Contents Search publications                                         Previous  Next

There were over 7000 major chemical incidents worldwide in the period 1986-97 according to the Major Hazard Incident Data Service (MHIDAS) database. These were publicly reported incidents which caused casualties, required evacuation of workers or people nearby or damaged property or the environment. The rate of occurrence of published incidents is increasing as reporting improves and the chemical industry expands. These incidents do not include long-term exposures to chemicals.

The worst chemical disaster took place in Bhopal in India in 1984. In a Union Carbide pesticide plant, the introduction of water into a tank of methyl isocyanate resulted in the release of a massive quantity of lethal gas over the surrounding neighbourhood. About 2500 people died within hours. Estimates of the number of deaths subsequently have ranged as high as 12,000. Huge numbers of people suffered damage to their health, permanently in many cases. The Indian Council of Medical Research estimated in 1991 that more than 520,000 people were affected.

Arguments about the cause of the Bhopal tragedy have never ceased. The company has never accepted responsibility and has hinted that sabotage took place. But workers in the plant tell a very different story, pointing to sloppy operation and storage procedures, non-functional safety systems, poor maintenance and inadequate staffing and training. The company has only ever offered derisory compensation, neither the Indian nor the US Government have made any real effort to bring the company to book, and to this day a world-wide campaign continues to obtain justice for the victims. A number of major incidents have also occurred at Union Carbide's US plants.

In the United Kingdom, the chemical accident resulting in the greatest loss of life took place in Flixborough in 1974; 28 workers died when a Nypro Ltd. cyclohexane plant blew up. A Court of Inquiry found that the accident resulted from the ignition and detonation of a huge quantity of cyclohexane which escaped when a temporary by-pass between two reactors broke. The by-pass had not been properly engineered as the company had not taken the possibility of such an accident into account.

After a major chemical release at Associated Octel in 1996, 22 years later, the Health and Safety Executive gave more or less the same recommendation that "chemical companies should make a thorough and detailed assessment of risks to prevent the loss of dangerous chemicals and which should be routinely reviewed and kept up to date..."

The facts of chemical-induced illness are no less horrifying. For instance, in 1990, the World Health Organisation published an estimate that there were 25 million cases per year of acute occupational pesticide poisoning among agricultural workers in developing countries. The Chinese government admitted that in 1993 more than 10,000 Chinese farmers died from poisoning by sub-standard pesticides. A Mexican consumer group has claimed that about 5000 Mexicans die from pesticide poisoning each year.

In Great Britain, two surveys of self-reported work-related illness were carried out in 1990 and 1995. In the latter survey over 200,000 people reported that they had contracted asthma or other respiratory illness at work and 66,000 said they suffered from job-related skin disease. In only 11 per cent of the cases that were checked did the treating doctor fundamentally disagree about the cause of the illness. These figures are vastly in excess of those obtained from the Industrial Injuries Scheme or from academic medical units. Successful new claimants each year for disablement benefit for occupational asthma are numbered in hundreds. Those claiming for occupational dermatitis are even fewer. In analysing this discrepancy, the HSE commented that, "People's beliefs may be mistaken." They did not consider the possibility that the beliefs of the medical profession, lawyers and politicians trying to limit expenditure on social security might also be mistaken. But it is not disputed that there is massive under-reporting through the official channels.

Chemicals pervade the workplace and affect practically every worker. Even in the cleanest, most modern office workers are exposed routinely to inks, toners and adhesives not to mention a wide range of materials used in cleaning and maintenance. Millions worldwide are employed in the manufacture, storage and transport of chemicals and many more in their ultimate application. In addition to the well publicised disasters, there are everyday accidents and illnesses which take a huge toll.

The number and variety of chemicals are vast. The number of chemicals recorded by the Chemical Abstracts Service, the main international registry, was approaching 19 million in November 1998 and increasing at a rate of more than 30,000 per week. The minimum estimate of those which find commercial application is 100,000; the number may range as high as 400,000. Yet, of these, only the properties of about 400 are known with any certainty and even these are sometimes subject to changes and refinements in understanding.

It is these factors: a) the hazardous nature of chemicals, b) their huge number and variety, c) the inadequate knowledge of their properties, d) the lack of effective controls and e) the vast number of people at risk which make chemical safety at work such an important topic. It ought to be the subject of consultation and negotiation between workers and employers at every level. For example, the International Labour Organisation adopted a Convention and a Recommendation on chemical safety in 1990 and followed up with a Code of Practice in 1992.

