Electronics giant Samsung has started a public relations charm offence in a bid to escape a cancer scandal linked to its Korean factories. In April 2010, the company invited reporters to a chip plant south of Seoul to demonstrate its manufacturing process and emphasise its commitment to safety. “There is no risk,” said Cho Soo-in, president of the company’s memory division. Activist groups say at least 23 people – including six named in a lawsuit related to the cancers – developed cancers over a period of about a decade due to working at Samsung and that at least nine have died. Baak Young-mann, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Samsung’s “opinion is far from the truth.” After the leukaemia death of 23-year-old Samsung worker Park Ji-yeon on 31 March, the company went on Twitter to offer an expression of mourning. Cho suggested that Samsung wants to use the current controversy to improve transparency. “From now on, we will openly conduct management that has its basis in communication,” he said. US injury lawyer Mandy Hawes, who has won landmark legal cases for workers suffering devastating health problems as result of working in the electronic industry, told Hazards magazine: “Question – How many more electronics workers would be alive and well if over the past 30 years Samsung and its semiconductor industry brethren had made hazard communication as much as a priority as ‘branding’ or other market-based ‘communication’, strategies.”

Risks 453,.

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) says just having lung cancer caused by silica exposure at work is not enough to justify and its inclusion as a stand-alone prescribed industrial disease. At the moment  “primary carcinoma of the lung where there is accompanying silicosis” is accepted as prescribed industrial disease, but lung cancer that doesn’t come with the lung scarring condition silicosis is not covered. An IIAC information note concludes: “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).” In 1996, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) rated silica as a group 1 human carcinogen.

Silica and lung cancer, IIAC information note.

A global electronics giant embroiled in an occupational cancer scandal has been accused by Greenpeace of reneging on a promise to phase out toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other diseases. This week climbers from the environmental group scaled the Benelux headquarters of the Korean multinational Samsung, sticking the message “Samsung = Broken Promises” in giant letters onto the front of the building.

Green jobs, safe jobs blog.

A cancer cluster is affecting young workers exposed to toxic chemicals at electronics manufacturer Samsung in Korea, union and safety campaigners have warned. A petition calling for Samsung to accept responsibility for the problem, compensate victims and remedy the health and safety problems is being circulated worldwide by Supporters for the Health And Rights of People in the Semiconductor industry (SHARPs), the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (KMWU), Asian Network for the Rights Of Occupational Accident Victims (ANROAV) and International Campaign for Responsible Technology (ICRT).

Good Electronics news release, 1 March 2010. Risks 446.

Canada increased its asbestos exports in 2009. Asia is a key target market. But the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat is not letting the deadly trade go unopposed. A Hazards photofile.

Hazards 109, January-March 2010.

There has been no improvement in over a decade in the chemical industry’s control of a potent carcinogen, research for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has found. The study into exposures to the cancer-causing chemical MbOCA found more than 1 in 20 measurements (6 per cent) exceeded the guidance value for MbOCA in urine, with levels in excess of this figure found at seven of the 19 sites visited in study.

Occupational exposure to MbOCA (4,4′-methylene-bis-ortho-chloroaniline) and isocyanates in polyurethane manufacture, RR828, December 2010 [pdf]. Risks 489.

An overhaul of the US federal toxic chemical law to reduce the level of toxic exposures to workers, families and children is urgently required, campaigners have said. The union USW, the Learning Disabilities Association, the Cancer Institute and the Pennsylvania Nurses Association joined forces to call for reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The health case for reforming Toxic Substances Control Act, January 2010. Risks 441.

The government accepted an Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendation that sino-nasal cancer due to work involving hexavalent chrome plating or the manufacture of inorganic chromates should be added to the list of prescribed diseases. The changes took effect in July 2011.

Chromium and sino-nasal cancer, Cm 7740, IIAC, 8 December 2009.

The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has refused to accept laryngeal cancer caused by exposure to strong inorganic acid mists at work as a prescribed industrial disease. IIAC noted: “Strong acid mists, frequently containing sulphuric acid, are encountered in a wide variety of industries including primary chemical production, steel pickling and the manufacture of lead batteries, soaps and fertilisers. Having reviewed the literature, the council found no consistent evidence and could not recommend adding laryngeal cancer following exposure to strong organic mists containing sulphuric acid to the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.”

Laryngeal cancer and strong inorganic acid mists containing sulphuric acid, IIAC position paper 26, 8 December 2009.

After considering the findings of a review of breast cancer (and heart disease) risks linked to shiftwork, UK government’s Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) “found that most studies did not show a doubling of risk, an important criterion for prescription of a disease under the industrial injuries scheme. They were therefore unable to recommend adding breast cancer and ischaemic heart disease following a long history of shift working to the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.” The rules have been criticised for setting too high a qualification barrier for state compensation for occupational cancers. Many known workplace cancers, particularly those also common in the general population, could kill hundreds and possibly thousands each year and still not meet the doubling of risk requirement. In 2003, a report for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) concluded there was ‘appreciable’ evidence of a link between breast cancer and shiftwork. Since then HSE has accepted shiftwork is a major contributor to the UK’s occupational cancer toll. In 2012, HSE research concluded that occupational breast cancer was responsible for several hundred deaths a year in the Great Britain. The paper noted: “The estimated total attributable fraction (female only) for cancer of the breast attributable to occupation overall and associated with shift work (including flight personnel) is 4.56% (95%Confidence Interval (CI)=3.26-5.97), which equates to 555 (95%CI= 397-727) attributable deaths and 1,969 (95%CI=1,407-2,579) attributable registrations.”

The association between shift working and (i) breast cancer (ii) ischaemic heart disease,  IIAC position paper 25, 8 December 2009.
The burden of occupational cancer in Great Britain – Breast cancer, RR852, 2012.