ACCforum: ACC offers workplace possioning denial service - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

ACC offers workplace possioning denial service John Monigatti and the ACC Toxicology Panel

#1 User is offline   Dianne and Gordon Purdie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-December 08

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:39 PM

From http://www.nzdoctor....s-business.aspx

17 July 2013
Workplace poisoning queries ACC’s business

GPs are encouraged to contact ACC if patients insist their disease is due to workplace poisoning when advice is to the contrary.

Some of these patients can be obstructive and GPs should transfer the burden to ACC, the agency's Workwise director John Monigatti told delegates at last month's GP CME in Rotorua.

"We don't mind being the bad guys by saying 'no' to patients," Dr Monigatti says.

Dr Monigatti is a member of an ACC toxicology committee - also including occupational physician and academic Des Gorman, occupational physician Bill Glass, neuropsychologist Ralf Schnabel and medical toxicologist Michael Beasley - that studies about eight workplace poisoning cases every four months.

Almost 100 work poisoning claims are resolved between ACC managers and GPs every year, but cases involving persistent patients go to the committee to investigate.

Dr Monigatti says a small but significant number of people can develop an obsession that they have been poisoned at work.

As some of these patients worked 20 to 30 years ago, it can be difficult to investigate as claims rely on memory.

Some patients speculate and link poisons and diseases inappropriately. Others, who are medically aware and more challenging to deal with, link statistically insignificant studies together to support their claim.

There are patients who appreciate the committee, as it makes them feel their opinion is valued.

However, even if most of these patients dislike ACC, someone has to go through and study these claims, Dr Monigatti says.
1

#2 User is offline   Dianne and Gordon Purdie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-December 08

Posted 22 August 2013 - 02:19 PM

A pdf of their presentation is at:
http://www.gpcme.co....0-%20toxpan.pdf
http://www.gpcme.co....me%20toxpan.pdf
0

#3 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 August 2013 - 03:47 PM

What do you expect in a '100% clean and green NZ.' industry as most advertisers still today ,
want you to believe?.
The use of unregistered Chemicals in NZ. as recommended [ spray programme] by MAF. at the time,
who were 'we' the growers to argue in 1980/90's about these 'MAF approved Chemical spray programmes'
which were then only registered for use overseas . eg.[Holland].
When you got sick from this , as was obvious at grower meetings , ACC specialists were well
paid 'never' to see any health issues wrong in higher levels in the blood of growers with
symptoms of serious deficits/incapacities from any unlawful Chemical exposure.
0

#4 User is offline   Dianne and Gordon Purdie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-December 08

Posted 23 August 2013 - 02:08 PM

View Postgreg, on 22 August 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

What do you expect in a '100% clean and green NZ.' industry as most advertisers still today ,
want you to believe?.
The use of unregistered Chemicals in NZ. as recommended [ spray programme] by MAF. at the time,
who were 'we' the growers to argue in 1980/90's about these 'MAF approved Chemical spray programmes'
which were then only registered for use overseas . eg.[Holland].
When you got sick from this , as was obvious at grower meetings , ACC specialists were well
paid 'never' to see any health issues wrong in higher levels in the blood of growers with
symptoms of serious deficits/incapacities from any unlawful Chemical exposure.

Yes, we saw a 2009 decision on market gardeners claim for asthma from pesticide use. The ‘investigation’ by the Workwise Director had statements like this:

The substance used most commonly … (carbaryl) is not associated with causing asthma or sensitisation in the toxicology literature.

The Workwise Director said TOXNET was used http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

At the time it included:
Asthma in Farmers: Association with Cholinesterase Inhibiting Insecticides
Senthilselvan A ; McDuffie HH ; Dosman JA
Agricultural Health and Safety: Workplace, Environment, Sustainability, Supplement, H. H. McDuffie, J. A. Dosman, K. M. Semchuk, S. A. Olenchock, and A. Senthilselvan, Editors; University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon -=Saskatchewan, Can, 1994

And

Enhanced allergic responses to house dust mite by oral exposure to carbaryl in rats.
Dong W ; Gilmour MI ; Lambert Al ; Selgrade MK
Toxicological Sciences; 44 (1). 1998. 63-69.
They concluded “The results suggest that carbaryl may cause systemic immune suppression, while enhancing pulmonary allergic responses to house dust mite antigen.”
0

#5 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 23 August 2013 - 02:45 PM

I had a conversation a few years back with a couple whom bought an old orchard in an area round Nelson. Awhile after they purchased and settled in, they were horrified upon a later investigation of plans and deeper details uncovered 'RED TAPE, CONFIDENTIAL'.... They were told they were never to be allowed the information behind this red tape.
There was some info round 'Highly Toxic Chemicals used and Buried' on the property' in the large barrel quantities. Chemicals that the Government/s of the day signed off as a Secret.... Obviously still is today, as folk are not allowed access to the truth of 'what chemical/s are buried'. Of course there are serious restrictions on the property that doesn't allow the owners to utilise, dig or build on that land 'Red Taped'.

