Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
Us Navy Boilerman And Occupational Exposure To Vanadium-rich Fuel-oil Ash
Rate this question
Asked by
allan,
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
allan
US NAVY BOILERMAN and Occupational exposure to vanadium-rich fuel-oil ash
http://www.ehs.cornell.edu/
Article
Acute respiratory symptoms in workers exposed to vanadium-rich fuel-oil ash
Mark A. Woodin, ScD, MS 1 2, Youcheng Liu, MD, ScD, MPH 1, Donna Neuberg, ScD 3, Russ Hauser, MD, ScD, MPH 1, Thomas J. Smith, PhD, MPH 1, David C. Christiani, MD, MPH 1 2 4 *
1Department of Environmental Health (Occupational Health Program), Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115
2Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115
3Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115
4Pulmonary and Critical Care Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114
email: David C. Christiani (dchris@hohp.harvard.edu)
*Correspondence to David C. Christiani, Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115.
Funded by:
NIEHS; Grant Number: ES05947, ES07069, ES00002
NIOSH; Grant Number: OH02421, CCU109979
Keywords
vanadium; PM10; occupational epidemiology; occupational lung disease; boilermakers; industrial hygiene
Abstract
Background
Occupational exposure to fuel-oil ash, with its high vanadium content, may cause respiratory illness. It is unclear, however, what early acute health effects may occur on the pathway from normal to compromised respiratory function.
Methods
Using a repeated measures design, we studied prospectively 18 boilermakers overhauling an oil-fired boiler and 11 utility worker controls. Subjects completed a respiratory symptom diary five times per day by using a 0-3 scale where 0=symptom not present, 1=mild symptom, 2=moderate symptom, and 3=severe symptom. Daily symptom severity was calculated by using the highest reported score each day for upper and lower respiratory symptoms. Daily symptom frequency was calculated by summing all upper or lower airway symptom reports, then dividing by number of reporting times. Respiratory symptom frequency and severity were analyzed for dose-response relationships with estimated vanadium and PM10 doses to the lung and upper airway by using robust regression.
Results
During the overhaul, 72% of boilermakers reported lower airway symptoms, and 67% reported upper airway symptoms. These percentages were 27 and 36 for controls. Boilermakers had more frequent and more severe upper and lower respiratory symptoms compared to utility workers, and this difference was greatest during interior boiler work. A statistically significant dose-response pattern for frequency and severity of both upper and lower respiratory symptoms was seen with vanadium and PM10 in the three lower exposure quartiles. However, there was a reversal in the dose-response trend in the highest exposure quartile, reflecting a possible healthy worker effect.
Conclusions
Boilermakers experience more frequent and more severe respiratory symptoms than utility workers. This is most statistically significant during boiler work and is associated with increasing dose estimates of lung and nasal vanadium and PM10. Am. J. Ind. Med. 37:353-363, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/inorg...d185/id185.html
Inorganic Methods Evaluation Branch
OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center
Salt Lake City, Utah
1. Introduction
The goal of this method is to provide confirmation for occupational vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) exposures. To achieve that end, the published X-ray diffraction (XRD) approach presented in a NIOSH study (8.1.) for various V compounds was evaluated for applicability. Unlike the NIOSH study, this method focuses on only V2O5. The method was further extended to evaluate the applicability of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to measure V2O5 exposures, since sample preparation was also compatible with XRF analysis.
The procedure used in the NIOSH XRD study was adapted from the published analytical procedure (8.1.) and techniques (8.2.) that were in print prior to the publication of NIOSH Method 7504 (8.3.). The NIOSH sampling approach collects and analyzes only the respirable fraction because of its toxic effects (8.1.). [Vanadium pentoxide is also toxic by other routes of exposure (8.4.-8.6.)]
Particle size effects on the analysis were investigated during the OSHA validation when the OSHA PEL was for total dust and fume (i.e. Transitional PELs). The respirable particle-size range was used for validation of this method because of the size dependence associated with XRD. The validation is applicable to the newer Final Rule V2O5 PELs because total dust is now excluded other than consideration as nuisance dust. The OSHA V2O5 PELs are currently for respirable dust or fume and are 8-h time weighted average (TWA) values (8.7.).
