The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft risk evaluation of formaldehyde, released on March 15, 2024, raises significant concerns for worker health and worker compensation risk exposure.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query occupational exposure. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query occupational exposure. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, March 25, 2024
Thursday, August 18, 2011
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."
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.
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.
Friday, October 22, 2021
Biden Administration Targets Occupational Exposure to PFAS
The Biden-Harris Administration announced accelerated efforts to protect American workers from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which can cause severe health problems and persist in the environment once released, posing a severe threat across rural, suburban, and urban areas.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Employee Allowed to Sue Employer for Negligence Resulting From an Occupational Exposure
A Court of Appeals in Missouri has ruled that an employee, who became ill as a result of an occupational exposure to asbestos fiber, may sue his employer for negligence. The Court ruled that the limitations on recovery of the Workers' Compensation Act did not bar a claim where an occupational exposure occurred.
On September 13, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri issued a very rare en banc opinion on a writ of prohibition allowing the employee's claim to go forward. The ill worker was exposed to asbestos, a known cancer causing agent, while working for KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (KCP&L) from 1954 to 1988 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010. Mesothelioma is a rare, but fatal, asbestos related disease.
On September 13, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri issued a very rare en banc opinion on a writ of prohibition allowing the employee's claim to go forward. The ill worker was exposed to asbestos, a known cancer causing agent, while working for KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company (KCP&L) from 1954 to 1988 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010. Mesothelioma is a rare, but fatal, asbestos related disease.
His claims against his employer, KCP&L, relied upon premises liability and negligence theories. The employee alleged that KCP&L had a duty to exercise "reasonable care" in preventing an "unreasonable risk of injury." KCP&L argued that the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act was his exclusive remedy, and sought summary judgment, which was ultimately denied by the trial court.
The Appeals Court held in its 7-2 opinion, that a strict reading of the Missouri Statutes §287.020.2 and §287.120 defeated KCP&L's argument that the claimant's occupational disease was covered by the Act, and that workers' compensation was the employee's exclusive remedy available. The Court reasoned that the 2005 amendments to the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act required a "strict construction" of the Act.
The exposure at work was deemed not to be a specific accident, but rather a continuous occupational exposure over 34 years. The Appeals Court differentiated the occupational exposure to asbestos from a specific accident that is defined as "an unexpected traumatic event or unusual strain identifiable by time and place of occurrence and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury caused by a specific event during a single work shift."
The Court's ruling opened the door for this worker and others who have been exposed in such a fashion to pursue a lawsuit against his or her employer directly, and not be constrained by the limited economic bounds of the Workers' Compensation Act.
This change in the law came about as a result of previous aggressive actions by business and industry to modify the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act in an to attempt to eliminate claims. The ultimate lesson to be learned is that when a pro-business Legislature deforms the law, and attempts to carve-out certain types of injuries from being compensable, they force such cases into the civil arena. Be careful what you ask for----you just might get what you deserve.
Following the Appeals Court's ruling, an Application for Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was filed by counsel for the appellant's on 9/27/11. No ruling on the transfer request has been made by the Missouri Supreme Court.
State ex rel KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company v. Hon. Jacqueline Cook WD73642 2011 WL 4031146 (Mo.App. W.D.) (September 13, 2011)
John R. Boyd is President of the Workers' Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG). He is the managing partner of Boyd & Kenter, P.C., Kansas City, MO, and is licensed to practice in Missouri, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. He is currently a member of the Missouri Bar Association, the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association (Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Committee 2000-2001), the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys (MATA), and the American Association for Justice.
The Court's ruling opened the door for this worker and others who have been exposed in such a fashion to pursue a lawsuit against his or her employer directly, and not be constrained by the limited economic bounds of the Workers' Compensation Act.
This change in the law came about as a result of previous aggressive actions by business and industry to modify the Missouri Workers' Compensation Act in an to attempt to eliminate claims. The ultimate lesson to be learned is that when a pro-business Legislature deforms the law, and attempts to carve-out certain types of injuries from being compensable, they force such cases into the civil arena. Be careful what you ask for----you just might get what you deserve.
Following the Appeals Court's ruling, an Application for Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was filed by counsel for the appellant's on 9/27/11. No ruling on the transfer request has been made by the Missouri Supreme Court.
