A study of workers in the Danish printing industry identified over 3,000 substances used in printing and related industries. Nearly 23 per cent of the products contained known or suspected carcinogens, the paper noted. The researchers investigated cancers in those who had worked in the printing industry during 1970. Over 15,000 men and 3,500 women were included in the study. Cancer of the liver, lungs, kidneys and bladder were all more frequent among male print workers, compared to the general population. Different types of cancers were linked to different jobs. The cancer sites correspond with those associated with many of the solvents and dyes encountered in printing. The authors conclude: “Our results indicate, in line with a previous study from Manchester, that work with rotary letterpress printing was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The inconsistent results from studies on bladder cancer in printing workers may point to a risk confined to a certain subgroup. The sixfold risk of primary liver cancer in Danish lithographers warrants studies in other countries.”

E Lynge and others. Cancer in printing workers in Denmark, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, volume 52, pages 738-744, 1995.

The TUC called in 1995 for companies in the chemicals, rubber and plastics industry to establish a compensation fund for victims of bladder cancer caused by workplace chemical exposures. Chemicals including MbOCA, some dyes and other groups of chemicals used in these industries have been linked to bladder cancer. The TUC also called on employers to contact past employees who might have been exposed, and provide them with information and support. It also said there should be a compulsory registration scheme.

Reported in Hazards, number 52, 1995.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) backed research findings published in March 2005 concluded at least 150,000 people in the UK would die from asbestos-related disease in the following 30 years. It revealed that “24 per cent of male mesothelioma deaths are listed under construction-related occupations… but the proportion due to exposure in the construction industry is probably considerably higher.” The paper noted: “These data indicate that mesothelioma deaths will continue to increase for at least 15 and more likely 25 years. For the worst affected cohorts – men born in the 1940s – mesothelioma may account for around 1 per cent of all deaths. Asbestos exposure at work in construction and building maintenance will account for a large proportion of these deaths, and it is important that such workers should be aware of the risks and take appropriate precautions.” The researchers concluded that “building workers, such as carpenters, plumbers and electricians and other workers involved in building renovation, maintenance and demolition may still suffer exposure… A public information campaign to alert such workers to the potential dangers seems justified.” A decade before, HSE has axed a ready-to-go campaign to do that, after coming under pressure from the construction industry (see The long goodbye, above).

J Peto and others. Continuing increase in mesothelioma mortality in Britain, Lancet, volume 345, pages 535-539, 4 March 1995.

Alan Dalton, the author of ‘Asbestos: Killer dust’, warned in Hazards magazine that Health and Safety Executive (HSE) backed research had exposed “how the authorities continue to turn a blind eye to the biggest workplace killer of all time.” He noted: “Underlying the UK’s complacent approach to asbestos is the fact that it is still cheaper to kill than to prevent asbestos-related diseases. Until very recently many ‘names’ at Lloyds made millions of pounds out of the cheap insurance cover they were selling to asbestos companies. Now they are getting their just rewards: bankruptcy.” He cited a 1994 investigation of the Lloyds’ insurance “catastrophe,” which included a chapter on the “fatal legacy” of asbestos.

Evil asbestos, Hazards, number 50, 1995. Also see: Adam Raphael. Ultimate risk – the inside story of the Lloyds’ catastrophe, Bantam Press, 1994. ISBN 10: 0593026934.

There is a marked social class bias in occupational cancer, this report concludes. Author Peter Infante calls for a “much greater national effort”  to reduce exposures, adding: “Our failure to make that effort is resulting in a disproportionate (and preventable) cancer burden being borne by blue collar workers.” Infante notes that about 95 per cent of causes of lung cancer were identified in workplace studies, and if you discount drugs over threequarters of all causes of cancer were identified in studies of workers.

Infante P. Cancer and blue-collar workers: Who cares? New Solutions, volume 5, number 2, 1995.

A paper in the Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine concluded the highly influential 1981 Doll/Peto occupational cancer estimate was too low and added it failed to take account of the limitations of the data on which it was based.

Landrigan PJ, Baker DB. Clinical recognition of occupational and environmental disease, Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine, volume 62, number 5, pages 406-411, 1995.

Also: Landrigan PJ, Marsowitz SB, Nicholson WJ, Baker DB. Cancer prevention in the workplace. In: Greenwald P, Kramer BS, Weed DL, eds. Cancer prevention and control. Marcel Dekker Inc, pages 393-410, 1995.

This IARC report looks at occupational cancer risk developing countries in Africa, Asia, Central America, South America, and Oceania, and warns of the potential for “toxic epidemics”. Industrialization, hazard transfer, and likely burdens of cancers are examined. Specific carcinogens, such as asbestos, benzene, pesticides, metals, and radiation, are identified as well as silica, coal gasification, coke production, benzidine, and vinyl chloride, and such industries as rubber, fur, textiles, and agriculture are examined. Primary prevention and control are flagged. Estimates of global impacts of occupational cancers have since been updated by the World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation, and others.

N Pearce, E Matos, H Vainio, P Boffetta, and M Kogevinas. 1994. Occupational cancer in developing countries. Scientific Publications 129. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

A 1994 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) survey of 200 chrome plating shops – a very high risk industry for exposure to the carcinogen chromium VI – found only 30 per cent were using control measures.

Cited in: Chemicals calamity, Hazards, number 60, 1977.

In November 1992, the death of a Swedish electrician from brain cancer was the first in the country to be officially recorded as a work-related death caused by electromagnetic fields (EMFs). But in the UK, there was no such acceptance. A 1994 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) review noted: “There are numerous reports of alleged ill-health, particularly cancers, from exposure to fields and waves, but little is proven… Knowledge about effects of electromagnetic fields and waves is very poor and much concern is media drive.” NCU, the UK union representing telecom engineers (now part of CWU), said that while the evidence might be lacking, “there is equally no definitive proof that there is no risk.” In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified “electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Making waves, Hazards, number 47, 1994. Also see: IARC news release, 31 May 2011.

Greenpeace hailed as an “historic breakthrough” a February 1994 inquest verdict that the cancer contracted by a former  worker at the Aldermaston atomic weapons plant was an industrial disease. Stanley Athawes, 70, worked at the plant for 26 years and was exposed to radiation 27 times. In December 1993, 39-year-old former nuclear submarine fitter Rudi Molinari was awarded £167,000 damages after contracting leukaemia. The Ministry of Defence denied negligence but admitted liability in that it “failed to do all that was reasonably practicable to restrict the extent to which Mr Molinari was exposed to ionising radiation.”

Reported in Hazards, number 46, 1994.