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 agency is to be asked a series of simple “yes or no” questions.
State Claims Agency bosses are to be grilled about what performance-related payments were paid to staff involved in safety-related audits in the air corps.
They have been summoned to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to explain how the payments were justified.
According to the National Treasury Management Agency’s latest annual report for 2024 “discretionary performance-related payments reward exceptional performance”.
The NTMA, which operates as the State Claims Agency in its management of personal injury and third-party property damage claims against the State and State authorities, made performance-related payments to 271 employees in 2025 with respect to 2024.
These payments totalled €2,584,729, with the highest individual payment was €30,000 and the lowest individual payment was €1,000.
But millions in performance-related payments have been made to State Claims Agency (SCA) staff over the past two decades.
The Oireachtas committee hearing, which follows a request from Sinn Fein TD Aengus O Snodaigh, is due to take place next month.
This is in light of allegations against the air corps over health and safety breaches since 2006.
This is when SCA auditors first carried out what was described at the time as “a comprehensive audit of the Defence Forces Health and Safety Management systems”.
This audit examined systems in each Defence Forces formation – including the Air Corps, which has around 30 outstanding damages claims against it from former personnel.
Over two thirds of complaints received by the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces last year came from the Air Corps, a committee has heard.
Speaking in a Committee on Defence and National Security, Ombudsman Alan Mahon said this was according to a draft of an annual report due for release at the end of this month.
Speaking in a Committee on Defence and National Security, Ombudsman Alan Mahon said this was according to a draft of an annual report due for release at the end of this month.
Mr Mahon said the number of complaints from the Air Corps was “disproportionate” to its size.
“The army has just over 6,000 personnel while the air corps and naval service each have under 800,” he said.
Responding to a question from Sinn Féin TD Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, Mr Mahon said “a very small minority of air corps cases would involve a health and safety issue”.
The State’s response to decade-old Air Corps chemical exposure scandal is clearly one of ‘deny, delay, die’
Gavin Tobin beside Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel Co. Dublin. it has been over a decade since he, one of the whistle-blowers, first took legal action against the State Photo: Gareth Chaney
I have a personal yardstick by which to measure how long it has been since the Irish Examiner broke news of the scandal of the chemical exposures suffered by Air Corps personnel.
I will always know my first story on this was published in January 2017.
I remember because a couple of weeks or so after a series of revelations in this newspaper, I was coming out of a maternity ward buzzing from the high of becoming a father for the first time.
Leaving the hospital, I checked my voicemail, assuming the missed call from a private number was a well-wisher leaving a quick note of congratulations.
The curt tone that greeted me made it apparent this was not the case. Instead, a senior member of the government of the day was letting me know, in a very diplomatic “I’m not angry, just disappointed” manner, what he thought of our coverage of the Air Corps scandal.
For obvious reasons I can’t recall verbatim a voicemail from over nine years ago, but the word that stood out then and still does now was “unfair”.
We had revealed that Air Corps personnel were not properly protected from the dangerous, carcinogenic, chemicals with which they worked in Casement Aerodrome.
We highlighted how whistle-blowers raising the alarm felt they were not being heard by the Defence Forces, the State, or senior politicians.
After public pronouncements from one minister to say they were not aware of any issues whistle-blowers had with contacting them, we published a series of messages between whistle-blowers and politicians that showed they had unsuccessfully tried to speak with the cabinet member on the matter.
State can act swiftly in certain matters
When RTÉ broke the Women of Honour story in 2021, detailing abuse suffered by female members of the Defence Forces, an official investigation and tribunal of inquiry swiftly followed.
The Air Corps allegations were added to the terms of reference of this tribunal — but jaded campaigners understandably believe they were only thrown in as an afterthought, benefitting from the larger outcry over a different scandal.
Even then, the tribunal is tasked with probing the handling of complaints about toxic exposure, not the exposure itself.
What is most unforgiveable about the State’s inaction on this issue is that a blueprint was there for them to follow.
The Australian Air Force had similar complaints from its mechanics, and established investigations, health screening, and supports for those affected.
“A precedent has been set by Australia where, in the early 2000s, the issue was identified and acted on by the Australian government,” Micheál Martin told the Dáil in 2017.
“Why was the State so slow to respond to the whistle-blowers and to investigate the health conditions at Baldonnel?” the man who is now Taoiseach asked.
Read full article by Joe Leogue at the Irish Examiner website below.
Years of exposure to toxic chemicals while serving in the Air Corps have left Mick Murphy practically bed-ridden.
After serving in the army and then the air corps before distinguished service in the gardaí, Mick Murphy has much to be proud of.
