A report from the European environmental advocacy group HEAL calls for the “primary prevention” of cancers, including occupational cancers. It notes: “Primary prevention is about stopping cancer before it starts. Primary ‘environment’ and ‘occupational” prevention could be defined as reducing if not eliminating involuntary exposure to harmful chemicals by removing carcinogens and other chemicals linked to cancer, such as endocrine disruptors, as well as physical agents, from the environment and the workplace. It is separate from early detection, such as breast cancer screening, which is often included in the term “prevention”. Because primary ‘environmental and occupational’ prevention involves eliminating people’s exposure to harmful industrially-manufactured chemicals and physical agents, it is predominantly a matter of government policy and business responsibility. Nevertheless, educating individuals about harmful environmental and occupational exposures is very important. It can help people make better informed choices about use of daily consumer products that can contribute to cancer risks, and about work exposures. Building citizens’ awareness also contributes to generating support for changes in governmental policy and business practices.”

Reducing cancer through environmental policy change, Health and Environment Alliance position paper (HEAL), March 2011.

Significantly higher rates of lung cancer deaths – sometimes double what would be expected – occurred in US women who worked in more than 40 occupations between 1984 and 1998. The large scale occupational health surveillance study published in the February 2011 edition of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine is the broadest analysis of occupation, industry and lung cancer among US women to date.

Cynthia F Robinson and others. Occupational lung cancer in US women, 1984-1998, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, volume 54, issue 2, pages 102–117, February 2011 [abstract]. Environmental Health News.

A Las Vegas firefighter has been told by the Nevada Supreme Court she is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits under the presumption that she developed breast cancer through exposure to carcinogens at work.

City of Las Vegas v Robin Lawson, Nevada Supreme Court [pdf]. Courthouse News Service. Risks 489.

Regulations and incentives are needed to encourage a shift away from toxic chemicals, a group of Swedish business leaders, academics and environmental organisations have said. The call, in a co-signed article in Dagens Industri, the country’s largest financial newspaper, says it is a misconception that a lack of technically sound alternatives are the barrier to the transition towards a toxic free world.

ChemSec news report. Risks 486.

The paper concludes that occupational cancer reduction programmes can be highly cost-effective and quickly recover their costs. The authors found that 761 people are estimated to have new occupational cancers each year and 2,700 people already lived with the diseases. Direct medical costs totalled 15,682,000 Canadian dollars each year. Indirect costs totalled 64.1 million Canadian dollars a year. Prevention and control of carcinogen exposure are mooted.

Orenstein MR, Dall T, Curley P, Chen J, Tamburrini AL, Petersen J. (2010) The economic burden of occupational cancers in Alberta. Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Canada.

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) has refused to extend the list of prescribed industrial diseases linked to occupational lead exposure. IIAC’s review of the evidence followed press coverage of a highly critical November 2009 Hazards magazine report. Hazards noted: “Thousands of UK workers are being exposed to levels of lead that can cause serious chronic health problems including cancer, major organ and brain damage. Using never before published data, Hazards reveals that the UK’s ‘safe’ lead exposure standard is placing these workers at risk of kidney and heart disease, brain damage, cancer and other serious disorders.” In its November 2010 report, IIAC noted: “Concerns were expressed in the media in 2009 that a number of conditions, thought to be associated with occupational exposure to lead, were not covered in the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.

Having reviewed the evidence on lead exposed workers and fertility, only a slight effect on male fertility was shown, and little evidence was found relating to the effect on female workers. Despite substantial evidence of a potential association between lead exposed workers and the overall risk of developing cancer, evidence relating to specific cancer sites was small. The council was unable to make recommendations for changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.” Lead was last reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2006. It concluded: “Inorganic lead compounds are probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).” Lead has been linked to brain, central nervous system, kidney and other cancers.

Exposure to lead: effects on fertility and cancer, IIAC position paper 28, 23 November 2010. Also see: Dangerous lead, Hazards special report, November 2009.

Common workplace chemicals have been linked to an increased risk of male breast cancer. The research, published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, found male breast cancer incidence was particularly increased in motor vehicle mechanics, who were twice as likely to develop the disease.

Sara Villeneuve, Diane Cyr, Elsebeth Lynge and others. Occupation and occupational exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in male breast cancer: a case–control study in Europe, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, volume 67, pages 837-844, 2010 [abstract]. Green jobs, safe jobs blog.

The government has apologised to the families of dead nuclear workers whose body parts were taken for testing without their knowledge. The Redfern Inquiry was ordered when it emerged in 2007 that organs were taken from 65 workers at Sellafield in Cumbria between 1962 and 1992.

Michael Redfern QC concluded that the relationship between pathologists, coroners and Sellafield medical officers ‘became too close’ with failures to adhere to professional standards. He said: “The blame lies mainly at the door of pathologists who performed the post-mortem examinations. Ignorant of the law, they removed organs for analysis without satisfying themselves that the relatives’ consent had been obtained.”

Mr Redfern said it was the view of the families that the bodies were treated as a ‘commodity’. Bones were even replaced with broomstick handles so no-one would become suspicious at the funerals.

Nuclear industry unions Prospect and GMB, who were among the organisations who called for the inquiry, welcomed the report. Mike Clancy, deputy general secretary of Prospect, said: “Nobody would question the value of medical research into potential health risks to the industry’s employees and close neighbours. Such research is clearly in the public interest but that does not in any way justify the removal of tissue without appropriate consent. Our thoughts are with the affected families, for whom this is difficult and upsetting.”

Steve Gibbons, regional officer responsible for GMB members at Sellafield, said: “This has been an extremely distressing period for the families involved in this ordeal and this union shares their concerns. GMB believe that we have played our part in trying to eradicate, completely, levels of radiation exposure in order that workers are protected from industrial disease.”

TUC Risks, Number 483, 20 November 2010.

The US steelworkers’ union USW wants routine occupational lung cancer screening for all workers in high risk jobs. USW international president Leo W Gerard said: “Millions of workers have been exposed to asbestos, silica, chromium, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, nickel and combustion products – and all of these exposures are firmly established as causes of human lung cancer.”

Risks 482.

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.