State attempting to reach settlements with Air Corps chemical victims, Tánaiste says

Cases relating to exposure to dangerous chemicals used in aircraft maintenance are due before the courts

The State Claims Agency (SCA) is attempting to reach settlements with Air Corps members who were exposed to dangerous chemicals during their work, Tánaiste Simon Harris has said.

It follows the conclusion of a landmark court case earlier this year in which a former Air Corps technician was awarded €2 million.

In what was seen as a major test case, Gary Coll (51), from Lifford, Co Donegal, alleged his exposure to chemicals in the workshops of Casement Aerodrome caused him severe and lifelong health problems.

On the opening day of the hearing last February the parties agreed a settlement that did not include any admission of responsibility by the State.

Campaigners accused the State of dragging out the legal process for more than a decade.

The case against the Department of Defence was the first of 10 personal injuries cases due before the courts relating to the exposure of Air Corps members to dangerous chemicals and solvents used in aircraft maintenance.

Campaigners say there are many other Air Corps veterans who have died prematurely or suffered severe health problems in connection with their work.

Now, Mr Harris, who is also Minister for Defence, has signalled the State is keen to settle the remaining cases.

“I want to see a resolution in this regard,” Mr Harris told the Dáil this week. “I am advised there is currently active engagement between the State Claims Agency and litigants to determine if mutually agreeable resolutions can be found to their cases.

“I want to see that happen and I encourage the State Claims Agency to continue that approach, as I know it will. Trying to bring this issue to a resolution that works is important.”

The Tánaiste said an engagement process with former Air Corps personnel is “now genuinely under way” and that it should be allowed proceed “to a point where there is an achievable outcome that is acceptable to all parties”.

Gavin Tobin, a former Air Corps technician, estimates there have been nearly 100 deaths that may have involved exposure to dangerous chemicals.

He rejected Mr Harris’s claim that the State is engaging with veterans and accused it of only coming to an agreement in Mr Coll’s case at the 11th hour.

“A haggle on the corridors of the High Court where the State Claims Agency attempts to destroy reputations by calling injured personnel liars is not engagement,” said Mr Tobin who has been campaigning for years on the issue and who also suffers serious health issues.

He accused the Government of “using the might of the State to threaten financial ruin” on plaintiffs if they reject settlement offers.

“Threatening bankruptcy unless we accept settlement is not an engagement process,” he said. “Nobody is engaging with us.”

Read full article by  Conor Gallagher at  the Irish Times
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2025/05/14/state-attempting-to-reach-settlements-with-air-corps-chemical-victims-tanaiste-says/

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Ex-Air Corps members demand ‘truth’ after €2m chemicals case

Despite a promise of justice, Air Corps chemical exposure survivors say the Irish State continues to deny and delay accountability

A former member of the Defence Forces who says his health has been destroyed by exposure to dangerous chemicals during his service has called for the Government to “let the truth come out”.

The State agreed last week to pay €2m to Gary Coll, 51, to settle a legal case taken by him in relation to his claims, without accepting liability.

Mr Coll served as an aviation technician with the Irish Air Corps in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, between 1991 and 1997.

His case is the first of ten which have been taken by former members in relation to what they say was the failure by the State to protect them from exposure to dangerous chemicals.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Upfront with Katie Hannon, Mr Coll said the State is “hiding behind the State Claims Agency, hiding behind the Courts.”

“The minister stands up and says he can’t look at a health and safety issue because he has to wait for the go-ahead from the State Claims Agency, or the Courts? No. It’s a cop-out to hide behind the court cases,” he said.

Mr Coll says he now suffers from chronic fatigue, has issues with his heart, breathing, and memory, recurring ulcers, and is unable to maintain his core body temperature.

He says during his service there was exposure to chemicals during basic work tasks.

“There was fumes, chemicals being used openly with no extraction systems, within feet of where you worked,” Mr Coll said.

“The place was a mess, the floors were that dirty that people were afraid they would catch fire, there was that much oil and chemicals spilled on the floor of the hangers,” he said.

There was also a tradition of ‘tubbing’ in the Air Corps, whereby individuals would be dunked into tanks of chemicals for various purposes, including as part of initiations or hazing.

He said such tubbing happened to him several times.

https://x.com/RTEUpfront/status/1889094673647440041

Mr Coll joined the Air Corps as a teenager, and represented it in national and international rugby and rowing tournaments in the earlier years of his service.

He said he left his job in his mid-20s due to a slew of medical conditions he experienced while he was still serving, including headaches, vomiting, diarrhoea and nosebleeds.

He now requires the use of a mobility scooter or walking stick to get around.

“I suffered anxiety for years, about 2004 or 2005 I started developing neurological problems, pins and needles, tremors and shakes, it started effecting my balance, my memory’s gone, my short-term memory.”

“In a few months time, I’ll probably forget being here tonight,” Mr Coll said.

Two other former Air Corps members also spoke on the programme. Neither are currently taking legal cases, but both believe exposure to chemicals during their service has significantly damaged their health.

Paul Flynn, 52, spoke to presenter Katie Hannon by video call from his hospital bed. He has been in hospital for 15 months.

He joined the Air Corps in 1988 a week after his 16th birthday. From 1991 to 1998, when he left the service, he worked preparing aircraft parts for painting with primers, topcoats, and spraying.

He said in his early days working in the role there was no protective equipment “at all” provided. Several years later, he said he bought his own air-fed mask, but the line installed to feed it was placed beside a compressor in another room where chemicals were also present.

“I have issues with breathing, sometimes I’m on oxygen… I would like the Government to acknowledge that the chemicals have injured people,” Mr Flynn said, who accepts he cannot definitively link his health issues to chemical exposure.

“The Australian and Dutch government have admitted the same chemicals that we used caused the same injuries we have. I want the Irish Government to admit to that and provide us with whatever care they we need.”

Mr Flynn, aged 52, says his medical team is now advising he move to a nursing home.

https://x.com/RTEUpfront/status/1889090652786286649

Michael Byrne joined the Air Corps having served earlier in the army, he entered to train as a winchman, having passed a fitness selection course.

Unlike Mr Coll and Mr Flynn, he did not serve in the paint shop, but he says he was exposed to chemicals during refuelling of aircraft without PPE.

He said he was splashed with chemicals, and had to breathe in chemicals, as he was required to keep his face close to the refuelling point on the aircrafts.

