Second Hand Smoke from the workplace and bladder cancer

In a study by the Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310003, China in 2018 there was substantial evidence that second hand smoke (SHS) had a 22% increased risk for bladder cancer. This means those worker’s exposed to SHS are at a much higher risk of bladder cancer.

Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer globally, with an estimated 430,000 new cases and 165,000 bladder cancer deaths in 2012.  A significant male predominance was observed, with male bladder cancer cases comprising three quarters of the total cases. Europe has among the highest incidence rates of bladder cancer in the world. The highest rate of incidence in men was recorded in Spain with age-standardized rate = 36.7 per 100,000 according to Cancer Registry Data. New bladder cancer diagnoses rose 1.5-fold between 1990 and 2013 with deaths rising 1.3-fold between 1990 and 2013.

Tobacco smoking has been widely acknowledged to be the most important risk factor for bladder cancer. Six studies reported an elevated risk of bladder cancer in lifelong nonsmokers who were exposed to SHS compared with those who had no SHS exposure but without significance, while others reported a null relationship. 

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant 22% increased risk of bladder cancer for lifetime SHS exposure in nonsmoking patients compared with unexposed nonsmoking population.

If you or a loved one has or had bladder cancer, they should give out office a call. There may be a strong workplace connection. At the SCHMIDT-SALITA LAW TEAM WE DISCUSS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH HISTORY AND HAVE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN ALL EXPOSURE CASES. WE PURSUE CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS AND THIRD PARTIES FOR MEDICAL CARE, LOST EARNINGS, THE VICTIM’S PAIN AND SUFFERING, OR THE SURVIVORS’ LOSSES. PLEASE CONTACT US AT

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com

Workplace Carcinogens

Millions of U.S. workers are exposed to substances that have been tested as carcinogens in animal studies or found to be possibly carcinogenic in human studies. However, less than 2% of chemical or physical agents manufactured or processed in the U.S. have been evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for carcinogenicity. Based on well-documented associations between occupational exposures and cancer, it has been estimated that 3-6% of all cancers worldwide are caused by exposures to carcinogens in the workplace . The following is a list of substances NIOSH (The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) considers to be potential occupational carcinogens.

Acetaldehyde
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
4-Aminodiphenyl
Amitrole
Aniline and homologs
o-Anisidine
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Arsine
Asbestos
Asphalt fumes

B

Benzene
Benzidine
Benzidine-based dyes
Beryllium
Butadiene
tert-Butyl chromate; class, chromium hexavalent

C

Cadmium dust and fume
Captafol
Captan
Carbon black (exceeding 0.1% PAHs)
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated camphene
Chlorodiphenyl (42% chlorine); class polychlorinated biphenyls
Chlorodiphenyl (54% chlorine); class polychlorinated biphenyls
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
bis(Chloromethyl) ether
B-Chloroprene
Chromium, hexavalent [Cr(VI)]
Chromyl chloride; class, chromium hexavalent
Chrysene
Coal tar pitch volatiles; class, coal tar products
Coke oven emissions

D

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
2,4-Diaminoanisoleo
o-Dianisidine-based dyes
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
Dichloroacetylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3′-Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethyl ether
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Diesel exhaust
Diglycidyl ether (DGE); class, glycidyl ethers
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Dimethyl carbomoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine; class, hydrazines
Dimethyl sulfate
Dinitrotoluene
Dioxane

E-G

Environmental tobacco smoke
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylene dibromide
Ehtylene dichloride
Ethylene oxide
Ethyleneimine
Ethylene thiourea
Formaldehyde
Gallium arsenide
Gasoline

H-K

Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethyl phosphoric triamide (HMPA)
Hydrazine
Kepone

M

Malonaldehyde
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide; class, monohalomethanes
Methyl chloride
Methyl iodide; class, monohalomethanes
Methyl hydrazine; class, hydrazines
4,4′-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MBOCA)
Methylene chloride
4,4-Methylenedianiline (MDA)

N

α-Naphthylamine  (alpha-naphthylamine)
β-Naphthylamine  (beta-naphthylamine)
Nickel, metal, soluble, insoluble, and inorganic; class, nickel, inorganic
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel sulfide roasting
4-Nitrobiphenyl
p-Nitrochlorobenzene
2-Nitronaphthalene
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitrosodimethylamine

