I am passing you a list of 56 verified deaths of Irish Air Corps colleagues

A NEW PROTECTED disclosure has been sent to Defence Minister Paul Kehoe detailing a number of “verified deaths” of those allegedly affected by the Air Corps chemical scandal.

It’s the contention of a number of Air Corps members, who have since retired, that the effects of the chemicals they handled as part of their work contributed to dozens of workers at the Baldonnel Airfield becoming ill.

In a protected disclosure made by one of the workers last year, it has also been alleged that the partners of male members of the force suffered serious fertility issues and a number of miscarriages. Other children, according to the previous protected disclosure, are living with life-changing illnesses and, in some cases, have died.

But a new disclosure, submitted last week, claims that the number of untimely deaths from the scandal has “grown exponentially”.

Read full article on The Journal website below…

Delay – Deny – Die

Denying access to toxic chemical records will deny Irish Air Corps personnel proper medical treatment & condemn them to an early death. Delay-Deny-Die

Denying access to toxic chemical records will deny Air Corps personnel proper medical treatment. #GetAngry #IrishAirCorps #DefenceForces #DefenceForcesIsCostingLives
GET ANGRY and SHARE

DELAY – DENY – DIE

State faces seventh Irish Army Air Corps action

The State is facing a further High Court action from a former member of the Defence Forces allegedly suffering chronic ill-health due to exposure to chemicals in the Air Corps.

The disclosure of a seventh case came in the Dáil yesterday, where opposition politicians said the Government’s response to a growing health scandal over the past year was like ‘Groundhog Day’ in its repetition and inaction.

Last year, the Irish Examiner revealed six former Defence Forces members were suing the State over chronic health issues. A medical expert had advised that the health complaints were as a result of working conditions at Casement Aerodrome.

This newspaper also revealed how a number of whistleblowers had warned the Government that the Air Corps’ management of chemical exposure was inadequate, a claim vindicated after an inspection by the Health and Safety Authority.

Junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe yesterday confirmed a seventh case. He denied claims there had been a cover-up within the Defence Forces to hide the extent of its knowledge of conditions in Baldonnell Aerodrome.

“The Minister of State seems, somehow, to be suggesting that his inaction is to serve the interests of those affected,” said Fianna Fáil defence spokeswoman Lisa Chambers.

“Minister, this particular issue is a little bit like Groundhog Day; we continue to ask questions, myself and others, and we continue to get the same stock response.

Sinn Féin defence spokesman Aengus Ó Snodaigh called for a health survey of Air Corps members to determine whether they are more at risk of serious illness.

“All the O’Toole report dealt with was whether the procedures were in place to deal with whistleblowers. This is not about the whistleblowers or the cases before the courts at the moment,” he said.

“The State is fighting them tooth and nail and I think it is on the losing side. If those are set aside, there are quite a number of other members who gave service to this State, through the Air Corps, who are suffering catastrophic health problems.

Read full article on Irish Examiner website below…

Delay – Deny – Die

Dáil Éireann – Other Question 11 – 24th January 2018 – Irish Air Corps Whistle-blower

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

Other Question No. 11

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the further action he plans to take in relation to Air Corps whistle-blowers.

Dáil Éireann – Priority Question 2 – 24th January 2018 – Irish Air Corps – Toxic Chemical Exposure Health Audit

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Priority Question No. 2

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to carry out a medical or health audit of serving and former members of the Air Corps similar to that undertaken in Australia in order to identify those that may have been exposed on an ongoing basis to toxic chemicals during their service. [3490/18]

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 16/01/18 – Question on Irish Air Corps usage of PFOS & PFOA disallowed

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, County Dublin has ever used firefighting foams that contained either of the chemical ingredients PFOS, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid or PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid; and if he will make a statement on the matter.  [54318/17]

Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Ceann Comhairle (South Kildare, Fianna Fail)

I regret that I have had to disallow the following question tabled by you.

