An information resource for serving & former members of the Irish Army Air Corps suffering illness due to unprotected toxic chemical exposure in the workplace.
The Taoiseach is to look at proposals to review the healthcare needs of sick former Air Corps personnel.
Photo by Neil Michael
The review, initiated by then defence minister Simon Harris after it was suggested by Sinn Féin Cork South Central TD Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, was set up earlier this year to see how an assessment of needs could work.
Micheál Martin said he was supportive of the initiative when he was asked by the Irish Examiner, saying: “I will have a look at what they are proposing.”
Concerns were raised by Air Corps whistleblower Gavin Tobin more than 10 years ago regarding the issue.
Mr Martin is the third senior Government figure to show interest in a review of former Air Corps personnel’s health needs.
On Tuesday, defence minister Helen McEntee — who succeeded Mr Harris in November — told the Dáil senior officials in her department recently met Mr Ó Laoghaire to discuss the review.
Off the back of what she said was a “constructive” meeting, she told TDs she hoped to have a detailed report on proposals for a review of health needs by next March.
Watch Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire TD, the Sinn Fein Spokesperson for Defence, ask the recently appointed Minister for Defence Helen McEntee her views on past health & safety measures in the Air Corps and the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel.
Transcript
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
Question: 87. asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil debates, her views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps; the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel; whether she intends to ensure their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category as a whole. [72051/25]
This is probably the Minister’s first time debating this particular matter but the issue of the potential adverse health outcomes for former aircraft maintenance personnel in the Air Corps has been discussed a lot over the years. Many people who served in aircraft maintenance believe many have suffered very severe health outcomes, including untimely deaths, because of exposure to dangerous chemicals. What is the Minister going to do about that in respect of the category generally, not individual cases?
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
As this is my first time answering a question on this matter as Minister for Defence, I want to take this opportunity to say that the health and well-being of the men and women of Oglaigh na hÉireann is of the utmost importance. In fact, it is paramount and front and centre in everything we do, as it is to the Chief of Staff and Secretary General.
I am very clear in my view as Minister that those who serve the State with such professionalism and integrity should be able to do so in a modern and well-equipped Defence Forces that is also a safe place to work, as all places should be. In that regard, as I mentioned previously, I announced a substantial investment of €1.7 billion in the Defence Forces over the next four years. It is not just about technology and equipment or new naval vessels. There is an investment specifically in the men and women and the equipment they use on a day-to-day basis. It is very important we invest in them directly and ensure they are working in safe spaces.
I acknowledge the Deputy’s ongoing commitment to this issue. I am aware that, further to an offer made to him in this House by my predecessor, the Tánaiste, he availed of an opportunity to meet with some of my senior departmental officials in the past two weeks to share his views on this matter. The meeting, which took place at the end of November, I understand was constructive and I will continue to engage with the Deputy on this matter. It is absolutely essential the health, safety and well-being of the men and women of Oglaigh na hÉireann are front and centre in everything we do.
I received an initial brief from my officials on the matter of health and safety in the Air Corps. I expect to have a detailed report from them in quarter 1 of 2026 regarding the matters the Deputy has brought before the House. This report will take due cognisance of the recent meeting he had with officials, as well as the views of the State Claims Agency, as it manages such litigation claims on my behalf. I also intend to seek the views of other stakeholders on what, if any, options may be open to me to pursue, further to my receipt of the report.
