Road trip

[orthodoc]

My travels have been pretty restricted in the past year, the only recent road trip having ended in a magnificent crash-landing of gastro and drive-to-rescue-son-with-broken-ankle-while-barfing. So tomorrow I get to give it another try.

This trip will be the antithesis of romantic (although the last one inadvertently ended up in that category and has now achieved party-story status in my department at work. To be fair, the lack of romance was 100% my fault.) I'm on a worksite evaluation course this week and tomorrow will head, along with my eight classmates, to an undisclosed location five hours west of here. There we'll meet up with a larger group of grad students who are taking the Toxic Cities Tour, a sort of Grand Tour of the most dangerous industrial sites in the country.

My fellow resident and I spent almost a week at this site last July, so we basically know the ropes. The place uses a very dangerous element that is only a risk to about 25% of the population, but for that 25% exposure means a good chance of death. Following the rules to avoid exposure is very very important.

It's an interesting ethical and environmental conundrum. The element really can't be replaced by anything safer in its applications. People can be genetically tested to see if they're in the susceptible 25%. The susceptible group won't get ill if they have excellent on-site protection, and the work pays far more than anything else in the area.

How does the company proceed, ethically?

We'll be touring the place in full protective gear, although last year gave my friend and I a much more in-depth experience (hopefully not exposure!). Full Tyvek suits over company clothes and shoes, PAPRs, clean and 'dirty' lockers, shower out and wear different underwear home (insert jealous spouse joke here). It'll be interesting to talk to the NYC folks and get their impressions.

What do you think would be the best way to hire and protect employees in such a situation? Not everyone is susceptible. GINA exists. The pay is good. The company far exceeds OSHA standards in terms of the exposure levels they achieve. But, as Vizzini says in The Princess Bride, death is on the line!

If anyone is interested, I can provide more details from various industrial road trips this week. If it's tmi or ho-hum, then of course, not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Only hire (or buy) non English speaking orphans, with no family, friends, or communication skills.

Oh, and one guy with a backhoe.

[orthodoc]

Too many corporations do this for it to be appropriate for me to appear amused - but this company, to its credit, does no such thing. Employees are permanent local residents with extended families and history in the area. Decades ago there was the discovery that the harmful element was getting out into the community, hence the current extensive protocols for ensuring that that no longer happens. I will say, I'm impressed by the programs/protocols that are in place. Corporate cynicism really isn't part of the equation here.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There must be a hell of a profit.

[Lamplighter]

My first question(s) would be along the lines of...

Are the people who are tempted to take such a job under any kind of duress,
or would an average (informed) person in any community be willing
to be employed there.

Likewise, is the local community fully informed of what the company
is doing, and what might happen if there was environmental contamination ?

[footfootfoot]

The Harmful Element is...?

...and the envelope please!

[Aliantha]

There are lots of high paying, high risk jobs. People who work on high scaffolding etc. All precautions are taken, but there's still a risk the rope on the harness might break or something else might fail. Working in mines is still a very high risk job, but plenty of people think the risk is worth it.

If people are fully informed of the risk, then I think it's up to them.

[orthodoc]

To answer the various comments/questions:

Yes, I'm sure there must be a hell of a profit. This is high-tech, secret, defense department, aerospace industry product.

No one is under duress to work there. There's plenty of alternative employment in the area, although not at those wages for the educational level (yes, I realize that hazard pay can be viewed as a form of duress - the coal mining, fracking, oil sands, and other industries all do this, although that doesn't make it right).

Job applicants are fully informed of the risks. They are given genetic testing free of charge, and the company's ethical solution is that the applicant is informed of the results of genetic testing and given the option as to whether to pursue employment. The company is never informed of the genetic test results.

The local community is fully aware of what the company does. In decades past, there were instances of community illness. With more research and the discovery of other routes of exposure, the present company admin has put controls in place such that there have been no new cases of community illness for decades.

The element of interest might be worth my job to disclose.

[glatt]

I think the only sticky area is possible community contamination. If I lived there but didn't make the big bucks working in this factory, I would be resentful that my life (if I'm the 25%) was at risk.

Reminds me of the asbestos miners coming home and shaking out their dusty work clothes before washing them in the family washing machine. And little Sally develops a persistent cough.

[Lamplighter]

OK, let's assume the employees are informed... and do understand !

The best safety measure would be to put the offices of the CEO
and all other management in the middle of the factory, with no
special protections other than what the employees have.

And putting a day-care for the children of managment employees
in the same area might help too
.
And requiring all management to live in the community, down-hill,
down-stream, and down-wind of the factory.

Also, an insurance/college fund for the families of the production staff,
in place and not accessible to management/fiscal procedures,
would also be a reasonable requirement of the company... just in case .

[orthodoc]

That's precisely the sort of thing that the current company administration has gone to great lengths to prevent. A few decades ago there were cases of illness in the community. Now there are protocols in place that I've never seen or read about anywhere else, and they are successful. There hasn't been a case of community illness in several decades. The company monitors air, water, and soil, and as long as employees follow protocols the risk of contamination is minuscule. Employees who don't follow protocols are terminated. I'm not sure what more can be done barring new information that would indicate further measures. If such became available I believe the company would immediately do what was necessary, because that's their track record.

Lamp, I'm sympathetic with your suggestions. However, there is no day-care in the middle of the production areas - possibly because toddlers are impossible to fit properly for respirators and won't keep them on, unlike adult employees. They also won't keep gloves on or follow donning/doffing protocols. Adults, properly educated, will do those things.

There is a demand for this product, and someone will supply it. This company has turned an unacceptable situation around and far outdoes the federal government in its exposure standards. A very few employees are still affected in spite of best efforts. The dilemma is, do we support the efforts of a company that has done far more than any coal mining company to prevent disease, or do we drive this production underground - effectively to other countries whose governments won't require any protection, who will regard the sacrifice of workers' lives as justified? Neither you nor I think that way. To abolish the product would be to do away with many aspects of our current lives and of all future aerospace/space development. Some would see that as acceptable, but those with money and power think otherwise. And, did any progress toward improved comfort, safety, and development ever fail to involve risk?

I know - the question is, who bears that risk on behalf of humankind. Yet someone always does because the humans with power demand it. My job is to minimize the risk and compensate those who take it. Even if my preference would be to live as the monks of Mt Athos do, without technology, eating vegetables, with no diabetes or cancer or heart disease, that's not the preference of most North Americans. They prefer to balance risk with perceived benefit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Inform me and let me decide my future, I'm sick of do-gooders stealing my choices.

[ZenGum]

I'm cool with the overall situation, and frankly I am thankful that for once a seriously dangerous substance is being taken seriously. Which makes me intensely curious about what the hell the element is, to be so serious they couldn't just outsource it to Texas and "self-regulate".
There are quite a few which are nasty, but I've never heard of one with that 25% high risk thing. Curious, but we probably shouldn't speculate here, if Orthodoc is obliged to discretion.

[glatt]

Just Google it. The possible testing for genetic susceptibility to the chronic form of the disease really narrows it down.

If the company is keeping things safe, then I have no major problem with it. The only victims here are the people who don't consent to the risk, aren't compensated for their exposure to the risk, but face the risk anyway. The only way that winds up being OK in my book is if the risk for them is very very small. Similar to the risk of having railroad shipments of chlorine going through your town or something like that. We all have tankers of chlorine going through our towns and we seem to all be OK with that.

[orthodoc]

Made it back. The tour was excellent, in fact I got to see a few things I missed last year. And after checking, it's okay for me to specify the element and where we were; the secret stuff is kept well-secured from everyone including occ/env med tours, which of course makes sense. We had a large group from a number of universities in New York/New Jersey; our little WVU group paled in comparison. But the medical director remembered me from last year.

Anyway .... the element is beryllium, which glatt figured out. It causes some acute health issues with heavy exposure, but that's pretty much a thing of the past. The big issue is chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a lung disease that causes granulomas and fibrosis. It only happens to people who get sensitized to beryllium, and genetic testing can determine who is at risk of sensitization. Those at risk can develop disease with very little exposure. Once sensitized, removing people from exposure won't necessarily stop progression of CBD. The fibrosis and granulomata eventually destroy lung function and kill you.

But we use beryllium in thousands of things, from smart phones (virtually every phone out there, but don't worry - it's not the alloys that are dangerous, it's the dust during refining and manufacturing) to aircraft landing gear to weapons.

Enough lecture. I'm glad to be back. Exhausted from the drive.