“To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, County Dublin has ever used firefighting foams that contained either of the chemical ingredients PFOS, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid or PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid; and if he will make a statement on the matter.  [54318/17]”

The question is impinging on the functions of the Courts as per the provisions of Standing Order 59(3) which states: 59(3) a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dail to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal.

*****

To be very clear there are NO court cases at present pertaining to the use of PFOS or PFOA by the Irish Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome. Furthermore there are no Judicial Tribunals yet established into the use and / or misuse of these chemicals by the Irish Air Corps.

Perhaps the minister could answer a straightforward question without hiding behind Standing Order 59 (3)

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Air Corps scandal still some way from touching down

In a series of articles across 2017, the Irish Examiner revealed serious concerns about the working environment within the Air Corps — matters that have seen allegations of a deliberate cover-up, of victimisation of whistleblowers, and of a lackadaisical attitude towards health and safety that has put lives at risk, writes Joe Leogue.

While the stories broken by this newspaper since January have posed a myriad of questions for the State and the Defence Forces, the issues have one common controversy running throughout.

Have technicians within the Air Corps developed cancer, neurological problems, and other chronic conditions as a result of unnecessary exposure to toxic chemicals during their time at Casement Aerodrome?

WARNING  – Very long article reviewing the following topics.

  • The Court Cases
  • The Whistleblowers
  • The Health Watchdog Inspections – Vindication for the Whistleblowers
  • The Internal Report
  • The Missing Reports – And allegations of a Cover-Up
  • The Independent Review
  • The International Precedents
  • The Political Reaction

Read full article on Irish Examiner website below…

Delay – Deny – Die

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 12/12/17 – Department of Finance – State Claims Agency – Irish Air Corps

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 128

To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 129 of 14 November 2017, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the State Claims Agency commissioned a retrospective report covering 1980 to 2007 to be carried out by the formation safety office Air Corps on much of Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnell, which was issued on 6 February 2014; if the State Claims Agency carried out actions on receipt of the report such as issuing findings to the Minister for Defence, the Health and Safety Authority, the chief of staff of the Defence Forces or Casement Aerodrome authorities; and if it withheld it for future use or not as it saw fit in legal proceedings being pursued against the State. [53000/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

The SCA have informed me that in answering question 129 of 14 November 2017 it interpreted the request to relate to its audit programme carried out by its Risk Unit. They have also informed me that in August 2013 on receiving a claim in which it was alleged that personal injuries were caused by exposure to toxic substances in Baldonnel, the SCA emailed Litigation Branch and Claims Administration asking that a Liaison Officer (L.O.) be appointed to assist the SCA‘s investigations. The SCA also requested that the appointed LO prepare a detailed claims report setting out the background and circumstances of the claim. The SCA, although not privy to the decision, understands that the Formation Safety Officer was tasked with this request. The SCA subsequently received a report, in April 2014, titled “Chemical Exposure Report (1994-2005) (plaintiff name) Case” which was the only report furnished by the Defence Forces and related specifically to the period 1994-2005. As the report was requested by and provided to the SCA in the context of a claim, it is legally and professionally privileged, referring as it does to all the circumstances of the plaintiff’s claim. This report was prepared entirely for the conduct of the legal proceedings and its use was confined accordingly.

*****

Further explanation: Almost 2 years before multiple whistle-blowers made protected disclosures to the Minister for Defence and over two years before the Health & Safety Authority investigated appalling Irish AirCorps chemical health & safety, the State Claims Agency were aware (after interviewing serving personnel in 2013/2014) that there were continuing serious chemical health & safety breaches in Baldonnel causing ongoing unprotected exposure & injury to personnel.

Rather than be responsible, save lives and do the right thing by informing the Health & Safety Authority that there were ongoing breaches of health and safety legislation at Baldonnel. This included the lack of provision of chemical training and the lack of provision of PPE (both recommended by Forbairt in 1997). The State Claims Agency callously and indeed negligently decided to sit on the report.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 12/12/17 – Department of Defence – Departmental Reports – Irish Air Corps

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 61

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the chemical exposure report 1994 to 2005 produced in 2014 by a person (details supplied); if a copy of that report was made available to the independent reviewer to allow them carry out a full assessment of the way in which the Air Corps dealt with recent whistle-blowers’ statements; if not, the reason therefor; and if its publication will be authorised. [52875/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I can confirm to the Deputy that my attention has been drawn to the Chemical Exposure Report 1994 to 2005. As I outlined to the Deputy in my reply to Parliamentary Question number 547 of 26 September 2017, the report was undertaken in the context of ongoing legal proceedings. As the report is subject to legal privilege, it was not appropriate to make it available to the independent reviewer. The material used for the purpose of the review by the independent reviewer is listed in an appendix to his report, which is available on my Department’s website.

As the Chemical Exposure Report 1994 to 2005 is subject to legal privilege, it will not be published.

*****

So to paraphrase. An arm of the state withholds an internal legacy health & safety report from a state appointed independent third party investigator, who was appointed to review legacy health & safety of the same arm of the state.

Question : Did Christopher O’Toole know that this document was being withheld and if not why was he not informed. If Christopher O’Toole was informed that this document was being withheld then why did he not state this in his report?

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Hexamethylene Diisocyanate – Just one of the toxic chemicals the Irish Air Corps and State Claims Agency want to hide from former personnel!

  1. Exposure can occur when isocyanates are curing or when cured isocyanates are heated.
  2. An individual’s response to isocyanate exposure can be immediate or may be DELAYED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
  3. Skin exposure can also cause respiratory sensitisation.
  4. The odour threshold for isocyanates, i.e. the level at which an individual can smell an isocyanate, is typically higher than the allowed exposure limits.
  5. The Air Corps did eventually provide a “supplied air” respirator to spray paint & welding personnel. Unfortunately they sourced the “supplied air” from an old machine compressor located in ERF where the air had previously tested as 3.5 times over the allowed limit for Dichloromethane i.e. allowed limit was 50ppm and sourced air was from a location measured at 175ppm…out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Air Corps Hexamethylene Diisocyanate Usage

Hexamethylene Diisocyanates were a chemical component of polyurethane paint hardener used by the Spray Paint Shop (Dope Shop) at Baldonnel. For most of the existence of this shop personnel were NOT supplied with ANY PPE. The walls between the Spray Paint Shop and Engineering Wing Hangar & Workshops were not sealed and so Hexamethylene Diisocyanate and other chemicals entered these workplaces whilst spraying was in progress exposing all personnel.

Furthermore if a component could not be removed from an aircraft for spray painting it was spray painted in-situ in Engineering Wing Hangar whilst unprotected line & tech personnel worked in adjoining offices & workshops or on other aircraft in the hangar.

Visiting personnel to Engineering Wing hangar such as BFTS personnel doing an IRAN, Heli personnel doing an overhaul & even Military Police on a walkabout were also exposed.

A “waterfall” system with an extractor fan was also present. Personnel spray painted aircraft components toward the waterfall which captured most of the over-spray droplets. Fumes from this waterfall were then extracted by a fan, up a duct and released at approximately 3m height where the prevailing winds then carried the extracted fumes in the doors & windows of : 

  • 5th Maintenance Engineers
  • Air Corps Apprentice School
  • Avionics Squadron
  • BFW Stores
  • Engine Repair Flight
  • Old Tech Stores
  • Training Wing HQ Prefab
  • Parachute Shop

5-20% of people are prone to isocyanate sensitisation. and isocyanate cross sensitisation is a recognised phenomenon. Sensitisation is irreversible and unfortunately once sensitised it is next to impossible to avoid isocyanate allergy triggers in the modern environment as they are used to make all Polyurethane products.

It is also likely that health effects are suffered beyond the respiratory system & skin for example the gastric & nervous systems and it is also probable that sensitisation to isocyanates will lead to allergies to other unrelated chemicals leading to a cascade of triggering chemicals allergies & intolerance for over exposed individuals.

DELAY – DENY – DIE