P

Pentachloroethane; class, chloroethanes
N-Phenyl-b-naphthylamine; class, b-naphthalene
Phenyl glycidyl ether; class, glycidyl ethers
Phenylhydrazine; class, hydrazines
Propane Sultone
B-Propiolactone
Propylene dichloride
Proplyene imine
Propylene oxide

R-S

Radon
Rosin core solder, pyrolysis products (containing formaldehyde)
Silica, crystalline cristobalite
Silica, crystalline quartz
Silica, crystalline tripoli
Silica, crystalline tridymite
silica, fused
Soapstone, total dust silicates

T

Tremolite silicates
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (dioxin)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Titanium dioxide
o-Tolidine-based dyes
o-Tolidine
Toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
Toluene diamine (TDA)
o-Toluidine
p-Toluidine
1,1,2-Trichloroethane; class, chloroethanes
Trichloroethylene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane

U-Z

Uranium, insoluble compounds Uranium, soluble compounds
Vinyl bromide; class, vinyl halides
Vinyl chloride
Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-dichloroethylene); class, vinyl halides)
Welding fumes, total particulates
Wood dust
Zinc chromate; class, chromium hexavalent

At the SCHMIDT-SALITA LAW TEAM WE DISCUSS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH HISTORY AND HAVE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN ASBESTOS, MESOTHELIOMA, AND CANCER CLAIMS. WE ALSO HANDLE MANY CANCER CASES> WE PURSUE CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS AND THIRD PARTIES FOR MEDICAL CARE, LOST EARNINGS, THE VICTIM’S PAIN AND SUFFERING, OR THE SURVIVORS’ LOSSES. PLEASE CONTACT US AT

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com

Mothers' work with solvents tied to higher autism risk for kids

A REUTERS article citing the Occupational and Environmental Medicine exposed a significant consideration for not only pregnant females themselves but for their children.

(Reuters Health) - Women who are exposed to solvents on the job may be more likely to have children with autism than mothers without this occupational exposure, a recent study suggests.

Researchers used data on work histories for 750 mothers and 891 fathers to assess the frequency and intensity of any occupational exposure before and during pregnancy for 16 agents that have been linked to neurological or congenital abnormalities in children.

These agents included medicines, metals, pesticides, anesthetics, asphalt, brake fluid, plastics and polymers, radiation, cleaners/disinfectants and solvents (including paint chemicals and degreasers) as well as other chemicals.

Mothers exposed to any solvents were 50% more likely to have a child with autism than women without this exposure. Greater solvent exposure was associated with an 85% higher autism risk.

“If you are pregnant, or planning to become pregnant, talk to your employer to find out what solvents are used in your workplace,” said Erin McCanlies, lead author of the study and a researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, West Virginia.

“If the solvents you work with might be hazardous to your health or pregnancy, or you aren’t sure if they might be hazardous, talk to your doctor,” McCanlies said by email.

The study wasn’t a controlled experiment designed to prove whether or how solvent exposure might directly cause autism.

One limitation of the study is that researchers lacked data on specific solvents, making it hard to advise parents on the precise products they need to avoid, McCanlies said.

“Our results contribute to a growing body of evidence that supporting the role of environmental and occupational factors in (autism spectrum disorder), but our results should be viewed with caution,” McCanlies said. “More research needs to be done that evaluates specific solvents rather than broad categories of solvents.”

Information on the reproductive impacts of solvent exposure can be found on the NIOSH website: here

“The study adds to our understanding that synthetic chemicals can contribute substantially to the origins of autism,” said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, an environmental medicine researcher at New York University School of Medicine who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Though it focuses on work-related exposures, the study raises concerns that exposures to these chemicals, which is common in the U.S. population, can also contribute,” Trasande said by email.

The study included parents of 537 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and 414 children with typical neurodevelopment.

Researchers classified levels of exposure to solvents and other agents linked to autism and other developmental disorders as none; rare (a few times a year); moderate (weekly); and frequent (several times a week/daily).

The most common occupational exposures among mothers were to disinfectants/cleaners, solvents and ethylene oxide. For fathers, the most common occupational exposures were to disinfectants/cleaners, solvents and metals.

Beyond solvents, none of the other agents was associated with heightened risk of autism based on exposure for either parent or when the exposures of both parents were combined.

It’s possible there were too few mothers in the study to detect a meaningful connection between other occupational exposures and autism, said Michele Marcus, an environmental health researcher at Emory University in Atlanta who wasn’t involved in the study.

