Earlier this month, this blog reported that although more than half of the lead we use worldwide is recycled, something presented by the industry as a major green advance, production of the known poison, carcinogen, neuro- and reprotoxin is increasing (Lead – a case of right answer, wrong question).

And those workers involved in recycling activities – like processing scrap or dismantling electronic equipment and salvaging the valuable but highly dangerous toxins – could form an increasing part of the at risk but largely ignored workforce.

One factor that has allowed lead, known to be a toxin from antiquity, to persist in our workplaces and general environment, is the extraordinarily complacent workplace exposures standards and guidance around much of the world – and that includes the world’s top two producers, China and the US.

However, official agencies can be embarrassed into action. The UK last week withdrew its lead at work guidance, as a direct result of criticism from Hazards.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the UK government’s official health and safety enforcer, removed advice on the dangers of working with lead from is website and axed the print version of the guide after the Hazards magazine investigation revealed the watchdog greatly under-estimated health risks that could be affecting over 100,000 workers.

The Hazards article said the official health and safety warnings about the dangers of lead were so complacent the watchdog was guilty of “extreme recklessness” with workers’ health. The current UK maximum exposure limit for males is set at 60 microgrammes of lead in 100ml (µg/100ml) of blood, at which level workers must be suspended until their blood lead level falls.

But the Hazards report, ‘Dangerous lead’, points to substantial scientific evidence that much lower levels – as little as 10 to 20 (µg/100ml), a fraction the current UK standard – can cause chronic, long-term ill health. ‘Lead and you’, HSE’s main guidance for workers on the issue – and the guide subsequently retired by the watchdog - takes a different line.

It says: “Serious ill-health problems rarely occur unless people have at least 100 microgrammes of lead per decilitre of blood.” After publication on 6 November 2009 of the Hazards report, HSE admitted the leaflet is misleading and has since removed it from the HSE website and its publications catalogue.

In an HSE statement, the watchdog said the guide would be replaced, adding the new version “will take into account the latest scientific developments and the language used to be clear about risks.”

For now, though, the exposure standard remains unchanged. In October 2009, despite a series of recommendations from HSE expert committees that the lead standard should be reviewed in the light of evidence of risks significantly below the currently permitted exposure levels, HSE told Hazards it had “no intention” of doing anything about it.

However, in November 2009, after publication of the Hazards report and the evidence it presented about risks at a fraction the UK permissible workplace standard, sources within HSE have indicated HSE will now revisit the standard.

The annual general meeting of the Construction Safety Campaign decided last week that the UK should go much, much further. After discussing the Hazards report, a resolution was passed at the meeting calling for “a ban on all uses of lead at work and for zero exposures for workers”.

Green initiatives like recycling can have remarkable successes. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are good for the planet, communities or those working in ‘green’ jobs.

A 2009 report, ‘World Mineral Production 2003-2007’ [pdf], notes that more than 50 per cent of refined lead is now produced from recycled material, dramatically reducing energy consumption during production.

But the report also reveals a marked year-on-year increase in refined lead production worldwide over the period, up 18 per cent from 6.9m tonnes in 2003 to 8.1m tonnes 2007.

‘Dangerous lead’, a new report from Hazards magazine, warns that few countries around the world take seriously the problem of chronic, potentially deadly diseases caused by low level lead doses. Statutory lead exposure standards are almost always set dangerously high.

The report, which received extensive media coverage, including features on Channel 4 News and in the Guardian newspaper, resulted in the UK government’s safety watchdog, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), this week withdrawing its ‘Lead and you’ leaflet.

“This suggests two things,” the Hazards report notes. “Firstly, HSE is conceding its leaflet is overly complacent on health risks and is not-fit-for-purpose; and secondly, the only information HSE produced for a lay audience on lead risks at work has now been removed from the website. Instead of providing complacent information for the lead exposed workforce, it is now providing no information at all.”

A truly green solution to toxic problems is to reduce consumption and to ensure adequate protection in those instances where people remain at risk of exposure. Lead, a toxin whose harmful effects have been known since antiquity, is a case history in how we continue to get this seriously wrong.

Everyone likes to talk green jobs – they sound good and who wants  to be a climate spoiler? But when you add in that the jobs should be “good”, “decent”, “safe” and green, there’s a distinct quietening of the chatter. In fact, while many talk a good green job, in practice it’s a load of greenwash.

In the latest in a series of stories on the ‘green jobs, safe jobs’ issue, Hazards magazine spells some of the major pitfalls workers are encountering.

• Green initiatives might be good for the environment outside the workplace, but damaging for the workers inside. Workers have died from heat stress, for example, retrofitting insulation on buildings in hot weather. Some firms are requiring “green” lifestyle behaviour from their staff both inside and outside of work.
• Many “green” industries are just old, nasty industries in new clothing – some, like construction and waste recycling and management, are among the most dangerous jobs you can do on land. Recycling can involve exposures to some of the most toxic (but valuable) substances around – like lead, cadmium and arsenic.
• New “green” technologies, alternative substances and work methods might have proven benefits for the environment, but will not have been assessed for risks to workers – for example, nanomaterials or biotechnologies. You probably won’t even know you are using them.
• Green products like solar panels, insulation material and wind turbines have to be produced and assembled, and this can mean using old-fashioned toxins and damaging and dangerous work processes.
• Some of the most high-profile “green” and “ethical” companies, like Whole Foods and American Apparel, think they are too right-on or just plain “right” all the time to need unions. They care for the environment and their consumers OK, but think they know best when it comes to the treatment of their workers. They don’t.

Using graphic case histories to illustrate the argument, Hazards notes: “There’s something sickeningly familiar about some green jobs. Colin Sinclair died working at a windfarm. Bert Reeves died in a recycling yard. Others are just plain poisonous… it will take vigilance to make sure green jobs are decent, safe jobs.”

It says depending who you believe, the green industries gold rush could result in anything from 400,000 to well over 1 million new “green collar” jobs in the UK. It warns, however, that far from being our economic and employment salvation, left to its own devices the green economy could deliver the same unhealthy mix of hire-and-fire, poison-and-pain jobs that remain a blight on the reputational landscape of the not-so-green economy.

“This isn’t paranoia. It’s already happening, and it is happening on a grand scale,” the report says. It points to recent fatalities, poisonings and occupational disease outbreaks in UK green firms to illustrate the point.

“Creating good green jobs is not something that will happen by accident,” it concludes. “Bad jobs are not a green solution for the UK. It will take a concerted union effort to make sure the green jobs agenda doesn’t save the environment but cost lives.”

The article highlights problems from traditional hazards like falls from heights and toxic chemicals, and from the use of novel substances and technologies where risks might not yet be fully apparent. A new ‘safe jobs, green jobs’ web resource provides pointers on how to avoid potential pitfalls.

 See the full feature: Green collared, Hazards magazine, number 107, summer 2009. Safe jobs, green jobs web resource • 15 August 2009