“There was often – a common occurrence – you’d get an airlock, a backwash of fuel into the eyes, into the mouth, ingested it,” he said.

Within a year of joining the Air Corps after the army, Mr Byrne said, his health began to deteriorate, and he eventually left his job.

“I joined the Air Corps to hang out of helicopters. I joined it for the adventure. When I became sick and I wasn’t able to do the duties anymore – and because under aviation law because I was on high dose steroids, you’re not allowed to fly – I was given jobs like answering phones, I was cleaning toilets at times. So I left, disheartened, and I left.”

“I’ve had two knee replacements, I’m due two hip replacements, I currently have a fractured spine, I’m in a brace at the moment, from just doing menial tasks around the house.”

He said he can not definitively trace his health issues to chemical exposure, but says the timeline is significant.

“I was perfectly healthy, from that point – within a year – I went from running ten miles a day to not being able to run across the road when a car came.”

Mr Byrne is not taking a legal case because he is “just trying to get through day-to-day at the moment, just with pain and managing everything like that.

“I want answers, I’m going downhill, my elbows swell, my knees swell … It was proven in Australia, why can’t they use those templates? At home, most days I don’t move, I can’t get up” he said.

In Australia, in 2009 there was a parliamentary inquiry into similar issues which resulted in payments and healthcare services – including cancer screening – being provided to former Royal Australian Air Force members who were exposed to dangerous chemicals.

Several former Air Corps members who say they have been exposed are calling on the Government to take similar action. In particular, they are calling on Taoiseach Micheál Martin to act.

The Taoiseach and other ministers note that the handling of complaints raised about chemical exposed fall under a Tribunal of Inquiry which was set up after the so-called ‘Women of Honour’, which revealed concerns about bullying, misogyny and sexual assault within the Defence Forces.

In June 2017, Mr Coll and others met Mr Martin, then the leader of the opposition, to outline their concerns and issues related to chemical exposure.

Mr Martin subsequently told the Dáil that three whistleblowers had warned in November 2015 about conditions in the Air Corps maintenance units in Baldonnel, and the degree to which staff were “exposed to very dangerous solvents and chemicals.”

Mr Martin at the time called on the government of the day to commission an independent board of inquiry “into this entire affair and scandal,” summarising the then-government’s response as “deny, deny, deny, resist, resist, resist.”

“The linkage of the particular chemicals to cancer-causing diseases, genetic mutation, neurological conditions and chronic diseases have been well-established”, Mr Martin said at the time.

In a statement to Upfront from Katie Hannon, a spokesperson for Mr Martin said “throughout his time as Taoiseach, and as Minister for Defence, the health and safety of the men and women of the Defence Forces has been a priority.

“There are a number of other personal injury claims currently active before the courts, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to encroach on the independence of the legal process.

“The Defence Forces Tribunal of Inquiry was established in June 2024 and, as part of its terms of reference, will investigate the response to complaints made regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps’ headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel.”

The Department of Defence told Upfront with Katie Hannon: “The Health and Wellbeing of the men and women working in the Air Corps is a priority for the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, as it is for the Defence Forces Management and the Department of Defence.

“The decision to take litigation is a matter for each individual, as is the decision to engage in dialogue to explore and potentially reach a settlement in relation to such matters. In respect of the recently reported case, the parties agreed to settle the matter before the commencement of the trial, on terms agreed by both sides, with the benefit of legal advice at every stage of the process.”

https://www.rte.ie/news/upfront/2025/0211/1495941-ex-air-corps-members-demand-truth-after-2m-chemicals-case

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Air Corps chemical poisoning: Betrayal, legal battles, and a decade-long fight for justice

Despite a promise of justice, Air Corps chemical exposure survivors say the Irish State continues to deny and delay accountability

Meeting Micheál Martin on Tuesday, June 20, 2017 is a moment that is etched on Gary Coll’s brain.

As the then leader of the opposition, the now Taoiseach spent the best part of an hour with the former Air Corps aviation technician and five of his colleagues in Leinster House.

They had met him, at his invitation, to plead their case about the need for urgent State intervention into the issues around chemical poisoning in the air corps.

At the time, around 40 Air Corps personnel under the age of 65 were understood to died in the previous 27 years from suicide, cardiovascular events and cancer. Hundreds more were suffering a raft of chemical exposure-related illnesses.

They all mostly maintained aircraft without using PPE, and with little or no training or advice about the toxic chemicals they were either working with or in the vicinity of.

At the end of the meeting Mr Martin, who went on to become Taoiseach in June 2020, vowed to be an advocate to their cause.

Just before the meeting concluded, Gary limped over to him and asked if he would still support air corps chemical exposure survivors when he became Taoiseach.

Gary, who last Wednesday was awarded €2m in a settlement to his High Court claim for damages against the State, recalled:

“He looked me firmly in the eye, and — as he shook my hand — said he would because it was, in his words, ‘the right thing to do’.”

Gary bristles with anger as he recalls the moment.

Read full article by Neil Michael at  the Irish Examiner
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/spotlight/arid-41570956.html

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Over a decade on, ill Air Corps technicians still await a fair hearing

The settlement between the State and Gary Coll closes one chapter in the allegations by former Air Corps technicians that they were exposed to dangerous chemicals while working on military vehicles. However, as Joe Leogue outlines, many more cases and issues of disclosure remain unresolved

Ex-Air Corps member Gary Coll from Lifford, Co. Donegal. The State has agreed to pay €2 million to a former Air Corps technician who was allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals which he says caused severe health difficulties. Photo by Joe Dunne

A settlement on the steps of a court usually marks the conclusion of a dispute — however, the reported €2m pay-out to Defence Forces mechanic Gary Coll on Wednesday is but another development in a bitter dispute between the State and former Air Corps technicians that has raged on for over a decade.

Mr Coll settled his High Court action against the State having alleged he was exposed to various dangerous chemicals while he worked at Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel, Dublin. The settlement was made without an admission of liability.

The State contended it provided a safe workplace at Casement, and did not allow inappropriate work practices there.

The settlement is a milestone in an ongoing saga that is complex, but at its core comes down to two simple, related, questions; did the State fail in its duty to protect scores of Defence Forces staff from the impact of harmful chemicals, and were there attempts to cover this up?