“Because the child is developing inside the mother’s body, and we know that solvents and other agents readily cross the placenta, the mother’s exposures are passed directly to the child during this very vulnerable period of development,” Marcus said by email. “Whereas a father’s exposure could only impact the child indirectly - because of exposures taken home on clothing or through alterations of his sperm.”

SOURCE: bit.ly/2kdLEjJ Occupational and Environmental Medicine, online June 27, 2019.

At the SCHMIDT-SALITA LAW TEAM WE DISCUSS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH HISTORY AND HAVE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN ALL EXPOSURE CASES> WE PURSUE CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS AND THIRD PARTIES FOR MEDICAL CARE, LOST EARNINGS, THE VICTIM’S PAIN AND SUFFERING, OR THE SURVIVORS’ LOSSES. PLEASE CONTACT US AT

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com

Gender, Work, and Health

An issue as to gender and exposure came up in a recent trial. Read this interesting article by Quinn and Smith. A lot of good cites in this article.

At the SCHMIDT-SALITA LAW TEAM WE DISCUSS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH HISTORY AND HAVE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN ALL EXPOSURE CASES> WE PURSUE CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS AND THIRD PARTIES FOR MEDICAL CARE, LOST EARNINGS, THE VICTIM’S PAIN AND SUFFERING, OR THE SURVIVORS’ LOSSES. PLEASE CONTACT US AT

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com

Here is the article:

Gender, Work, and Health 

Margaret M Quinn Peter M Smith

Annals of Work Exposures and Health, Volume 62, Issue 4, May 2018, Pages 389–392,https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxy019, Published: 29 March 2018

Women and men occupy different positions in the labor market and, in turn, have different work-related exposures and subsequent health effects. There is growing recognition that occupational studies need new methods to account for these differences in order to improve the workplace (Kilbom et al., 1998; Messing, 1998; Doyal, 2003; Messing et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2009; Eng et al., 2011; Springer et al., 2012; Lewis and Mathiassen, 2013; Locke et al., 2014). Women and men can have different experiences of work exposures and health due to their sex, referring to biological differences, or to their gender, referring to socially constructed differences. Many occupational studies continue to ignore sex and gender considerations or use single sex samples and assume that findings can be generalized to both men and women (Hohenadel et al., 2015). While some researchers present results separately for men and women, which is a starting point, newer more comprehensive methods for modeling and data analyses are needed to advance the field.

To advance occupational exposure and health research, we put out a call for papers for a special issue on new approaches to considering gender and sex. When we put out our call in early 2017, we were not sure what to expect. We are happy to say that the response was beyond our expectations, with many high-quality submissions, from which we eventually selected the papers that comprise this issue. As a group, these papers demonstrate not only the importance of considering sex and gender but also provide some novel study designs and methods that we hope other researchers can build on.

There are 10 papers in this issue reporting occupational exposure and epidemiology studies from six countries: Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Italy, and the USA. While these papers address an impressively broad range of experiences, their scope is also limited in some important ways: all of the countries are classified as high income by the World Bank (including Chile since 2012) and so experiences of low- and middle-income countries are not represented. The term ‘work’ primarily refers to employment in the paid labor force, although some of the papers also considered the contribution of unpaid work, especially care work predominantly performed by women, on compounding paid work exposures and on health at work and outside of work. Despite innovative approaches, most studies were constrained to evaluate gender and sex as a male/female binary variable, rather than expanding their metrics in ways that could be more relevant to gender diverse people (Bauer et al., 2017).

Several overarching lessons emerge from these papers:

1. Women and men experience differences in occupational exposures and health throughout all stages of their working lives.Cherry et al. (2018) and Curtis et al. (2018)showed differences between men and women in exposures and health among apprentices first entering employment in the construction trades. Throughout working life, Padkapayeva et al. (2018) found differences in psychosocial and work organizational exposures and related experiences of work and life stress, Beauregard et al. (2018) reported differences in work exposure and work-family conflict in relation to burnout, and Bertin et al. (2018) documented different occupational carcinogen exposures between men and women. With regard to disability and treatment, Leinonen et al. (2018) identified differences in sickness absence from work, while Gignac et al. (2018) highlighted differences in the need for work accommodations among workers with arthritis. Farioli et al. (2018) found that women are more likely than men to receive surgery for work-related carpal tunnel, and Geoffrion et al. (2018) found that, while men experience more violent events at work, women experience more post-traumatic stress reactions to workplace violence. Finally, at the end of working life, Vives et al. (2018) found that men and women have different part-time employment opportunities following retirement from their main job and that precarious economic experiences and demands of unpaid care work outside of paid employment impact health in retirement differently for men and women.