State ex rel KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company v. Hon. Jacqueline Cook WD73642 2011 WL 4031146 (Mo.App. W.D.) (September 13, 2011)
John R. Boyd is President of the Workers' Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG). He is the managing partner of Boyd & Kenter, P.C., Kansas City, MO, and is licensed to practice in Missouri, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. He is currently a member of the Missouri Bar Association, the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association (Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Committee 2000-2001), the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys (MATA), and the American Association for Justice.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
OSHA To Focus on Infections in the Workplace
OSHA schedules meetings to
discuss occupational exposure to infectious diseases
discuss occupational exposure to infectious diseases
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has scheduled two informal stakeholder meetings to solicit comments on exposure to infectious diseases in the workplace. OSHA will use information gathered during these meetings to explore the possible development of a proposed rule to protect workers from occupational exposure to infectious agents in healthcare settings where direct patient care is provided and other settings where workers perform tasks with occupational exposure. Both meetings are scheduled for July 29 in Washington, D.C.
On May 6, 2010, OSHA published a Request for Information on Infectious Diseases. OSHA wanted to gather comments on strategies that are currently used to reduce the risk of workplace exposure to infectious agents, and to more accurately distinguish the nature and extent of occupationally-acquired infectious diseases. Based on responses received and an ongoing review of literature on this subject, OSHA is considering development of a proposed program standard to control worker exposures to infectious agents.
"We know that workers in healthcare and related facilities may be exposed to infectious agents, and they deserve to be protected," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Information gained from these meetings will help us determine the best approach to assure that workers don’t put themselves at risk while caring for patients and doing their job. After all, a good job is a healthy and safe job."
The two meetings will be held July 29, from 9 a.m. to noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room N-4437, Washington, DC 20210. To participate in one of the stakeholder meetings, or be a nonparticipating observer, individuals must submit a notice of intent electronically, by facsimile or by hard copy no later than July 22. See the Federal Register notice for details.
Meeting discussions will focus on issues including the advantages and disadvantages of using a program standard to limit occupational exposure to infectious diseases; whether and to what extent an OSHA standard should require employers to develop a written worker infection control plan that documents how employers will implement infection control measures to protect workers; and whether and to what extent OSHA should take alternative approaches to rulemaking to improve compliance with current infection control guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other authoritative agencies.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
On May 6, 2010, OSHA published a Request for Information on Infectious Diseases. OSHA wanted to gather comments on strategies that are currently used to reduce the risk of workplace exposure to infectious agents, and to more accurately distinguish the nature and extent of occupationally-acquired infectious diseases. Based on responses received and an ongoing review of literature on this subject, OSHA is considering development of a proposed program standard to control worker exposures to infectious agents.
"We know that workers in healthcare and related facilities may be exposed to infectious agents, and they deserve to be protected," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Information gained from these meetings will help us determine the best approach to assure that workers don’t put themselves at risk while caring for patients and doing their job. After all, a good job is a healthy and safe job."
The two meetings will be held July 29, from 9 a.m. to noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room N-4437, Washington, DC 20210. To participate in one of the stakeholder meetings, or be a nonparticipating observer, individuals must submit a notice of intent electronically, by facsimile or by hard copy no later than July 22. See the Federal Register notice for details.
Meeting discussions will focus on issues including the advantages and disadvantages of using a program standard to limit occupational exposure to infectious diseases; whether and to what extent an OSHA standard should require employers to develop a written worker infection control plan that documents how employers will implement infection control measures to protect workers; and whether and to what extent OSHA should take alternative approaches to rulemaking to improve compliance with current infection control guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other authoritative agencies.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
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.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Increased in risk of specific NHL subtypes associated with occupational exposure to TCE
 |
| Trichloroethylene |
Study published linking trichloroethylene exposure to cancer.
The chemical compound trichloroethylene (C2HCl3) is a chlorinated hydrocarbon commonly used as an industrial solvent. It is a clear non-flammable liquid with a sweet smell.
"Objectives We evaluated the association between occupational exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in a pooled
analysis of four international case-control studies.
Methods Overall, the pooled study population included 3788 NHL cases and 4279 controls. Risk of NHL and its major subtypes associated with TCE exposure was calculated with unconditional logistic regression and polytomous regression analysis, adjusting by age, gender and study.