Mr Coll’s case was the first of 10 such legal actions to come to an end, with all 10 cases bearing similar complaints. The first legal claims were lodged with the High Court in 2013, and all litigants worked in repair and service workshops based in Casement Aerodrome.

All 10 say that they suffered chronic conditions including cancer and neurological problems as a direct result of their exposure to the chemicals with which they came into contact as part of their duties when servicing Air Corps aircraft.

In 2017, then in opposition, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin was scathing of the report, accusing the government of knowingly appointing a reviewer who, by his own admission, was unable to meet the terms of reference of the investigation.

“It’s farcical. It seems to me there are no records of compliance with health regulations, which is very, very serious because in their absence one has to conclude that the probability is they were not complied with,” he said.

“The government needs to establish a forensic examination into this,” Mr Martin added.

“I don’t think it is acceptable to wait for court cases against the State to conclude as there is no guarantee these legal proceedings will establish what happened in the past.”

That line has proven particularly prescient eight years later. The settlement of Mr Coll’s case this week means that no evidence was heard. Nothing has yet established what has happened in the past.

This matters to the former Air Corps mechanics for many reasons. Chief among these is that since 2018 the government rejected opposition calls for a healthcare programme for these workers — similar to the Australian model — on the basis that the courts were the place to establish liability.

Read full article by Joe Leogue at  the Irish Examiner
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/arid-41569999.html

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Air Corps grounds aircraft after safety audit raises concerns over bolt tightening

It is understood an internal safety audit uncovered issues that rendered the planes unsuitable for flying until each aircraft had undergone extensive checks.

The Air Corps has grounded a number of planes over safety concerns about how the nuts and bolts holding them together are tightened, the Irish Examiner can reveal.

It is understood an internal safety audit uncovered issues that rendered the planes unsuitable for flying until each aircraft had undergone extensive checks.

The main concerns are understood to centre around the type of tools used to tighten the planes’ bolts, and the application of what is known as “proper torque”.

This is the specified tightening force needed to apply to an aircraft’s nuts and bolts and which has a force with a specific range prescribed in that particular aircraft’s maintenance manual.

If specially calibrated torque wrenches are not used to tighten nuts and bolts every time, this can lead to problems — including propellers falling off and internal engine damage.

The General Officer Commanding of the Air Corps Brigadier General Rory O’Connor is understood to have summoned all Air Corps engineers officers to meet him about the results of the audit.

The meeting, which was held at the Air Corps base at Baldonnel during the week, is understood to have led to a number of crews being “berated” over safety standards.

“Everyone in Baldonnel is talking about the audit, and the fact that some of the tools used on these very expensive aircraft were bought from a supermarket.” 

The Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces Lieutenant General Seán Clancy has been briefed on the issue and it is understood there is now an investigation underway about what happened and why.

Read the full article by Neil Michael at the Irish Examiner
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41570743.html

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

State agrees €2m settlement in Air Corps chemical ‘tubbing’ case

Central to Gary Coll’s claims was that he underwent ‘tubbing’, a form of hazing where workers were submerged in a bath of unspecified chemicals and oil

The State has agreed to pay €2 million to a former Air Corps technician who was allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals which he says caused severe health difficulties.

The case against the Department of Defence is the first of 10 personal injuries cases due before the courts relating to the exposure of Air Corps members to dangerous chemicals and solvents used in aircraft maintenance.

Gary Coll (51), from Lifford, Co Donegal, joined the Air Corps in 1991, when he was 17, and worked in the avionics section until 1997.

In a statement of claim, he made a large number of allegations against his former employer including that he was not provided with a safe working environment at the Air Corps headquarters in Baldonnell, Co Dublin, and that there was inadequate supervision regarding the use of dangerous chemicals.

Central to Mr Coll’s claims was that he underwent “tubbing”, a form of hazing where workers were submerged in a bath of unspecified chemicals and oil.

Mr Coll, who was once an accomplished athlete, detailed several psychological and physical issues that he alleged were caused by the chemicals. He said he is unable to walk any significant distance without a cane.

Read full article by Conor Gallagher at the Irish Times
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2025/02/05/state-agrees-2m-settlement-in-air-corps-chemical-tubbing-case/

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Failed general election Independents Cathal Barry and Matt Shanahan to run for Seanad

Seanad office receives 70 nominations in advance of Wednesday deadline for candidates backed by professional bodies

Former Independent TD Cathal Berry who lost his South Kildare Seat in the general election is to run in the Seanad election as is former Waterford Independent TD Matt Shanahan, both of them from the Regional Independent group in the last Dáil.

Mr Berry, a former Army Ranger and medical doctor who received nominations from Oireachtas members, said “national security is a priority around Europe at the moment … So you need people with a particular expertise to have a mature conversation about it. And that’s what the Seanad is all about.”

The Upper House is seen as a way for former TDs to remain in the Oireachtas to win back their Dáil seat in the following general election.

Read full article by Marie O’Halloran at the Irish Times 

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/12/18/failed-general-election-independents-cathal-barry-and-matt-shanahan-to-run-for-seanad/https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41414152.html

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

1991 – DFSS 1 – Defence Forces Safety Standards on the Control of Substances (Chemicals) Hazardous to Health (COSHH)

CONTENTS

  • SECTION 1: INFORMATION SOURCES

  • SECTION 2: DATA SHEETS

  • SECTION 3: PRINCIPLES OF ASSESSMENT

  • SECTION 4: CONTROL

  • SECTION 5: ASSESSMENT SHEETS

  • SECTION 6: BIBLIOGRAPHY

SECTION 1 – INFORMATION SOURCES

Information on substances used at work can be obtained from a wide variety of sources. It is not merely a matter of asking the supplier – some materials have no. external supplier in the sense that they are produced within the workplace itself; by-products, intermediates, even the final product of the process. Whatever the source of the material, nothing effective can be done by way of control unless the chemical components are known. This is necessary in order to select the least toxic of a number of alternative materials which may be available and to be able to render appropriate medical treatment in cases of exposure, as well as to achieve safe and legal disposal of waste, and to introduce the right control measures.

Suppliers

Section 10 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 places duties onsuppliers of substances. It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any articles for use at work to:-

(a) ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the articles is. designed, constructed, tested and examined so as to be safe and without risk to health when used by a person at a place of work;

(b) take such steps as are necessary to secure that persons supplied by that person with the articles are provided with adequate information etc.