2. Despite growing participation of women in the paid labor force, there remains extensive gender segregation across and within jobs.Leinonen et al. (2018)documented gender segregation among a number of industrial sectors and occupational classes in Finland, despite gender-progressive employment policies. Cherry et al. (2018) showed gender segregation within job in the construction trades and that workers in the gender minority have different, often more hazardous, psychosocial and physical exposures than workers in the gender majority. Cherry et al. (2018) found that more women than men reported bullying or harassment during welder and electrician apprenticeships, similar to the findings of Curtis et al. (2018) showing that female tradeswomen were more likely to report bullying and gender-based discrimination related to unequal access to skill building tasks within jobs.

3. Women and men continue to have different occupational exposures and different patterns of multiple, co-occurring exposures. There are also differences in the temporal patterns of exposure between men and women due to decades when significantly more men were in the paid labor force. Bertin et al. (2018) showed that men have more exposures to carcinogens, including multiple occupational carcinogen exposures to 53 recognized carcinogens. Harmful physical and chemical exposures have become so institutionalized in ‘men’s’ work that it is considered ‘normal.’ However, when we look at men’s disproportionately high occupational carcinogen exposures through the gender perspective, we can ask in a new way: Why is this inequality so persistent? and what can we do to prevent carcinogen exposures experienced by both men and women? Using path modeling, Beauregard et al. (2018). showed that male/female differences in work exposures and work family conflict experiences explain differences in levels of burnout between men and women. Taken another way, if work exposures and non-work demands were similar for men and women in this sample, then male/female inequalities in burnout would be minimal. Among men and women in the construction trades, Curtis et al. (2018) found that women reported more problems with the fit of personal protective equipment; however, men reported more exposure to dust and working at heights without barriers. Vives et al. (2018)showed that men generally face more adverse work exposures, while women face more precarious employment conditions and carry the double burden of paid work and unpaid care work into their later years. They concluded that women appear to be affected more profoundly by health conditions accumulated earlier in working life so that the probability of women finding and keeping a job as they age is lower than for men.

4. Women and men experience differences in the health impacts of work exposures.Cherry et al. (2018) found that the bullying and harassment more frequently reported by female construction trade apprentices were risk factors for female welders reporting more depression than male welders. Overall, however, the authors concluded that the prevalence of depression in both genders (about one-third of all apprentices) suggests that depression is a substantial public health problem for all. Padkapayeva et al. (2018) found that higher levels of supervisor support at work were associated with lower work stress among women, but not among men. These same authors found that higher job insecurity was more strongly associated with higher life stress among men than women.

5. Work impacts women and men differently in their lives outside of work.Cherry et al.(2018) found that women in the electrical and welding trades were less likely to have children and less likely to be married. Geoffrion et al. (2018) observed that the sex of the aggressor for serious violent work events had a differential impact on men and women, with male aggressors leading to post-traumatic reactions among women, but not among men. The authors suggest that this may be because biological strength differentials between men and women, which are further perpetuated and maintained by societal stereotypes, lead to these violent events being perceived by women as more than an isolated, work-related incident. Padkapayeva et al. (2018) observed that while job insecurity is a similarly important predictor for work stress among men and women, men are more likely to experience life stress related to high job insecurity. The authors suggest that differences in the attachment to work and differential importance of work for self-esteem among men and women may provide an explanation.

6. Despite differences in work exposures and health effects, women and men also have some similar experiences. Contrary to their hypothesis, Padkapayeva et al. (2018)did not observe male/female differences in the relationships between work stress and life stress levels: the relationship between work stress and life stress was similar among men and women, with higher levels of work stress associated with higher levels of life stress in both men and women. In addition, by examining multiple aspects across the domains of work, family, and the individual, Beauregard et al. (2018) were able to identify which experiences of men and women were similar and which were not. For example, men and women reported similar levels of marital strain and caregiving responsibilities, but differences in hours per week on domestic tasks.

When considered together, the papers provide several insights related to the state of gender and sex evaluation in work exposure and health studies and suggest directions to advance the field:

1. All of the papers show that including gender and sex analyses in studies of workers remain very challenging. Metrics of gender and sex diversity, data sets with large study populations evaluated to account for gender and sex diversity, methodologies, and even terminology are lacking. Clearly, the quantitative approaches that are utilized in this area of enquiry require further development.

