| Nuclear Test Rules out Radiation
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- A recent study from the University of Adelaide in South Australia reveals cancer rates among Australian men involved in the 1950s British nuclear tests are 23-percent higher than those of the general population. Despite the increase in cancer rates, research has found no link to radiation exposure. Data from this study did suggest probable asbestos-related cancer in navy personnel. The three-year study investigated the health effects of 11,000 men, all of whom took part in the British nuclear tests in Australia from 1952 to 1963. Twenty-six men had cases of mesothelioma, a cancer strongly associated with asbestos. Of the 26, 16 were involved in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) -- nearly three times the amount researchers expected. Researchers also discovered higher than average rates of lung cancer, which is also asbestos related, in RAN personnel.
Nuclear Test Rules out Radiation
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- A recent study from the University of Adelaide in South Australia reveals cancer rates among Australian men involved in the 1950s British nuclear tests are 23-percent higher than those of the general population. Despite the increase in cancer rates, research has found no link to radiation exposure. Data from this study did suggest probable asbestos-related cancer in navy personnel. The three-year study investigated the health effects of 11,000 men, all of whom took part in the British nuclear tests in Australia from 1952 to 1963. Twenty-six men had cases of mesothelioma, a cancer strongly associated with asbestos. Of the 26, 16 were involved in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) -- nearly three times the amount researchers expected. Researchers also discovered higher than average rates of lung cancer, which is also asbestos related, in RAN personnel.
OSHA Advisory: Asbestos Automotive Brake and Clutch Repair Work
OSHA is issuing this Safety and Health Information Bulletin to inform employees and employers in the automotive brake repair industry of the precautions that must be taken when working with automotive brakes and clutches containing asbestos. In the case of do-it-yourselfers*, OSHA does not have jurisdiction, and OSHA does not require theses practices to be followed. To reduce the potential exposure to asbestos, EPA strongly recommends that all automotive brake and clutch repair work be done by professional auto mechanics. Although the use of asbestos in friction products is declining annually, it remains a substantial source of potential exposure. In addition, there is still potential exposure to asbestos contained in automotive brakes and clutches on older vehicles in need of service.
Personal Injury: Unsafe Territory
By a majority decision, the House clarified the Fairchild Exception and ruled that proportionate damages are payable in mesothelioma claims that fall within the exception. In a separate development, the Government announced on 20 June its proposals to reverse the effect of the Barker decision through an amendment to the draft Compensation Bill.
Balance of probabilities
The overriding principle in the law of tort is that a claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that a defend-ants conduct caused, or materially contributed to, the loss the claimant has suffered. Once this has been established, defendants are jointly and severally liable for any damages due to the claimant.
However, these principles created problems in cases where a claimant with mesothelioma was negligently exposed to asbestos by a number of employers, and medical science is such that the claimant could not establish precisely when the harmful exposure occurred.
APIL: Compensation bill gets royal assent
We applaud the Government for introducing long overdue regulation of claims management companies but we must ensure the new rules provide robust protection for injured people. A great injustice has also been rectified following a Herculean effort by the Government to reverse the ruling in the Barker case, which would have been disastrous for mesothelioma sufferers. This swift action is to be commended. We fought vehemently alongside others for clause 1 of the bill, the so-called ‘negligence' clause, to be removed. We believe it will provide a bigger safety net for negligent defendants and erode standards of safety, but we must now wait and see how the courts interpret “desirable activities," and the impact this will have on compensation for injured people." -ends- For more information, contact: Lisa Wardle, t: 01159388715 or Lorraine Gwinnutt, t: 0115 9388707 .
|