Results Risk of follicular lymphoma (FL), but not NHL overall or other subtypes, increased by probability (p=0.02) and intensity level (p=0.04), and with the combined analysis of four exposure metrics assumed as independent (p=0.004). After restricting the analysis to the most likely exposed study subjects, risk of NHL overall, FL and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) were elevated and increased by duration of exposure (p=0.009, p=0.04 and p=0.01, respectively) and with the combined analysis of duration, frequency and intensity of exposure (p=0.004, p=0.015 and p=0.005, respectively). Although based on small numbers of exposed, risk of all the major NHL subtypes, namely diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, FL and CLL, showed increases in risk ranging 2–3.2-fold in the highest category of exposure intensity. No significant heterogeneity in risk was detected by major NHL subtypes or by study.
Conclusions Our pooled analysis apparently supports the hypothesis of an increase in risk of specific NHL subtypes associated with occupational exposure to TCE.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Caution Your Job May Cause Cancer
After a thorough review and discussion of the published scientific evidence, an expert Working Group convened by the IARC Monographs programme has concluded that
• Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
• Occupational exposure as a painter is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
• Occupational exposure as a firefighter is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).
These three occupations involve complex exposure patterns that make it difficult to attribute risk to specific factors. The Working Group, comprising 24 scientists from 10 countries, met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research agency of the World Health Organization.
A summary of these conclusions is being published in the December issue of The Lancet Oncology. Full results will be published next year as volume 98 of the IARC Monographs.
Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is “probably carcinogenic to humans”
Epidemiological studies have found that long-term nightworkers have a higher risk of breast cancer risk than women who do not work at night. These studies have involved mainly nurses and flight attendants. The studies are consistent with animal studies that demonstrate that constant light, dim light at night, or simulated chronic jet lag can substantially increase tumour development. Other experimental studies show that reducing melatonin levels at night increases the incidence or growth of tumours.
These results may be explained by the disruption of the circadian system that is caused by exposure to light at night. This can alter sleep-activity patterns, suppress melatonin production, and disregulate genes involved in tumour development. Among the many different patterns of shiftwork, those that include nightwork are most disruptive to the circadian system.
"Nearly 20% of the working population in Europe and North America is engaged in shiftwork, which is most prevalent in the health-care, industrial, transportation, communications, and hospitality sectors: To date, most studies have focussed on breast cancer in nurses and flight attendants. Now more studies are needed to examine this potential risk in other professions and for other cancers," noted Dr Cogliano, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.
Occupational exposure as a painter is “carcinogenic to humans”
Epidemiological studies of painters have consistently found small but significant increases in the risk of lung cancer and bladder cancer. In addition, several studies of painters have found increased levels of genetic damage.
Four of five case-control studies found significant increases in childhood leukaemia associated with maternal exposure before or during pregnancy, although findings were inconsistent for lymphatic and haematopoietic cancers in the painters themselves.
Painters are exposed to numerous chemical solvents, pigments, and additives. They can also be exposed to other workplace hazards such as asbestos and crystalline silica. The available information is not specific enough to identify particular agents as the cause of the excess lung or bladder cancers. It also cannot be determined whether the cancer risks have increased or decreased with changes in the solvents, pigments, and additives used in paints.
Occupational exposure as a firefighter is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”
Epidemiologic studies of firefighters have noted excess cancer risks compared with the general population. Consistent patterns are difficult to discern due to the large variations in exposure across different types of fires and different groups of firefighters. Relative risks were consistently increased, however, for three types of cancer: testicular cancer, prostate cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Acute and chronic inflammatory respiratory effects have been noted in firefighters, and this would provide a plausible mechanism for respiratory carcinogenesis. Firefighters are exposed to numerous toxic chemicals, including many known or suspected carcinogens. These intermittent exposures can be intense, and short-term exposure levels can be high for respirable particulate matter and for several carcinogens, notably benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.
What is new, and what do these results mean to me?
"These are IARC’s first evaluations of shiftwork and firefighting. Because there is credible evidence linking these occupations with increased risks of cancer, it is important that further studies be conducted to better identify what it is about such occupations that may increase the risk of cancer so that preventive measures can be implemented to avoid such risks", concluded Dr Peter Boyle, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Occupational exposure as a painter has been classified since 1989 as carcinogenic to humans, and this new evaluation has linked painting to lung cancer and bladder cancer. The new evaluation also suggests that maternal exposure may be associated with childhood leukaemia. It is important that further studies be conducted in this area to confirm whether this risk is real and to identify precautionary measures that are appropriate to consider.
ABOUT THE IARC MONOGRAPHS
What are the IARC Monographs?