2. While many of the studies used innovative approaches, none were able to clearly separate the effects of gender and/or sex on work exposures and health (see for example, Beauregard et al. (2018), Curtis et al. (2018), Geoffrion et al. (2018), Farioli et al. (2018) and Padkapayeva et al. (2018)) Only one study used inclusive language in their exposure and health assessment questionnaire so that transgendered women could participate (Curtis et al., 2018) Overall, occupational epidemiology studies still mainly ascertain gender and sex identities using a single question offering only the possibility of a binary male/female response. The male/female variable likely represents a mixture of sex and gender identities. The field is far from being able to address occupational experiences across a range of gender diverse people (Bauer et al., 2017).

3. Application of newer quantitative data analytic methods can contribute to more comprehensive and nuanced knowledge about gender, work exposures, and health. Beauregard et al. (2018) and Padkapayeva et al. (2018) offered excellent examples of how path/structural equation modeling can inform the pathways that produce male/female inequalities in health outcomes. The Beauregard et al. (2018)approach of making male/female the main independent variable of interest, produced new information about which differences in work exposures and non-work exposures would be best to target to reduce inequalities in burnout burden between men and women. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, Farioli et al. (2018)estimated the difference in biomechanical exposures that would be required to explain differences in the probability of receiving carpel tunnel surgery among men and women in their observed data. They concluded from the Monte Carlo simulations that the required male/female difference in biomechanical exposures was not plausible, and thus other biological and social factors were likely also important determinants of male/female differences in carpel tunnel surgery.

4. Further exploration of the role of work organization and other contextual factors is needed and quantitative studies could benefit from having a qualitative methods complement (Cherry et al., 2018).

The purpose of gender and sex analyses in occupational health, as in public health more broadly, is to improve the health and well-being of all people by providing the evidence base for good practice and policies. Today’s labor market is more diverse than ever, both in relation to gendered and sexed characteristics of labor market participants, as well as other aspects such as race and ethnicity. For occupational health to remain relevant, we need research that takes this diversity into account, as research that does not will be limited in both its quality and applicability. We hope this special issue can inspire future research toward this aim.

Please call SCHMIDT AND SALITA with any questions.

WATER GREMLIN CLAIM INFORMATION

THE SCHMIDT & SALITA LAW TEAM

The Schmidt-Salita Law Team is committed to bringing justice to the victims of exposure to the chemical TRICHOLOROEHTYLENE which has been released into the environment in White Bear Lake area.  It has a long history of representing the victims of chemical exposures and, specifically, cancer victims.

Dean Salita-Lead Attorney

Heading the team is Senior Trial Lawyer Dean Salita who brings many years of experience in representing the victims of various types of personal injury and wrongful death claims. His experience includes a long history of representing the victims of exposure to various toxic elements, including industrial chemicals, asbestos, and a wide range of other injury claims.

Salita currently serves as the Chair of the Minnesota Trial Lawyers committee on Workers Compensation.  He also chairs the Occupational Exposure Group of the Workers’ Injuries Law & Advocacy Group (WILG) which is a group of lawyers who are dedicated to the representation of the victims of chemical exposures in the workplace and focuses on bring justice to the victims of toxic torts.  Salita has successfully represented workers who are the victims of chemical exposures against such large corporations as Honeywell, 3M and other major Fortune 500 companies in cases in Minnesota state courts, U.S. Federal Courts, and Minnesota Workers Compensation courts.

Douglas E. Schmidt-Senior Trial Lawyer

Senior Trial Lawyer Douglas E. Schmidt has a long and successful track record in successfully representing clients in a wide variety of wrongful death and personal injury claims.  His successful case list includes cases against Dow Chemical Company, CIBA-GEIGY Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, B.F. Goodrich Tire Company, and many other major corporations.  He was a leading lawyer in a $52 million class action against Chubb Insurance Company.

Bob Olson-Mass Torts Investigator

The Schmidt Salita Law Team includes veteran investigator Bob Olson who has experience in the investigation and coordination of mass tort claims focusing on mass and toxic torts including the pharmaceutical industry.

Molly Olson-Lead Legal Assistant

The Law Team includes Molly Olson, a legal assistant with 21 years experience.  Molly is the Erin Brockovich of the team.

