Database

It would seem from this study that multiple chemical sensitivity diagnosis does not correlate with objective measurements of exposure. Perceived exposure may be the more important factor. Evidence from: S Bornschein et al. Psychosom Medicine (2006) Vol.68 p 104 – 109 “Psychiatric Morbidity and Toxic Burden in Patients With Environmental Illness: A Controlled Study” further detail: 6#1 4  

The House of Lords is being asked to consider a claim for compensation arising from charitable work undertaken in Bangladesh. There is some dispute as to the remit of that work and the standard to which it was performed. Evidence from: D Pepper. The Lancet (2006) Vol.367 p 199 – 200 “Bangladeshis poisoned by arsenic sue British organisation” Early assessments of liability came to the view that BGS was not proximal to the decision to drink the water. further detail: 6#1 3

This report, based on a meta-analysis of 27 publications, suggests that silicosis is related to the risk of lung cancer even among non-smokers. Evidence from: Y Lacasse et al. Scand J Work Environ Health (2005) Vol.31(6) p 450 – 458 “Meta-analysis of silicosis and lung cancer” In general it has been found that the more severe the silicosis the higher the risk of lung cancer.   further detail: 6#1 2  

The results suggest that silicosis is a prerequisite for silica-related lung cancer. Risk of lung cancer did not vary with cumulative dust exposure if there was no silicosis. There was no correction for the effects of smoking. There was some evidence that silica dust/silicosis was not the only geological determinant of lung cancer risk. Evidence from: W Chen et al. Am. J. Ind. Med. (2006) Vol.49 p 67 – 76 “Exposures to Silica Mixed Dust and Cohort Mortality Study in Tin Mines: Exposure-Response Analysis and Risk Assessment of Lung Cancer” In those with silicosis the risk of lung cancer varied with exposure; a clear rise in risk was detected once exposure to total dust exceeded 70 mgm-3 years. Respirable crystalline silica comprised around 4% of total dust in each mine. Further detail: 6#1 1  

“The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation. “ Evidence from: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/shale-gas/2012-06-28-Shale-gas.pdf The report emphasises the need to study baseline conditions before fracking work begins. That way, changes in dissolved methane and other contaminants in ground water, aquifers and streams can be discovered with greater confidence. Induced seismic activity should be continuously monitored and used to slow down or relocate underground injection. Waste water handling is a key issue – regulators must be satisfied that the proposed controls will cope. Long term liabilities are possible: disused wells could provide a conduit for contamination. The conclusions are generic, but were develope

liquids-from-e-cigarettes-can-be-detrimental-to-health The German risk advisory service, BfR, has been assessing what’s in the typical e-cigarette. The analysis is preliminary and precautionary in nature. Besides nicotine inhalation (which users seem to accept as a risk) there are potential problems with: direct contact with the nicotine solution; dependency leading to tobacco use; potential health effects from unknown gimmick ingredients such as menthol, and poisoning of by-standers. “The BfR therefore recommends that e-cigarettes should be treated like conventional cigarettes in non-smoking areas and that e-smoking is banned in such zones.” The recommendation from us would be that companies review their smoking policy. Of particular concern is that there is an argument put forward that use of these aerosol devices helps people to quit tobacco smoking. Therefore, the story continues, they should be permitted in the workplace. This argument has not been accepted by me