Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
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

Friday, June 4, 2010

Oil Spill Workers Exposed to Hazards

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued safety precautions to be taken by workers who are responding to the British Petroleum oil spill.

The original workers' compensation acts of 1911 did not consider occupational illnesses and diseases compensable events. Through the years that has changed and those conditions are now compensable in most jurisdictions. The American legal system, which was based upon British common law, rapidly developed a need to adopt a mechanism for the delivery of benefits to injured workers during the early 20th century. The initial workers' compensation statutes adopted by numerous states were based upon the British statute which provided for compensation benefits in cases in which traumatic accidents had occurred but not in cases in which occupational disease was involved. While the British statute was amended by 1906 to include occupational disease, none of the American statutes reflected this modification at the time of their enactment.

"Marine oil spill responders face a variety of health and safety hazards, including fire and explosion, oxygen deficiency, exposure to carcinogens and other chemical hazards, heat and cold stress, and safety hazards associated with working around heavy equipment in a marine environment. A full discussion of these hazards is beyond the scope of this training booklet, but a brief list of hazards and their known health consequences is shown in Table 1 [see below]. Your workers should be trained to anticipate and control exposure to the hazards associated with their assigned duties.

"To determine acceptable levels of exposure and train your workers about them, consult OSHA's exposure limits in Subparts G and Z. If OSHA does not regulate an exposure of concern, consult the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Exposure Limits (RELs) and Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) levels. If neither OSHA nor NIOSH has established a limit, consult the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs) for chemical, physical, and biological agents. You may use a more protective limit than OSHA's if one has been established and plan your controls accordingly. Material Safety Data Sheets from the product manufacturer may provide useful information for worker training.

"Additional Hazards Marine oil spill responders need training to work safely around these and other potential hazards. You should decide which hazards apply to your operations.

  • Biological (e.g., plants, animals, insects, remediation materials)
  • Drowning
  • Noise
  • Electricity
  • Slips and Trips
  • Biohazardous debris (e.g., syringes on shoreline)
  • Ergonomic Stresses (e.g., repetitive strain, low back pain)
  • Sunburn
  • Confined Spaces
  • Underwater Diving
  • Falls
  • Unguarded Equipment
  • Cranes
  • Fatigue
  • Vehicles (e.g., aircraft, boats, cars, trucks)
  • Cutting and Welding
  • Fire and Explosion
  • Degreasers
  • Heat or Cold Stress
  • Dispersants
  • In-Situ Burning Particles
Hazards of exposure include the following:

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Breast Cancer Linked to Workers' Exposure at Semiconductor Factory

A semiconductor plant worker, who had been exposed to solvents and radiation while working 5 years at a semiconductor factory in South Korea has been held to have suffered an compensable disease related to her exposure at work. The 36 year old women was employed between 1995 and 2000 at plant. Three years after contracting breast cancer she died. Workers' Compensation benefits were awarded.

Recent studies have associated exposure to solvents as an increased risk factor for breast cancer.

"Endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, some of which may not yet have been classified as such, are present in many occupational environments and could increase breast cancer risk. Prior research has identified associations with breast cancer and work in agricultural and industrial settings. The purpose of this study was to further characterize possible links between breast cancer risk and occupation, particularly in farming and manufacturing, as well as to examine the impacts of early agricultural exposures, and exposure effects that are specific to the endocrine receptor status of tumours."

Breast cancer risk in relation to occupations with exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors: a Canadian case--control study
Environmental Health 2012, 11:87 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-87 Published: 19 November 2012


Read more about "Breast Cancer" and occupational exposures:
Dec 05, 2012
Susan G. Komen for the Cure® asked the IOM to review the current evidence on breast cancer and the environment, consider gene–environment interactions, review the research challenges, explore evidence-based actions ...
Nov 23, 2012
"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 ...
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 ...
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 ...