THE WATER GREMLIN CLAIMS

The Water Gremlin Company is a manufacturing company located at 4400 Otter Lake Road in White Bear Lake, Minnesota.  It is believed to have been in existence since 1949, as a supplier of recreational fishing products, including lead sinkers. In the 1970s, the company began production of terminals for lead- acid batteries and has used the chemical Trichloroethylene (TCE) as a degreaser of metal parts. It was recently reported to have 218 employees.  In 2005, water gremlin was purchased by Okabe Co. Ltd, which is a Japanese company with affiliate businesses in China and Italy.

During the summer of 2018, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) discovered the company was violating its air pollution permit.  In January of 2019, it demanded that Water Gremlin shut down part of its operation because it was emitting high levels of trichloroethylene into the air.

The MPCA determined that, at times, the emissions nearest the plant were found to be as high as 100 times the state's health guidance value for trichloroethylene, which is 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The MPCA has stated that it believes that Water Gremlin has been releasing excessive levels of the chemicals since as far back as 2002.

The affected area extends 1.5 miles from the plant in all directions, including at least two schools and the homes of about 5,500 residents.

Residents of the area have reported a higher than normal incidence of cancer, neurological, pulmonary and other health issues.

TOXICITY OF TRICHLOROETHYLENE

Trichloroethylene, TCE, is an industrial solvent that is used in both industrial applications, and also found in industrial chemicals and household products such as paint and stain removers, cleaning products and parts cleaners.

It is usually in a liquid form but is highly volatile and can easily evaporate and become airborne. When that happens, the admissions can be harmful to breathe and can cause serious and potentially deadly effects.

Various cancer types are among the most dangerous of the problems resulting from TCE exposure.

Studies have shown that TCE produces central nervous system problems with decreased appetite, gastrointestinal irritation, headaches, mucous membrane problems, and skin irritations. It can also cause chemically driven liver damage due to either inhalation or ingestion. Abnormal heart rhythms are known to be induced by heavy TCE exposure.

TCE exposure also produces neurological effects, including word finding difficulty, ataxia, decreased appetite, headache, short-term memory loss, sleep disturbances and vertigo/balance problems.

Most importantly, there are serious potential carcinogenic (cancer) effects from TCE exposure. Medical researchers indicated that there is an increased incidence of both malignant and benign tumors as a result of TCE exposure in animals, acting through the same mechanism that would likely cause cancer in human beings. Several studies have also found a definite link between childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

FINDINGS OF THE STATE INVESTIGATION

The Minnesota pollution control agency conducted an investigation which resulted in the following findings:

• From 2000 to 2018, the company annually emitted at least three times more volatile compounds, including TCE than were allowed in its permits.

• In 2018 alone, the company released 120 tons of the compounds-12 times more than its permit allowed.

• The company had been making unreported releases of pollution since 2002.

SETTLEMENT BETWEEN WATER GREMLIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

On March 1, 2019, Water Gremlin Company entered into a stipulation agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency whereby it agreed to pay more than $7 million in fines for emitting high levels of toxic chemicals into the air over many years.

The settlement is recognized as a second largest fine in the history of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

As part of the agreement, Water Gremlin Company agreed to remove all TCE from its facility and to not use it in the future.

POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

The Schmidt Salita Law Team is exploring several potential legal claims including the following:

• Personal injury claims for all victims who have suffered injury.

• Wrongful death claims for the families of the victims who have died as the result of exposure.

• Workers’ Compensation claims for the victims who have suffered injury due to exposure while working at Water Gremlin or for other employers.

• Potential punitive damages claims based on the gross negligence of Water Gremlin and its fraudulent concealment of the problem.

CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENTS

The Schmidt Salita Law Team is currently accepting cases for the victims of Water Gremlin suffering injury and or death on a contingent fee arrangement.  That means that the client will not be expected to pay any attorneys fees unless there is a settlement and then only as a percentage of the settlement.

To contact the Schmidt Salita Law Team, call 952-473-4530 or send0 an e-mail to info@mnlawteam.com.  www.MNLAWTEAM.com

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Trichloroethylene, TCE is an industrial solvent that is used in some industries and is found in household products such as adhesives, paint and stain removers, and parts cleaners. Usually it’s in a liquid form, but it is highly volatile, meaning it easily becomes airborne. When it does, the emissions must be properly controlled or they can be harmful to breathe. Often exposure comes from the workplace or a company “dumping” it. TCE has some serious and potentially deadly affects. Cancer is among the most dangerous of the problems. Studies have shown that TCE produces

• CNS effects

• decreased appetite

• gastrointestinal irritation

• headaches

• mucous membrane

• skin irritation

Hepatotoxicity, or chemical driven liver damage has been associated primarily with TCE inhalation and ingestion of very large amounts.

