Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Manganese Exposures For Navy Workers.

Rate this question


allan

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

Manganese Exposures for Navy Workers.

This information was taken from a study conducted by the Navy Environmental

Health Center. It suggests that Navy personnel may be at risk for exposure

to manganese. Conclusions presented in this study should be considered by

DA Health authorities to determine if similar exposure potentials exist for

Army personnel.

In June 1996, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental

Security) requested an evaluation of manganese exposures to Navy workers,

and an assessment of the impact of a reduced manganese standard.

Background note - The American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists (ACGIH) Chemical Substances TLVr Committee has determined that

manganese is a chronic toxin and that a time weighted average (TWA)

exposure limit over the work day is appropriate. In 1992, the TLV Committee

proposed a Notice of Intended Change for manganese as a TLV-TWA of 200

ug/m3 as manganese for elemental and inorganic compounds. The previous TLVs

were similar to the OSHA PELs, which were vacated by the Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals in July 1992. These values were 5,000 ug/m3 as a ceiling

limit for dust, 3,000 ug/m3 as a short-term exposure limit (STEL), with a

1,000 ug/m3 limit as an 8hour TWA for fumes. In setting the PELs OSHA had

concluded that both a TWA and a STEL limit were required to protect workers

from manganese fume poisoning, lung damage and pneumonia. Because the PELs

were vacated, the current OSHA PEL reinstates the old value of 5,000 ug/m3

as a ceiling limit for both dust and fume. Manganese may be absorbed both

from the lungs and GI tract. Inhalation exposure to high levels of

manganese can lead to a disabling neurological syndrome "manganism".

The Chief of Naval Operations (N45 staff) convened a Navy working group

comprised of technical professionals representing the Bureau of Medicine

and Surgery, Marine Corps, Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems

Command, Navy Environmental Health Center, and Naval Surface Warfare Center

Carderock Division. This group analyzed the tasking and developed an action

plan to prepare this report. The primary author and coordinator for the

report was Mr. John Bishop, Navy Environmental Health Center. The study

concluded the following:

*666 exposures were reviewed

*95 % of the TWA exposures (with 95 %

confidence) of the population performing the

operation were below the anticipated OSHA

PEL of 200 ug/m3

*7% of the exposures were at or above the

anticipated action level of 100 ug/m3, and

*3.5% of the exposures were at or above the

anticipated PEL of 200 ug/m3.

*Work operations with assessments greater

than 100 ug/m3 are mechanical metal cleaning

(e.g., abrasive blasting), welding, thermal

cutting, and utilities (e.g., boiler

maintenance).

*There were two mechanical cleaning

assessments that resulted in concentrations

>1000 ug/m3.

The report also summarized types of engineering control that is being used

to reduce manganese exposures to workers.

SOURCE: http://list.uvm.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9704D...FETY&P=4758

Edited by allan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Lebro earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Sparklinger earned a badge
      First Post
  • Our picks

    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      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
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • 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.   
    • 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

       
    • 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use