Friday, April 6, 2012

Heart Disease Linked to Asbestos Exposure

The occupational exposure to asbestos fiber has now been linked to fatal heart disease. A recent report associates asbestos exposure at work to a higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular disease mortality among British asbestos workers (1971–2005)
Anne-Helen Harding,  Andrew Darnton,  John Osman, Occup Environ Med oemed-2011-100313 Published Online First: 2 April 2012doi:10.1136/oemed-2011-100313

"Objectives Asbestos is an inflammatory agent, and there is evidence that inflammatory processes are involved in the development of cardiovascular disease. Whether asbestos is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease has not been established. The objective of this study was to investigate cardiovascular disease mortality in a large cohort of workers occupationally exposed to asbestos.

"Methods Cardiovascular disease mortality in a cohort of 98 912 asbestos workers, with median follow-up of 19 years, was analysed. Unadjusted and smoking-adjusted standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated. The association between indicators of asbestosexposure and mortality was analysed with Poisson regression models, for deaths occurring during the period 1971–2005.

"Results Altogether 15 557 deaths from all causes, 1053 deaths from cerebrovascular disease and 4185 deaths from ischaemic heart disease (IHD) occurred during follow-up. There was statistically significant excess mortality from cerebrovascular disease (SMR: men 1.63, women 2.04) and IHD (SMR: men 1.39, women 1.89). Job and birth cohort were associated with the risk of cerebrovascular and IHD mortality in the Poisson regression model including sex, age, smoking status, job, cohort and duration of exposure. For IHD only, duration of exposure was also statistically significant in this model.

"Conclusions Cerebrovascular and IHD mortality was significantly higher among theseasbestos workers than in the general population and within the cohort mortality was associated with indicators of asbestos exposure. These findings provide some evidence that occupational exposure to asbestos was associated with cardiovascular disease mortality in this group of workers.

.....
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 work related accident and injuries.


Related articles

Monday, December 28, 2015

NJ company cited by OSHA for willfully exposing workers to diacetyl


A Somerset County New Jersey flavoring and fragrance manufacturer exposed workers to respiratory and other workplace safety and health hazards. These exposures have created a new wave of occupation litigation by injured workers and their families.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Pulmonary Embolism Held to Be A Vascular Disease

The NJ Appellate Division held that a pulmonary embolism was a vascular disease and not compensable under the NJ occupational disease provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The Court distinguished the medical event from an occupational exposure. Vascular disease are governed by a more stringent standard (NJSA34:15-72).


In reversing the trial court the Appellate Division, held that 5 elements need to be present to prove an occupational condition:

"From our review of the history and application of Section 31, we extrapolate five common themes of occupational disease claims. First, the employee is exposed to conditions that would be viewed as creating a likely risk of injury. Second, there is continued exposure to the work conditions. Third, there is an inherent hazard of continued exposure to the conditions. Fourth, there is attached to that job a hazard that distinguishes it from the usual run of occupations. Fifth, the claim is made because of long-term exposure, not because of one specific event."


The Court distinguished the episode from an "occupational heart condition" which the NJ Supreme Court ruled was compensable condition in Fiore. That condition was a hybrid compensable condition crafted between the standards of NJSA 34:15-31 and NJSA 34:15-7.

Renner v. ATT Docket No. A-3237-09T3, 2010 WL 4811913 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2010)

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2010

A preliminary total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2010, about the same as the final count of 4,551 fatal work injuries in 2009, according to results from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate of fatal work injury for U.S. workers in 2010 was 3.5 per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, the same as the final rate for 2009. Over the last 3 years, increases in the published counts based on information received after the release of preliminary data have averaged 174 fatalities per year or about 3 percent of the revised totals. Final 2010 CFOI data will be released in Spring 2012. 

 Economic factors continue to play a role in the fatal work injury counts. Total hours worked were up slightly in 2010 in contrast to the declines recorded in both 2008 and 2009, but some historically high-risk industries continued to experience declines or slow growth in total hours worked. Key preliminary findings of the 2010 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries: - The number of fatal work injuries among the self-employed declined by 6 percent to 999 fatalities, more than the decline in their hours worked. 

