Latest news with #NationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth
NZ Herald
15-07-2025
- Health
- NZ Herald
How aeroplane noise impacts health and hearing: What you need to know
Sensory cells in our cochlea – called hair cells for the tiny filament-like structures protruding from the top of their cell surface – bend to the sound waves that hit our eardrums and translate them into electrical signals that are sent to auditory regions of our brain allowing us to hear. Loud noise can physically damage the cochlea and overstimulate the sensory cells, which, if sustained over time, can harm or even kill them, leading to temporary or permanent hearing loss. Short bursts of extra-loud noise can also cause impairments. Humans and other mammals are unable to replace these hair cells once they are damaged or lost. According to a 2024 study, approximately 1 in 5 Americans have hearing loss, which is a leading cause of disability. Research shows hearing loss is a preventable risk factor for dementia. In addition, noise also has non-auditory health impacts including sleep disturbances, increases in hypertension and cardiovascular health, as well as cognitive impairment. The discomforts of noisy flights Inside an aeroplane cabin, the noise is typically around 75 to 85 decibels during flight, according to research studies that directly measured sound levels inside different passenger aircraft. During takeoff and landing, when the engines are most engaged, the sounds are often louder and can peak over 110 decibels at times. For comparison, normal conversations are around 60 decibels. However, the decibel scale used to measure sound levels is logarithmic, meaning that the amount of sound energy increases dramatically as we move up the scale. Every three-decibel increase corresponds to double the sound intensity reaching our ears. On jet planes, passengers cite noise as the second most influential factor for discomfort, after legroom (or lack thereof). On smaller propeller aircraft, noise is the No. 1 factor for discomfort, 'so it even has a larger impact,' said Gerbera Vledder, a graduate student of industrial design engineering at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who conducted a 2022 study on the matter. If you are stuck in a noisy environment for a longer period of time, 'you become more aware of other complaints' such as a stiff neck or swollen feet, Vledder said. And research shows that people disembark more tired than if noise were not a factor, she said. How much aircraft noise is safe? In 1972, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the US set sound exposure recommendations of 85 decibels averaged over an eight-hour shift for workers. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires employers to protect workers' hearing if noise exposure exceeds those limits as well. However, emerging research calls for revising these recommendations 'because the effects of noise exposure on hearing loss may be more severe than previously understood,' Stankovic said. Some studies suggest people who work on commercial aeroplanes, such as pilots and flight attendants, could have increased rates of noise-induced hearing loss, though the results are not conclusive. 'I have to say there's not a lot of research on the risks of hearing loss in aeroplanes,' Vledder said. One 2014 study of more than 4000 flight attendants found that their self-reported hearing loss increased with time on the job. A 2018 study of 134 civilian pilots found they had worse hearing, especially for higher-frequency sounds, than people without that occupational noise exposure. Though it is often cited for the public, using the industrial standard 85-decibel noise exposure limit is 'always inappropriate,' Daniel Fink, programme chair of the Quiet Coalition, a programme of Quiet Communities, said in an email. 'It doesn't protect workers from [noise-induced hearing loss] and safe exposure levels for anything need to be safer for the public than occupational exposures,' said Fink, who has written on the links between noise and hearing loss. Research shows that even quieter levels of noise exposure – beneath the 85-decibel occupational recommendation – could impair hearing by altering how the auditory cortex processes sounds. 'Even lower levels of noise exposure, once deemed safe, can cause hearing damage over time' including making it more difficult to understand speech in noisy environments or tinnitus, Stankovic said. In addition, some people may also be more susceptible to noise-induced hearing loss because of older age, genetic factors or pre-existing health factors, Stankovic said. How to deal with noise on aeroplanes Whether you want to be more comfortable or lower the risk to your hearing, there are several ways you can deal with aeroplane noise, experts said. Measure your sound levels. You can measure noise levels on a plane with a free sound meter app on your smartphone, such as the NIOSH Sound Level Meter, Decibel Pro or Decibel X. Sit near the front. Your seat location makes a difference. Seats near the aeroplane engines, which are typically on the wings or rear of the plane, tend to be louder, Stankovic said. Stay hydrated. Flying is dehydrating, so make sure to get adequate fluids. This 'can alleviate discomfort, including ear pressure changes that may be worsened by noise,' Stankovic said. Try earplugs or headphones. Both can attenuate the amount of sound that reaches your eardrums, reducing the risk of harm and discomfort. One study found that having earplugs increased comfort – even when people did not use them. It could be that having a sense of control helped people feel better, Vledder said. Of course, actually putting them on is a good idea. In a 2025 study, Vledder and her colleagues found that passengers who used either earplugs or headphones were more comfortable on propeller aeroplanes. 'I always use noise-cancelling headphones when I fly,' Fink said. 'I recommend them for everyone, including children.' However, Vledder noted that wearing headphones and earplugs can be their own source of discomfort in or around the ears. 'I do think it's personal preference,' she said. Don't turn up the volume. Don't add to the problem by blasting more noise into your ears during the flight. In other words, be careful with how loud you play your music or movies, Fink said. 'I don't think flying is safe for the ear,' Fink said. 'Certainly not for cabin crew, and not for passengers either.'
