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]

The International Agency for Research on Cancer controversially has classified formaldehyde as causing nasopharyngeal carcinoma and myeloid leukemia. To provide further information on this question, we extended follow-up of a cohort of 14,008 chemical workers at 6 factories in England and Wales, covering the period 1941–2012. Mortality was compared with national death rates for England and Wales, and associations with incident upper airway cancer and leukemia were explored in nested case-control analyses. We observed excess deaths from cancers of the esophagus (100 observed vs. 93.1 expected), stomach (182 vs. 141.4), rectum (107 vs. 86.8), liver (35 vs. 26.9), and lung (813 vs. 645.8), but none of these tumors exhibited a clear exposure-response relationship. Nested case-control analyses of 115 men with upper airway cancer (including 1 nasopharyngeal cancer), 92 men with leukemia, and 45 men with myeloid leukemia indicated no elevations of risk in the highest exposure category (high exposure for ≥1 year). When the 2 highest exposure categories were combined, the odds ratio for myeloid leukemia was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.39, 4.08). Our results provide no support for an increased hazard of myeloid leukemia, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, or other upper airway tumors from formaldehyde exposure. These results indicate that any excess risk of these cancers, even from relatively high exposures, is at most small. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

There have been few studies of people’s experiences of receiving care from migrant workers. This is despite the growing move to employ migrants to provide care and support for older and disabled people in the developed world. This article reports empirical findings from a study of migrants working in social care in England conducted between 2007 and 2009. It focuses on the reported interactions between service users and carers with migrant workers. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 adults receiving social care services and family carers in home and residential settings who had a variety of needs for care and with support. Analysis highlighted the range of their experiences. An emerging theme arising from the interviews was that of communication and the difficulties experienced by people using care services, or family carers speaking on their behalf, of understanding and being understood by care workers whose spoken English was not easy for them to comprehend. Social workers will need to be alert to alert to the risks facing service users, carers and migrant care workers in such contexts. We conclude that the marginal position of both social care users and migrant workers is reflected in these micro encounters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]