Search

In this paper, we examine discourse in public deliberations in pre-development locales in the UK and US about advantages and disadvantages of future shale development ('fracking'). We aimed to understand how people anticipate potential health effects, broadly construed, of environmental toxicity and disturbance in the context of planned, but not yet implemented, energy development. In day-long deliberations with small, diverse groups in two cities in each country (London, Cardiff in the UK; Los Angeles, Santa Barbara in the US), participants discussed impacts on health and well-being using three main rubrics: 'It's money or health', 'Why take chances?' and 'Beyond the tipping point'. Throughout, participants framed health as an intrinsically moral issue, with collective responsibility as a dominant normative frame. We identify the concept of compound risk to underscore effects of multiple risks and hazards on people's sensibilities about anticipated future health and environmental harm. The findings demonstrate how and why diverse publics in pre-impact sites in both countries saw shale extraction as high stakes development that poses significant, often unacceptable, risks to human and environmental health and well-being. Risks extended beyond toxicity to broad threats to health, including, for some, the end of life as we know it on the planet. Overall, participants' discussions of health were more connected to social categories and their underlying moral principles than to technological details. This work contributes evidence of blurred boundaries between environment and health as well as the importance people place on social risks in the context of proposed energy system change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Isocyanates, the essential cross-linking chemicals used to make polyurethane, are potent sensitizers and a common cause of occupational asthma. In addition, isocyanate (NCO) skin contact may contribute to the development of isocyanate asthma. Prior work has shown that unbound NCO can persist on recently spray coated auto body parts after appearing dry. The purpose of this study was to assess whether isocyanate skin exposure can result from handling such surfaces. Quantitative surface and skin wipe sampling for total NCO was performed on test panels sprayed with aliphatic isocyanate coatings, and on paired skin samples obtained from participants who had rubbed the recently dried surfaces. Surface and skin samples, obtained from 18 workers in five auto body shops, were prepared following NIOSH method 5525 (modified for skin samples), and isocyanate species derived from hexamethylene diisocyanate and isophorone diisocyanate were analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet and fluorescence detectors. Quantifiable unbound NCO species were detected on 84.2% of all sprayed surfaces sampled after initially considered dry. Only 7 out of a total of 104 (6.7%) non-compounded skin samples obtained after contact with the recently dried coatings had detectable quantities of free NCO. The 7 positive samples, all obtained at the initial sampling time (t0), had a geometric mean of O. 016 µg NCO cm-2 (range: 0.002-0.88 µg NCO cm-2). Only I of 12 (8.3%) of skin samples obtained after compounding contained detectable free NCO. The risk of substantial human isocyanate skin exposure from contact with the dry appearing (yet not fully cured) isocyanate coatings evaluated in this study appears to be low, although other isocyanate coatings and tasks may pose a greater risk of NCO skin exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the findings of a qualitative study of the impact of casualised and independent contractor work place arrangements on the psycho-social health of 72 workers in regional Victoria. It contributes to our understanding of the crisis in rural Australia in its use of qualitative methods focusing on the impact of work on health and well-being. There is some evidence in the literature that casualised work arrangement enhance the health and well-being of workers by giving them a sense of autonomy and freedom to negotiate their conditions of work. On the other hand, these arrangements may make an already vulnerable group even more vulnerable to uncertain work conditions, poor pay and uncertainty for their future with a significantly negative impact on their health and wellbeing. The results of these interviews support this latter perspective and show that these workers do not experience freedom and autonomy, but rather lowered social status, insecurity and serious limitations to their ability to manage their health, psychological wellbeing and social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]