Worker was only exposed to low levels over career but had several non-occupational factors known to contribute to prostate cancer
An Ontario worker’s terminal prostate cancer was not related to occupational exposure to radiation and electromagnetic fields over a long career but instead 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 occupations. He also worked as a security and fire chief for several years and retired in 2008.
The worker smoked 20 cigarettes 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 worker submitted a report of occupational disease to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). He claimed that exposure to radiation from uranium during his job as a lab technician was a contributing factor to the prostate cancer he developed later in life, as was using radar devices that emitted electromagnetic radiation during his career as a police officer.
A WSIB case manager in charge of the worker’s claim referred to a 2006 report by the WSIB Medical and Occupational 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 uranium. 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 hygienist 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-ionizing end of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.
As a result of the above information, the WSIB case manager rejected the worker’s claim for benefits, finding the prostate cancer was not caused by occupational factors. The decision was issued Feb. 28, 2013.
The worker appealed the decision but died on Jan. 2, 2014. His cause of death was indicated as metastatic prostate cancer, hypertension, and diabetes. However, his estate continued the appeal for benefits.
Exposure was within accepted levels
An appeals resolution officer (ARO) noted that a WSIB occupational 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 decision 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 during his careers as a lab technician and police officer, but the existing literature on it didn’t support a conclusion that low-level exposure of it increased the risk of any cancer or heart disease. Since the worker had “multiple non-occupational risk factors which could have also significantly contributed 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 relationship 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 occupational exposures to uranium and electromagnetic fields – from evolving technologies – over many years had to have contributed to the cancer.
The tribunal pointed to information from Health Canada that stated the occupational exposures at the worker’s mining 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 occupations, which was also well below accepted levels.
The tribunal also found no reason to doubt studies of microwave emissions from the radar devices the worker used as a police officer, which found emission levels were below the recommended limits for microwave 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 epidemiological 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-occupational factors. The worker’s age and sex alone increased his risk of prostate cancer according to statistics, and the fact he smoked for most of his life was worth consideration as well. All of these non-occupational factors 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:
