|
Silicosis and Silica News - Return to Menu
Told silica would not hurt them
12 July 2005 - "They used to say it doesn't hurt you." That is what former Dimet Contractors Pty Ltd employee Bob McGrath and his workmates were told about the silica dust they inhaled each day.
"You used to take your helmet off but you would still have to walk 50metres to get out of the dust," he said.
Bob and his friend Victor Fishwick used to work as sandblasters and spraypainters for Dimet at the BHP shipyards.
"We used to be working in the engine rooms on the ships and it (the dust) used to be like snow," Bob said.
He also used to drive the crane on site, and said most times "you couldn't see in front of you" because the dust was so thick.
But it wasn't until the late eighties, when Dimet closed its operations that the employees were made aware of the health issues they could be facing.
Now, all they can do is sit and wait to see if they're effected.
"If we have got it we have got it, there is nothing you can do about it," Victor said.
"The whole problem is you don't know when you're going to die."
"That's why I thought I'm not having my test, because while I don't know, I'm alright," Bob said.
Victor also worked for Dimet in Western Australia and Darwin between 1970 and 1978, and then for another sandblasting company after that.
But dust was not the only occupational hazard these two men had to endure.
Bob had his left little finger burnt off and suffered burns to his arms and back when the Yarra River caught alight, making him unable to work for three years.
Victor was also in an accident, which had him bed-ridden for seven weeks, with a metal frame pinned through his chest, stomach and leg and more than 100 stitches from his hips to his chest.
Both men still work in the industry, but say conditions have changed a lot since then.
As for silicosis, although neither of them have any of the symptoms as yet, they know it is a reality they will have to come to terms with.
Scientist claims lawsuits hinder research
By NORMA MENDOZA, nmendoza@theintelligencer.com
Illinois should serve as a model of protected medical data
01/08/2007 - An Illinois law to protect medical research data should be used as a model for all states, a St. Louis research scientist says.
"To protect patient privacy and the value of our research data, we need specific, across-the-board restrictions on information that can be released in the courtroom," Dr. Brad Racette said. "For example, Illinois has a law that designates medical research data as protected. That should be a model for all states."
Racette, associate professor of neurology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, is one of a team of scientists and lawyers who collaborated on an article published in the Dec. 26 issue of the journal, "Neurology," warning that medical research can be stymied by demands put upon the researchers by the parties in lawsuits.
Research to establish links between industrial environmental factors and neurological diseases can be hampered by lawsuits against the companies responsible when the parties to the lawsuits want to use the research data to prove their cases.
According to the authors, the effects of the litigation could seriously impair their efforts to identify compounds that contribute to such diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and amyotrophic lateral schlerosis (ALS).
Lead author Racette writes from personal experience. His own studies tentatively linking welding to an increased risk of Parkinson's disease brought an overwhelming number of subpoenas for his research data. Taking the time to respond to such subpoenas slows down or even stops his follow-up research.
"Participation in the legal system can be a huge burden on a researcher's schedule," Racette noted. "It's not what I'm supposed to be doing, I'm supposed to be studying disease."
The extensive disclosure of scientific data demanded by the parties involved in the lawsuits not only disrupts the research, it threatens the privacy of patients and volunteers involved in the research.
Ann Bradley and Carrie Wrisberg, the attorneys who co-authored the "Neurology" article, worked with Racette to defend his data from unreasonable disclosure.
"I'm fortunate that I work for a university that was willing to defend the value and privacy of our research data," Racette said. "Other scientists aren't so lucky."
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) prohibits release of data that could identify patients, but many times the extensive volume and particularity of the data still permit identification of the research subjects.
The substantial financial interests at stake in lawsuits often lead to biased research performed by well-paid expert witnesses, the authors claim. They call attention to a Texas doctor who was found to be over-diagnosing the disease of silicosis. He had a financial interest in the number of patients he diagnosed.
Although peer review is part of the regular scientific process, Racette notes that a knowledgeable expert can design a study with the predetermined goal of discrediting earlier studies that linked a suspect toxin to a particular disease.
Industries on the defensive have also attempted to impugn the credibility of the researchers, the authors note. They cite the case of Dr. Herbert Needleman, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh who was the first scientist to link lead exposure to low levels of intelligence in children.
The lead industry attacked Needleman's integrity, alleging academic fraud and triggering investigations by the Federal Scientific Integrity Board and his university.
After the investigations failed to find any evidence of the charge of academic fraud and after Needleman's results were later replicated, beneficial changes were made such as the removal of lead from gasoline.
"It's really quite an eye-opener," Racette said. "Herb Needleman had to endure great personal and financial hardships, including the prospect of career loss and $85,000 in personal legal fees, all because he dared to study something produced by a powerful industry that might be harmful to people."
Racette said he has often been tempted to switch his focus to a different area because of the difficulties imposed on his research by litigation. But, he said he is much too stubborn to ever seriously consider doing that.
"To cure or prevent intractable disorders like the one I focus on, Parkinson's disease, scientists need to be free to investigate many different potential causes, including environmental factors produced by industry," he said. "We hope to get a national dialogue going about how we can create an environment where scientists are as free as possible to do good, unbiased research."
Racette's colleague, Dr. Joel Perlmutter, professor of neurology, radiology and physical therapy and associate professor of neurobiology, is senior author of the paper published in "Neurology." Both he and Racette are medical doctors affiliated with Barnes-Jewish Hospital and faculty members of the Washington University School of Medicine.
|