Additionally, necessary steps must be taken to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons so supplied are provided with revisions of such information as are necessary by reason of its becoming known that rise to anything gives a serious risk to health or safety.

The supplier’s information should be sufficient to enable the constituents of the material to be identified, describing the specific hazards of the product, dangerous conditions which may arise, and the necessary safety precautions. It is common ground amongst recipients that the standard of suppliers’ information varies enormously. In a 1974 US Government survey it was found that firms questioned used 95,000 different trade-named products, and that the composition of 90% of these products was not known to the companies using them. Disclosure of composition of products is not a requirement under SAHAWA, and suppliers sometime claim that the formulation is a trade secret. A useful review of manufacturers’ attitudes and the user’s need to know is contained in “Chemical Risk” by Maurice Frankel of Social Audit (Pluto Press, 1982). The book suggests that employers should adopt a policy of not using trade-named substances unless their composition is fully known. This means the provision of a data sheet (see below). The simplest test of the adequacy of suppliers’ information is whether there is sufficient information to allow the user to carry out a COSHH assessment.

Chemical Components of Hazardous Substances

Once the type of chemical composition is known, information can be sought from a variety of sources. The supplier’s data sheet should not be used sources should alone; other be used to check that what is supplied is fact, or else that the basis for the opinion can be justified. Specialist information is available from Eolas which is accessible to the public.

Mixtures

Data becomes less reliable and less available for mixtures, for which there is often little toxicological information. Some compounds exhibit the so-called “synergistic effect” in association with others, and a knowledge of this possibility is necessary for those evaluating hazards. for example, the combined effect of asbestos dust and the products of tobacco smoke in the lungs produces a greatly increased risk of lung cancer. Medical evidence suggests that for an estimate of lung cancer risk in people who smoke and are exposed to asbestos, you must multiply (as opposed to add) the separate individual risks from these agents. This obviously results in a much greater level of overall risk.

SECTION 2 – DATA SHEETS

This section discusses the desirable contents of a data sheet received by the end user, in this case the person carrying out the COSHH assessment. One of the main recommendations of this is that the Defence Forces performing assessments, should produce its own internal data sheets compiling them from the suppliers’ information into a standard format which can’ then be assembled into a COSHH information pack for the organisation.

It is therefore necessary to devise a set of headings of information which constitutes the minimum information needed to identify and control the hazard (if any) adequately.

Appropriate Contents of Safety Data Sheets

Data FieldTypical Contents
1. Product and Company IdentificationTrade Name Company Name, Division, Address Issue Date of Data Sheet Emergency Advice Telephone Number
2. Information On IngredientsChemical Name(s) Mixture Ingredients Rough Proportions
3. Physico-Chemical DataAppearance Odour Boiling Point Melting/Freezing Point Flash Point Auto-F lammability Explosive Properties PH Value (As Supplied) Vapour Pressure Relative Density Viscosity Solubility Partition Co-Efficient Other Selected Data
4. Stability/ReactivityCondition To Avoid (Temperature,Pressure, Light, Shock) Materials To Avoid Hazardous Decomposition Products
5. Handling/StorageConditions Of Storage Specifying Limits Handling Precautions
6. Personal ProtectionRPE Hand Protection Eye Protection Skin Protection
7. Fire-FightingSuitable Extinguishing Media Unsuitable Extinguishing Media Specialist Protective Equipment for Firefighters
8. Measures In Case Of Accidental ReleasePersonal Precautions Environmental Precautions Clean-Up Methods
9. Health Hazard Toxicity DataConcise,. understandable descriptions of toxicological effects, including exposure routes, symptoms of both gross short-termover exposure and of longer-term lesser exposure, delayed effects and information about any relevant occupationa] exposure limit
10. First Aid MeasuresBrief, understandable, subdivided by exposure route, include delayed effects and whether immediate medical attention is required. Notes To Physicians
11. Ecological InformationMobility Persistence Degradability Aquatic Toxicology
12. Waste DisposalEnvironmental Impact Assessment Methods Of Disposal Handling Of Contaminated Packaging
13. TransportTransport Regulation Requirements
14. Hazard LabellingCPL Hazard Classification Description

For Defence Forces data sheets it will be neither appropriate nor necessary to include all the above fields of information. of comprehension, and selection will be required of what is needed and the necessary contents of each field which will be appropriate and relevant for the end users.

SECTION 3 – PRINCIPLES OF ASSESSMENT

All substances potentially hazardous to health, can be that managed safely provided a suitable strategy has been devised and is in place. Such a Strategy will contain four parts:-

    1. OBTAINING AND PASSING ON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CHEMICAL.

    2. THE ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDS POSED BY IT, ITS USE, IT BY-PRODUCTS, DISPOSAL AND STORAGE.

    3. CONTROL OF THE CHEMICAL, USING ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES, SAFE OPERATING PROCEDURES AND PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.

    4. MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONTROL STRATEGY.

The term assessment encompasses not only the assessment of the hazards and risks involved, but also the subsequent development of control techniques applicable to the substance in question. An assessment therefore, should be regarded as a total strategy, and is best set down in writing.

This Standard uses the words hazard and risk. The words have specific and different meanings. A hazard is a situation with a potential to cause .injury or damage. A hazardous substance is one which, by virtue of its chemical properties, constitutes.a hazard. A risk is the probability or likelihood of the hazard actually causing a degree of injury or damage. Thus assessment of a hazardous substance is based solely on the properties of the substance, whereas assessment of the risk needs a review of these properties in the light of the specific way substances are handled, used or encountered at work and judgement of whether the risk to people, (and property and the environment) is tolerable.

How Hazardous Substances Are Encountered At Work

Every workshop and most offices, shops and other workplaces, handle chemicals. Hazardous substances may be encountered at work in five main ways:-

    • as raw materials for manufacturing or service processes. Examples are solvents for degreasing paints used to coat the product or for respraying cars, fertilisers in agriculture, and toners for dry copiers;
    • as engineering and cleaning materials, such as lubricants, cutting oils, water treatment chemicals, decorative paints, toilet cleaner and bleaches:
    • for service functions, such as adhesives, correcting fluids;
    • as products of the process, whether as intended products, by-products, waste products or intermediates; or
    • as incidental products such as the Legionella micro-organism, vehicle exhaust fumes or ozone from copiers.

The Hazards Of Chemicals

The principle groups of chemicals are those classified as very toxic, toxic, harmful, corrosive or irritant, under the EEC Regulations governing classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. There are three other groups: micro-organisms, unclassified substances and dust. Dust is defined as hazardous if it is present in substantial quantity, even if it has no apparently harmful properties covered in DFSS 1 1991.

Some substances have hazards which could endanger many people immediately in a Single incident. Others may be the cause of disease which could take many years to develop. Substances can be categorised according to the type of harm they can cause; many substances fall into more than one category.

Corrosive chemicals, such as strong acids or strong bases, will attack other materials or people. Chemical burns are usually painful, deep-seated and slow to heal.

Irritants such as acrylates may affect the skin, causing problems like. dermatitis, or they can affect the respiratory tract. Some people may also be allergic to certain sensitisers such as isocyanates and epoxy resins.

Agents of anoxia are those vapours or gases which dilute the oxygen available in the air or prevent the body using it effectively. Examples are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide.

Toxic substances are those which can harm the body, in a number of ways. Often, these work by damaging an organ such as the liver or kidneys. Examples are chlorinated solvents and the heavy metals.

A few substances can prevent the correct development and growth of the cells of the body. Carcinogens can cause or promote the growth of unwanted cells, as a cancer. Teratogens may cause an embryo to develop abnormally, and to be born with defects or be stillborn. Mutagens can cause cell changes with an attendant risk of cancer.

Effects Of Hazardous Substances

Apart from their innate hazardous properties, the ease with which substances can enter the body and the body entry route are further crucial factors in determining the total harmful effect. Substances may penetrate the skin, either through cuts, or if they are fat solvents, through intact skin. They may be ingested through the mouth, often as a result of poor standards of hygiene. Normally the most important route of entry though is through the respiratory system. This is because the respiratory system can be a very efficient and sensitive method of transferring materials from the outside environment into the body.

Substances may cause harmful health effects from a single dose, or from an accumulation of smaller doses, or from continuous exposure over long periods. The effect may be acute illness, or a chronic, long term disease.

Single doses do not necessarily cause only acute disease, neither are cumulative doses the only causes of chronic disease.

The Assessment

Who will be judged competent to carry out an assessment? The simple answer is – anyone, provided that the result provides adequate control of all the potential hazards deriving from substances used, produced, stored and handled at work. Persons must have expertise commensurate with the risk, process complexity and variability. For most Units using substances, there will be people in place with special or certainly adequate, knowledge of those substances.

The aim of this Section is to provide such an approach, which can be logged in the format suggested by the accompanying charts. The approach has the benefit of “showing the working” and also minimises the chances of missing a substance or failing to complete the assessment. The charts include an assessment sheet to record the results of air sampling exercises, and provides a File Record.

Assessment – A Structured Approach

Phase 1

Obtaining And Passing On Knowledge
      1. Prepare lists of chemicals, substances, mixtures which are used, bought in, produced in the location/activity, or to which employees are otherwise exposed at work.
      2. Consolidate the lists, and prepare a suitable Data Sheet.
      3. Marshall information from suppliers, external data sources, industry associations, etc., on the properties and hazards.
      4. Summarise the basic hazards (if any) of each substance in the list.
      5. Prepare summary data sheets on substances judged to be hazardous to a common pattern, and distribute to interested parties.

Phase 2

Assessment Of Risks In Practice
      1. Assess each process using the substances listed.
      2. Identify substances defined “hazardous to health”.
      3. Review all substances and associated hazards to identify further hazards or rule against unacceptable processes or practices.
      4. Assess likely exposure to the substances listed, including any exposure of non-employees.
      5. Compare this with a standard. (Provided through Eolas).
      6. Decide on need for air sampling and for biological monitoring and who should perform this, to assist in (4) and (5).
      7. If air sampling is required, record the results.
      8. Ensure medica1 records are kept in respect of any personal biological monitoring carried out.

Phase 3

Control Of Hazards And Risks
      1. For each chemical, decide and record how it is to be controlled.
      2. Produce, or review, safe operating procedures in written form for each substance deemed to be hazardous, to cover processes and controL measures.
      3. Ensure that specific reference is made to appropriate personal protective equipment necessary, by type and/or irish/British Standard.

Phase 4

Monitoring Effectiveness
      1.  Establish a procedure for reviewing control] measures.
      2. Establish the frequency of any required air sampling as an on-going check, recording the results.
      3. Set up necessary arrangements for maintenance, examination and testing of local exhaust ventilation and other appropriate control measures.
      4. Establish procedures for supplying and maintaining personal protective equipment.
      5. Establish a procedure for incorporating newly-acquired substances, new hazard information or changed work practices into the assessment.
      6. Establish the training process as appropriate.
      7. Agree with Supervisors the frequency at which the assessment will be repeated in full or in part.
      8. Sign and date the finished assessment, and decide on distribution of
        copies.

The next part of the Section takes the four stages identified above in more detail, and should be read in conjunction with the Assessment Pro Formae.

1. Obtaining Knowledge

The necessary information on substances must be acquired and collated. Substances may be brought into an organisation for a number of purposes. They may be:-

(a) Bought In As Raw MaterialsRaw Materials Solvents Products Which Generate Oust. During Processing Finishing chemicals
(b) Produced As Part Of The ProcessIntended Products By-Products Waste Products Intermediate Products
(c) Bought For Engineering And CleaningCleaning Solvents Bleaches Oils Water Treatment Chemicals General Cleaning Fluids
(d) Bought For Service FunctionsChemicals For Copiers Adhesives Correcting Fluids Sodium Hypochlorite For Swimming Pools
(e) Produced By Other Means
"Legionella" and Other Micro-Organisms Engine Fumes Welding Fumes Ozone From Copiers

It will be seen that “substances” includes not only simple materials but mixtures, intermediates, waste and final products.

The first stage in the obtaining of necessary knowledge is to prepare a complete of all substances that are bought, used or made on the premises. The list could be produced by a number of individuals, some of whom may approach the subject by listing the work activities and deriving the list from an analysis. Others may carry out physical audits of the workplace, stores areas and the like to forma list of substances known to be physically present. A combination of these different lists will be more thorough than the list produced by any single individual.