All that being said, and the Deputy is very much aware of this fact, I am limited in what I can say further in this regard in this House. I am the defendant in several litigation cases that are under way and being dealt with in the courts. I say that obviously not to avoid discussing it, but there is litigation and it is important I do not impede or infringe on that at all.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is an extremely complex matter. It requires very serious thought, engagement and deliberation. This is what my officials have been doing and it is something I will focus on and prioritise as well.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
The reality is that this is not an issue that has only arisen in Ireland. We know that in other jurisdictions such as Australia and the Netherlands exposure to very powerful, strong and dangerous chemicals caused adverse health outcomes for personnel in those locations. Australia took a sensible approach. Officials evaluated the situation throughthe study of health outcomes for aircraft maintenance personnel and they offered health supports. That is key to what we do on this. That is the kind of approach that makes sense – evaluate the situation, try to identify the connections between the exposure and health impacts, provide healthcare solutions and find out how it came to pass. This has been examined on a number of occasions in the past, although not all of this is in the public domain. We had the EEA air monitoring report in 1995, Forbairt report in 1997 and HSA report in 2015, but there is other documentation that not public at this point in time. Is the Minister open to doing something in addition to dealing with individual cases as a category?
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
I appreciate that we might not be on our own and similar issues have arisen in other jurisdictions. It is about going through the appropriate process and making sure that we are responding in the most appropriate way. These matters are currently the subject of active and ongoing litigation, as I have mentioned. The HSA has conducted several inspections in Baldonnel Aerodrome and there is more detail in that regard than has been provided previously. What I want to do now is make sure that I receive the report being conducted in quarter 1. That is the timeline I have been given. I will then be able to make any decision on what future actions can be taken and whether something can be done separate to the individual cases and ongoing litigation at the moment. Ultimately, I want to support the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann. We want to make sure that we understand exactly what may or may not have happened here. Once I have that information then we can all decide what are the next appropriate steps and where we will take it from here. I have been given that timeline and I will work closely with my officials to make sure that we achieve it.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
The Minister is right that the men and women of the Defence Forces are its greatest asset. The weight of this needs to be emphasised. The Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors, ACCAS, group has identified what it believes to be 110 untimely deaths. It has used that language advisedly because the link needs to be proven in that regard. However the group has questions and concerns over that many deaths and serious illnesses. That is the concern, and indeed in other jurisdictions there was a connection between the chemical exposure and serious illness. In the Air Corps there were many instances of no protective equipment, no masks and so on being provided.
I appreciate court cases have to happen, and people have an entitlement to that. For the industrial schools and the Magdalen laundries this did not stop an approach that offered redress, support and accountability to the category as a whole concurrently. I encourage the Minister to talk to the Departments in question – indeed she was in one of those Departments herself – about how that was approached. We can have the court cases, which people are entitled to, and we can have a redress system for the category as a whole.
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
I will treat this with the utmost seriousness. I am working closely with my officials. It is also important to stress these are cases of alleged past exposure to toxic chemicals. I want to be clear that we are talking about issues that may have happened in the past and to reassure people in that regard. In terms of the HSA and the inspection that took place, it advised in a subsequent report in 2024 that the Defence Forces had proactively rolled out training in the use of substances across the relevant personnel and noted the evidence of compliance with the contravention notice, It is important to point out where there have been inspections, where there have been engagements with the Defence Forces and where there have been changes.
As well as the report I mentioned, the tribunal of inquiry is due to start. This will have the power to investigate the response to complaints made regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within the Air Corps headquarters at the Casement Aerodrome. That is part of that as well, so there will be an opportunity within the tribunal to be able to consider adequately any of the complaint processes that have been made in light of the responses received. A number of different things are happening at the moment separate from the litigation and separate from the individual cases, with the review and the report that is being done. Obviously, there is another opportunity here throughout the inquiry for these types of concerns to be raised as well.
*****
Over 7 years ago, when she was Minister for State for European Affairs, Helen McEntee met with an ACCAS representative on the margins of the Fine Gael National Conference in November 2018 in Citywest Convention Centre.
At this brief meeting Minister McEntee was presented with a physical copy of our list of fair demands. So while Minister McEntee may be new to the defence portfolio, she has been previously briefed in person on the Air Corps toxic chemical exposure tragedy.
Can exposure to workplace chemicals such as solvents, isocyanates, organophosphates, hexavalent chromium, lead, gasoline or kerosene increase the chances of developing Type 2 Diabetes.
Answer 1 from Google Gemini AI
Recent scientific research suggests a link between exposure to certain workplace chemicals and an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, although the strength of the evidence varies significantly by chemical.
