On 15 February 2010 Safe Work Australia (SWA) released a report entitled “Asbestos Exposure and Compliance Study of Construction and Maintenance Workers“.
It found, according to the SWA media release:
- “Most tradespersons were aware of the potential health risks of asbestos.
- This high level of general awareness is not accompanied by the knowledge of how to recognise asbestos or control the risks when working with it. Continue reading “Asbestos awareness high. Safety? Not so”
Most of the Australian media have reported on a memo to staff of the Australian Department of Health that only allows smoking while on meal breaks. Health Department employees are not permitted to smoke while undertaking departmental duties or “when representing the department in any capacity”.
Government authorities have long participated in smoking reduction campaigns which have succeeded in minimising smoking. Workplaces in Australia already have workplace smoking bans. So what’s caused the memo (a copy which has not been seen by SafetyAtWorkBlog) to be issued?
The principal reason seems to be to improve the “professional reputation of the department”. It has always been a ridiculous image to see Health Department employees crowding around departmental doorways smoking cigarettes. Continue reading “Health Department bans all employees from smoking at work”
SafetyAtWorkBlog has not reported on the asbestos compensation problems faced by James Hardie Industries directly because in 2009, the issue is one of corporate responsibility more so than workplace safety. The reality is that asbestos kills and victims deserve compensation. The fact that asbestos companies are avoiding their responsibilities is of little surprise.
In Australia, most of the focus has been on James Hardie due, principally, to its corporate conduct to the Australian stock exchange and its prosecution by the financial regulators. But another asbestos miner and building product manufacturer is at the Australian Courts in December 2009.
In some ways, CSR Limited is the more notorious asbestos manufacturer due to its operation of the Wittenoom asbestos mine. It could be said that CSR is the James Hardie of the 1980s.
According to a media report in the Sydney Morning Herald, CSR is planning to demerge but the Federal Court has been told that the Australian Securities & Investments Commission believes that insufficient allowance has been made in the strategy for asbestos compensation.
CSR is splitting its sugar and renewable energies divisions away from the building products division where the compensation is likely to sit. The sugar business will be called Sucrogen.
For those who do watch the corporate manoeuvrings of asbestos manufacturers, CSR’s actions should be familiar but those new to the issue should look beyond James Hardie to gain fuller appreciation of asbestos and capitalism.
For a global perspective on the whole industry it is hard to go past “Defending the Indefensible” by Jock McCulloch and Geoffrey Tweedale.
On 4 November 2009, the United States’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) upgraded formaldehyde to a “known human carcinogen”. This widely used chemical, principally in wood products, has been suspected of being carcinogenic for some time.
The suspicion was a major reason why, in Australia, Comcare issued a cautionary safety alert on using some shipping containers as converted accommodation. But the Comcare advice was based, and reasonably so, on a manufacturers’ material safety data sheet (MSDS).
One such MSDS selected at random from the Australian internet sites has this to say about formaldehyde:
Reported fatal dose for humans: 60-90 mL
Oral LD50 (rat): 800 mg/kg
Inhalation LC50 (rat): 590 mg/m3
Low concentrations of formaldehyde may cause sensitisation by skin contact. Formaldehyde vapour is irritant to mucous membranes and respiratory tract. Asthma like symptoms have occasionally been reported following inhalation.
Animal studies have shown formaldehyde to cause carcinogenic effects. In particular, chronic inhalation studies in rats have shown the development of nasal cavity carcinomas at 6 and 15 ppm. These cancers developed at concentrations which produced chronic tissues irritation and would not be voluntarily tolerated by humans. [IPCS Environmental Health Criteria 89, Formaldehyde, World Health Organisation [WHO], Geneva, 1989.]
Some positive mutagenic effects have been reported for formaldehyde. Available animal data do not show embryotoxic or teratogenic effects following exposure to formaldehyde.
The NTP notes that formaldehyde effects have now been identified as having a role in leukaemia and not just localised inhalation-related cancers.
The MSDS is dated 2004 and Australian OHS legislation only requires MSDS to be updated at five-yearly intervals. Of course they can be updated more frequently should the employer chose or, perhaps if the manufacturer advises them of a reclassification.
It is interesting that a 2004 MSDS still refers to WHO data that is fifteen years old and that the reference is to a non-Australian criterion. It is accepted that chemical reclassification and research are long processes but what should the updating timeline be now that the US has made this significant re-categorisation?
Perhaps the Australia classifications will gain speed given that the more compatible European re-categorisation of formaldehyde, and other chemicals, was announced overnight. The EU-OSHA website states
“Formaldehyde was confirmed as carcinogenic to humans. There is sufficient evidence in humans of an increased incidence of nasopharyngeal.”