As well as a successful battle against cancer in his 20s, the 53-year-old also brims with pride when he thinks about his three daughters and his son.
But there is also sadness. Years of exposure to toxic chemicals while serving in the air corps have taken their toll. They have left him practically bed-ridden amid decades of constantly battling one illness after the other.
When Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin, then in opposition, labelled the air corps toxic chemical exposure scandal a “horror story” in the Dáil in 2017, Mr Murphy knew exactly what he was talking about.
The previous year, there were only two months when he wasn’t in a hospital. Then, that December, he got hit by double pneumonia and pulmonary sepsis. As a result, he now has to use a nebuliser four times a day as well as an inhaler. He had to have an oxygen-compression machine fitted in his bedroom and oxygen tanks installed downstairs.
Mr Murphy’s horror story began just a few years after he completed his Leaving Certificate in 1989.
About four years after he started in the air corps, he started getting tired more often and experienced chest pain, night sweats, and a persistent cough.
A year after daughter Aoife was born, he got news he didn’t expect: He had the blood cancer Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He was only 23.
“I couldn’t believe it,” he says. “I was just floored by the news. I was never told any cause for my cancer and I suppose I just thought I had been a bit unlucky in life. It was only later in life that I heard about friends I had served with either died or ended up being really sick.
Unbeknown to him at the time, the disease is one of the cancers linked to exposure to certain industrial chemical solvents like TCE.
Other consequences of exposure to toxic chemicals include an increased risk of developing depression, anxiety, and other mental health disorders.
There was no history of cancer in his family so the diagnosis came as a massive shock.
Read full article by Neil Michael at the Irish Examiner website below.
Despite repeated warnings, rising litigation and more than 100 suspected premature deaths, air corps survivors say they are still fighting for answers and support almost a decade after the then Taoiseach promised action, writes Neil Michael
Photo: Gareth Chaney
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017, the then taoiseach ended a heated debate about air corps personnel exposure to toxic chemicals with five words.
Addressing the Dáil, Enda Kenny vowed: “We will sort this out.”
He was bruised by Micheál Martin’s excoriation of him, his government, and his ministers for their “unacceptable response” to “a very serious issue which could represent a serious scandal”.
Days previously, the Irish Examiner had published exclusive articles by reporter Joe Leogue exposing allegations around chemical exposure to personnel in the Air Corps.
State Claims Agency involvement
They also came a year after investigators for the State Claims Agency (SCA) were informed air corps personnel using toxic chemicals did not have access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and had never had access to it, or training on how to handle toxic chemicals.
The SCA found this out because after it received a claim in August 2013, which alleged personal injuries were caused by exposure to toxic substances in Baldonnel, it emailed the Department of Defence’s litigation branch.
The agency asked the department to appoint a liaison officer to prepare a detailed claims report outlining the background and circumstances of the claim the SCA had received in August 2013.
Timeline
1980s: Air corps personnel begin requesting protective equipment and safety measures for handling toxic chemicals.
2013: The State Claims Agency (SCA) receives chemical‑exposure claim lodged by air corps technician and whistleblower Gavin Tobin. It asks the Department of Defence to appoint a liaison officer and compile a detailed claims report.
Mr Tobin files High Court case seeking records of chemicals he was exposed to during air corps service.
2014: SCA receives Chemical Exposure Report (1994-2005).
2015: First of three protected disclosures made by Mr Tobin to then defence minister Simon Coveney.
2016: The Health and Safety Authority warns air corps it faces prosecution unless 13 safety recommendations are implemented.
2016: Department of Defence appoints Christopher O’Toole to review whistleblowers’ allegations.
2017: Joe Leogue’s reporting in the Irish Examiner triggers scrutiny.
O’Toole report submitted in June, days before Micheál Martin meets air corps survivors in Leinster House.
2018: HSA satisfied air corps has implemented the 2016 safety recommendations. It considers the matter closed.
2024: Complaint made about an air purifier in an air corps hangar made to air corps chiefs.
2025: Air corps survivor Gary Coll settles his High Court case for €2m.
Then defence minister Simon Harris tells the Dáil there is “active engagement” between the SCA and litigants to find “mutually agreeable resolutions”.
Mr Tobin makes protected disclosure to Mr Harris about issues raised in 2024 around an air purifier.
New defence minister Helen McEntee declines a meeting with Gavin Tobin citing ongoing litigation. Department of Defence examining how an assessment of needs could work. Mr Martin tells the Irish Examiner he supports the proposed review and “will have a look” at what emerges.
