Canadian Safety Reporter

3 Canadian HR Reporter, a Thomson Reuters business 2017 News | September 2017 | CSR Occupational exposures to uranium, EM fields not cause of prostate cancer Worker was only exposed to low levels over career but had several non-occupational factors known to contribute to prostate cancer BY JEFFREY R. SMITH AN ONTARIO worker's terminal prostate cancer was not related to occupational exposure to ra- diation and electromagnetic fields over a long career but in- stead was likely cause by multiple non-occupational factors, the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal has ruled. The worker was employed as a lab technician for a uranium mining company from 1958 to 1964. He then became a police officer in 1964 until 2003, after which he worked in various oc- cupations. He also worked as a security and fire chief for several years and retired in 2008. The worker smoked 20 ciga- rettes a day for 55 years. In March 2010, at the age of 69, the worker developed urinary problems and saw his doctor. He had an enlarged prostate, so he had a biopsy and ultrasound, which revealed prostate cancer. Further examinations revealed bony metastatic disease in his chest. In September 2012, the work- er submitted a report of occu- pational disease to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). He claimed that exposure to radiation from ura- nium during his job as a lab tech- nician was a contributing factor to the prostate cancer he devel- oped later in life, as was using radar devices that emitted elec- tromagnetic radiation during his career as a police officer. A WSIB case manager in charge of the worker's claim re- ferred to a 2006 report by the WSIB Medical and Occupa- tional Disease Policy Branch that found inclusive evidence of increased risk of prostate cancer from occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and no evidence of increased risk from occupational exposure to ura- nium. However, the report also indicated the most common factors for prostate cancer were non-occupational ones such as age, family history, diet, and smoking. A WSIB occupational hygien- ist reviewed the worker's file and found the worker wasn't required to wear a personal dosimeter while he was a lab technician, suggesting that any radiation exposure was below recordable levels. The hygienist also found the electromagnetic fields from radar devices were "in the radio frequency range at the non-ion- izing end of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. As a result of the above infor- mation, the WSIB case manager rejected the worker's claim for benefits, finding the prostate cancer was not caused by occu- pational factors. The decision was issued Feb. 28, 2013. The worker appealed the deci- sion but died on Jan. 2, 2014. His cause of death was indicated as metastatic prostate cancer, hy- pertension, and diabetes. How- ever, his estate continued the ap- peal for benefits. Exposure was within accepted levels An appeals resolution officer (ARO) noted that a WSIB occu- pational hygienist reviewed the history of the worker's radiation doses from the National Dose Registry and found it was "well below current limits." The ARO agreed with the original deci- sion that there was no evidence linking the radiation to which the worker was exposed over his career to the prostate cancer he developed late in life. The ARO found that the worker was exposed to uranium and electromagnetic fields dur- ing his careers as a lab technician and police officer, but the exist- ing literature on it didn't support a conclusion that low-level expo- sure of it increased the risk of any cancer or heart disease. Since the worker had "multiple non-occu- pational risk factors which could have also significantly contrib- uted to the development of his cancer including his age, male gender and most importantly, a previous smoking history," the ARO could not find a causal re- lationship between the worker's occupational exposures and his prostate cancer. The worker's estate appealed to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Appeals Tribunal, arguing the worker's smoking was not related to the development of prostate cancer and the occupa- tional exposures to uranium and electromagnetic fields – from evolving technologies – over many years had to have contrib- uted to the cancer. The tribunal pointed to in- formation from Health Canada that stated the occupational exposures at the worker's min- ing company employer from 1964 to 1978 were well below accepted levels and "were not likely causally significant in the development of the worker's disease." The tribunal also had no reason to doubt the National Dose Registry's dose history for the worker from all his occupa- tions, which was also well below accepted levels. The tribunal also found no reason to doubt studies of mi- crowave emissions from the radar devices the worker used as a police officer, which found emission levels were below the recommended limits for micro- wave exposure. The tribunal also pointed to medical studies that found some correlation between electromagnetic fields and adult leukemia and brain cancer, but there was no conclusive epide- miological evidence that there was an increased risk of prostate cancer. In addition to there being no evidence of a link between the worker's occupational exposures and prostate cancer, the tribunal found there was a significant amount of evidence linking the disease to the worker's non-oc- cupational factors. The worker's age and sex alone increased his risk of prostate cancer accord- ing to statistics, and the fact he smoked for most of his life was worth consideration as well. All of these non-occupational fac- tors made it likely the worker's prostate cancer was not linked to his jobs, said the tribunal in dismissing the appeal. For more information see: • Decision No. 1453/17, 2017 CarswellOnt 10449 (Ont. Workplace Safety & Ins. App. Trib.). Credit: Shutterstock/designer491

• Cover