However the human leukaemia issue was discusses in the evaluation summaries:
“The Working Group was almost evenly split on the evaluation of formaldehyde causing leukaemias in humans, with the majority viewing the evidence as sufficient for carcinogenicity and the minority viewing the evidence as limited. Particularly relevant to the discussions regarding sufficient evidence was a recent study accepted for publication which, for the first time, reported aneuploidy in blood of exposed workers characteristic of myeloid leukaemia and myelodysplastic syndromes with supporting information suggesting a decrease in the major circulating blood cell types and in circulating haematological precursor cells. The authors and Working Group felt this study needed to be replicated.”
Given that wood products that contain formaldehyde are used frequently in cabinet-making it is fair to expect MSDSs and OHS guidances on hazardous substances and wood dusts would be reissued and databases updated fairly quickly. Just as important is the fact that particle boards are commonly sold in hardware and timber outlets in Australia and that Spring and Summer is often the DIY peak.
It is not hard to picture an unscrupulous media outlet generating a panic about the presence of formaldehyde in these products regardless of how the chemical is bound or whether inhalation risks are minimised.
Earlier in 2009, SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on concerns over a possible cancer cluster near a fish hatchery in Queensland.
The final report of the Queensland Government’s inquiry, Noosa Fish Health Investigation Taskforce, is not due until February 2010 but the Federal Government’s Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has released a statement entitled “Endosulfan Ruled out as a Potential Cause of Noosa Fish Health Issues”. In that article APVMA states
“The Noosa Fish Health Investigation Taskforce has at this point eliminated endosulfan as a potential cause of deaths and deformities at a commercial fish hatchery at Noosa in the six events being investigated. Endosulfan was not used by the neighbouring macadamia property during the period under investigation. There was also some suggestion that because the commercial hatchery uses river water and fish from the river in its operations, pesticides in the Noosa River may have been involved in the incidents reported. However, environmental monitoring of water from the Noosa River and its feeder lakes has not indicated that endosulfan is present at concentrations that would be harmful to aquatic life.”
The ABC reports on 7 December 2009 that
“…aquaculture veterinarian Associate Professor Matt Landos says there is new evidence that endosulphan may be a factor.
“The early reports from the task force did not identify endosulphan in any residue testing and as such it was considered a less likely potential cause,” he said. “However, recent testing has identified the break-down product of endosulphan in the middle of Lake Cootharaba – in the middle of the Noosa system.”
Matt Landos is a member of the Queensland Government’s taskforce.
Following on from Asbestos Awareness Week, an ABC media report on 3 December 2009 says that the Australian Workers Union is continuing to apply pressure to the Tasmanian Government and Cement Australia for testing of former employees and local residents for exposure to asbestos.
An epidemiological study of former employees has been agreed to by the company and is being conducted by Monash University. Dr Yossi Berger of the AWU wants the study to be expanded to residents.
The logic is sound, particularly in Railton where the entire community has been exposed to asbestos production and products over decades. Asbestos should be considered as more than a work-related hazard.
The union position on this pernicious substance received recent support from Matt Peacock’s book “Killer Company” that brought to the public’s attention the issue of asbestos bags being used in carpet underlay over many years. Peacock says that cases of mesothelioma that just appear without any direct link to asbestos-handling , use or manufacture could come from unsuspecting exposure to asbestos in seemingly innocuous sources, such as underlay.
The union must be fairly confident that the results of any study will provide incontrovertible proof of the spread of the asbestos hazard, so that there can be some “oomph” behind a broader public campaign. As mentioned at a recent Asbestos seminar, the evidence may exist but it needs to be translated into a format that the national decision-makers will accept and cannot contest. Then large-scale improvements are possible.
During Asbestos Awareness Week 2009 in Melbourne Australia the trade union movement pledged to begin a national strategy to control and remove asbestos from Australia. This would have been a very tall ask any time in the last two decades but Asbestos needs to compete now with Climate Change for the attention of the media, the decision makers and the heartstrings of the community.
It is accepted that in the near future more people will be touched directly and indirectly by asbestos-related diseases but, at the moment, the issue is concentrated in low-income industrial suburbs and, as such, is still dismissed by some (often in suburbs with large trees and no pubs) as a disease that only strikes the blue-collar smokers. The social inequity of asbestos-related diseases should be studied in some depth as it is likely to shame governments into action on this hazard.
At a seminar in late November 2009, a small audience in the Victorian Trades Hall was told of the success of the Tasmanian campaign in gaining government support for the removal of all asbestos by 2030. Jim Ward of the Australian Workers Union spoke of the approaches to Goliath Cement (“The James Hardie of Tasmania”). Ward told how the CEO of Goliath did not blink at the request to remove asbestos. Ward said this type of response has been repeated throughout Tasmania.