Saturday, July 27, 2013

EPA Fines Prudent Technologies $65,450 for Failure to Adhere to Repair and Painting Rule at Omaha Lead Site

Prudent Technologies, of Kansas City, Mo., has agreed to pay a $65,450 civil penalty to resolve violations of the Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule at two properties within the Omaha Lead Superfund Site.

Prudent Technologies, working under a contract with EPA’s Superfund program, was performing renovation activities designed to stabilize paint at each location. Paint stabilization includes scraping and painting the exteriors of houses to protect EPA’s remedy at the site, which consists of removing lead-contaminated soil from contaminated properties.

At the first location, Prudent failed to follow lead-safe work practices as required by the RRP rule. The violations included failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area; failure to close all doors and windows within 20 feet of the renovation before commencing work; failure to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation before the renovation; and failure to clean the work area upon completion of the work.

Violations at the second location included failure to follow lead-safe work practices as required by the RRP rule; failure to post signs clearly defining the work area and warning occupants and other persons not involved in renovation activities to remain outside of the work area; and failure to cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation.

Since 1999, EPA has been working cooperatively with contractors, local officials, agencies, institutions, community organizations, residents and property owners to sample and remediate lead-contaminated soils from Omaha’s residential yards, schools, day care facilities, parks and playgrounds. Addressed under EPA’s Superfund program, the Omaha Lead Site, consisting of approximately 27 square miles of eastern Omaha, has been on the National Priorities List since 2003.

The RRP rule is a part of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule requires each person or firm hired to perform a renovation to be certified and to use specific work practices to minimize lead-based paint hazards for workers and occupants. Under the RRP rule, general contractors can be held liable for regulated renovation work that subcontractors perform for the company. This includes record-keeping requirements (e.g., handing out the Renovate Right pamphlet, keeping Lead-Safe Work Practices checklists, etc.) and work practices requirements (e.g., training workers, putting up appropriate signs, using disposable impermeable material to contain dust and debris, etc.).

Sunday, March 23, 2014

OSHA continues extensive public engagement on silica proposal Public hearings held March 18 - April 4

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today began holding public hearings for the notice of proposed rulemaking on occupational exposure to crystalline silica. This marks the beginning of an intensive three weeks of public comment on the proposal, with hearings scheduled through Friday, April 4.

"We look forward to receiving feedback from our stakeholders on our proposal, and we're grateful for the continuing high level of public engagement throughout the rulemaking," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. "This is an open process and the input we receive will help us ensure that a final rule adequately protects workers, is feasible for employers, and is based on the best available evidence."

OSHA's proposed rule seeks to lower worker exposure to crystalline silica, which causes silicosis, an incurable lung disease. Leading scientific organizations, including the American Cancer Society, have also confirmed the causal relationship between silica and lung cancer. The proposal is based on extensive review of scientific and technical evidence, consideration of current industry consensus standards and consultation with stakeholders.

Members of the public may attend the sessions to listen to testimony from OSHA and other hearing participants. To learn more about the hearing procedures, visit http://www.osha.gov/silica/hearing_procedures.html. To view the hearing schedule, visithttp://www.osha.gov/silica/hearing_schedule.html. Members of the public who filed a timely written notice of intention to appear can also ask questions of agency officials and other witnesses during the hearing. Following the hearings, OSHA will publish a transcript of the hearings and make it available to the public in the rulemaking docket, and hearing participants will have an opportunity to submit additional evidence and comments.

Published in the Federal Register on Sept. 12, 2013, OSHA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silicaaims to update the inconsistent and outdated permissible exposure limits for crystalline silica in general industry, construction and shipyards, as well as to establish other provisions to better protect workers. Additional information on the proposed rule, including five fact sheets, is available at http://www.osha.gov/silica/.

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.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Workers Compensation Benefits Awarded for Breast Cancer

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 substantial evidence that supported the finding that her exposure to known carcinogens was causally related to her breast cancer.

The injured worker was employed for the City of Las Vegas in 1992 and was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997. She under whet treatment and lost 8 to 9 months of work. In 2004 she suffered a recurrence of the breast cancer and under when a double mastectomy and chemotherapy.