1.4. Vanadium Pentoxide (CAS 1314-62-1) Some Sources of Exposure (8.6.):
Application
Source of Exposure
catalyst oxidation of nitrogen and sulfuroxides
colorant manufacture of yellow glass
developer photography industry
coating using welding rods
alloys manufacture of special steels
contaminant cleaning fuel oil burners
1.6. Toxicology
Information contained in this section is a synopsis of current knowledge of the physiological effects of V2O5 and is not intended as a basis for OSHA policy.
1.6.1. When inhaled, the chief effects of V2O5 are on the respiratory passages. Tracheitis, bronchitis, emphysema, pulmonary edema, or bronchial pneumonia may be observed, but no specific chronic lung lesions have been described. Other symptoms reported include eye irritation, conjunctivitis, dermatitis, green tongue, metallic taste, throat irritation, increased mucus, and cough (8.6.).
1.6.2. The toxic effects of V2O5 are primarily from exposures to dusts in the respirable particle-size range. Exposure to non-respirable dust can also produce toxic effects.
1.6.3. Death has been observed when animals were exposed to 70 mg/m3 for a few hours (8.6.).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-ele...20of%20vanadium
Health effects of vanadium (data sheet)
The uptake of vanadium by humans mainly takes place through foodstuffs, such as buckwheat, soya beans, olive oil, sunflower oil, apples and eggs.
Vanadium can have a number of effects on human health, when the uptake is too high. When vanadium uptake takes places through air it can cause bronchitis and pneumonia.
The acute effects of vanadium are irritation of lungs, throat, eyes and nasal cavities.
Other health effects of vanadium uptake are:
- Cardiac and vascular disease
- Inflammation of stomach and intestines
- Damage to the nervous system
- Bleeding of livers and kidneys
- Skin rashes
- Severe trembling and paralyses
- Nose bleeds and throat pains
- Weakening
- Sickness and headaches
- Dizziness
- Behavioural changes
The health hazards associated with exposure to vanadium are dependent on its oxidation state. This product contains elemental vanadium. Elemental vanadium could be oxidized to vanadium pentoxide during welding. The pentoxide form is more toxic than the elemental form. Chronic exposure to vanadium pentoxide dust and fumes may cause severe irritation of the eyes, skin, upper respiratory tract, persistent inflammations of the trachea and bronchi, pulmonary edema, and systemic poisoning. Signs and symptoms of overexposure include; conjunctivitis, nasopharyngitis, cough, labored breathing, rapid heart beat, lung changes, chronic bronchitis, skin pallor, greenish-black tongue and an allergic skin rash.
Effects of vanadium on the environment
Vanadium can be found in the environment in algae, plants, invertebrates, fishes and many other species. In mussels and crabs vanadium strongly bioaccumulates, which can lead to concentrations of about 105 to 106 times greater than the concentrations that are found in seawater.
Vanadium causes the inhibition of certain enzymes with animals, which has several neurological effects. Next to the neurological effects vanadium can cause breathing disorders, paralyses and negative effects on the liver and kidneys.
Laboratory tests with test animals have shown, that vanadium can cause harm to the reproductive system of male animals, and that it accumulates in the female placenta.
Vanadium can cause DNA alteration in some cases, but it cannot cause cancer with animals.
Copyright © 1998-2005 Lenntech Water treatment & air purification Holding B.V.
Rotterdamseweg 402 M
2629 HH Delft, The Netherlands
tel: (+31)(0)15 26.10.900
fax: (+31)(0)15 26.16.289
e-mail: info@lenntech.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 81
VANADIUM
World Health Orgnization Geneva, 1988
http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/eh...tm#PartNumber:1
8.4.2 Cleaning and related operations on oil-fired boilers
Bronchitis and conjunctivitis resulting from exposure to
soot (containing 6 - 11% vanadium) during the cleaning of the
stacks of oil-fired boilers were first recognized by Frost
(1951). Frost did not report any other effects, but, in a
subsequent report of a boiler-cleaning operation by Williams
(1952), sneezing, nasal discharge, lachrymation, sore throat,
and substernal pain occurred within 0.5 - 12 h of exposure.
Within 6 - 24 h, secondary symptoms developed; these consisted
of dry cough, wheezing, laboured breathing, lassitude, and
depression. In some cases, the cough became paroxysmal and
productive. Symptoms lessened only after removal from the
working environment for 3 days. Air sampling showed most of the
dust particles to be smaller than 1 µg. The vanadium concen-
tration ranged from 17.2 mg/m3 in a superheater chamber to
58.6 mg/m3 in a combustion chamber. Roshchin (1962) observed 8
cases of acute vanadium poisoning in workers who cleaned boiler
flues at power stations burning high-sulfur oil. Analysis of
soot deposits showed that the soot in the region of greatest
dust formation (the pipes of the steam superheater and water
economizer) contained from 24 to 40% vanadium pentoxide. The
workers carried out cleaning operations without respirators or
with respirators that did not provide the necessary protection.