The audience also heard from several who are at the frontlines of dealing with asbestos-related diseases. Vicki Hamilton and Tim Tolhurst spoke of the frustration of having inadequate disposal facilities in regional areas of Victoria. The challenge here is immense as the temptation to bury asbestos in the back paddock when no one’s around is strong even though it is selfish and immoral. Vicki and Tim showed how a structured program across the community is required because one cannot encourage the removal of asbestos until there is a place to safely dispose of it.
Pat Preston, ex-CFMEU and now with the Asbestos Contractors’ Group, spoke of the legislative and operational problems faced by licensed asbestos removal contractors. The holes and conflicts all complicate the process of asbestos removal and disposal and increase the cost, particularly of asbestos removal.
Several speakers pointed to the anomaly that the removal of asbestos from domestic buildings of less than ten square does not required licensed removal, thereby “encouraging” small volumes of asbestos to be hidden at the bottom of domestic rubbish bins. The OHS risks to waste collectors are not dissimilar to those who dispose of toxic and trade waste down the toilet next to the workshop when WorkSafe or the union is not around.
Of course the audience and speakers seem to all agree that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. There are certain to be those in Australia who are “asbestos-skeptics” and many seem to have the ear of the decision-makers.
One speaker provided a fresh perspective that was very appropriate but surprising for a couple of reasons. Anthony La Montagne, of the University of Melbourne, has undertaken ongoing research on job stress, cancer clusters and, clearly, asbestos issues. La Montagne provided the glum news that several promising medical techniques for early detection of asbestos have come to nought. The only effective risk reduction technique is for those who may have been exposed to asbestos to quit smoking as this smoking appears to exacerbate asbestos-related disease.
Several speakers noted that in the Asbestos Awareness Week 2008, there was a motion to have the Government undertake action on asbestos. The resulting inaction was embarrassing and motivating with participants committing themselves to continuing to lobby for controls on asbestos. This is going to be a considerable challenge if they continue through the same lobby process that they have applied for the last few years.
The asbestos safety advocates should drop “awareness” from the week’s title because awareness equates to “aspirational targets”, former Prime Minister John Howard’s way of promising much and delivering nothing. Just as everyone accepts that smoking causes lung cancer and climate change exists, people know that asbestos can kill. Move away from awareness-raising to action.
Research the social inequity of asbestos in low-income areas. Many domestic houses have asbestos houses or in their roofs, particularly in low-income areas which are also the areas where asbestos workers live. If the reality and scope of this situation was proven to a level and in a format that policy-makers accept, the asbestos control option would be much stronger. Even if the government continued its inaction, a case could be put to the discrimination tribunals and human rights sector to shame the government to represent all citizens equally.
Market the asbestos week. White, pink and striped ribbons are becoming a fundraising cliché but the marketing of social health issues works. There must be a coordinated approach to getting sponsors and support into the promotion of asbestos-related diseases on a large scale. Once there is serious money behind the issue, one can fund research and present data that convinces decision-makers of the reality of the issue.
Undertake a public health cost-benefit analysis of asbestos-related disease, as one speaker advocated at the Victorian Trade Hall. There are many lessons from the compensation issues of James Hardie Industries but one is that compensation creates wealthy (for a short while) families of dead workers and can do little of health benefit to the mesothelioma sufferers. It is surprising that the fact has not clicked in the government mind that compensation for asbestos-related diseases provides an important but only symptomatic relief. The government is applying paracetamol to an issue that requires surgery.
The union seminar was heartening in that it showed how many people are actually tackling the issue of asbestos-related diseases. But it also operated under a cloud of frustration with an occupational and public health risk that is not receiving the government support that other similar matters are. Trade unions are a vital part of any plan to control asbestos but just as many people in the leafy suburbs are isolated from asbestos risks, so the audience for the asbestos message is limited by the message remaining within the trade union context.
There needs to be a creative approach to generating sufficient community outrage over the unnecessary deaths of workers from asbestos so that the government cannot avoid action. The James Hardie legal action and the lobbying of Bernie Banton, and others, was about compensation, about making a company accept its social responsibility, about making it pay. It worked, but James Hardie still cannot afford the compensation bill that is the reality of decades of profits from a toxic substance that kills.
In 2009 several Australian Governments have helped out this company by contributing $A320 million to the company’s compensation fund. Why? When did the government decide to cover the costs of a company’s exploitation of workers? This is on top of having to fund the public hospitals that have to deal with mesothelioma victims. The government, and the taxpayer, is paying twice!
Let the company fail and allow the class action lawyers to pick over the assets. Or better yet, keep James Hardie Industries alive and bleed it just enough so that it can fund the removal of its toxic legacy for the next thirty years.
Every shareholder in James Hardie that receives their dividend cheques from whichever country James Hardie moves to next (Zimbabwe cannot be far off) needs to understand that those dividends could be used to ease the pain of the workers who generated the corporate profits rather than contribute to their own bloated share portfolios.