The Nevada statute defines what  a "carcinogen" is based upon the definition of the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] or the National Toxicology Program [NTP]. The former firefighter alleged that she was exposed to benzene, a know carcinogen. One of her expert witnesses, Dr. James Melius, testified that, "Several studies have found occupational exposure to benzene to be associated with breast cancer risk in both males and females."

Also her treating physician causally related her medical condition to her occupational exposure to carcinogens. He advised her to cease work as a firefighter.

City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, No. 53900, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 52, 2010 WL 542282 (Nev. 2010) Decided December 30, 2010.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Mother's Occupational Exposure to Pesticide Increases Child's Risk of Leukemia

A recent study by the McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment of the University of Ottawa finds that an increased risk of childhood leukemia is associated with the mother's exposure at work to pesticides.

"Childhood leukemia was associated with prenatal maternal occupational pesticide exposure in analyses of all studies combined and in several subgroups. Associations with paternal occupational pesticide exposure were weaker and less consistent. Research needs include improved pesticide exposure indices, continued follow-up of existing cohorts, genetic susceptibility assessment, and basic research on childhood leukemia initiation and progression."

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Leukemia and Parental Occupational Pesticide Exposure, Donald T. Wigle, Michelle C. Turner, and Daniel Krewski
doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900582 (available at http://dx.doi.org/)
Online 19 May 2009

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Protect American workers from exposure to silica on the job

At least 1.7 million construction workers could be protected from cancer-causing silica if an OSHA protection – stalled for two years – is put into action.

The Laborers International Union (LIUNA) has set up petition to the White House, urging the executive to move forward on the proposed OSHA rule to reduce silica exposures.  You can join the 2700 other people who have signed on here:

Sign the petition.

In the time it takes to create an account at the White House website – about three minutes – at least three more workers will have been exposed to silica. 

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OSHA Needs To Be Strengthened

If workplaces were safer then there would be no reason to have a workers' compensation program at all. OSHA, The Occupational Safety and Head Health Administration (OSHA), does just that, but its enforcement powers are lacking.

OSHA was created legislatively by Congress in 1970. In the years following  The National
Commission on Workmen's Compensation Laws in 1972 reported that safety should be encouraged, and that, "....Economic incentives in the program should reduce the number of work-related· injuries

and diseases." 

Today, The New York Times reports that "Occupational illness and injuries ....cost the American economy $250 Billion per year due to medical expenses and lost productivity."

English: A picture of David Michaels, Assistan...
English: A picture of David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
"OSHA devotes most of its budget and attention to responding to here-and-now dangers rather than preventing the silent, slow killers that, in the end, take far more lives. Over the past four decades, the agency has written new standards with exposure limits for 16 of the most deadly workplace hazards, including lead, asbestos and arsenic. But for the tens of thousands of other dangerous substances American workers handle each day, employers are largely left to decide what exposure level is safe.

***

“"I’m the first to admit this [OSHA] is broken,' said David Michaels, the OSHA director, referring to the agency’s record on dealing with workplace health threats. 'Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people end up on the gurney.'"


Click here to read the complete article,  As OSHA Emphasizes Safety, Long-Term Health Risks Fester

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

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.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

New CMS Policy Announced: Asbestos Exposure, Ingestion, and Implantation Issues and December 5, 1980

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has consistently applied the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) provision for liability insurance (including self-insurance) effective 12/5/1980. As a matter of policy, Medicare does not assert a MSP liability insurance based recovery claim against settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments, where the date of incident (DOI) occurred before 12/5/1980.

When a case involves continued exposure to an environmental hazard, or continued ingestion of a particular substance, Medicare focuses on the date of last exposure or ingestion for purposes of determining whether the exposure or ingestion occurred on or after 12/5/1980. Similarly, in cases involving ruptured implants that allegedly led to a toxic exposure, the exposure guidance or date of last exposure is used. For non-ruptured implanted medical devices, Medicare focuses on the date the implant was removed. (Note: The term “exposure” refers to the claimant’s actual physical exposure to the alleged environmental toxin, not the defendant’s legal exposure to liability.)


