<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
>

<channel>
	<title>Mesothelioma Blog &#187; Occupational Safety</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/category/occupational-safety/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma</link>
	<description>News and information on cancer and cancer treatment</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:25:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
		<item>
		<title>Big 3 Automakers going bankrupt &#8211; are they defendants in asbestos cases?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/12/17/big-3-automakers-going-bankrupt-are-they-defendants-in-asbestos-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/12/17/big-3-automakers-going-bankrupt-are-they-defendants-in-asbestos-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asbestos brakes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automakers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/?p=80</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s no secret that Ford, GM and Chrysler have been looking for handouts in the form of a $25 billion government bailout. If approved by Congress, this money is intended to keep the Big Three from going bankrupt by providing enough capital to keep building cars during the economic downturn. What most people don&#8217;t know, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s no secret that Ford, GM and Chrysler have been looking for handouts in the form of a $25 billion government bailout. If approved by Congress, this money is intended to keep the Big Three from going bankrupt by providing enough capital to keep building cars during the economic downturn. What most people don&#8217;t know, however, is that some of this money could end up being diverted from factory floors to the floors of courthouses across America.</p>
<p>Bendix Brakes, a subsidiary of Honeywell Consumer Products, has long been a factory supplier to Ford, GM and Chrysler. Prior to 2003, the Big Three routinely installed Bendix brakes with asbestos used as a friction material. This was routine at the time, though a 2003 law now prohibits the practice. </p>
<p>Despite the new law, thousands of pre-2003 cars and trucks on the roads continue to house the asbestos-laden brakes. As such, any individuals who suffer <a href="http://www.mesothelioma-mesothelioma.org/brakesafety.htm">health-related issues as a result of exposure to these brakes</a> have grounds for a viable lawsuit.</p>
<p>In 2002, New York court awarded a $53 million settlement to the family of one man who was killed in an asbestos-related death. The defendants who were ordered to pay included Ford, Chrysler, GM and Honeywell. There are approximately 47,000 outstanding lawsuits related to Bendix brakes in the United States. Whether the Big 3 go bankrupt or not, banks and the U.S. government may not be the only ones in line waiting to get their pay back. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/12/17/big-3-automakers-going-bankrupt-are-they-defendants-in-asbestos-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Over 500 Mesothelioma Deaths Recorded in Lancashire in the UK</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/11/19/over-500-mesothelioma-deaths/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/11/19/over-500-mesothelioma-deaths/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mesothelioma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mining]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/?p=78</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Between 1981 and 2005, more than 500 people died from mesothelioma in Lancashire County and the rate of mesothelioma deaths is expected to increase.
Lancashire, located in northwest England is the 8th most populous county and has a history routed in shipbuilding, mining and industrial production. While many sites that once handled asbestos are now closed [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Between 1981 and 2005, more than 500 people died from <a href="http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/">mesothelioma</a> in Lancashire County and the rate of mesothelioma deaths is expected to increase.</p>
<p>Lancashire, located in northwest England is the 8th most populous county and has a history routed in shipbuilding, mining and industrial production. While many sites that once handled asbestos are now closed or renovated, workers continue to be diagnosed with mesothelioma years after they were exposed.</p>
<p>The worst hit town was Wyre which recorded a total of 80 deaths. Preston recorded 60 deaths while Chorley recorded 55. Chorley and South Ribble had the highest rate of female casualties with 18 deaths.</p>
<p>The UK has recently launched a <a href="http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/oct200830b.htm">new asbestos awareness campaign </a>for trade workers in an attempt to reduce the number of people exposed to asbestos. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/11/19/over-500-mesothelioma-deaths/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>MSHA finally lowers asbestos limits</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/03/07/msha-finally-lowers-asbestos-limits/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/03/07/msha-finally-lowers-asbestos-limits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/03/07/msha-finally-lowers-asbestos-lim</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Miniing Safety and Health Administration finally lowered the limit for exposure to 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter.  That&#8217;s a 95% reduction from the previous 2 fibers per cc limit.  The new regulation goes into effect in late April.