After cleaning the boilers, the workers developed acute vanadium
poisoning: itching in the throat, sneezing, cough with difficult
expectoration, and smarting eyes. On the following days, the
symptoms became more severe. Tightness in the chest, sweating,
general weakness, conjunctivitis, and noticeable loss of weight
developed. On examination one week later, hyperaemia and oedema
of the fauces and posterior pharyngeal wall were observed.
Harsh breathing sounds and dry crepitations were heard in the
lungs. X-ray examination showed intensified lung markings in
the middle zones of the right and left lungs and thickening of
the fissure on the right. One month later, only one worker
still had cough, weakness, perspiration, loss of energy, and
dyspnoea. The other workers recovered quickly, with complete
disappearance of cough and shortness of breath.
In another study on workers engaged in boiler-cleaning
operations (Troppens, 1969), the symptoms were described as
similar to mild coryza or influenza with bronchitis. Following
recovery, workers were tired, debilitated, irritable, without
any appetite, and complained of watery eyes. The first symptoms
were swelling of face and eyes as early as 20 min after entering
the boiler area. Removal from exposure for 2 - 3 weeks resulted
in the disappearance of symptoms. Skin blemishes described as
allergic dermatoses were attributed to absorption of vanadium
through sensitive skin. Troppens claimed that there was an
increased susceptibility of the vanadium worker to asthmatic
bronchitis and emphysema.
An investigation is reported on 53 workers performing
emergency repair work on oil-fired power station boilers (Izycki
et al., 1971). They were exposed to vanadium pentoxide in
average concentrations of from 1.2 to 11 mg/m3 and also to
manganese, calcium, and nickel oxides, and sulfur compounds.
Characteristic features of both acute and chronic vanadium
poisoning included upper respiratory catarrh in 45%, increased
lung markings in 24.5%, and bradycardia in 22% of cases.
Persistent chronic changes in the respiratory tract (rhinitis,
pharyngeal catarrh, laryngitis, and changes in the paranasal
sinuses) were present in 45%.
Milby (1974) reported 21 cases of vanadium poisoning in
boilermakers installing new catalytic-converter tubes. This
work involved marble-sized pellets of vanadium containing 11.7%
V2O5. The dust formed during the shaking of these pellets had a
particle size of 1.1 - 1.5 µm. After working for 72 h, the
workers began to complain of nasal, eye, and bronchial
irritation. By the 4th day, most felt very ill, with signs of
irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes and pains in
the chest.
In a study by Garlej (1974) 50 workers engaged in the
cleaning of oil-fired boilers were compared with a control group
of 60 other workers. Boiler deposits contained 44 -65% V2O5;
the maximum exposure was estimated to be 10 mg/m3. Although no
clinical evidence of vanadium poisoning was seen, a number of
exposure-dependent positive biochemical reactions were found in
the boiler-cleaning group. Urinary excretion of delta-amino-
levulinic acid (ALA), porphobilinogen (PBG), and porphyrin
increased beyond the physiological limit, and the positive Nadi
reaction (with associated green fluorescence) occurred. The
increased excretion of cytochrome (as indicated by the Nadi
reaction) suggested oxidation through V2O5 of the thiol group
-SH cysteine in the protein carrier, resulting in decreased
binding of cytochrome in the mitochondria.
A study on 17 men who were engaged in cleaning boilers at an
electric generating station was reported by Lees (1980). In
addition to clinical findings, which were similar to those
described above, urine-vanadium levels were determined, and
pulmonary function measurements were made for a week following
exposure. Sixteen of the men wore protective clothing, and
respirators that were found to have about 9% leakage. One
workman volunteered to wear only a simple oro-nasal dust mask
for 1 h of exposure. The dust exposure level was estimated to
be 26 mg/m3; respirable dust (under 10 µm) was measured at
523 µg/m3 with a vanadium content of 15.3%. All of the men
developed reduced pulmonary function that had not fully returned
to normal in one week, but did so after one month. Reduced
function outlasted the clinical symptoms by several days. Fig. 3
shows the contrast in pulmonary reaction between the more
heavily exposed individual and one of the other workmen. The
urine-vanadium level of the volunteer was 280 µg/litre, whereas
those of the remainder of the workers were below 40 µg/litre.