In the following situations, Medicare will assert a recovery claim against settlements, judgments, awards, or other payments, and the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) Section 111 MSP mandatory reporting rules must be followed:

• Exposure, ingestion, or the alleged effects of an implant on or after 12/5/1980 is claimed, released, or effectively released.

• A specified length of exposure or ingestion is required in order for the claimant to obtain the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment, and the claimant’s date of first exposure plus the specified length of time in the settlement, judgment, award or other payment equals a date on or after 12/5/1980. This also applies to implanted medical devices.

• A requirement of the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment is that the claimant was exposed to, or ingested, a substance on or after 12/5/1980. This rule also applies if the settlement, judgment, award, or other payment depends on an implant that was never removed or was removed on or after 12/5/1980.

When ALL of the following criteria are met, Medicare will not assert a recovery claim against a liability insurance (including self-insurance) settlement, judgment, award, or other payment; and MMSEA Section 111 MSP reporting is not required. (Note: Where multiple defendants are involved, the claimant must meet all of these criteria for each individual defendant in order for a settlement, judgment, award, or other payment from that defendant to be exempt from a potential

MSP recovery claim and MMSEA Section 111 reporting):

•All exposure or ingestion ended, or the implant was removed before 12/5/1980; and

•Exposure, ingestion, or an implant on or after 12/5/1980 has not been claimed and/or specifically released; and,

•There is either no release for the exposure, ingestion, or an implant on or after 12/5/1980; or where there is such a release, it is a broad general release (rather than a specific release), which effectively releases exposure or ingestion on or after 12/5/1980. The rule also applies if the broad general release involves an implant.

For Specific Examples Click Here To Read the CMS Memo

REPORTING REMINDER:

Information related to the MMSEA Section 111 MSP reporting requirements can be found at
www.cms.hhs.gov/MandatoryInsRep. When reporting a potential settlement, judgment, award, or other payment related to exposure, ingestion, or implantation, the date of first exposure/date of first ingestion/date of implantation is the date that MUST be reported as the DOI. This is true for purposes of individual self-identification of a pending claim to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Coordination of Benefits Contractor, as well as for MMSEA Section 111 reporting.

Related articles

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Asbestos Deaths Predicted to Continue for Decades

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has released a draft Intelligence Report concerning asbestos and mesothelioma in an effort to create a "road-map for research."

"Asbestos has been a highly visible issue in public health for over three decades. During the mid- to late-20th century, many advances were made in the scientific understanding of worker health effects from exposure to asbestos fibers and other elongate mineral particles (EMPs). It is now well documented that fibers of asbestos minerals, when inhaled, can cause serious diseases in exposed workers. However, many questions and areas of confusion and scientific uncertainty remain. For instance, due to the mineralogical complexity of the asbestos minerals, the scientific literature contains various inconsistencies in the definition and application of the term asbestos for health protection guidance and regulatory purposes."

"The purpose of the Roadmap is to outline a research agenda that will guide the development of specific research programs and projects that will provide a broader and clearer understanding of the important determinants of toxicity for asbestos and other EMPs. NIOSH recognizes that results from such research may impact environmental as well as occupational health policies and practices. Many of the issues that are important in the workplace are also important to communities and to the general population.Therefore, NIOSH envisions that the planning and conduct of the research will be a collaborative effort involving active participation of multiple federal agencies, including the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), as well as labor, industry, academia, health and safety practitioners, and other interested parties, including international groups. This collaboration will help to focus the scope of the research, to fund and conduct research, and to develop and disseminate informational materials describing research results and their implications for establishing new occupational and public health policies."