Here is the &#8220;final rule&#8221; as published by the MSHA (22 pages, PDF).  MSHA&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Miniing Safety and Health Administration finally lowered the limit for exposure to 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter.  That&#8217;s a <a href="http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mar20083a.htm">95% reduction from the previous 2 fibers per cc limit</a>.  The new regulation goes into effect in late April.</p>
<p>Here is the <a href="http://www.msha.gov/REGS/FEDREG/FINAL/2008finl/E8-3828.pdf">&#8220;final rule&#8221; as published by the MSHA</a> (22 pages, PDF).  MSHA&#8217;s sister Labor Department agency, OSHA, has had a 0.1 fibers/cc limit for over a decade.  This is the limit for most workers for a long time, but miners were for some reason stuck with more explicitly dirty air.  This is an example of government failure &#8211; where the science, and even most of the work world, are ahead of the mining industry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/03/07/msha-finally-lowers-asbestos-limits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSHA claims success</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/28/osha-claims-success/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/28/osha-claims-success/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/28/osha-claims-success/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OSHA put out a press release on their enforcement activities in 2007, boasting of over 39,300 inspections against a goal of 37,700.  They report 88,846 violations in 2007.  The 2006 injury numbers are in, and workplace fatality rates were the lowest since records have been kept, down to 3.9 deaths for every 100,000 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OSHA put out a <a href="http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&amp;p_id=14883">press release </a>on their enforcement activities in 2007, boasting of over 39,300 inspections against a goal of 37,700.  They report 88,846 violations in 2007.  The 2006 injury numbers are in, and workplace fatality rates were the lowest since records have been kept, down to 3.9 deaths for every 100,000 employees.</p>
<p>Good news, but the fatality numbers apply to immediate or short-term deaths.  Diseases caused by <a href="http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/asbexposure.htm">long-term occupational exposure (such as to asbestos) </a>are not counted in this number.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/28/osha-claims-success/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Historic building closed because of asbestos concerns</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/07/historic-building-closed-because-of-asbestos-concerns/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/07/historic-building-closed-because-of-asbestos-concerns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/07/historic-building-closed-because</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Story from the BBC about the closing of Ordsall Hall, a 12th Century building near Manchester.  Buildings that old typically have been through many additions, renovations, and rebuilds.  Somewhere along the way asbestos was apparently put into the boiler room.  Records were not always kept in the old days.  Now the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7173239.stm">Story from the BBC</a> about the closing of Ordsall Hall, a 12th Century building near Manchester.  Buildings that old typically have been through many additions, renovations, and rebuilds.  Somewhere along the way asbestos was apparently put into the boiler room.  Records were not always kept in the old days.  Now the Salford City Council has closed the building until the asbestos can be removed.  The council is trying to make Ordsall Hall, which is designated as a historic Grade 1 building, into a visitor attraction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2008/01/07/historic-building-closed-because-of-asbestos-concerns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Asbestos exposure to skilled craftsmen in the past</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/11/08/asbestos-exposure-to-skilled-craftsmen-in-the-past/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/11/08/asbestos-exposure-to-skilled-craftsmen-in-the-past/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/11/08/asbestos-exposure-to-skilled-cra</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ChemRisk has put out a fascinating paper in which the authors attempt to quantify historical exposure levels of asbestos in the workplace.  They estimated asbestos concentrations at distance from factories.
People living at asbestos cement factories had a relative risk of 10.5 and even at a distance of 10 km, the risk was 60% as [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://chemrisk.com/">ChemRisk</a> has put out a fascinating paper in which the authors attempt to quantify historical exposure levels of asbestos in the workplace.  They estimated asbestos concentrations at distance from factories.</p>
<p>People living at asbestos cement factories had <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=pubmed&amp;dopt=AbstractPlus&amp;list_uids=17637924">a relative risk of 10.5</a> and even at a distance of 10 km, the risk was 60% as high as it was at the source.  The authors conclude that the asbestos pollution from industry significantly increases <a href="http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org">mesothelioma </a>risk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/11/08/asbestos-exposure-to-skilled-craftsmen-in-the-past/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bloggers on occupational diseases</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/24/bloggers-on-occupational-diseases/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/24/bloggers-on-occupational-diseases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogroll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/24/bloggers-on-occupational-disease</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New York University law student on chemotherapy.  Another good one is The Pump Handle.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New York University law student <a href="http://www.cisplatin.orgl">on chemotherapy</a>.  Another good one is <a href="http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/">The Pump Handle</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/24/bloggers-on-occupational-diseases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Occupational safety &#8211; good news or not?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/19/occupational-safety-good-news-or-not/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/19/occupational-safety-good-news-or-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mesothelioma</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Occupational Safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/19/occupational-safety-good-news-or</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Really good post over at The Pump Handle.  The Labor Department is announcing lower workplace injury rates, the lowest rates recorded since records have been kept.  But critics point out that at least part of this is an artifact in how injuries are reported.  OSHA changed the definition of injuries/illnesses, and according [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really good post over at <a href="http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/are-osha-stats-really-good-news/#more-585">The Pump Handle</a>.  The Labor Department is announcing lower workplace injury rates, the lowest rates recorded since records have been kept.  But critics point out that at least part of this is an artifact in how injuries are reported.  OSHA changed the definition of injuries/illnesses, and according to researcher Lee Friedman 83% of the decline in reported rates is due to the change in definition. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesothelioma/2007/10/19/occupational-safety-good-news-or-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