The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. These include chemicals, complex mixtures, occupational exposures, physical and biological agents, and lifestyle factors. National health agencies use this information as scientific support for their actions to prevent exposure to potential carcinogens. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent can increase the risk of cancer. The principles, procedures, and scientific criteria that guide the evaluations are described in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.
Since 1971, more than 900 agents have been evaluated, of which approximately 400 have been identified as carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic to humans.
Definitions
Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
Group 2.
This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data. The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.
Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations, to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A.
Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.
Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.
Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.
Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category.
An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations.
Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Pleural mesothelioma reported in a school teacher: asbestos exposure due to DAS paste
The hazardous legacy exposures of school children and art teachers to materials containing asbestos fiber, ie. Fibro Clay, and its causal relationship to mesothelioma, has been reported in a recent medical journal. Today's post is partially shared from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
BACKGROUND:
Malignant mesothelioma cases among primary school teachers are usually linked with asbestos exposure due to the mineral contained in the building structure. Among the approximately 12,000 cases of mesothelioma described in the fourth report of the National Mesothelioma Register, 11 cases of primary school teachers are reported, in spite of the fact that the "catalogue of asbestos use" does not describe circumstances of asbestos exposure other than or different to that due to asbestos contained in the buildings. Four cases in the Brescia Provincial Mesothelioma Register are identified as teachers, without this circumstance of exposure.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Health Hazard Alert: Hydraulic Fracking Workers Suffer Silica Expopsure
OSHA and NIOSH issue hazard alert on ensuring workers in hydraulic fracturing operations have appropriate protections from silica exposure
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health today issued a hazard alert on ensuring that employers in hydraulic fracturing operations take appropriate steps to protect workers from silica exposure. Today's action, which is taken after consultation with stakeholders, including industry, meets the Obama administration's focus on ensuring that this important resource continues to be developed safely and responsibly.
The hazard alert follows a cooperative study by NIOSH and industry partners that identified overexposure to silica as a health hazard to workers conducting hydraulic fracturing operations.
As noted in the alert, respirable silica is a hazard common to many industries and industrial processes.
Because large quantities of silica sand are used during hydraulic fracturing, NIOSH began a cooperative effort in January 2010 to collect data regarding silica exposure at hydraulic fracturing operations. NIOSH worked in cooperation with oil and gas industry partners to sample the air at 11 sites in five states where hydraulic fracturing operations were taking place. NIOSH identified seven primary sources of silica dust exposure during fracturing operations and found that workers downwind of sand mover and blender operations, especially during hot loading, had the highest silica exposures.
Because large quantities of silica sand are used during hydraulic fracturing, NIOSH began a cooperative effort in January 2010 to collect data regarding silica exposure at hydraulic fracturing operations. NIOSH worked in cooperation with oil and gas industry partners to sample the air at 11 sites in five states where hydraulic fracturing operations were taking place. NIOSH identified seven primary sources of silica dust exposure during fracturing operations and found that workers downwind of sand mover and blender operations, especially during hot loading, had the highest silica exposures.
Workers who breathe silica day after day are at greater risk of developing silicosis, a disease in which lung tissue reacts to trapped silica particles, causing inflammation and scarring, and reducing the lungs’ ability to take in oxygen. Silica also can cause lung cancer and has been linked to other diseases, such as tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney and autoimmune disease.
Today’s action responds to the NIOSH findings. The alert states that employers must ensure that workers are properly protected from overexposure to silica. The alert describes how a combination of engineering controls, work practices, protective equipment and product substitution, where feasible, along with worker training, can protect workers who are exposed to silica. Engineering controls and work practices provide the best protection for workers. According to the alert, transporting, moving and refilling silica sand into and through sand movers, and along transfer belts and into blender hoppers, can release dust into the air containing up to 99 percent silica that workers breathe.
“Hazardous exposures to silica can and must be prevented. It is important for employers and workers to understand the hazards associated with silica exposure in hydraulic fracturing operations and how to protect workers,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. “OSHA and NIOSH are committed to continuing to work with the industry and workers to find effective solutions to address these hazards.”
“Through partnerships, both businesses and safety professionals are able to collaborate on assessing and managing occupational safety and health risks,” said NIOSH Director John Howard, M.D. “The recommendations for protecting workers in the hazard alert are practical, evidence-based and effective solutions to help support the safe growth of American-made energy.”
“We applaud the efforts of the NIOSH NORA Council for Oil and Gas Extraction, OSHA and our partners from industry for helping to raise awareness of this hazard,” said Kenny Jordan, executive director of the Association of Energy Service Companies. “We are proud of the development of an industry focus group in cooperation with those agencies which will further explore this issue, share best practices and continue to build upon the many engineering controls currently in place and those under development over the last several years. The safety and health of our workforce is a top priority, and the industry strives to follow and improve best practices for safe operations and works closely with OSHA and NIOSH to help ensure a strong culture of safety. We look forward to sharing improvements not only within our industry, but with others as well.”
AFL-CIO Health and Safety Director Margaret Seminario stated, “The AFL-CIO strongly supports this hazard alert that provides important information to employers and workers involved in hydraulic fracturing operations regarding the serious health threat from silica exposures. It is critical that OSHA and NIOSH disseminate this information, so that immediate action can be taken to protect workers from silicosis and other silica-related diseases.”
The hazard alert can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.
....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
More about fracking
Related articles
....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered work related accident and injuries.
More about fracking
May 19, 2012
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed into law on Thursday a bill [H 464 materials] outlawing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, making Vermont the first US state to ban the controversial technique used to extract natural gas ...
May 24, 2012
While focus has been on environmental concerns with the advent of fracking, a process to release oil and gas, a new concern has emerged over the potential occupational exposure to silica by workers who are involved in the...
Oct 22, 2011
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a schedule to develop standards for wastewater discharges produced by natural gas extraction from underground coalbed and shale formations.
Oct 12, 2011
Related articles. How To Determine If A Substance Causes Cancer at Work (workers-compensation.blogspot.com); 'Fracking' fluid pitch stirs Great Lakes pollution fears (ctv.ca); Doctors Urge N.Y. to Weigh Health Risks of ...
Related articles
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Respirators Are Not Enough: New Study Examines Worker Exposure to Silica in Hydraulic Fracturing Operations
Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from ehstoday.com
A new study, “Occupational Exposures to Respirable Crystalline Silica During Hydraulic Fracturing,” found respirable crystalline silica, a human lung carcinogen, to be an occupational exposure hazard for workers at hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations. Researchers also found that the most commonly used type of respirator – the half-mask air-purifying respirator – might not provide enough protection for workers.
The study, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (JOEH) July issue, is the first systematic investigation of worker exposure to crystalline silica during directional drilling and fracking operations, a process used to stimulate well production in the oil and gas industry.
Field researcher from the NIOSH Western States Office (WSO) and the Division of Applied Research and Technology (DART) collected 111 personal breathing zone samples at 11 sites in five states over a 15-month period to evaluate exposures to respirable crystalline silica during fracking operations.
“Certain work in this industry requires employees to be in areas where respirable silica levels may exceed defined occupational exposure limits like the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit or the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limits [RELs],” said researcher Michael Breitenstein, who is with the NIOSH DART in Cincinnati. “However, our study found that in some cases, full shift personal breathing zone exposures exceeded 10 times the...
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Occupational Exposure to Lead Continues to be a Serious Health Issue
The California Department of Health has reported that the workers' occupational exposure to lead continues to be a serious public health issue.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors
 |
| Breast implant: Mammographs: Normal breast (left) and cancerous breast (right). (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
"A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that mammary carcinogens and/or EDCs contribute to the incidence of breast cancer. Yet there remain gaps and limitations. This exploratory population-based case–control study contributes to one of the neglected areas: occupational risk factors for breast cancer. The identification of several important associations in this mixed industrial and agricultural population highlights the importance of occupational studies in identifying and quantifying environmental risk factors and illustrates the value of taking detailed occupational histories of cancer patients"
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/11/22/Workplace-chemicals-up-breast-cancer-risk/UPI-51041353641959/#ixzz2D26vN0Ay
More about "Breast Cancer" and occupational exposure
More about "Breast Cancer" and occupational exposure
May 29, 2010
"Odds ratios (ORs) were increased for the usual risk factors for breast cancer and, adjusting for these, risks increased with occupational exposure to several agents, and were highest for exposures occurring before age 36 ...
Mar 18, 2011
Fire fighters in Canada are supporting legislation that would establish a legal presumption that breast cancer is an occupationally related illness. The legislation also creates a presumption that 3 other cancers (skin, prostate ...
