Welcome Guest!
 crt-list
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
NYT: Early Warnings  Sil Val Toxics Coal
 Sep 12, 2003 08:24 PDT 

--=====================_3101062==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Greetings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1064378504&ei=1&en=c033ba269bbc8f24

This is the 3rd article in a series by Bob Herbert of the New York Times
about health hazards in the high-tech industry. In case you missed the
other two, visit http://www.svtc.org/media/media2003.htm
Click on 'Electronics and Human Health


Early Warnings

September 12, 2003
By BOB HERBERT


Ethylene glycol ethers are a group of organic solvents that
proved to be extremely effective at coating surfaces
evenly. They've been used in paints, nail polish, de-icers
and many other products. One of their most important
industrial applications was in the semiconductor industry.
These marvelous chemicals, E.G.E.'s, were the key
ingredients in a solution used in the fabrication of
computer chips.

But there were some problems. Studies began emerging in the
late 1970's that showed these chemicals wreaking havoc with
the reproductive processes in rodents. They were linked to
testicular damage, miscarriages and birth defects.

Even as the warnings grew louder, workers by the thousands
were toiling in the "clean rooms" where extraordinary
amounts of toxic chemicals, including E.G.E.'s, were being
put to use in the manufacture of chips, disks and other
electronic components.

In the early 1980's, both the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health and the California
Department of Health Services issued alerts regarding
workers exposed to E.G.E.'s. The fear was that the
reproductive problems found in the animal studies might
also be occurring in humans.

Some industries moved with dispatch to get E.G.E's out of
the workplace. But the booming semiconductor industry,
which powered the spectacular computer revolution that
shaped the last third of the 20th century, was not one of
them.

Worker safety would have to wait.

The awareness of a potential problem was certainly there.
In the spring of 1982, the Semiconductor Industry
Association formally alerted industry executives to the
results from the animal studies. And the following
September the Chemical Manufacturers Association issued an
alert.

Years passed, additional documentation piled up, and
studies of humans began to turn up problems similar to
those found in animals.

By the late 1980's, the industry could no longer hide from
the issue. A study at a Digital Equipment Corporation plant
in Hudson, Mass., had shown a marked increase in
miscarriages among semiconductor workers. Industry leaders
immediately complained that the sample was too small.
Larger studies were commissioned by both the Semiconductor
Industry Association and I.B.M.

The hope at the time was that the larger studies would
refute the findings of the smaller one. The opposite
occurred.

The I.B.M. study was conducted by Johns Hopkins University,
and it found a big link between miscarriages and exposure
to E.G.E.'s. "Women with the highest exposure potential,"
the study said, "had a threefold increased risk of
spontaneous abortion compared to female employees with no
potential for direct exposure to E.G.E."

The study said, "We also found evidence that the work on
processes with direct exposure to E.G.E. was associated
with an increased risk of subfertility in female employees
and a suggestion of a similar effect in male employees and
their wives."

The study by the Semiconductor Industry Association came up
with similar findings. The reproductive havoc was not
limited to rodents.

I.B.M. stopped using E.G.E.'s in all new processes in 1992
and finally stopped using them altogether in 1995, a decade
and a half after the warnings began circulating. No one
knows how many workers may have been harmed in that period.


A spokesman for I.B.M. said in an e-mail message yesterday
that "finding suitable alternative materials for processes
in semiconducting manufacturing is a complex process."

A peculiar thing about the I.B.M. study was that while it
focused on reproductive processes right up until the moment
of birth, it did not study the health outcomes of newborns
- to what extent, for example, they might have suffered
from birth defects.

In the damage suits that have been brought against I.B.M.
by more than 200 of its employees are a number of cases of
hideous birth defects that the plaintiffs allege were
caused by exposure to toxic chemicals, including ethylene
glycol ethers.

I.B.M. has already thrown in the towel in one case, that of
Zachary Ruffing, a teenager who was born blind and
extremely deformed to parents who had both worked in the
company's plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., in the 1980's.

While I.B.M. and two of its chemical suppliers agreed to
settle the case, they did not acknowledge that they had
done anything wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1064378504&ei=1&en=c033ba269bbc8f24