There are large Petrol containers buried in an area of Kaiapoi to. A dangerous sort of thing to do. But they are still there today. Again a supposed secret.



People of the day/s remember such things, especially when they are themselves 'close to the doings, and close to the secret/s'. It's human nature to blurb, especially when living with knowledge that some of these secrets are dangerous to peoples health and future generations health.

A person or persons must be very well paid to keep such guarded secrets 'aye'... Amazing how enough money can buy a persons conscience.




0

#6 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 23 August 2013 - 04:07 PM

[quote name='Dianne and Gordon Purdie' timestamp='1377223683' post='166328']
Yes, we saw a 2009 decision on market gardeners claim for asthma from pesticide use. The ‘investigation’ by the Workwise Director had statements like this:

The substance used most commonly … (carbaryl) is not associated with causing asthma or sensitisation in the toxicology literature.

The Workwise Director said TOXNET was used http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

At the time it included:
Asthma in Farmers: Association with Cholinesterase Inhibiting Insecticides
Senthilselvan A ; McDuffie HH ; Dosman JA
Agricultural Health and Safety: Workplace, Environment, Sustainability, Supplement, H. H. McDuffie, J. A. Dosman, K. M. Semchuk, S. A. Olenchock, and A. Senthilselvan, Editors; University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon -=Saskatchewan, Can, 1994

And

Enhanced allergic responses to house dust mite by oral exposure to carbaryl in rats.
Dong W ; Gilmour MI ; Lambert Al ; Selgrade MK
Toxicological Sciences; 44 (1). 1998. 63-69.
They concluded “The results suggest that carbaryl may cause systemic immune suppression, while enhancing pulmonary allergic responses to house dust mite antigen.”
[/quote I was asked by a Government funded group about industrial Asthma but I chose not to reply then , but now use a puffer and tend to breath loudly. Carbaryl was part of the MAF spray programme.
0

#7 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 23 August 2013 - 09:49 PM

Anyone in New Zealand can call themselves a Toxicologist.

Dr Monigatti is an Occupational Physician by vocational Scope. He has no Medical council recognition of Toxicologist or toxicology study.

Dr Monigatti has probably has no problem saying 'no'to patients because he and like most medical doctors have no training in toxicology as the hazardous substances investigation under Clark stated. The occupational physician ticket does not equate to being a toxicologist. In fact, most pharmacists have better understanding of toxicology and chemical groups.

For the record, Dr Michael Beasley is of general vocational scope, same as your GP other than he isn't a practising GP as I understand.

For the record,Dr Leo Schep (BSc DipSci MSc PhD(Otago) is usually the spokesperson for the poison centre. His qualifications are I understand not of being a medical doctor and therefore not a medical opinion in the ACC world.

The legal system should require more proof of evidence of expertise than someone deeming themselves an expert.
There is no Clinical Toxicologist in New Zealand and no arrangement with Australia despite being an agricultural national using thousands of tonnes of agricultural chemicals a year.

The medical profession and these Occupational Professionals do not recognise because mostly they have no idea of the understanding and depth of knowledge people associated with the Agricultural Chemical industry have in regards to these poisons. Most or many of these agrichemicals have the poison label required by law, on their container labels.Then there is the aspect of the said "inerts" which often are anything but inerts, sometimes being pesticides, commonly being solvents and other hazardous chemicals - there is little disclosure of these "inerts" chemicals.

The medical profession has no role in the registration of these chemicals for use. With the dismantling of MAF in advisory capacity, very little understanding of these chemicals exists outside of the Agricultural Chemical companies. Therefore, little
involvement and little consideraton of the possibility of ichemical poisoning and little understanding in the medical profession. Yet, no-one is prepared to remedy this or even state it is so. In fact, there is still more ridicle as Dr Monigatti is doing in the article, perpetuating putdown of the possibility and the ACC, the legal profession and the Doctor registration council seem to encourage the decry of poisoning. Although to be fair, it is the Gormans and occupational physcians that have got to the top of the medical council so hard to see how there could be criticism of the present quasi-medical expertise. None of these people on the toxicology panel, have the understanding of agricultural chemicals - they are toxicologists because they say they are and serve a purpose for ACC. In the case of the Radiologist, it was Marjorie Gordon, a radiologist who investigated and found the problem not occupational physicians.