The second stage is the production (and re-ordering) of the list in tabular form, so that progress reached can be easily noted and compared. It will be found simpler to begin with raw materials and follow with processes and the remainder.

The third stage is the marshalling of all necessary information about each substance, compound, mixture or “pure” chemical. A primary source for this information, but never the only source or the complete source, should be the: supplier. As. discussed in the previous section, data sheets provided by suppliers will rarely contain all the necessary information, and may only highlight hazards thought by the supplier to be of particular relevance. Also, the layout of data sheets may vary and some suppliers may limit the information provided deliberately or by default.

The completion of the data sheets forces the fourth stage or preparation. (Other sources of information are listed in the bibliography. (The assessor should be in possession of a current copy of at least one of the principal standard works on chemical hazards.)

Although some suppliers are reluctant to reveal the chemical] composition of their products on grounds of alleged commercial confidentiality, there can be few, if any, occasions on which commercial confidentiality can be justified as grounds for not supplying health and safety information. It is not possible to assess the control of a chemical adequately unless its nature is known. All chemical components of mixtures and proprietary products should be established and listed in the data sheet.

Once the data sheet is produced, it should be made readily available to any employee who may need the information, especially safety representatives. Training needs, which will be assessed regularly, will include the use of data sheets as well as the hazards associated with the specific substances encountered by trainees. A copy of the compiled data sheets should also be held by the person or persons responsible for first-aid.

The fifth stage of preparation consists of summarising the basic hazards of the substances. This information should already be present in the individual data sheets, and can usefully be tabulated alongside the name of the substances.

2. The Assessment Of Risk

The risk associated with a substance depends not only on its inherent properties (which have just been listed), but also upon the way it is to be used and the way in which it can be misused or mishandled. Before any control measures can be decided upon, every process using substances must be assessed. The depth of the assessment need not be the same in all cases, for instance if the substance concerned has a low hazard rating, or if the type of process means that exposure to the substance is likely to be low regardless of any control measures which may be applied. However, if the substance is already identified as hazardous, or the process is such that people will be exposed at high levels unless specific control measures are adopted, then an assessment with a satisfactory outcome will become a (written) justification for continuing to use the process or the substance. Sometimes the result of the assessment will be that the process should stop or be replaced by a safer one.

At this point, identify the substances which are defined as “substances hazardous to health”. These substances should be listed. The listing should contain three categories of substances:-

(a) Substances definitely classified as “hazardous to health”.

(b) Substances definitely not so classified.

(c) Substances needing further consideration or investigation.

Even for category (b), further evaluation should still be continued, of course, Since it is possible that the ways in which these substances are used in practice may make them hazardous by virtue of their quantity, temperature, etc. (Even though a substance may not be classed as “hazardous” under this scheme, it should be remembered that the assessment is a useful tool to identify all potentially hazardous substances, and it will be of value to pursue the assessment to ensure that even the lower-order hazards are adequately managed.)

Next, all the substances in the list should be reviewed to see where they are used on the premises. Each process should then be examined to see how the substances are used, what possibility there is for people to come into contact with them, the type of effect they can cause and the likely levels of exposure. The assessment must also look at chemical products, intermediates and possible products of an unwanted reaction, as well as the substances listed. (Fire and explosion risks should be investigated as well as the risks to health of substances and processes.) All the information necessary for doing this part of the assessment should already be contained on the hazard data sheets.

The assessment must also examine the possibility of substances becoming airborne as gas, vapour, dust or aerosol. Handling methods, spills or leaks and the possibility of ingestion must be considered, as airborne contaminants are not the only danger in the workplace. Ingestion and skin contact must also be evaluated. There may be a situation such as during work in tanks, sewers or other confined spaces, where vapours or gases may suddenly enter the workplace. Assessments need to consider all such possibilities.

Access the likely exposure of all those likely to become exposed. Special attention should be paid to recognising the possible presence of other people where the process is being carried out.

These assessments of exposure must then be compared with a known standard. These standards are generically referred to as “occupational exposure limits” (OELs). Most exposure limits are presented as concentrations in air of the substance concerned, as parts per million by volume in air (ppm) or weight per volume of air (mg/m3). Exposure limits are not to be regarded as dividing lines between safe and dangerous concentrations; rather they represent estimates based on more or less sound information of what people might reasonably be exposed to, day after day at work, without suffering obvious ill-effects. The exposure limits cannot safeguard everyone, some people already suffering from another disease may be at risk even if the exposure limit is met, others may be extra-sensitive. None of the lists offers standards on more than a few hundred of the many thousands of substances in regular use. These substances are given an OEL in EH40 produced by the Health and Safety Executive (UK) and available through Eolas.

If a substance is not in the list, it would be wise to set a local exposure limit, based on knowledge of the hazards of the substance and comparisons made with similar materials. Advice might valuably be sought from a toxicologist or other specialist adviser through EOLAS.

If the possibility of substances becoming airborne is low, and the concentration in air is thought unlikely ever to exceed a quarter of the OEL, then air sampling will not normally be needed. (Arranged through the Defence Advisory Group).

Whenever there is doubt as to the concentrations of hazardous substances in people’s breathing zones, or in the atmospheres of workplaces, then a carefully planned and suitable air sampling exercise should if possible be performed.

Similarly, if is suspected, as with some substances, that accumulation in the body is occurring, and there is an available biological monitoring technique for measuring this, then such a technique should be considered (i.e. blood/urine tests). Such tests are the province of the Director of Medical Services who will of course retain personal records:in accordance with regulations.

As regards both “operator breathing zone” and “static” air sampling, a wide variation in airborne concentrations across working shifts is likely to occur. The factors influencing this include: –

      1. the number of contaminant sources;
      2. the rates of release from each source:
      3. the nature and position of each source;
      4. the dispersion situation as influenced by ventilation, temperatures, etc;

The following further factors are also likely to influence the degree of personal exposure: –

      1. The work shift pattern;
      2. Reduced or nil exposure between shifts;
      3. Variation in process operation;
      4. Failure to follow precautions.