--=====================_3101062==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Greetings:<br><br>
<font size=2 color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1064378504&;ei=1&en=c033ba269bbc8f24" eudora="autourl">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1064378504&ei=1&en=c033ba269bbc8f24<br><br>
</a></u></font>This is the 3rd article in a series by Bob Herbert of the
New York Times about health hazards in the high-tech industry. In case
you missed the other two, visit
<a href="http://www.svtc.org/media/media2003.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.svtc.org/media/media2003.htm</a><br>
Click on 'Electronics and Human Health<br><br>
<br>
Early Warnings<br><br>
September 12, 2003<br>
By BOB HERBERT <br><br>
<br>
Ethylene glycol ethers are a group of organic solvents that<br>
proved to be extremely effective at coating surfaces<br>
evenly. They've been used in paints, nail polish, de-icers<br>
and many other products. One of their most important<br>
industrial applications was in the semiconductor industry.<br>
These marvelous chemicals, E.G.E.'s, were the key<br>
ingredients in a solution used in the fabrication of<br>
computer chips. <br><br>
But there were some problems. Studies began emerging in the<br>
late 1970's that showed these chemicals wreaking havoc with<br>
the reproductive processes in rodents. They were linked to<br>
testicular damage, miscarriages and birth defects. <br><br>
Even as the warnings grew louder, workers by the thousands<br>
were toiling in the "clean rooms" where extraordinary<br>
amounts of toxic chemicals, including E.G.E.'s, were being<br>
put to use in the manufacture of chips, disks and other<br>
electronic components. <br><br>
In the early 1980's, both the National Institute for<br>
Occupational Safety and Health and the California<br>
Department of Health Services issued alerts regarding<br>
workers exposed to E.G.E.'s. The fear was that the<br>
reproductive problems found in the animal studies might<br>
also be occurring in humans. <br><br>
Some industries moved with dispatch to get E.G.E's out of<br>
the workplace. But the booming semiconductor industry,<br>
which powered the spectacular computer revolution that<br>
shaped the last third of the 20th century, was not one of<br>
them. <br><br>
Worker safety would have to wait. <br><br>
The awareness of a potential problem was certainly there.<br>
In the spring of 1982, the Semiconductor Industry<br>
Association formally alerted industry executives to the<br>
results from the animal studies. And the following<br>
September the Chemical Manufacturers Association issued an<br>
alert. <br><br>
Years passed, additional documentation piled up, and<br>
studies of humans began to turn up problems similar to<br>
those found in animals. <br><br>
By the late 1980's, the industry could no longer hide from<br>
the issue. A study at a Digital Equipment Corporation plant<br>
in Hudson, Mass., had shown a marked increase in<br>
miscarriages among semiconductor workers. Industry leaders<br>
immediately complained that the sample was too small.<br>
Larger studies were commissioned by both the Semiconductor<br>
Industry Association and I.B.M. <br><br>
The hope at the time was that the larger studies would<br>
refute the findings of the smaller one. The opposite<br>
occurred. <br><br>
The I.B.M. study was conducted by Johns Hopkins University,<br>
and it found a big link between miscarriages and exposure<br>
to E.G.E.'s. "Women with the highest exposure potential,"<br>
the study said, "had a threefold increased risk of<br>
spontaneous abortion compared to female employees with no<br>
potential for direct exposure to E.G.E." <br><br>
The study said, "We also found evidence that the work on<br>
processes with direct exposure to E.G.E. was associated<br>
with an increased risk of subfertility in female employees<br>
and a suggestion of a similar effect in male employees and<br>
their wives." <br><br>
The study by the Semiconductor Industry Association came up<br>
with similar findings. The reproductive havoc was not<br>
limited to rodents. <br><br>
I.B.M. stopped using E.G.E.'s in all new processes in 1992<br>
and finally stopped using them altogether in 1995, a decade<br>
and a half after the warnings began circulating. No one<br>
knows how many workers may have been harmed in that period.<br><br>
<br>
A spokesman for I.B.M. said in an e-mail message yesterday<br>
that "finding suitable alternative materials for processes<br>
in semiconducting manufacturing is a complex process." <br><br>
A peculiar thing about the I.B.M. study was that while it<br>
focused on reproductive processes right up until the moment<br>
of birth, it did not study the health outcomes of newborns<br>
- to what extent, for example, they might have suffered<br>
from birth defects. <br><br>
In the damage suits that have been brought against I.B.M.<br>
by more than 200 of its employees are a number of cases of<br>
hideous birth defects that the plaintiffs allege were<br>
caused by exposure to toxic chemicals, including ethylene<br>
glycol ethers. <br><br>
I.B.M. has already thrown in the towel in one case, that of<br>
Zachary Ruffing, a teenager who was born blind and<br>
extremely deformed to parents who had both worked in the<br>
company's plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., in the 1980's. <br><br>
While I.B.M. and two of its chemical suppliers agreed to<br>
settle the case, they did not acknowledge that they had<br>
done anything wrong. <br><br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1064378504&;ei=1&en=c033ba269bbc8f24" eudora="autourl">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1064378504&ei=1&en=c033ba269bbc8f24<br><br>
<br><br>
</a></font></u></html>

--=====================_3101062==.ALT--
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.