A posting here, states Dr Monigatti referred to toxinet well so can the lay person, one does not need to be a doctor. Where was the reference to the MSDS - material safety data sheets, the label on the agrichemical container which must mention the hazards. Where is the medical involvement in health and safety - the law is that the industries are responsible for the health and safety of workers in regards to Agrichemicals - there is no medical involvement/consideration/signoff.

In regards to Carbaryl - it is a cholinesterase inhibitor, it is a carbamate,that group of chemicals that are of the nerve gases only more transient
in effect. One couldn't be proved to have low cholinesterase hit from Carbaryl in New Zealand, it is too transient, too close to the event for the
medical profession to gain tangible proof by blood test. Therefore, no-one can medically be proven to die from carbamate poisoning LOL and give them a dose as it
will kill.

Carbaryl Inhalation:
Convulsions. Dizziness. Laboured breathing. Nausea. Unconsciousness. Vomiting. Pupillary constriction muscle cramp excessive salivation.

Carbaryl Ingestion:
Abdominal cramps. Diarrhoea. Nausea. Vomiting. Pupillary constriction muscle cramps excessive salivation.

Carbaryl Eyes
Redness. Pain.

Carbaryl skin
MAY BE ABSORBED! Redness. Pain. Pupillary constriction

These are the symptoms of cholinesterase inhibition. The same thru all this nerve gas group of chemicals.(and the same in Syria)
Carbaryl is of Moderate Acute toxicity, carcinogen, cholinesterase inhibitor - nerve gas chemical family, Developmental or Reproductive toxin, suspected Endocrine disruptor.

I understand it is now a banned chemical. It is a shame these facts of the chemical were not
put before the judge. It is a shame judges do not realise knowledge of agrichemicals is found
on labels, on msd sheets and from non-medical doctors and there are people who do know much more than these self-titled
medical professions mostly of the occupational medicine scope.

http://www.pesticideinfo.org

When is the pseudo-fraud that is playing out in the courts, in Acc, with the medical profession claiming expertise in an area they know scarce little about going to stop and be recognised for the playing with people's lives that it is?
0

#8 User is offline   Dianne and Gordon Purdie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-December 08

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Postgreg, on 23 August 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

I was asked by a Government funded group about industrial Asthma but I chose not to reply then , but now use a puffer and tend to breath loudly. Carbaryl was part of the MAF spray programme.

I searched MEDLINE, the United States National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database, for references with both pesticides [toxicity, poisoning, adverse effects] and asthma [chemically induced, etiology, epidemiology]. I found and read six relevant papers. The search is unlikely to have found all of the relevant literature on pesticides and asthma. However, it is likely be an unbiased sample of the literature. Based on that literature I thought it is more likely than not that at least some pesticides, including carbamate insecticides and carbaryl specifically, cause or contribute to the cause of asthma.
Gordon
0

#9 User is offline   Dianne and Gordon Purdie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-December 08

Posted 27 August 2013 - 01:23 PM

By George, yes, the emperors have no clothes. It appears that some of it could be beyond a lack of competency and be dishonesty. A puzzle is what motivates them. It could just be personal financial gain and the financial of others around them. It is tempting to recall the Milgram experiment http://en.wikipedia....gram_experiment . Another motivation might be classism. For example, ACC, though its Toxicology Panel, has expressed this value: that a claim should not be accepted because if all such claim were accepted for 56% of them the cause would more likely be due to something other than the workplace. They are saying no such claims should be accepted if 44% of them are due to a workplace exposure. Putting aside that they incorrectly calculate the percentage, they are saying that a workplace disease claim should not be accepted unless the risk of getting the disease is more than doubled for people with the workplace exposure.

As you say “the ACC, the legal profession and the Doctor registration council seem to encourage the decry of poisoning”. An ex-Corporate Medical Advisor for ACC is on the medical council. Gorman has had senior management roles at Auckland University. We don’t know if anyone has been on the medical council with employment at Auckland University when he had.