The main principles of planning and performing a responsible air sampling programme therefore include: –

      1. Always carefully monitor individual operator breathing zone concentrations (and not just background concentrations at static points).
      2. Do as much air sampling as reasonably practicable – the more results (if correctly interpreted) the greater likelihood of a correct overall conclusion.
      3. Carefully consider the suitability and stated accuracy of the air sampling and analytical technique(s) involved. (Such details are given in the HSE Methods for Detection of Hazardous Substances Series – “MDHS” Series). Further useful guidance is also given in HSE Guidance Note EH42 – (Monitoring Strategies for Toxic Substances). Sampling materials available from Eolas.
      4. Carefully record the results, conclusions and recommendations of each sampling exercise.

These steps, taken in sequence, will provide all necessary information on substance designated as “hazardous”. Decisions can then be made on the most appropriate controls.

SECTION 4 – CONTROL

At this stage in the assessment, information on the hazards of the materials and the likely exposure has been collected and tabulated. The final stage consists of making decisions on the best ways of controlling the hazards. This logical sequence of conducting the assessment permits review of existing control measures, which may well prove upon examination to be adequate. This can be stated, but it would be useful to note down what these measures are so that it can be demonstrated that a full assessment has indeed taken place on the date specified.

The techniques of control, in order of effectiveness, are:-

      • elimination (including process change);
      • substitution;
      • enclosure;
      • isolation;
      • local exhaust ventilation and reduced time exposure;
      • dilution ventilation;
      • use of personal protective equipment;
      • personal hygiene and washing facilities;
      • training.

Reviews of needs often reveal substances and processes which are no longer necessary. Otherwise, substitution is always the most desirable control followed by design and engineering techniques. Control systems which rely upon appropriate behaviour are always less effective than these and are more liable to failure. They each have a place in the effective management of chemical risks.

(a) Elimination/ Substitution

Can safer materials be used? There are some substances which should never be used. Others may be banned as a matter of policy. Rational justification should always be insisted upon from those who wish to use a more hazardous substance in preference to a less hazardous one.

(b) Enclosure

Can the material be handled so that individuals need never come into contact with it?

(c) Isolation

Can we put it somewhere else? The system of isolation is required to prevent access effectively, or certainly restrict access to those who need to be there.

(d) Reduced Time Exposure

As already indicated OEL’s are time-related and it may well be possible to keep below them by reducing the period(s) of exposure.

(e) Ventilation

When the hazard cannot be completely contained, ventilation systems can offer a possible solution. However, their design and installation is a specialised skill which must be done by competent ventilation engineers.

The two main methods of ventilation are general (dilution) ventilation and local exhaust ventilation (LEV). General ventilation allows the contaminant to be diluted by the introduction of fresh air into the workroom, This can be done by a general extractor fan, by blowing air into the room, or installation of air conditioning. Dilution ventilation of this kind can ensure that humidity and carbon dioxide levels are maintained within known limits, and is important generally for the control of the working environment.

It is also the preferred technique for controlling the atmosphere within a confined space. However, it is a very inefficient way of controlling specific air contaminant problems. For this, local exhaust ventilation is preferable since it captures emissions at source.

Ventilation systems only work well if they are used as intended and designed and when they are maintained in good condition. They require training of operators to use them effectively, and their performance must be monitored.

The best results are achieved by extracting contaminated air as close to the source as possible, or using an enclosure with extract ventilation such as a fume cupboard or paint spray booth.

(f) Personal Protective Equipment

The issuing of personal protective equipment against a hazard constitutes  an explicit statement that nothing further can be done to control exposure other than by requiring operators to wear and maintain a personal piece of equipment. It should be recognised by all concerned that personal protective equipment is the last line of defence, and should never be selected as the first or only option where other control measures such as those discussed above are available. Personal protective equipment will be needed, though, then the other control measures will not be feasible, or will offer only partial control. Systems for the selection, use and maintenance of personal protective equipment must be thorough. Training and information are required in the selection process, as well as in the correct use and maintenance of it.

(g) Personal Hygiene and Washing Facilities

Where hazardous substances present a risk, particularly of skin contact and/or ingestion, the value of good personal hygiene and provision of adequate washing facilities is self-evident.

(h) Training

To be effective, all the foregoing control measures need the backup of training for all concerned.

Monitoring Effectiveness

Assessment is only the first step in complying with Safety Regulations in the use of chemicals. It will be necessary to make sure that the control strategies set out in the assessment are followed and are effective. This is why they should be reviewed. Assessment requires not only a review of risks, but also a review of the measures used to control the risks. Purchasing procedures, quality control, permit-to-work systems and access to plant if isolation is the chosen strategy all offer examples of such measures.

After the assessment has been completed, consideration should be given to methods of publicising the results where appropriate. The information produced by the assessment is the kind which is intended to be given to employees and to safety representatives, who are entitled to receive it and be consulted by Commanding Officers. (Section 13 of Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act.)

SECTION 5 – ASSESSMENT SHEETS

SECTION 6 – BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

General Texts

Chemicals – A Bibliography: List of Health and Safety Executive/Health and Safety Commission References. HSE, UK. ;

Guidance Notes in the Environmental Hygiene (EH) Series. HSE, HMSO, UK.

Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards. NIQOSH/OSHA, USA.

Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. International Labour Office, Geneva.

Cashman J. R. Hazardous Materials Emergencies. Technomic Publishing Co., USA.

Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene. National Safety Council, USA.

Handbook of Occupational Hygiene. Kluwer Publishing Ltd., Brentford, Middlesex, UK.

Hazards Of Chemicals

Patty, F. A., Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Interscience Publishers, New York, USA

Encyclopedia of Chemical Toxicology. (2nd Edition). Kirk-Othmer, Wiley-Interscience, New York, USA.

Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS). NIOSH, USA.

Gleason M. N. et al. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. The Williams Wilkins Co., USA.

Sax N. I., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. Nan Nostrand Rheinhold Co., USA

Deichmann W. B. & Gervarde H. W. Toxicology of Drugs and Chemicals. Academic Press, USA

Stecher P. G. The Merck Index. Merck & Co. Inc., USA.

Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. NIOSH/OSHA, USA

Standards For Control And For labelling Of Chemicals

Occupation Exposure Limits for Airborne Toxic Substances. (Gives limits  other information on standards applied by a number of countries). International Labour Office, Geneva.

Occupational Exposure Limits – Guidance Note EH40. (Revised Annually). HSE, HMSO , UK.

