Loran Nordgren and Mary McDonnell, writing in the journal Social Psychology and Personality Science discovered the phenomenon held up in both theoretical and real life cases. Their examination of the sentences in real world US court cases involving occupational and environmental health crimes, where people were found guilty but where the numbers of victims varied, gave clear cut results echoing those of the laboratory studies.

The researchers examined 136 representative cases between 2000-2009 in which individuals from corporations had been found guilty by juries of negligently exposing members of the public to asbestos, lead paint or toxic mould, and where their victims had all suffered significantly. They confirmed those who harm larger numbers of people get significantly lower punitive penalties than those who harm a smaller number.

Commenting on the findings in his Bad Science column in the Guardian, Ben Goldacre concluded factors that may play a contributory role include “cases where lots of people were harmed may involve larger companies, with more expensive and competent lawyers, for example, or larger and more deniable lines of responsibility. But in the light of their earlier experiment, it’s hard to discount the contributory effect of empathy, and this is a phenomenon we all recognise.”

Dr Irving Selikoff, probably the most celebrated occupational health doctor of the last century, once commented: “Statistics are people with the tears wiped away.” But when you only see the numbers and not the victims, in what the study authors term “the scope-severity paradox”, the human cost is disguised and the penalty reduced.

MATRIX RECYCLED This UK e-waste recycling giant recirculated mercury through the workplace via a defective ventilation system, resulting in gross exposures to the workforce.

One of the UK’s largest recycling firms and its director have been fined a total of £145,000 for “shocking” safety breaches that exposed workers to mercury fumes.

Twenty employees of Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd (EWR), formerly known as Matrix Direct Recycling Ltd, had levels of mercury in their system above UK guidance levels at the site in Huddersfield, and five of them showed extremely high levels following the exposure in the 10 months between October 2007 and August 2008.

Several workers had reported ill health as a result, including a pregnant worker who was concerned her unborn baby was at risk.

The firm recycles electrical equipment including fluorescent light tubes containing mercury and TV sets and monitors containing lead.

Bradford Crown Court heard that ventilation problems at the plant meant employees were being exposed to potentially harmful emissions from both substances. Mercury vapour was released when the lighting tubes were crushed. Because carbon filters were not fitted on the purpose-designed machine, the contaminated air was itself recycled and pumped back into the premises. One of the ducts pumped contaminated air directly into the office area.

The firm is involved in litigation with the American suppliers of the processing equipment over the missing carbon filters which would have stopped any mercury emissions, the court was told.

On 5 February 2010, EWR was fined £140,000 and ordered to pay £35,127 costs after pleading guilty to criminal safety breaches, including three separate breaches of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, and one breach of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002. 

Company director Craig Thompson, 38, was also fined £5,000 after pleading guilty to a criminal breach of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The judge decided not to disqualify Thompson from being a director. The court was told he had financial difficulties, including debts of £80,000.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the UK government’s workplace safety enforcement agency, issued the company five Improvement Notices and one Prohibition Notice – putting an immediate stop to work -  in relation to the incident. Although the company’s own daily tests identified high levels of mercury at the premises, the closure of an oven used to dispose of the chemical failed to solve the problem and by August 2008 HSE had issued the prohibition and improvement notices against the company.

Prior to the prohibition notice, HSE staff had tested the urine of 35 employees at the premises and found 20 had higher than recommended levels of mercury.

Barrister Robert Smith QC, for the companies, said since the prohibition notice was served the firm had spent £350,000 installing an effective emission filter system and a further £281,000-a-year was being spent on additional managers and supervisors. He told the court tests on staff conducted in January 2010 showed all were under the recommended levels.

After the hearing HSE inspector Jeanne Morton said: “This is a shocking case involving a large number of employees, many of them young and vulnerable, who were suddenly faced with the worrying possibility of damage to their long-term health. The risks associated with handling toxic substances like mercury have been known for generations, so it is all the more unacceptable that something like this has happened. The company failed to see the risks created by their recycling work and failed to develop effective plans for safe working. They also did nothing to check their workers’ health after exposure.

“Workers have a right to expect a reasonable level of protection in the workplace, and employers have a legal duty to provide it.”

Max Folkett, site inspector for the Environment Agency, added: “We have worked closely with HSE and other organisations during the investigation which led to this prosecution. Electrical Waste Recycling Group Limited requires an environmental permit from us for the recovery and processing of hazardous waste and we routinely inspect the site to check the company is complying with the permit. We suspended the permit following this incident in August 2008, removing the risk of mercury escaping from the site, because of our concerns the operation posed a serious risk of pollution from mercury.”

