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]

Objectives: In 2011 recommendations for the prescription of lung cancer in coke oven workers were made in the UK. In the 1970s, a powered helmet respirator, the Airstream helmet, was introduced to the UK coking industry with the aim of reducing exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) aerosols and consequent lung cancer risks for workers on the coke oven tops. This review set out to identify the level of protection afforded by the Airstream helmet, when the helmets could be considered to have provided effective protection and whether the levels of protection have been maintained to the current time. Methods: Five approaches were taken to identify review material, including searching the peer-reviewed and grey literature; searching material held in the National Archive; using a Freedom of Information to the Health and Safety Executive; interviews with employees involved in the introduction of the Airstream helmet; and acquisition of company reports. Results: The two principal companies involved in coke production in the UK took different approaches to the introduction of the Airstream helmets. Because of this, it can only be considered that effective wearing occurred in the industry as a whole from 1982 onwards. Exposure measurements made by British Steel in the late 1970s suggested that the mean protection factor of the Airstream helmet was ~10 (5th percentile ~2.5), regardless of whether exposure was assessed as the inhalable aerosol or other measures more specific to aerosol of PAH. More recent data collected using biological monitoring has identified that average urinary levels of 1-hydroxypyrene (1-HP) generally correspond with the inhalation occupational exposure limit for benzene soluble material. Although on occasions, relatively high air concentrations in-mask and urinary 1-HP concentrations have been identified, underlining the necessity to maintain close supervision of workers wearing respirators. Conclusions: Overall, we concluded that the wearing of helmet respirators has effectively controlled long-term average exposure to PAH for most workers on coke ovens since 1982. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]