These substances are often classified as diabetogens—chemicals that may disrupt the body’s ability to produce or use insulin.
The following breakdown details the risk levels associated with the chemicals you listed.
1. High Risk / Strong Evidence
These chemicals have the strongest link to type 2 diabetes in occupational studies.
Organophosphates (Pesticides):
The Link: There is strong evidence linking chronic exposure to organophosphate pesticides with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Mechanism: These chemicals disrupt key enzymes (like acetylcholinesterase) and induce oxidative stress, which can damage the pancreas’s beta cells (the cells that make insulin) and disrupt glucose metabolism.
At-Risk Occupations: Agricultural workers, exterminators, and pesticide manufacturers.
The Link: Organic solvents, particularly benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and their metabolites, have been associated with insulin resistance.
Mechanism: They can cause chronic inflammation and liver dysfunction (fatty liver), which are precursors to type 2 diabetes.
At-Risk Occupations: Painters, dry cleaners, reinforced plastics workers, and shoemakers.
2. Moderate or Suggestive Evidence
For these chemicals, studies show a correlation, but the results can sometimes be mixed or dependent on the level of exposure (heavy vs. light).
Lead:
The Link: Occupational exposure to lead is associated with higher fasting blood glucose levels and insulin resistance.
Mechanism: Lead accumulates in the body (bones) over time and can act as an endocrine disruptor. It interferes with calcium signaling, which is necessary for insulin release.
At-Risk Occupations: Battery manufacturing, smelting, radiator repair, and construction (renovating old buildings).
Gasoline & Kerosene (via Benzene):
The Link: Gasoline and kerosene themselves are mixtures. The diabetes risk is largely attributed to their benzene content (see “Solvents” above). Short-term exposure is unlikely to cause diabetes, but chronic, long-term inhalation of vapors (e.g., at filling stations or refineries) is the primary concern.
At-Risk Occupations: Refinery workers, gas station attendants, and mechanics.
3. Mixed or Limited Evidence
Hexavalent Chromium:
The Nuance: Chromium is confusing because trivalent chromium (Cr3+) is often sold as a supplement to help blood sugar. However, hexavalent chromium (Cr6+)—the industrial toxin—is a known carcinogen.
The Link: While highly toxic and capable of damaging the liver and kidneys (which help regulate blood sugar), the direct link to causing diabetes is not as strongly established in human studies as it is for arsenic or cadmium. However, animal studies suggest it can induce hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance.
At-Risk Occupations: Chrome plating, welding (stainless steel), and pigment manufacturing.
Isocyanates:
The Link: Isocyanates are well-known for causing occupational asthma and severe skin/respiratory sensitization. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to strongly link isocyanates directly to the development of type 2 diabetes. Their primary danger remains respiratory and immune system damage.
At-Risk Occupations: Spray painters, foam manufacturing, and insulation installers.
What You Can Do
If you work with these chemicals and are concerned about your blood sugar:
Review your Safety Data Sheets (SDS): Check if the products you use contain benzene, toluene, or organophosphates.
Protective Gear: Ensure you are using the correct PPE (respirators, chemically resistant gloves) to prevent absorption through the skin and lungs.
Medical Monitoring: When you get your annual check-up, specifically ask for a HbA1c test or fasting glucose test to monitor your blood sugar trends over time.
Question 2 of 2
Explain these risks further in an aviation context, maintenance (engine oils, hydraulic fluids), refueling, exhaust gasses, paint stripping, priming & painting and PR sealants.
Answer 2 from Google Gemini AI
Recent research and occupational health studies have highlighted specific risks in the aviation industry that go beyond immediate physical safety. In the context of type 2 diabetes, the primary driver is chronic inflammation and liver toxicity (hepatotoxicity), which can lead to insulin resistance.
Here is a breakdown of the specific diabetes-related risks for each aviation task you mentioned.