Toxic metals use, far from declining, appears to be staging a comeback. Lead use has increased dramatically in recent years. And increased production of electronic equipment worldwide is set to see the use of lead soar over the next decade.

The long term downward trend in mercury production stalled in 2006 and 2007. Latest figures, published in the 2009 edition of the authoritative World Mineral Production, show 1.4 million kilograms were produced in each of these years, a figure the report suggests is an underestimate.

GREEN COLLAR Workers suffered mercury poisoning at this UK recycling firm.

The world could be facing an epidemic of poisonings by highly toxic metals you’d be forgiven for thinking were a hazard of yesteryear – and all in the name of the environment. The problem arises from new uses for the toxins in “green” products or from a disregard for health and safety in recycling and reuse operations.

Lead is the most notable comeback kid. Use of the metal, which can cause cancer, neurological, reproductive and a host of other problems, has increased dramatically in recent years. And increased production of electronic equipment worldwide is set to see the use of lead soar over the next decade.

The hazards come both in lead’s production and use, and in the profitable but often poorly controlled practice of recycling – over 50 per cent of lead used today is recycled.

And now it looks like mercury, the metal that turned hatters’ mad, is to have a major revival. The long term downward trend in mercury production stalled in 2006 and 2007. Latest figures, published in the 2009 edition of the authoritative World Mineral Production, show 1.4 million kilograms were produced in each of these years, a figure the report suggests is an underestimate.

As the mercury use in medical equipment declines on environmental grounds – it’s been the subject of a long-running and successful campaign by Health Care Without Harm – the same metal is being pressed into routine use in soon to be mandatory low energy lightbulbs, supposedly also on environmental grounds.

Old style incandescent lightbulbs are being phased out across the European Union by 2012. But the mercury risk from the “environmentally friendly” alternative is so apparent the UK government recommends evacuating the room for 15 minutes if you break one.

That’s not an option if your job involves recycling mercury-containing lights, as workers at the UK-based Electrical Waste Recycling Group found to their cost.

Workers at the Huddersfield factory became sick with mercury poisoning in a “blatant” examples of management neglect of health and safety. Staff at the company, which recycles hazardous electrical equipment including TVs and light tubes – old style fluorescent tubes also contain mercury – suffered headaches, stomach upsets and mood swings.

Mercury poisoning can damage the brain and other organs, leading to personality changes and even low level exposure may cause brain and other neurological cancers.

On 23 November 2009, at Bradford Crown Court, company director Craig Thompson, 38, admitted two charges of failing to discharge his duty in relation to hazardous substances. The company, which is one of the UK’s leading recycling firms, said it would be pleading guilty to all 10 health and safety charges. The director and the firm will be sentenced in January 2010.

At an earlier hearing at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court, the breaches were described as “very grave offences indeed” by Health and Safety Executive inspector Jeanne Morton. She added: “This is a blatant example and one of the worst failings of health and safety management seen for a long time.”

The factory filtration system was not working and had pumped air containing mercury vapour and lead into the factory office, she said. Tests on 34 workers revealed that 20 showed mercury “way above the limit expected in the general population.” Thompson knew about the high levels of mercury as he was given readings carried out by his own staff but he “ignored” them and the poisoning continued, the court was told.

Some workers were hospitalised. Ryan Wilkes, who worked at the firm for 10 months, began passing blood after just six weeks in the job and suffered headaches and mood swings. “I had tests and they found I had 57 times more mercury than should be there,” he told local paper the Yorkshire Post. “I was hospitalised for two nights. It is not something you expect an employer to put you through.”

Colleague Andrew Makison, 26, suffered anxiety attacks, a possible symptom of mercury poisoning. He believed the exposure may have damaged his brain and is seeking medical advice. “Friends say I keep blanking out. I may have something wrong.” He added: “Production was more important than health and safety.”

Mr Makison, who carried out mercury readings at the plant, said he alerted Thompson about the “off the scale” figures. “I got told off for talking about mercury,” he added. “A colleague was pregnant and was worried about her baby. She was in tears.” The woman has since given birth and tests are still being carried out to determine if the child has suffered any damage.

The clamour to go green is seeing the introduction to workplaces of risks from new hazards, old hazards and entirely unassessed potential hazards, and from there into the environment and consumer products. But policymakers are demonstrating a serious case of green fever, talking environmental talk without much thought about what they are really doing and why.

Green jobs are a great idea. Less environmental pollution is essential. Energy saving measures must be introduced to preserve resources and stem climate change.

But “green” initiatives that lead to increased use of highly toxic substances and an upturn in the risk from occupational and environmental exposures are not green, they are reckless. It’s not so much a case of a lack of joined up thinking. It’s a lack of considered thought at all.

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.