These documents make the point that workers and their representatives have rights on chemical safety which include

• the provision of information from the employer and from manufacturers and suppliers to enable them to take adequate precautions against the risks of hazardous chemicals
• the ability to request and participate in investigations of the possible risks from workplace chemicals
• workers being entitled to bring the hazards of chemicals to the attention of their employer and their representatives without suffering reprisals
• workers being able to remove themselves from danger when there is reasonable justification to believe there is a serious and imminent risk
• the removal to alternate work away from chemical exposure whenever their health requires it
• compensation for damage to health or loss of employment caused by the effects of chemicals
• adequate medical treatment for injuries and diseases caused by chemicals.

In order to exercise these rights or to campaign for them where they do not exist, workers and their representatives must be able to evaluate information on chemical risks and hazards whether they receive it from their employers, government bodies, academic sources or even their own organisations. It is the purpose of this book to assist them to do so.

There are considerable hurdles to be overcome by anyone without a scientific background who wishes to get to grips with chemical information:

• there have been occasions when the information in the public domain has simply been false or insufficient. The sorry story of the asbestos industry is proof enough; the companies withheld or distorted information for several decades before the true facts became established. As recently as 1996, over 50 leading environmental health scientists felt impelled to launch a protest to the International Programme on Chemical Safety, part of the World Health Organisation, at what they regarded as the improper influence of business interests on the IPCS's documents on white asbestos. The role of the US Government in suppressing research on the effects of the defoliant Agent Orange is another example
• the scanty information available about almost all chemicals present in the workplace. Even for those which have been around for a long time, new data emerge which require long-held views to be modified. A case in point is lead, which has been in use for 4000 years, where new research is leading to progressive reductions in the level at which harmful effects might be expected to occur
• the technical format in which information is presented which makes it inaccessible for all except highly qualified specialists
• the tendency of many experts to dismiss the observations and experiences of ordinary people as a basis for scientific inquiry compared with the findings of conventional research methods

It is not surprising therefore that many workers and their representatives, while sceptical of the information offered by their employers and the authorities, also feel that they are unable to challenge it. It is the objective of this book to provide ordinary workers with some tools by which they can evaluate information on the hazards of chemicals and therefore take decisions which can maximise their safety. It is not that we dismiss conventional scientific knowledge as intrinsically biased or unsound but we do insist that the assembly of standards, limits and protective measures governing chemicals is a social process which is driven by economic and political values among which the health and safety of workers is not the sole or even a major consideration. But, a perfectly valid argument can be made on the maximum degree of safety from the standpoint of those who face the risks and this is the one which the London Hazards Centre believes should be given primacy.

This book is not a compilation of exposure limits or a list of the toxic properties of chemicals. Instead it tries to present an account of the underlying principles which have enabled this information to be derived. The way in which chemicals act is described along with an introduction to the methods which have been developed to measures the effects. The safety legislation which applies in the United Kingdom is outlined and suggestions are made on how it could be improved. A critique is provided of methods to control and prevent chemical hazards, not just by technical means but also by management systems; the role of trade union safety representatives is emphasised. Finally attention is drawn to the campaigns which are being waged by unions and other organisations against chemical hazards and which play an indispensable role in pushing up safety standards. Overall, the focus is on workplace hazards and their effect on the employees and members of the general public who are affected. If inadequate attention has been given to environmental factors, it is not because we don't believe this subject is hugely important, but simply because it would have expanded the book to an enormous extent. However, the drive for profit which leads the chemical industry to damage the environment is not much different from that which produces injury and illness among employees.

There are two further principles which we think should be added to those put forward by the ILO. The first is that when the introduction of new chemicals into the workplace is contemplated, the onus should be on the employer to prove that they are safe rather than on the workers or the union to prove they are dangerous - the precautionary principle. Too often, that proof was provided by human guinea pigs with a mounting casualty list before appropriate action was taken. That sequence of events will be repeated as long as it is possible to bring in new chemicals without adequate testing of both short- and long-term effects.

The other principle is that there should be no detriment, at a minimum, of the health, safety and well-being of workers as a result of their work. Work should enhance the health and well-being of those who perform it. But, at the least, any harmful effects are unacceptable. Working conditions which produce such effects must be changed.

If our book assists any workers and their representatives to move in this direction, then our objective in publishing it has been fulfilled.

Hugh MacGrillen

London Hazards Centre

Contents Search publications                                         Previous  Next