Oct 26, 2012
The Danish government has begun to pay compensation benefits to women who develop breast cancer after working night shifts and irregular work hours. So far approximately 40 women have received benefits according to .
Jan 12, 2011
The Nevada Supreme Court has awarded workers' compensation benefits to a firefighter who alleged that her occupational exposure at work to toxic substances caused her breast cancer. The court held that there was ...
Friday, July 12, 2013
OSHA Targets Occupational Exposure to Isocyanates
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced a new National Emphasis Program to protect workers from the serious health effects from occupational exposure to isocyanates. OSHA develops national emphasis programs to focus outreach efforts and inspections on specific hazards in an industry for a three-year period. Through this NEP, OSHA will focus on workplaces in general, construction and maritime industries that use isocyanate compounds in an effort to reduce occupational illnesses and deaths.
"Workers exposed to isocyanates can suffer debilitating health problems for months or even years after exposure," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Through this program, OSHA will strengthen protections for workers exposed to isocyanates."
Isocyanates are chemicals that can cause occupational asthma, irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat, and cancer. Deaths have occurred due to both asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis from isocyanates exposure. Respiratory illnesses also can be caused by isocyanates exposure to the skin. Isocyanates are used in materials including paints, varnishes, auto body repair, and building insulation. Jobs that involve exposure to isocyanates include spray-on polyurethane manufacturing, products such as mattresses and car seats and protective coatings for truck beds, boats, and decks.
"Workers exposed to isocyanates can suffer debilitating health problems for months or even years after exposure," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "Through this program, OSHA will strengthen protections for workers exposed to isocyanates."
Isocyanates are chemicals that can cause occupational asthma, irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat, and cancer. Deaths have occurred due to both asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis from isocyanates exposure. Respiratory illnesses also can be caused by isocyanates exposure to the skin. Isocyanates are used in materials including paints, varnishes, auto body repair, and building insulation. Jobs that involve exposure to isocyanates include spray-on polyurethane manufacturing, products such as mattresses and car seats and protective coatings for truck beds, boats, and decks.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Lead Paint Creates A Potential New Wave of Occupational Disease Claims
Occupational lead exposure, especially to lead paint, has been a well known hazard in the workplace you decades. Recent epidemiological studies demonstrate the causal relationship of exposure to impaired brain function, over time, in adults, results in early aging. Employers and insurance carriers should brace themselves for a wave of claims. Occupational exposures over 30 years ago arise from the exposure to lead in paint, that has deteriorated and flaked off through: decomposition, friction, repair replacement or improper encapsulation, may trigger an enormous amount of expensive claims."The federal government has, through multiple agencies, extensively reviewed the health effects of lead upon workers. Coordinating their effort through the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) the federal government has alerted both employers and employees to the health hazards of lead and the techniques to be utilized when handling this hazardous substance.
"Lead, a bluish-gray metal, has been used since ancient times because of its unusual properties, such as a low melting point, pliability and resistance to corrosion. Hippocrates reported in 370 B.C. that a worker who had used lead suffered a severe case of colic. Lead is used in older American homes, and lead exposures occur in the workplace because of the widespread use of lead compounds during the past century in paints, gasoline and industry.
"The worker becomes exposed to lead when dust and fumes are inhaled and when lead is ingested through contamination on hands, water, food and clothing. When lead enters the respiratory and digestive tracts of the human body it is released to the blood and distributed throughout the system. More than 90% of the body's lead is accumulated in the bones where it is stored for many years. The bones then release the lead back into the blood stream and re-expose the system long after the original occupational exposure has ceased.
"Lead damages the blood-brain barrier and subsequently damages brain tissue. Workers exposed to lead may experience fatigue, irritability, insomnia, headaches and other subtle effects of mental and intellectual decline. Prolonged exposure to lead may present symptoms such as anemia. Lead inhibits the synthesis of heme and damages the ion transport system in the red blood cell membranes. Chronic high exposure to lead may result in chronic nephropathy and in some extreme cases, kidney failure. Gelman, Jon, Workers' Compensation Law 3rd ed., 38 NJPRAC 9.24 (West-Thomson 2008)
It has recently been reported in the scientific literature, that lead, absorbed into the blood stream over decades, may result in poor performance in a wide variety of mental functions. In a recent study, Dr. Brian Schwartz of Johns Hopkins University, remarked that lengthy exposure to lead, cumulative over years, may cause an aging brain to function at a level that is 5 years older that it really is. The Studies at Johns Hopkins objectively measured lead absorbed over a lifetime in human bodies. Dr. Brian Schwartz remarked, "We're trying to offer a caution that a portion of what has been called normal aging might in fact be due ubiquitous environmental exposures like lead."