The Workwise director that referred to toxnet was Dr Macky.
0

#10 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:22 PM

In our glasshouse we used a product called Fulset{Indolebutyric acid}[approved by MAF.] to pollinate Tomatoes before Bumble Bees.
I know see this product is now banned in NZ as it is a growth hormone. Wonder how much of this shit
is still inside me after 20 years and if the ACC specialists I saw at the time were even qualified in respect
to the subject ACC paid well for , to never allow any Chemical poisoning claims to get accepted.?.


"Commercial application of auxins" from google search.

Auxins have been used commercially in agriculture and horticulture for more than 50 years. The synthetic auxins are used in commercial applications largely because they are resistant to oxidation by enzymes that degrade IAA. In addition to their greater stability, the synthetic auxins are often more effective than IAA in specific applications. One of the most widespread uses of auxin encountered by the consumer is the use of 2,4-D in weed control. 2,4-D and other synthetic compounds, such as 2,4,5-T and dicamba, express auxin activity at low concentrations, but at higher concentrations are effective herbicides.

Indolebutyric acid and naphthaleneacetic acid are both widely used in vegetative propagation – the propagation of plants from stem and leaf cuttings. This application can be traced to the propensity for auxin to stimulate adventitious root formation. Generally marketed as “rooting hormone” preparations, the auxins, usually a synthetic auxin such as NAA or IBA, are mixed with an inert ingredient such as talcum powder. Stem cuttings are dipped in the powder prior to planting in a moist sand bed in order to encourage root formation.

4-CPA may be sprayed on tomatoes to increase flowering and fruit set while NAA is commonly used to induce flowering in pineapples. This latter effect is actually due to auxin-induced ethylene production. NAA is also used both to thin fruit set and prevent preharvest fruit drop in apples and pears. These seemingly opposite effects are dependent on timing the auxin application with the appropriate stage of flower and fruit development (Figure 3.25). Spraying in early fruit set, shortly after the flowers bloom, enhances abscission of the young fruits (again, due to auxin-induced ethylene production). Thinning is necessary in order to reduce the number of fruits and prevent too many small fruits from developing. Spraying as the fruit matures has the opposite effect, preventing premature fruit drop and keeping the fruit on the tree until it is fully mature and ready for harvest.
Hi-cane was used to thin kiwifruit.
http://www.tankonyvt...an/ch04s04.html
0

#11 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1840
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:47 PM

Another twist on good or bad chemical compounds ,are the dispersants being used on oil spills detrimental to human health as now being reported
0

#12 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 21 September 2013 - 10:56 PM

Suspect the oil dispersant that was used for the Rena disaster was never registered for use in NZ. If that was the case then it was applied unlawfully but
no action. Likewise, the human health cost - it took from memory ten days of oil on the beaches before a Public Health warning was given. Rena hit the reef
Oct 5, public health warning Oct 13th. In meantime, young babies/toddlers were shown helping to clean the oil from beaches and people were doing so in jandals and barefeet some footage showed. Once again, the danger of VOC's, volatile organic substances not given any recognition of danger by NZ health authorities. Once again, no occupational physicans spoke up.

http://www.stuff.co....of-health-risks

The person quoted at the National poisons centre, is not a registered medical doctor, indeed seems to be from a strong chemistry background. His, Dr Wayne Temple (CEO of National poisons centre)
qualifications are: BSc(Hons)(Well) PhD(Otago) CChem FRSC FNZIC MAACT. Once again, indicating medical Doctors know little of toxicology - it is others of other that have the much stronger, in-depth, training that have the knowledge and its time this was fixed in the ACC. Medical doctors do not know toxicology. Occupational physicians are not
toxicologist or trained toxicology experts. Anybody can call themselves a toxicologist in NZ however, those that know the most are chemists of various sorts - pharmicist, chemistry, biochemistry. And agricultural chemicals are also understood by some of those with training and industry expertise plus can read labels
which seems more than these occupational physicans seem to know of. Fix the quackery. Get real NZ - employers poison workers.People die from chemical poisoning. It will not change until there
is recognition of this huge gap of understanding of how chemical exposure affects the human systems.

Look, one can buy toluene and other horrible solvents off NZ companies thru internet searches - no restrictions, which is to say the Government, the health system doesn't care to protect NZérs and doesn't acknowledge/enforce the laws re hazardous substances.

The Rena example is such an example, not knowing the legal requirements for chemicals, that they must be registered for use - for use to be lawful, and of not knowing or caring to protect people - oh VOCS don't know, haven't heard of them, and therefore don't harm else someone would protect the people of NZ. Ignorance and stupidity - the way of NZ as they sit in urban offices denying all.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users