risk of skin cancer. Workers Compensation coverage offers a unique opportunity to provide affirmative action to prevent, detect and treat high risk workers before the disease takes a fatal course.

While working outside has the connotation of working in a clean air and healthy environment, the reality is quite the opposite. With a reduction of the world's ozone layer, workers exposed to the sun are at an increase risk of developing skin cancer at an even shorter exposure time. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just published recommendations for sunscreens. This initial first step will most likely expand the government's roll in getting skin cancer under control. In the meantime, exposed and diagnosed workers must rely upon the workers' compensation programs for treatment and benefits as a result of occupational induced skin cancer resulting from the occupational exposure to the the sun.

Workers' Compensation insurance companies and employers would do well to heed the government's recommendations and take affirmative action to protect  employees and provide medical evaluations for medical monitoring and surveillance. That action may include: avoiding exposure to the sun,  seek regulation medical monitoring and mandating the use of sunscreens in the workplace. The risk of sun exposure is well known and employers should be encourage to protect workers from such obvious and deadly common place exposures.

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

• Chronic-sun Cancers Put Twist on Work Hazard (windsorstar.com)
• Report: Driving can contribute to deadliest cancer, particularly on your left side (autoblog.com)
• Penalties, Paper and The Injured Worker (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• 3 Ways Infections Become Compensable in Workmens Comp (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• Nail Salon Workers at Risk for Occupational Exposures (workers-compensation.blogspot.com)
• The big cancer risk is the sun, not the cellphone (theglobeandmail.com)
• Driving Might Contribute to Deadliest of Skin Cancer (usatoday.com)