THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER A SAFETY PAGE STUDY SAYS NO DOES SMOKING KILL WORKERS? By JOHN GREGG (John Gregg is a bridgeman employed by CFP Englewood Division and a part-time stu- dent of occupational health. He is a non-smoker.) , Have you ever complained about poor ventilation on the job — only to have a plant manager point to the butt in your hand and mutter ‘‘You’re getting more damage out of that?” . Have you fought a long and bitter compensation case — only to learn “‘that exposure possibly aggravated a condi- tion caused by smoking?” Are you tired of hearing from medical authorities that “workers - must become responsible for their own health?” Why — for Lord’s sake — should workers cry about poisons on the job when ‘they constantly shove other poisons into their bodies? COUNTER-ATTACK — Tired of Frustrated? Ammunition for a coun- ter-attack is offered by Theodor Sterling, computer scientist and professor of interdisciplin- ary studies at Simon Fraser University. For years Sterling has been knocking the bias found in studies associating lung cancer with tobacco, for he suspects industrial pollution to be far more threatening. And he believes that anti- smoking campaigns are run to the detriment of workers, for such campaigns steal funds and energies which might be better directed toward era- dicating industrial pollution. it all? Angry? Last year Sterling prepared a paper for the University of Wisconsin School for Workers entitled ‘Does smoking kill workers — or working kill smokers?’’ In this paper Sterling asks the question “What is the relationship between prevalence of smoking and occupation?’’-For an answer, he and a colleague laboured through a U.S. Health Interview Survey conducted in 40,000 households. They pin- pointed 40 occupations with highest smoking rates and another 40 with lowest. Of the high smoking occupations 29 are blue collar; of the low merely four. SMOKING DATA Sterling and his partner also used the smoking data to con- sider a variety of common ob- servations made _ about smoking and its relationship to cancers and mortality. Four of these observations — and Sterling’s responses — are pre- sented here in question— answer form: 1. If you compare groups who smoke more with groups that smoke less, don’t the heavier smokers show a higher rate of respiratory disease? Yes, of course .. . but the group that smokes more has a greater proportion of blue collar workers. Your heavier smoking group is the group also more exposed to dusts and toxin fumes. Are you meas- uring the effects of to- bacco — or the corpses of in- dustry? 2. Hasn’t it been shown that smokers of regular cigarettes haye a respiratory disease rate higher than those who smoke filtered brands? Doesn’t this point to the effects of higher tars and nicotine? Perhaps it points more to the effects of industrial pollution, for data from the Health Inter- view Survey demonstrates that blue collar workers are more likely to smoke regulars than filters. Professionals favour filters. 3. But it’s been demons- trated that those who begin smoking early in life run a greater risk of respiratory dis- ease hasn’t it? Yes, but once again the sur- vey data shows the target group, early smokers, to have a higher proportion of indus- trial workers. Workers are more likely to begin smoking before age 20, professionals to begin later. - 4. What about women? Isn’t their incidence of respriatory disease increasing as more wo- men find smoking acceptable? Yes, yes, but a much greater percentage of female smokers are found in industry than in stereotyped ‘‘women’s work’’ (teaching, nursing, house- work), And it is logical to ex- pect the female mortality rate to increase as more women enter industrial work. Smoking and asbestos Drawing on studies of coke oven workers, uranium miners, and asbestos workers, Sterling contends that ‘“‘when both smoking and occupation are taken into account then it is the occupation and not smoking that appears to be the major cause of lung cancer.” In a.study at the Gold River pulp and paper mill, Sterling’s research assistant found that of workers with severe res- piratory deficiencies, 62% were smokers. Of those with- _ out respiratory problems, 66% were smokers. Sterling scores his greatest points on a study of smoking asbestos workers. IWA mem- bers at a variety of safety and © health conferences have heard a definition of synergism which runs something like this: ‘‘A non-smoking asbestos worker runs the risk of lung cancer ten times the normal population. A smoker also runs a risk ten times the non-smoking popula- tion. A smoking asbestos work- er runs a risk of dying from lung cancer 100 times that of the normal population. That