Renal failure has been reported in concert with confirmed hepatic damage.

Cardiac dysrhythmias may be induced by heavy TCE exposure.

Neurological Effects

Complaints due to chronic exposure in studies have included:

• a reduced number of word associations

• ataxia

• decreased appetite

• headache

• short-term memory loss

• sleep disturbances

• vertigo

A study found neurobehavioral deficits from exposures to drinking water contaminated with to TCE (Reif, Burch et al. 2003).

When swallowed, TCE causes gastrointestinal (GI) irritation, with possible inflammation of the GI tract, manifested as:

• abdominal pain

• diarrhea

• nausea

• vomiting

Studies that have examined exposure to TCE and development of kidney disease (Lash, Parker et al. 2000).

Cardiac Effects were seen in some workers accidentally exposed to TCE at a level that was unspecified but at least 15 ppm

Reproductive and Developmental Effects are possible.

Most importantly there are serious possible, Carcinogenic (Cancer Effects from TCE.

A meta-analysis of these cohort studies found that occupational exposure to TCE was associated with excess incidences of liver cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma, with the strongest evidence for the first three cancers (Wartenberg, Reyner et al. 2000; NTP 2004).

A study (Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1996) performed in Woburn, Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Department of Health (1996) found an elevated risk of childhood leukemia in a group exposed to TCE in utero.

The New Jersey study (Bove, Fulcomer et al. 1995) found associations with childhood leukemia among females and with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma..

TCE is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans, sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals, which indicates there is an increased incidence of malignant and/or a combination of malignant and benign tumors at multiple tissue sites in multiple species of experimental animals, and information suggesting TCE acts through mechanisms that indicate it would likely cause cancer in humans (NTP 2004).

Other Effects such as, Respiratory, Skin, Immune System are possible as well.

At the SCHMIDT-SALITA LAW TEAM WE DISCUSS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH HISTORY AND HAVE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN ASBESTOS, MESOTHELIOMA, AND CANCER CLAIMS. WE ALSO HANDLE TRICHLOROETHYLENE (TCE) CASES> WE PURSUE CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS AND THIRD PARTIES FOR MEDICAL CARE, LOST EARNINGS, THE VICTIM’S PAIN AND SUFFERING, OR THE SURVIVORS’ LOSSES. PLEASE CONTACT US AT

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com

Work Related exposure to Toluene

Toluene is a flammable hydrocarbon which is used as paint, lacquer thinner or dyeing agent. It is also found in fuels. Workers from printing operations, construction sites and nail salons are frequent users of Toluene products. You can be exposed to toluene by breathing it in, getting it on your skin, getting it splashed into your eyes, or swallowing it.

Symptoms of toluene exposure include: irritation of the eyes and nose; weakness, exhaustion, confusion, euphoria, dizziness, headache; dilated pupils, lacrimation (discharge of tears); anxiety, muscle fatigue, insomnia; numbness or tingling of the skin; dermatitis. Toluene exposure may cause liver and kidney damage.

Toluene affects the central nervous system, eyes, skin, respiratory system, liver, kidneys. Breathing high levels of toluene during pregnancy has been shown to result in children with birth defects and to retard mental abilities and growth. There is evidence that exposure to toluene at work is associated with spontaneous abortion.

High concentrations of toluene, usually from use in a confined space or unventilated area, can cause loss of consciousness, respiratory depression and death. Long term and repeated workplace exposure to toluene affect the central nervous system.

Employers are required to train all workers who use materials containing toluene about the health and safety hazards of toluene, how to recognize exposure to toluene, and the protective measures that apply to the use of toluene in the specific work area.

Toluene is used frequently in many work operations involving paint, metal cleaners, adhesives and other products The safety data sheets provided by the supplier must disclose the presence of toluene, and employers must provide workers with copies of these safety data sheets upon request. Employers must provide workers training and information about a product's potential hazards and how to use it safely.

Many people can smell toluene at levels below established limits. But, if you can smell it, then it is getting into the air.Your employer should collect air samples to determine if you are being exposed to toluene at or above the Federal OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL).

