The export of hazardous industries in 2015

Work-related suicide: Evolving understandings of etiology & intervention

Previously published analyses of suicide case investigations suggest that work or working conditions contribute to 10%-13% of suicide deaths. Yet, the way in which work may increase suicide risk is an underdeveloped area of epidemiologic research. In this Commentary, we propose a definition of work-related suicide from an occupational health and safety perspective, and review the case investigation-based and epidemiologic evidence on work-related causes of suicide. We identified six broad categories of potential work-related causes of suicide, which are: (1) workplace chemical, physical, and psychosocial exposures; (2) exposure to trauma on the job; (3) access to means of suicide through work; (4) exposure to high-stigma work environments; (5) exposure to normative environments promoting extreme orientation to work; and (6) adverse experiences arising from work-related injury or illness. We summarise current evidence in a schema of potential work-related causes that can also be applied in workplace risk assessment and suicide case investigations. There are numerous implications of these findings for policy and practice. Various principle- and evidence-based workplace intervention strategies for suicide prevention exist, some of which have been shown to improve suicide-prevention literacy, reduce stigma, enhance helping behaviours, and in some instances maybe even reduce suicide rates. Prevailing practice in workplace suicide prevention, however, overly emphasises individual- and illness-directed interventions, with little attention directed to addressing the working conditions that may increase suicide risk. We conclude that a stronger emphasis on improving working conditions will be required for workplace suicide prevention to reach its full preventive potential.

Does the Presence of Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings Post-construction and Before Demolition Have an Impact on the Exposure to Occupants in Non-occupational Settings?

This narrative review aims to determine if asbestos-containing materials in buildings pose a hazard to building occupants in non-occupational settings. This paper is limited to the post-construction and pre-demolition stages of a building. The researchers selected 19 studies from the 126 studies screened, concerning exposure to asbestos fibers in non-occupational building settings, with a focus on post-construction and pre-demolition phases. The literature review found that certain conditions, such as the measurement techniques, standards, and previous data availability, prevent a conclusive answer to the research question. Some studies have pointed towards an effect of asbestos-containing materials on health of occupants in non-occupational settings. But, there are some that do not suggest a positive relationship between non-occupational exposure and the presence of asbestos-containing materials, and therefore these provide scope for further research, as these studies also do not rule out the relationship completely. The present study highlights the gaps in current knowledge and indicates areas for further research. Until conclusive evidence based on revised threshold standards and accurate measurement techniques is available, asbestos-containing materials may be considered unsafe for use in non-occupational settings, especially ones that young people and children occupy.

Epidemiology of Mesothelioma

Since 1973 the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified asbestos as a certain carcinogen, but today it is still used in several countries. To date, mesothelioma risk is certainly linked not only to occupational exposures but also to environmental exposures. The incidence and mortality are increasing worldwide, especially in developing countries where asbestos is still often used without adequate measures for worker safety. The epidemiological surveillance systems of related asbestos diseases are instruments of public health adopted internationally. The experience and the operating methodology of the Italian mesothelioma registry and the data produced from 1996 to 2015 highlight how in countries where the asbestos ban has been active for over 20 years the risk of asbestos remains present, especially in the construction sector as well as for the environmental exposures of the resident population near companies that used asbestos in their production cycle. Worldwide, it is necessary to introduce the ban on the extraction, processing, and marketing of asbestos as claimed by the international scientific community.

Prevention of Asbestos Exposure in Latin America within a Global Public Health Perspective

Background:

Asbestos consumption in Latin America (LA) amounts to 10% of yearly global production. Little is known about the impact of asbestos exposure in the region.

Objective:

To discuss scientific and socio-economic issues and conflicts of interest and to summarize epidemiological data of asbestos health effects in LA.

Discussion:

Recent data on chrysotile strengthened the evidence of its carcinogenicity and showed an excessive risk of lung cancer at cumulative exposure levels as low as 1.5 fibre-years/ml. Technology for substitution is available for all asbestos-containing products and ceasing asbestos production and manufacturing will not result in unemployment and loss of income, except for the mining industry. The flawed arguments used by the industry to maintain its market, both to the public and in courtrooms, strongly relies on the lack of local evidence of the ill effects and on the invisibility of asbestos-related diseases in LA, due to the limited number of studies and the exposed workers’ difficulty accessing health services. The few epidemiological studies available show clear evidence of clusters of mesothelioma in municipalities with a history of asbestos consumption and a forecasted rise in its incidence in Argentina and Brazil for the next decade. In Brazil, non-governmental organizations of asbestos workers were pivotal to counterbalance misinformation and inequities, ending recently in a Supreme Court decision backing an asbestos ban. In parallel, continuous efforts should be made to stimulate the growth of competent and ethical researchers to convey adequate information to the scientific community and to the general public.