is to say, smoking and asbestos react synergistically on the body.” Sterling is not buying it. Data collected from a survey of 17,800 asbestos insulation workers does indeed show that the proportion of smoking asbestos workers to die from lung cancer is ten times that of non-smoking asbestos work- ers. But the proportion of deaths from all cancers is nearly identical, and is in fact lower for the smokers. And the proportion of deaths from mesothelioma is twice as high for non-smokers. (Meso- thelioma is cancer of tissue lining lungs heart or gut.) If we conclude that a smoking asbestos worker runs a great risk of lung cancer, shouldn’t we also conclude that smoking aids the prevention of mesothelioma? Sterling postulates a bias to explain this paradox. He sug- gests that ‘‘the diagnosing physician, knowing of the smoking habits of an asbestos worker, will diagnose a pri- mary lung cancer if the worker smokes, but will make a more thorough examination as to the source of cancer when the asbestos worker does not smoke.” It’s the hype and hoopla of the anti-smoking brigade which has swayed the physi- cians, the same hype and hoopla fought before the Work- ers’ Compensation Board and battled out with plant man- agers. The worker is blamed; if he or she smokes. Tobacco smokescreen Sterling is not endorsing smoking as a habit, he agrees it may be an antecedent to res- piratory illness. But he argues that this emphasis on smoking is a smokescreen, He is con- cerned that workers may be chisled out of compensation claims because of smoking habits, robbed because of an ‘emphasis on biased and impro- per studies. He notes that “lung cancer can be produced in animals by a wide variety of substances and chemicals.’’ To these sub- stances and chemicals many of us are exposed daily. But Sterling adds, “Lung cancer has never been produced in an CRarcen See that sign up there Mobely, that's our new safety program and I expect you workers to... animal by use of tobacco smoke.” ~ If this is the case, perhaps the federal government should be lobbied to move its slogan. from cigarette packages to the workplace: ‘‘WARNIN Health and Welfare Cana advises that danger to healt increases with years workea™ inside this plant — avoid in- haling.”’ ‘ THIS SAFETY OFFICIAL IN WRONG OCCUPATION BORE <2 poe a An official of the Ontario Safety Association says com- pensation programs may offer workers financial incentives to work carelessly. _Robert Litster, assistant general manager of the as- sociation, says a study shows that tax-free compensation payments to an Ontario worker disabled for six months give him an income of about $600 more than if he earned $15,000 a year and pays full taxes. Litster also says compensa- tion is no-fault insurance — which quickly becomes no re- sponsibility insurance. He told the annual meeting of the New Brunswick Industrial Safety Association here that in 1976 a total of $200 million was paid out in compensation for injuries to parts of the body that should be protected by safety equipment. OFFICE WORKERS HAVE PROBLEMS TOO Office employees are prone to job-related health hazards almost as severe as those faced by factory workes, says a study by a government- sponsored local community service centre in. Montreal. Office work is often linked with hypertension, gastro-in- testinal disorders and re- spiratory problems, said the report, released recently. It studied the cases of 1,530 workers at the massive down- town Complexe Desjardins building. “Instead of physical hazards, we find psychological and social factors influencing their health,’’ said - Jean Ialongo, a psychologist with the community centre. “It’s true workers in fac- tories and mines have more obvious physical health hazards,”’ he said, adding that the problems office workers encounter ‘‘are different but just as important in their own way.” A research grant of $308,000 has been awarded by the Workers’ Compensation Board for occupational health re- search at the University of British Columbia. The grant, of $61,600 a year for five years, will help fund the work of Dr. Moira Yeung, a specialist in occupational lung ae eee disease, and another senior re- search investigator, who will be hired by UBC. Studies will be carried out on workers in British Columbian industries. The aim is to learn more about the ways in which occupational hazards damage health and to find better methods of protecting workers. WATCH YOUR DRIVING On slippery roads, any sud- den application of power, brakes or steering is likely to cause or accelerate a skid. Look ahead at the developing traffic picture so you can quickly spot a situation that may require reducing speed, turning or changing lanes, and take action gradually.