Risk Level: Moderate to High Primary Hazard: Organophosphates
Engine Oils (e.g., Mobil Jet II): Turbine engine oils contain Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP) as an anti-wear additive. TCP is an organophosphate. While historically known for “aerotoxic syndrome” and neurological damage, organophosphates are also metabolic disruptors. They can alter how your liver processes fats (lipids), leading to “fatty liver,” a direct precursor to type 2 diabetes.
Hydraulic Fluids (e.g., Skydrol): These fluids are phosphate ester-based (often Tributyl Phosphate). Like TCP, these chemicals are absorbed rapidly through the skin. They are difficult for the liver to process, placing stress on the organ responsible for regulating your blood sugar.
Note: Standard nitrile gloves often do not provide sufficient protection against phosphate esters (which can degrade them). Butyl rubber or specific chemically resistant gloves are usually required.
2. Refueling & Ground Operations
Risk Level: High Primary Hazard: Ultrafine Particles (UFPs) & Benzene
Refueling (Jet-A1): Jet fuel contains benzene and other aromatics. Chronic inhalation of fuel vapours (especially during “hot” refueling or in enclosed hangars) exposes you to solvents that increase the risk of insulin resistance.
Exhaust Gases (Tarmac/Ramp Work): This is perhaps the most significant, overlooked risk. Jet exhaust emits Ultrafine Particles (UFPs).
The Evidence: A major European study linked living near airports (and thus high UFP exposure) to significantly higher rates of diabetes.
The Mechanism: These particles are so small they pass from your lungs directly into your bloodstream, causing systemic inflammation that blocks insulin receptors. If you work on the ramp or near running APUs without respiratory protection, your exposure is extremely high.
3. Paint Stripping
Risk Level: High Primary Hazard: Methylene Chloride & Phenols
Chemical Strippers: Aviation paint strippers are among the harshest chemicals used in industry. Many contain Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane).
The Diabetes Link: Methylene chloride is a severe metabolic toxin. It causes oxidative stress in the liver. Research indicates that chronic exposure to chlorinated solvents is linked to a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes because the liver becomes too “busy” detoxifying the solvents to properly manage insulin and glucose levels.
Photo of dichloromethane as stored by Irish Air Corps in 2015. Dichloromethane was banned in the EU in 2012.
Priming (Alodine / Chromates): The yellow/green primers (like zinc chromate or strontium chromate) contain Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+). While primarily a cancer risk, heavy metal toxicity stresses the kidneys and pancreas.
Painting (Topcoats): Polyurethane topcoats use Isocyanates as hardeners.
Clarification: The primary risk here is sensitization (occupational asthma), not diabetes. However, the solvents used to thin these paints (MEK, Toluene, Xylene) are the metabolic risks.
Diabetes Connection: Solvents like Toluene affect cell membrane signalling, which can make cells “deaf” to insulin’s signal (Insulin Resistance).
The Sealant: The sealant itself (the grey goo) is generally low risk once cured.
The Curing Agents: Be careful with the “hardener” part of the kit. Some two-part sealants use a dichromate cure (contains chromium), which carries the heavy metal toxicity risks mentioned above.
The Solvents: You likely use MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) or MPK to clean surfaces before sealing or to wipe up excess. These solvents are rapidly absorbed by the skin. Frequent, unprotected contact with MEK “degreases” your skin and enters your bloodstream, adding to the total “solvent load” your liver must filter.
Immediate Protective Actions
Respirators for Ramp Work: If you are spending hours on a tarmac with running APUs or engines, a standard dust mask is useless against UFPs. You need P100 filtration or activated carbon layers if vapours are present.
Glove Selection:
Skydrol/Hydraulics: Use Butyl or Neoprene. Nitrile breaks down quickly.
Fuel/Solvents: High-grade Nitrile is usually acceptable, but change them immediately if splashed.
Liver Support: Since the liver is the primary organ fighting these chemicals and regulating blood sugar, reducing other liver stressors (alcohol, processed fructose) is critical for aviation workers.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