Asbestos Deaths Predicted to Continue for Decades
"NIOSH has annually tracked U.S. asbestosis deaths since 1968 and malignant  mesothelioma deaths since 1999 using death certificate data in the National Occupational  Respiratory Mortality System (NORMS). NORMS data, representing all deaths among  U.S. residents, show that asbestosis deaths increased almost 20-fold from the late 1960s  to the late 1990s (Figure 6) [NIOSH 2007b]. Asbestosis mortality trends are expected to substantially trail trends in asbestos exposures (see Section 2.4.2) for two primary  reasons: (1) the latency period between asbestos exposure and asbestosis onset is 2 typically long, commonly one or two decades or more; and (2) asbestosis is a chronic disease, so affected individuals can live for many years with the disease before succumbing. In fact, asbestosis deaths have apparently plateaued (at nearly 1,500 per year) since 2000 (Figure 3) [NIOSH 2007b]. Ultimately, it is anticipated that the annual  number of asbestosis deaths in the United States will decrease substantially as a result of  documented reductions in exposure. However, asbestos usage has not been completely  eliminated, and asbestos-containing materials remain in place in structural materials and  machinery, so the potential for exposure remains. Thus, asbestosis deaths in the United  States are anticipated to continue to occur for several decades."


Mesothelioma Strongly Linked to Occupational Exposures
"Malignant mesothelioma, an aggressive disease that is nearly always fatal, is known to be  caused by exposure to asbestos and some other mineral fibers [IOM 2006]. The occurrence of mesothelioma has been strongly linked with occupational exposures to asbestos [Bang et al. 2006]. There had been no discrete International Classification of Disease (ICD) code for mesothelioma until its most recent 10th revision. Thus, only seven years of NORMS data are available with a specific ICD code for mesothelioma (Figure 4); during this period, there was a 9% increase in annual mesothelioma deaths, from 2,484 in 1999 to 2,704 in 2005 [NIOSH 2007b]. A later peak for mesothelioma deaths than for asbestosis deaths would be entirely expected, given the longer latency for mesothelioma [Järvholm et al. 1999]. One analysis of malignant mesothelioma incidence based on the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data found that an earlier steep increase in incidence had moderated and 1 that mesothelioma incidence may have actually peaked sometime in the 1990s in SEER-2 covered areas [Weill et al. 2004]. In contrast to NORMS data, which represents a census 3 of all deaths in the entire United States, the analyzed SEER data were from areas in 4 which a total of only about 15% of the U.S. population resides."

NIOSH  has invited Public Comment Until April 16, 2010 5:00pm EDT




Wednesday, July 17, 2013

California Trial Starts Against Lead Paint Industry for Creating a Public Nuisance

After years of pre-trial arguments and following the denial of summary judgment motions by lead paint companies, Sherwin Williams and NL Industry, the case brought by several California entities has commenced in California.

"The lawsuit differs from other unsuccessful attempts in seven other states to sue lead
paint manufacturers by arguing the companies violated state public nuisance laws, rather than health laws. Government lawyers won’t have to show that specific individuals were harmed in a direct way, only that the industry assisted in the creation of a public nuisance."

Click here to read the complete article: "$1 Billion Lead Cleanup Lawsuit Underway after 13 Years of Legal Maneuvering" 

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Lead Paint - Industry Has Yet to Meet Its Responsibility

Bill Moyers recently interviewed Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner, public health historians and authors of several books, including Lead Wars, about the politics of toxic substances. 


"And the industry said over 50 years ago that this was an insoluble problem, it was a problem of, caused by slums, it was a problem caused by who they called uneducable parents. And so that they washed their hands of the problem and they have still washed their hands of the problem. Parents have played, excuse me, paid the cost of lead poisoning. Landlords have even paid the cost of lead poisoning. The government has paid the cost of lead poisoning. The industry has not paid to get that lead off the walls so future generations of children can be protected." Gerald Markowitz

Click here to see the entire video recording of the program: "Toxic Disinformation" aired on PBS May 17, 2013.

California Public Entity Lead Paint Lawsuit Trial Starts (Bloomberg 7.15.13)


Thursday, December 8, 2011

US Department of Labor continues to cite beauty salons and manufacturers for formaldehyde exposure from hair smoothing products

OSHA urges salon owners to implement protective measures
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration is continuing its efforts to protect workers from the dangers of formaldehyde exposure.

