Despite the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2007 ranking “occupational exposure as a painter as carcinogenic to humans”, three years later the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) refused to recognise the cancer risk in painters as a prescribed industrial disease qualifying for state compensation payouts. An IIAC information note concluded: “After reviewing the limited evidence available on this subject, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) decided not to make any recommendations for changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB).” IIAC’s decision came after an independent report it commissioned from the University of Birmingham concluded: “It is not possible to identify a group, either by type of painting or by duration of painting that suffers a doubling of risk.” Critics consider the doubling of risk criteria used by IIAC to be arbitrary, and serving only to reduce the government’s compensation liabilities for work-related diseases.

Cancer risk in painters, IIAC information note, 4 November 2010. Occupational cancer risks in commercial painters: a review prepared for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC), Independent report for IIAC, 1 November 2010.

A statement from a United Nations body confirming its desire to see the end of asbestos use worldwide is the ‘death knell’ for a substance which claims one life every five minutes around the clock, the global union confederation ITUC has said.

Hazards ‘green jobs’ blog, 23 September 2010.

The world’s largest producer of chromium chemicals failed to inform the US authorities after it found a “substantial” lung cancer risks to workers exposed to hexavalent chromium (CrVI, or chrome 6). A notice this month filed by the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency says Elementis Chromium failed or refused to submit to EPA a study conducted for an industry trade group that showed evidence of excess lung cancer risk among workers in chromium production facilities.

The Pump Handle blog and 2 September 2010 EPA notice, posted on the Defending Science website. Risks 474,.

A new European online resource is being developed, to provide information about safer alternatives to the use of hazardous chemicals. The EU-backed substitution portal, being prepared by groups from Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Spain, including the trade union safety research body ISTAS, aims to be the leading database for substitution worldwide.

SUBSPORT website. Risks 472.

The UK’s official workplace health and safety watchdog is helping the microelectronics industry cover up worrying evidence of occupational cancer risks, a campaign group has charged. Phase Two, which represents workers who believe their health was damaged by exposures at National Semiconductor’s (NSUK) plant in Greenock, Scotland and which has the support of STUC, was speaking out on the 24 August publication of a study into cancer rates at the factory.

Phase Two news release and campaign group webpages. National Semiconductor website. Green jobs, safe jobs blog. Risks 471, 28 August 2010. Also see print version Cancer collusion, Hazards 112, October-December 2010.

A comprehensive, proactive federal chemicals management policy should identify toxic chemicals before they are used commercially and force the use of safer alternatives, a new report says. ‘Preventing toxic exposures: Workplace lessons in safer alternatives’ says while new rules are formulated, efforts should concentrate on measures to promote safer alternatives.

Preventing toxic exposures: Workplace lessons in safer alternatives, Perspectives, volume 5, number 1, UC Berkeley Health Research for Action, 2010 [pdf]. California Progress Report. Green jobs, safe jobs blog.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) is to raise formally its concerns about the Health and Safety Executive’s ‘no risk’ claim about cancer rates at a Greenock microelectronics factory. STUC said it intended to write to HSE chair Judith Hackitt “seeking an explanation how the HSE justifies issuing a press release with the heading ‘Research indicates no increased cancer risk at Greenock factory’ when the report quite clearly states that incidences for some types of cancer were higher than they had anticipated.” The study methodology was criticised by cancer experts from the UK and US prior to its start. In an open letter to HSE, they say the small sample size would not result in “statistically reliable findings” adding that this means it “is unlikely to give enough statistical power to detect 2-3 fold increases in risk for many types of cancer…” The signatories included Joe La Dou of the University of California’s School of Medicine, at the time the editor of the prestigious International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (IJOEH), said the research plan was designed to fail and was “preposterous” (see Production lies, Hazards, number 76, 2001; Boffins damn chip study, Hazards 70, 2000).

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) study webpages and news release. A further study of cancer among the current and former employees of National Semiconductor (UK) Ltd, Greenock – 2010, HSE, August 2010 [pdf]. The Herald. BBC News Online. Risks 471, 28 August 2010. Production lies: Revealed! US chips firm’s secret PR strategy to undermine Silicon Glen health campaigners, Hazards, number 76, October-December 2001.

Two new official studies have confirmed the long-neglected workplace cancer crisis. But while the US report recommends urgent preventive action, the UK report is just another body count. Hazards compares the Health and Safety Executive’s occupational cancer strategy unfavourably to the prevention oriented US President’s Cancer Panel report.

Hazards 111, July-September 2010.

Workers producing rubber goods are not being provided the minimum legally-required protection from cancer risks, a survey by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has found. Almost all the firms visited in the small study had ‘significant deficiencies’ in their engineering controls and their risk assessments under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations, the survey found, were ‘not suitable and sufficient’. Dermal exposures at rubber compounding ‘are not adequately controlled’, the report added. The survey discovered six of 75 rubber fume exposures measured were in excess of the Workplace Exposure Limit (WEL). The HSE survey report concluded “although exposures are typically below the WEL, exposures are not being controlled as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as is the requirement for carcinogens under the COSHH regulations. Almost all sites visited had significant deficiencies related to the engineering controls used to control rubber fume exposures.” The report adds to earlier concerns about poor control of occupational cancer risks in the chemical sector.

A small survey of exposure to rubber process dust, rubber fume and N-nitrosamines, RR819, HSE, July 2010. Risks 468.

Institutional investors in Europe and the US have asked Samsung to explain the occupational cancer furore that has engulfed the company. The cancers have been linked to toxic chemicals used at Samsung semiconductor plants in South Korea. An online report from Hankyoreh 21 says the publication has obtained a letter issued by eight foreign investors including the All Pensions Group (APG) of the Netherlands, sent to Samsung Electronics President Choi Ji-seong on 21 May 2010. APG initially proposed a joint inquiry into the allegations about Samsung on 30 April, noting: “Twenty-three former employees of Samsung Electronics have fallen ill with leukaemia through April 22, and they have raised questions about occupational safety at Samsung Electronics plants.” An APG official said other investors had already requested Samsung explain the occupational cancer allegations.

Hankyoreh 21. Risks 466.