Read full article by Neil Michael at the Irish Examiner website below.
Health and Safety Authority inspectors visited hangars and workshops at Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel, Co Dublin, in December 2023, and numerous issues were raised in relation to health and safety of staff.
The Defence Forces was warned it could be prosecuted over health and safety breaches in the air corps in 2023, more than seven years after issues were first raised.
Health and Safety Authority (HSA) inspectors visited hangars and workshops at Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel, Co Dublin, in December 2023, and numerous issues were raised in relation to health and safety of staff.
Details of the inspection have been released, as up to 20 men are taking a case against the State, claiming exposure to hazardous chemicals while working for the Air Corps.
They say they were not provided with personal protective equipment (PPE), or training in the handling or use of hazardous chemicals.
After the 2023 inspection, the HSA warned the Air Corps: “Failure to comply with this advice and relevant legal requirements may result in further enforcement action, including prosecution.”
On the day of the inspection, the HSA issued the Defence Forces with a contravention notice in relation to staff working with diisocyanates, which are highly reactive toxic chemicals used in foams, coatings, adhesives, and sealants.
Occupational exposure can cause severe asthma and, in some cases, cancer.
Read full article by Neil Michael at the Irish Examiner
One of Ireland’s leading public health experts has said there are grounds for an in-depth examination into the deaths of more than 400 serving and retired Air Corps personnel.
Professor Anthony Staines believes there are indications that the death rates among the personnel — around 200 of whom died under the age of 65 between 1980 and 2026 — appear to be “excessively high”.
Around 20 men are taking cases against the State amid claims they were exposed to hazardous chemicals while working for the Air Corps and were not provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) or training in the use of hazardous chemicals. Many worked with chemicals used to clean engine parts.
The data raises some questions which merit a more in-depth examination,” Mr Staines said. “You have to understand that people who joined the Air Corps would be among the fittest, and would have to pass many sorts of tests.
“Given the number of men who have died prematurely, there are — in my view — enough suspicious indications that there is something, or was something, going on. This might be due to errors in the data collected, but it could represent a real problem.”
Some of the data includes information relating to 115 premature deaths collated by Gavin Tobin, who has been campaigning for health care and other support for Air Corps personnel who were exposed to toxic chemicals when they served.
The rest of the data has been collated by the Irish Examiner from a trawl through death notices. While it is estimated that since 1980 around 700 to 800 serving and former personnel have died, it was only possible to verify information in relation to 411 of them.
“I never thought it would be so hard to get the right people to do the right thing for the right reasons,” 54-year-old former Air Corps technician, Gavin Tobin, told Prime Time.
Mr Tobin is one of around 20 men taking a case against the State – his case was lodged in 2014. He says he was exposed to hazardous chemicals in the period from 1991 to 1994 while working for the Air Corps and was not provided with personal protective equipment (PPE) or training in the handling or use of hazardous chemicals.
Gary Coll, 52, a technician who joined the Air Corps two years after Mr Tobin, told Prime Time they barely had the proper facilities to wash their hands.
“You had cold water. That’s all they had in any of the bathrooms. There was cold water and maybe a carbolic bar of soap or something.”
Air Corps technicians routinely used heavy-duty chemicals, for example, in stripping, cleaning or repainting engine parts.
“The chemicals that we’re considering here are mainly organic solvents,” says retired Toxicological Pathologist Professor Vyvyan Howard.
Prof Howard, who has examined around ten people who claim they were affected, is an expert witness for the plaintiffs.
“These compounds would cause what we call a diffuse neuropathy or a diffuse damage to the brain,” says Prof Howard. They “can also affect other organs like the liver”.
Before he became Taoiseach, Micheál Martin championed the example of Australia, which also had cases involving chemicals exposure within the Royal Australian Air Force.
The RAAF chemicals exposure issue related to the sealing and resealing of fuel tanks on F1-11 fighter bomber planes.
“It was prolonged repeated exposure to volatile organics, solvents, which were in the workplace … They were exposed without appropriate protective equipment,” said Australian immunologist Professor Peter Smith.
In 2000, within weeks of Australian authorities being alerted, an investigation began and the following year a Health Care Scheme was introduced for those thought to be affected.
“They dealt with the problem and wanted to make sure there was no ongoing further issues with current service personnel. And they wanted to make sure that people that had exposure were looked after,” Professor Smith said.
In 2017, Deputy Martin told the Dáil, “The Australian government’s approach was markedly different to that of the Irish government, which is to deny repeatedly and resist and, more or less, say to the whistleblowers that it does not accept anything they are saying.”
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)