In November, OSHA issued citations and fines to two salons for failing to implement precautions to protect workers from exposure to formaldehyde when using certain hair-smoothing products. Formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and nose; can cause allergic reactions of the skin, eyes and lungs; and is a cancer hazard. Salon owners who decide to use products that may contain or release formaldehyde must follow the requirements of OSHA's formaldehyde and hazard communication standards to keep workers safe.

"We want to make sure that salon owners are aware that if they use these products, they have to implement protective measures such as air monitoring and training," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "What is very troubling to the agency is that some of these products clearly expose workers to formaldehyde even when the label states they are ‘formaldehyde free.'"

OSHA continues to respond to complaints and referrals of formaldehyde exposure in salons, beauty schools and manufacturing facilities. To date in calendar year 2011, federal OSHA has issued citations to 23 salon owners and beauty schools in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Ohio, with fines ranging up to $17,500 for failing to protect workers from overexposure and potential exposure to formaldehyde.

Some of these violations include failing to communicate the hazards of exposure to formaldehyde, provide needed protective equipment and test air levels. The requirements of OSHA's formaldehyde standard can be viewed at http://s.dol.gov/KW. In three separate salons, OSHA's tests showed that workers were exposed to formaldehyde levels above the agency's 15-minute short-term exposure limit, which is 2.0 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air. In one case, OSHA determined that a hair stylist was exposed to more than five times the allowable amount with an actual exposure reading of 10.12 ppm. In another instance, the exposure reading was 4.73 ppm.

OSHA also has issued citations to two Florida manufacturers and two Florida-based distributors of hair products containing formaldehyde for failing to protect their own workers from possible formaldehyde exposure as well as to communicate the hazards of formaldehyde exposure to salons, stylists and consumers. The violations of OSHA's formaldehyde and hazard communication standards include failing to list formaldehyde as a hazardous ingredient on the material safety data sheet, the hazard warning sheet provided to users such as salon owners and stylists; include proper hazard warnings on product labels; and list the health effects of formaldehyde exposure on the MSDS. Labels must include ingredient and health hazard warning information, and the MSDS must provide users with information on the chemicals in a product, the hazards to workers and how to use the product safely.

"The best way to control exposure to formaldehyde is to use products that do not contain formaldehyde. Salons should check the label or product information to make sure it does not list formaldehyde, formalin, methylene glycol or any of the other names for formaldehyde," said Michaels. "If salon owners decide to use products that contain or release formaldehyde, then they must follow a number of protective practices — including air monitoring, worker training and, if levels are over OSHA limits, good ventilation or respirators."

OSHA already has conducted significant outreach to salons, beauty schools and manufacturers to alert them about the hazards of hair smoothing products and the requirements of OSHA's standards. In late September, OSHA issued a second hazard alert to hair salon owners and workers about potential formaldehyde exposure from working with certain hair smoothing and straightening products, which can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/formaldehyde/hazard_alert.html. This alert, which revised the initial alert issued last spring, was prompted by the results of additional agency inspections, a warning letter issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and factually incorrect information recently sent to salons by Brazilian Blowout, a company that manufactures hair products.

In response to the Aug. 24 letter sent by Brazilian Blowout to salon owners claiming that all OSHA air tests performed on the company's Brazilian Blowout Professional Acai Smoothing Solution yielded results below OSHA's standard for exposure, the agency sent a letter to the company refuting that assertion. OSHA's letter can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/formaldehyde/brazilian_blowout_letter.pdf*.

For more information on formaldehyde exposure in salons, visit http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hairsalons/index.html.

For small businesses in all states across the country, OSHA's On-site Consultation Program offers free and confidential advice for employers seeking help to identify and prevent job hazards or improve their safety and health management systems. In fiscal year 2010, the program provided free assistance to more than 30,000 small businesses covering more than 1.5 million workers across the nation. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html.

"These consultation services are separate from enforcement and do not result in penalties or citations," said Michaels. "Consultants from state agencies or universities work with employers to identify workplace hazards, provide advice on compliance with OSHA standards, and assist in establishing safety and health management systems."

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.