Other observations of boiler-cleaning operations have been
made by Fallentin & Frost (1954), Sjöberg (1955), Thomas &
Stiebris (1956), Hickling (1958), and Kuzelova et al. (1975).
In terms of respiratory symptoms relating to boiler-cleaning, it
should be noted that sulfates and sulfuric acid may be present
in boiler soot and may be partly responsible for irritative
effects. Hudson (1964) suggested that the quick onset of
symptoms (lachrymation with nose and throat irritation) with
rapid recovery following removal from exposure is character-
istic of exposure to acid sulfates. Response to vanadium expo-
sure is characterized by some delay in the onset of irritative
symptoms (a few hours to several days) and persistence of
symptoms following removal from exposure (Hudson, 1964).
A recent report by Levy et al. (1984) concerned a
comparatively high incidence of severe respiratory tract
irritation in boilermakers (74/100), many of them welders in
areas without adequate ventilation, exposed to vanadium
pentoxide fumes in a power plant where conversion from oil- to
coal-burning occurred. The severe illness of 70 men caused an
average of 5 days of absence, some objective tests (e.g., FVC)
being markedly affected. The vanadium pentoxide content was
above the permissible exposure limit in 8 samples, and this
resulted in litigation for inadequate protection of the
workers.
Kuzelova et al. (1977) drew attention to the occupational
risk of chimney sweeps cleaning large-capacity heating
facilities in large housing settlements. This coincided with a
report of a detailed cross-sectional examination of 121 chimney
sweeps by Holzhauer & Schaller (1977) in the Federal Republic of
Germany with an average exposure duration of 19 years ( ± 5
years). Vanadium exposure was determined by personal samples,
and measurements between 0.73 and 13.7 mg vanadium pentoxide/day
were determined compared with 4 µg in the normal (average)
population. Urinary excretion was determined to be between 0.15
and 13 µg/litre, which was significantly higher than the values
in 31 referents. The main complaints of the chimney sweeps were
wheezing, rhinitis, conjunctival irritation, cough, sputum
dyspnoea, and hoarseness; there were no skin symptoms. A
prospective follow-up of the cohort was emphasized, but the
results are not yet available.
8.4.3 Handling of pure vanadium pentoxide or vanadate dusts
Health effects due to occupational handling of pure vanadium
pentoxide or vanadate dusts have been reported. Tara et al.
(1953) described the effects of vanadium exposure in 4 dock
workers who unloaded and bagged spilled calcium vanadate. The
symptoms (bronchitic wheezing sounds, dyspnoea, productive
cough, haemoptysis in one case, and headache) necessitated
interruption of the work after 1´ days. Zenz et al. (1962)
described an acute illness that occurred in 18 workers pellet-
izing pure vanadium pentoxide; it was characterized by a rapidly
developing mild conjunctivitis, severe pharyngeal irritation, a
non-productive persistent cough, diffuse rales, and broncho-
spasm. With severe exposure, 4 men complained of itching skin
and a sensation of heat in the face and forearms. The symptoms
became more severe after each exposure, suggesting a sensitivity
reaction, but their duration was not prolonged by repeated
exposures.
8.4.4 Other industries
Browne (1955) studied vanadium poisoning in 12 patients
exposed to exhaust fumes from gas turbines using heavy fuel oil.
Evidence of poisoning appeared between the first and 14th day of
exposure and consisted of conjunctivitis, rhinitis, cough,
crepitations, and dyspnoea. Bleeding appeared before the
rhinorrhoea.
Other occupations in which respiratory effects of vanadium
exposure have been reported include operations connected with
the gasification of fuel oil (Fear & Tyrer, 1958) and the
manufacture of phosphor for television picture tubes (Tebrock &
Machle, 1968). In the latter study, elevated blood pressure was
noted in men exposed to vanadium pentoxide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
2
Popular Days
Dec 21
3
Dec 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
allan 2 posts
68mustang 2 posts
Popular Days
Dec 21 2007
3 posts
Dec 19 2007
1 post
Popular Posts
allan
Hello 68Mustang, US Naval Boilerman were exposed to high levels of Vanadium. (see health effects of Vanadium below, Cardiac and vascular disease) If you worked in the fireboxes, cleaned air regi
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts