That’s probably not totally fair. The RSHQ regulations are based on the model provided by Safe Work Australia and they probably don’t have the expert knowledge in toxicology and medical biochemistry to do anything but cop whatever SWA pumps out.

I had hoped that something a bit more positive could result, it appears not. These are the people we “trust” to ensure worker safety in the mining industry. The ones that have a logo “Zero severe harm” so it would be nice to see evidence of concern, competence and social conscience, but my previous exposure to bureaucracy suggests that those attributes are soon extinguished if they were ever there.

Anyway, I got a totally expected response from the head of RSHQ, the chief inspector of mines :

Queensland’s mining and quarrying safety and health legislation for the management of risks associated with lead is consistent with the national framework for all workplaces, administered by Safe Work Australia.
Under Queensland’s mining and quarrying safety and health legislation, health surveillance for lead exposure must be arranged for a worker by their site senior executive, and undertaken by an appropriately qualified doctor who has demonstrated knowledge of the risks associated with activities performed at the worker’s mine. Qualified doctors performing lead health surveillance must provide advice about the effects of exposure on the worker’s health; and recommendations for management – which may include removal from the workplace – or further monitoring arising from the surveillance. Health surveillance may include, but is not limited to, a component of biological monitorting.

He didn’t indicate they understand the problem arising from the bioaccumulation of lead. At least Glencore managed to grasp that. Repeating what the regulations are intended to do instead of addressing the problem indicates either a lack of expertise or a lack of care. After all, RSHQ’s incident “database” is an Excel spreadsheet not even a PDF. What more can I say?

I’m not sure about the potential legal aspects, but unless you can get sued for ignorance, let’s say RSHQ are off the hook at the moment and look at Safe Work Australia (SWA).

There’s a document on the SWA site that is mind-blowing, especially if you think worker safety is about protecting you, . the “Decision Regulation Impact Statement“. This document explains how SWA deals with proposed WHS changes as new information becomes available about hazards. A change (improvement?) is proposed and then all the stakeholders, employers and government agencies get to make submissions about whether or not the proposed changes are affordable. If the decision is to leave things the way they are, that’s the way they stay.

SWA are quite open about lead exposure outcomes like heart disease, cancer and so on, but decisions aren’t necessarily made to provide better safety for workers, they’re whatever the bigger lead risk companies allow. Workers aren’t really stakeholders in the safety game. After all, SWA and RSHQ both have safety in the name of the agency, but who are they keeping safe, the workers or the employers?

In reality, workers are paid to risk or sacrifice their health, and that should be enough. The government agencies are balancing the influence of multi-national companies against a few thousand lead risk workers that aren’t a big enough block to be a political danger. Do workers matter?

Read the document. The logic they use to arrive at acceptable risk definitions is delightfully well presented, and pretty sickening from my viewpoint. Decisions are most emphatically not directed at maximizing worker safety.

When I read the statistics on lead workers, something extra popped up that you’ll love. I had posted a story earlier about Broken Hill, written by Donald Howarth. There was a second example story about Esperance as well:

Esperance is a port town on the southern coast of Western Australia that exports large quantities of grain and in more recent times, iron ore and nickel. In 2005, the port started exporting finely ground lead carbonate concentrate in a process that involved sending the concentrate along a semi-enclosed conveyor belt and dropping it into the open holds of ships. Importantly, Esperance is a very windy place, the material was finely ground and lead carbonate is a particularly bioavailable form of lead.
In 2007, lead exports came to an abrupt halt after several thousand birds died in the town. Local pharmacist Michelle Crisp campaigned to keep the plight of the birds firmly in the local spotlight and demanded an explanation. After a year of testing the cause was found to be lead poisoning. Concern soon shifted to the possibility that humans may also have been poisoned. Testing of water tanks revealed that many of the tanks near the port had been contaminated. This was significant because many Esperance citizens prefer to drink tank water due to the strong taste of the local reticulated bore water. Blood testing then revealed a number of elevated levels, especially, as would be expected, among children. Most of the cases with elevated levels were clustered around the port. Isotope testing of lead in the dead birds, water tanks and the children’s blood proved the major source of lead was the port.

Lead carbonate has been banned in a lot of countries so what the hell is it doing in Esperance? It turns out that lead carbonate is mined at Paroo Station mine in West Australia and was shipped by truck and rail to Esperance, at least until the minor incident of thousands of birds dying. It cost nearly 10 million dollars to clean up Esperance.

I was curious to find out what it was still used for and I was stunned to find out it was still used in Australia, in paint, glazes and enamels. But that’s not all. Lead based pigments are used in spray paint to match the colours of paint used in older cars. These paints can contain up to 20% lead, which I thought had been banned. Ordinary spray paint cans often contain lead as a drying agent (up to 1% lead). At any rate, if you’re into antique or vintage cars you’re potentially a lead worker and how about graffiti artists?

The comment on one spray painting forum was interesting: One spray painter asked whether he should keep his kids away from the spray painting. The answer was: Hell yes, it causes brain damage in kids!

There’s someone who appreciate the dangers of lead. It’s a pity that doesn’t seem to be the case for many pediatricians though. I suspect that there are so many sources of lead around that for better or worse we’re all in the same boat.

So it’s time we started bailing.

Well, enough light humour and entertainment.

Actually there is some good news. If everything falls into place we might get a bone-lead measuring XRF in Brisbane. Just the shot if you want to sue your employer or find out if you need chelation therapy 😦

In the meantime, stay safe. Sorry, I know you can’t do that but there’s always hope.