Threshold Limit Values (TLVs} and Biological Exposure Indices. (Revised Annually) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACHIH)  Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Information Approved for the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances  (Authorised and Approved List) 1988. HMSO, UK.

Control Techniques

An Introduction to Local Exhaust Ventilation HS(G)37. Health and Safety Executive , HMSO, UK

The Industrial Environment – Its Evaluation & Control. (1973) NIOSH , USA.

Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice. (17th Edition). American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) , USA.

Fundamentals Governing the Design and Operation of Local Exhaust Systems. (ANSI Standard Z9. 2). New York, USA.

CIBSE Guide. (Published in .sections). Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers London, UK.

Monitoring Techniques

Monitoring Strategies for Toxic Substances: Guidance Note EH42.
HSE, HMSO, UK .

Methods for the Determination of Hazardous Substances (IIDHS Series). HSE, UK.

Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual.
(Publication Number 77 – 173). NIOSH, USA

COMPUTER DATABASES

HSELINE

References acquired and produced by HSE Library and Information Services (UK ). Available through IRS-DIALTECH, Pergamon Infoline  and Prestel.

CISDOC

Produced by International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre, International Labour Office, Geneva (Switzerland). Available on-line through IRS-D IALTECH

CHEMICAL SAFETY NEWSBASE

Produced by Royal Society of Chemistry (UK). Available on-line through IRS-DIALTEC, Pergamon Infoline .

NIOSHTIC

Produced by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (USA). Available on-line through Pergamon Infoline.

RTECS

Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. Produced by NIOSH (USA).

CONTACTS

EOLAS, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.

IRS DIALTECH, Department of Trade and Industry, Room 392, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SWlE 6RB. (Telephone 071 – 215 6578).

PERGAMON ORBIT INFOLINE, 12 Vandy Street, London, EC2A 2DE. (Telephone 071 – 377 4650) .

SILVER PLATTER, 10 Barley Mow Passage, London , W4 4PW . (Telephone 081 – 995 8242).

NIFAST, Nore Road, Glasnevin, Dublin 9.

A review of health effects associated with exposure to jet engine emissions in and around airports

Background

Airport personnel are at risk of occupational exposure to jet engine emissions, which similarly to diesel exhaust emissions include volatile organic compounds and particulate matter consisting of an inorganic carbon core with associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals. Diesel exhaust is classified as carcinogenic and the particulate fraction has in itself been linked to several adverse health effects including cancer.

Photo of Alouette III No 196 showing soiling of the tail boom with soot from exhaust gasses.
Method

In this review, we summarize the available scientific literature covering human health effects of exposure to airport emissions, both in occupational settings and for residents living close to airports. We also report the findings from the limited scientific mechanistic studies of jet engine emissions in animal and cell models.

Beechcraft 200 Super King Air No 240 showing soiling of the engine panels with soot from exhaust gasses.
Results

Jet engine emissions contain large amounts of nano-sized particles, which are particularly prone to reach the lower airways upon inhalation. Size of particles and emission levels depend on type of aircraft, engine conditions, and fuel type, as well as on operation modes. Exposure to jet engine emissions is reported to be associated with biomarkers of exposure as well as biomarkers of effect among airport personnel, especially in ground-support functions. Proximity to running jet engines or to the airport as such for residential areas is associated with increased exposure and with increased risk of disease, increased hospital admissions and self-reported lung symptoms.

Conclusion

We conclude that though the literature is scarce and with low consistency in methods and measured biomarkers, there is evidence that jet engine emissions have physicochemical properties similar to diesel exhaust particles, and that exposure to jet engine emissions is associated with similar adverse health effects as exposure to diesel exhaust particles and other traffic emissions.

Read full article journal at BMC

*****

The layout of the Irish Air Corps base at Casement Aerodrome ensures that aircraft exhaust gasses are blown over populated sections of the airbase when winds are from the south, south east or south west. This includes hangars, offices, workshops and living in accommodation such as the apprentice hostel and married quarters. Calm weather also creates conditions where exhaust gasses linger in higher concentrations.

This results in all Irish Air Corps personnel (commissioned, enlisted, civilian & living-in family) being exposed to emissions from idling aircraft engines, emissions that are known to cause harm.

In the mid 1990s a study of air pollution adjacent to the ramp area at Baldonnel was commissioned. This report relating to this study has gone missing. 

  • Anecdotal evidence suggests increased prevalence of occupational asthma & adult onset asthma amongst serving & former personnel who served in Baldonnel or Gormanston aerodromes. 
  • Older gas turbine engines produce dirtier exhaust gasses.
  • Idling gas turbine engines produce dirtier exhaust gasses.
Below are some of the gas turbine powered Air Corps aircraft that were powered by elderly engine designs.
AircraftRetiredEngine FamilyFirst Run
Alouette III2007Turbomeca Artouste1947
Fouga Magister1999Turbomeca Marboré1951
Gazelle2005Turbomeca Astazou1957
King Air 2002009Pratt & Whitney Canada PT61960
Dauphin II2005Turbomeca Arriel1974

DELAY – DENY – DIE

‘IT’S A SCANDAL’ RAF airman who flew with Prince William proves rare cancer was caused by the Sea King chopper

AN airman who flew choppers with Prince William has proved his rare form of bone marrow cancer was caused by the RAF Sea King.

Flight Sergeant Zach Stubbings was diagnosed with multiple myeloma after years of inhaling toxic exhaust fumes spewed from the powerful twin engines of the now retired aircraft.

Flight Sergeant Zach Stubbings, who flew choppers with Prince William, has proved his rare form of bone marrow cancer was caused by the RAF Sea King

And last month, the winch operator won a settlement from the Ministry of Defence after a six-year legal battle. Zach has been paid an undisclosed sum and the MoD had to admit in writing his 15 years of service in the RAF caused his life-threatening condition.

It will likely spark concern for the royals. Wills flew the Sea King in 150 search-and-rescue operations over a three-year period.  It is not known if he was affected by the fumes. Prince Andrew also flew the aircraft in the Falklands in 1982.

And The Sun can lift the lid on an apparent government cover-up of the issue.  Bombshell documents uncovered by Zach during his legal fight prove experts warned the MoD of the dangers of the Sea King exhaust as far back as 1999 but nothing was done.

Zach, 42, of Cardiff, said: “The Government chose to ignore it. It’s a scandal.”

Read more on the The sun