Like asbestos and tobacco, lead exposure may cause a latent disease which causes the brain to deteriorate at an accelerated rate. Those who worked with lead, and those who were bystanders to lead exposures on the workplace, may have a workers' compensation benefits for the mental condition related to the lead exposure.
This significant new research relating lead exposure to aging puts insurance carriers and employers at risk for both direct claims under workers compensation systems and for claims against potential third parties, ie. property owners and paint manufacturers. Unlike tobacco and asbestos, these claims may be significantly more costly since because of the long potential long payment period of benefits under workers' compensation acts and the potential legions of workers who have been exposed in directly or indirectly.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Scientific Study Linking Breast Cancer and Work Wins APHA Award
The scientific study linking the causal relationship of breast cancer to the occupational exposure of endocrine disruptors has been awarded the American Public Health Association Scientific Award. It is anticipated that this sentinel study will provide additional scientific evidence in the courtroom to support the compensability of breast cancer as an occupational illness. Today's post is shared from biomedcentral.com .
Every year the American Public Health Association honours the achievements of scientific researchers for efforts towards improving public health. This year the winners of the APHA Scientific Award, announced today in Boston, USA, are James Brophy and Andrew Watterson from the University of Stirling, UK, and colleagues, for two outstanding research articles on environmental factors contributing to breast cancer risk. Both articles were published last year; one in New Solutions and one in Environmental Health, the latter titled ‘Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: a Canadian case control study’.
“As researchers and public health advocates we are delighted with this recognition from what is the oldest and most noteworthy public health association in the world”, said Brophy. “This Award will encourage a closer examination of the breast cancer risks faced by countless women employed in a host of chemical-laden industries and will advance the development of precautionary strategies.”
In their study in Environmental Health, Brophy and colleagues analysed over 1000 cases of breast cancer and over 1000 controls in Southern Ontario, Canada, each with detailed occupational and reproductive histories. Their findings revealed that across all occupational sectors, from farming and plastics manufacturing to food canning and gambling/bars, women with potentially high exposures to endocrine disrupters and carcinogens for a period of ten years showed an increased risk for breast cancer.
Since the publication of their articles, further studies have continued to explore how breast cancer risk is impacted by a variety of factors, as Watterson recounts: “The research has been followed in the last year with scientific papers discussing breast cancer and shift/night work, and breast cancer and its links with cadmium exposures, endocrine disruptors and pesticide applications. Additional research on chemicals used in the plastics industry linked to breast cancer has revolved around endocrine disruptors and there is much going on with regard to risk assessments, for example, of BPA.”
Click here to read the entire article.
Every year the American Public Health Association honours the achievements of scientific researchers for efforts towards improving public health. This year the winners of the APHA Scientific Award, announced today in Boston, USA, are James Brophy and Andrew Watterson from the University of Stirling, UK, and colleagues, for two outstanding research articles on environmental factors contributing to breast cancer risk. Both articles were published last year; one in New Solutions and one in Environmental Health, the latter titled ‘Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: a Canadian case control study’.
“As researchers and public health advocates we are delighted with this recognition from what is the oldest and most noteworthy public health association in the world”, said Brophy. “This Award will encourage a closer examination of the breast cancer risks faced by countless women employed in a host of chemical-laden industries and will advance the development of precautionary strategies.”
In their study in Environmental Health, Brophy and colleagues analysed over 1000 cases of breast cancer and over 1000 controls in Southern Ontario, Canada, each with detailed occupational and reproductive histories. Their findings revealed that across all occupational sectors, from farming and plastics manufacturing to food canning and gambling/bars, women with potentially high exposures to endocrine disrupters and carcinogens for a period of ten years showed an increased risk for breast cancer.
Since the publication of their articles, further studies have continued to explore how breast cancer risk is impacted by a variety of factors, as Watterson recounts: “The research has been followed in the last year with scientific papers discussing breast cancer and shift/night work, and breast cancer and its links with cadmium exposures, endocrine disruptors and pesticide applications. Additional research on chemicals used in the plastics industry linked to breast cancer has revolved around endocrine disruptors and there is much going on with regard to risk assessments, for example, of BPA.”
Click here to read the entire article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)