On Monday February 4th, Iâll be doing the Public Health Reportsâ monthly webcast, discussing the recent article Celeste Monforton and I wrote entitled Berylliumâs âPublic Relations Problemâ: Protecting Workers When There is No Safe Exposure Level. Hereâs some background:
In a 1947 report, entitled Public Relations Problems in Connection with Occupational Diseases in the Beryllium Industry, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asserted that the ability of the US government to produce nuclear weapons was threatened by the high incidence of severe health effects associated with exposure to beryllium, a metal vital to weapons production. In response, the AEC established a workplace exposure limitÂ that dramatically reduced beryllium disease incidence. This limit is known as the âtaxicab standardâ since it was determined by two AEC scientists working in the back seat of a taxi on their way to a meeting.
Over the next several decades, however, increasingly powerful evidence accumulated that Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD), a progressive and irreversible inflammatory lung disease, was associated with exposure to levels below the âtaxicab standard,â and by the 1990s, scores of workers employed in the production of nuclear weapons had been diagnosed with CBD.
Attempting to prevent strengthened government regulation, and to avoid negative publicity that would discourage use of the metal, the beryllium industry waged a concerted effort over decades to counter the accumulating scientific evidence of berylliumâs toxicity. The industry relied on expert services provided by a major public relations company and a leading âproduct defenseâ firm. Eventually, when the scientific evidence became so great that it was no longer credible to deny that workers developed CBD at levels permitted by an out-dated standard, the industry responded with a new rationale for delay: that more research was needed to determine the best standard.
The industryâs efforts have been, for the most part, successful. While each year brings new studies linking CBD with beryllium exposures below the current standard, the âtaxicab standardâ remains the limit enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in private sector workplaces. New CBD cases have been reported recently in metal recycling facilities. US civilian nuclear weapons workers have greater protection than private sector workers; in 1999 the Department of Energy issued strengthened beryllium regulations, reducing the workplace exposure level that triggers protective action by a factor of 10.
The lessons from this case study for public health policymakers include:
- The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The lack of CBD cases in the 1950s should not have been seen as proof the standard was adequate.
- The interpretation of scientific data by those with financial incentives must be discounted. Industry scientists defended the âtaxicab standardâ long after it was correctly recognized as inadequate by independent scientists.
- In particular, work by scientists employed by firms specializing in product defense and litigation support must be seen for what it is: advocacy, rather than science. This study illuminates the practice of âmanufacturing uncertainty,â the strategy used by some polluters and manufacturers of hazardous products to prevent or delay regulation or victim compensation.
- To best protect public health, we must consider the hazards associated with a toxic material through the entire life cycle of the product.
The discussion starts at 2:30 (ET) on Monday, February 4th; no registration or log-in password is necessary to participate. The link for this web cast will be posted at 2 PM on the Public Health Reports website.
3 thoughts on “Why do OSHA Standards Remain the Same, Even When the Science Changes?”
TCE is another example of a chemical with outdated workplace protections from OSHA.
See Workers’ air not safe from TCE; Workplace standards 40 years old (http://www.tceblog.com/posts/1200863457.shtml)
The TCE Blog
If you missed it, the archive still has it available.
I didn’t hear an answer to the title question, though.
I guess it was rhetorical?
“The interpretation of scientific data by those with financial incentives must be discounted.”
It’s the financial incentives we can’t see that worry me the most.
Very odd… The beryllium, that is. My socures don’t even list deposits of beryl – the ore – in Sweden at all. Of course, the ore could be imported for processing.Seconding others: Beryllium isn’t radioactive per se but it is a good moderator and/or reflector of neutrons with various uses connected to “The radiation industry” – like X-ray equipments.Two uses nobody else has mentioned are [minor use] structural materials in applications where light weight is the paramount consideration and more commonly non-sparking tools like chisels for metal cutting around flammables.Beryllium is very toxic and carcinogous. OSHA puts the ventilation threshold at 2 parts per billion air, which is about as low as it goes for metals.