The concentration of toluene vapors in the work area may be measured by a gas badge (passive diffusion sampler), a solvent vapor tube attached to an air sampling pump, or a direct reading indicator tube. Employers must provide the results of these measurements to workers, their representatives or their health care providers in writing if asked. Employers must inform workers each year of the procedure for obtaining these results.

At the SCHMIDT-SALITA LAW TEAM WE DISCUSS YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH HISTORY AND HAVE REPRESENTED NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN ASBESTOS, MESOTHELIOMA, AND CANCER CLAIMS. WE PURSUE CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE EMPLOYERS, MANUFACTURERS AND THIRD PARTIES FOR MEDICAL CARE, LOST EARNINGS, THE VICTIM’S PAIN AND SUFFERING, OR THE SURVIVORS’ LOSSES. PLEASE CONTACT US AT

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com

COMMON PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN ASBESTOS

There many products in people’s homes and work that contained and continue to contain asbestos. With the recent discovery that Johnson and Johnson knew , as early as 1957, that there was asbestos in the talc products it is important to examine many other everyday products where there is still asbestos exposure. Johnson and Johnson have been fighting and denying this but in July of 2018 a court ordered them to pay 4.7 Billion dollars to a group of 22 women who had ovarian cancer. Recently even kids coloring crayons, with common brands such as NIckelodeon and Disney have had trace amounts of asbestos.

1) MAKEUP As late as January of 2018 the retailer Claire’s pulled 17 products off the shelf , including some makeup marketed to children, after asbestos was found in the talc parts of the products.

2.) Attic and Floor Insulation

Vermiculite is a pebble-like insulation product used in attics and walls. It is usually gray-brown or silver-gold in color. Over 70 percent of all vermiculite sold in the U.S. from 1919 to 1990 was mined out of a mine that contained asbestos.

3.) Boilers and Water Heaters

Boilers and water heaters are used to heat or steam water At work locations and homes asbestos was often used as an insulator to keep temperatures down. . While the practice of insulating these items with asbestos was banned in the mid-1980s, many homes and work still contain asbestos-lined boilers and water heaters. Often they look like an Octopus. The asbestos would often fray creating airborne particles

4.) Ceilings

The popcorn ceiling was a decorating trend for homes in the 1970s. The texture was created by spraying a bumpy coating that contained asbestos. Asbestos was banned in ceiling products in 1978.

5.) Hairdryers

Hairdryers, because of temperatures contained asbestos. It was used to minimize the risk of fire damage from the intense heat of the hairdryer. When in operation, the hairdryer actually blew asbestos into its user’s breathing zone. Astonishingly the majority of hairdryers manufactured before 1980 contained asbestos. Get rid of those old hairdryers.

6.) Electrical Panels

Electrical panels include partitions which separate components from one another in order to prevent a fire. Electrical panels are no longer manufactured using asbestos after 1980 but many old residences and buildings still contain these partitions.

7.) Furnaces

Furnaces produce hot temperatures. Therefore many parts of furnaces had asbestos products in them. The door gaskets, insulation, and cement of oil, coal, and wood-burning furnaces may contain asbestos. Converting the furnace over to gas or electric can release fibers. Let an expert do this.

8.) Pipes

Piping in older homes may be coated in asbestos. Asbestos was used in pipes to both reduce heat-loss and to protect nearby surfaces from hot pipes. The asbestos-tainted product which was used to insulate housing pipes was manufactured until 1972. T

9.) Refrigerators

Commercial and older model refrigerators utilized asbestos as an insulator to keep cold air from escaping. Vintage refrigerators are sometimes sought for retro interior design. Make sure an old fridge does not have asbestos.

10.) Roofing Shingles and Siding

Though not technically inside the house, asbestos was used to strengthen, insulate, and fireproof both roofing and siding materials.

11.) Vinyl Flooring

Asbestos was added to some vinyl floors as a means to strengthen the floor and for fire retardation. Asbestos can also be found in the backing and in some adhesives used to hold the flooring in place. When taking up tile, the asbestos can be released.

At Schmidt-Salita Law Team we discuss your employment and health history and have represented numerous individuals and families in asbestos, mesothelioma, and cancer claims. We pursue claims and lawsuits against those employers, manufacturers and third parties for medical care, lost earnings, the victim’s pain and suffering, or the survivors’ losses. Please contact us at

Phone: 952-473-4530

Toll Free: 1-800-656-8450

Fax: 952-544-1308

Email: info@mnlawteam.com