Scientific American
18-06-2025
- Health
- Scientific American
When Wildfire Smoke Arrived from Canada, Federal Safety Experts Were Gone
CLIMATEWIRE | When wildfire smoke wafted from Canada across large swaths of the U.S. in 2023, it served as a wake-up call for federal safety experts. They drafted recommendations to protect outdoor workers from increasingly prevalent smoke. This time, the experts are on administrative leave. That has left a void in the federal health response to the plumes of wildfire smoke that spread across the Midwest earlier this month. The workforce purge under President Donald Trump is also raising questions about whether the 350-page report that was issued after the 2023 fires would ever be finalized, a requirement before its recommendations for protecting workers can be implemented. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. About 80 people who worked on the draft wildfire assessment are slated to be laid off from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that is responsible for researching how to prevent workplace injuries and death. Each page of the 2023 report states that its findings should not be cited before it's finalized, a process that includes peer review. If it's not completed, health advocates say, employers could lack awareness for how to protect the health of an estimated 20 million laborers who are increasingly being threatened by wildfire smoke. 'The smoke from wildland fires is only becoming a bigger and bigger issue, and yet the experts that know how to protect workers from it are not available, so it's a real loss,' said Rebecca Reindel, who directs occupational health and safety for the AFL-CIO. The layoffs at NIOSH are part of a broad reorganization at DHS under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has prioritized Trump's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. The effort resulted in some 10,000 department employees receiving so-called reduction-in-force notices, including many environmental health experts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which houses NIOSH, saw its entire National Center for Environmental Health shuttered through administrative leave — including asthma and air pollution staff who also worked on wildfire smoke. That left them unable to answer calls from local health departments, doctors and parents in June as wildfire smoke blew into Midwest communities. At the time, one expert who was on leave told POLITICO's E&E News, 'It feels like we are leaving them on their own to handle this when we should be there to help.' Their RIF notices were revoked one week later. Some staffers at NIOSH have also been called back to work, including experts on personal protective equipment, firefighting and black lung. But the agency's wildfire smoke experts were not reinstated. The 2023 smoke event had forced a reckoning at NIOSH. It was a realization that wildfires could affect workers who weren't actively fighting the blazes. 'We realized that there are a lot of workers that are outside all day long and they're not wildland firefighters, but they don't have an opportunity to get out of wildfire smoke,' said one NIOSH expert who was granted anonymity because their employment status is in flux. The team of 80 staffers set to work in 2023 to conduct research and draft recommendations for how to keep farmworkers and other laborers safe. The issue was a priority for then-Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, who started an initiative to look at the health impacts of extreme heat and wildfire smoke on farmworkers. When the draft recommendations were published in September 2024, it was the first "federal-level authoritative document that addresses smoke exposures for a wide variety of workers,' the expert said. The so-called hazard review estimated that 20 million workers are affected by wildfire smoke. It included recommendations for keeping workers safe in smokey conditions, such as how to determine when air quality is unhealthy, when to shorten work shifts, and what types of masks or respirators are effective in smoke. The NIOSH team was working to finalize the document until its members were put on administrative leave. 'We were really prioritizing it with the intent of it being finished this year because we know these smoke events will keep coming,' the expert said. Though some staffers who are still at NIOSH have limited knowledge of respirators or smoke protections, none are qualified to finish the document, the person said. The stalled recommendations were cited by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, in a report this month that outlined how layoffs at NIOSH could hamper worker safety. Washington state is one of three states with regulations requiring employers to protect their workers from wildfire smoke. If the federal document isn't finalized, 'necessary revisions to the Washington wildfire Smoke Rule may not happen,' Murray's report said. Federal recommendations would also help California enforce its rules for keeping workers safe in smokey conditions, said Michael Méndez, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who studies how wildfire smoke affects vineyard workers. The state law requires employers to take different steps depending on how bad the air is, based on an official air quality index. That can be 'ripe for misinformation, with employers telling workers it is safe to go out without a mask or keeping workers out there,' Méndez said. 'Having a finalized report, having NIOSH staff there to explain it to workers, to translate it into their language, that would be key to keeping workers safe,' he said.
Scientific American
03-06-2025
- Business
- Scientific American
Government Layoffs Could Make It Easier to Scrap Heat Safety Rules
CLIMATEWIRE | When federal regulators were crafting a first-ever proposal to protect workers from extreme heat, they relied on government health experts who had been working on the deadly effects of high temperatures for years. Now that entire team is gone due to President Donald Trump's personnel purges. It comes ahead of summertime heat waves that are intensifying because of climate change, raising the stakes for the 2024 draft heat rule that took decades to propose and whose fate now rests in the hands of an administration that is eviscerating climate programs. Extreme heat kills more U.S. residents annually than all other disasters. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The heat experts have been fired, placed on leave or forced out at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency, called NIOSH, was the first one to sound the alarm on the dangers that heat poses to workers. It recommended safety regulations in 1975, decades before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed the nation's first heat rule last year. The entire heat team at NIOSH was pushed out of the agency this spring, along with hundreds of experts who were studying other issues, as part of a massive reorganization at the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The layoffs, which take effect this week, come as climate change supercharges temperatures, blanketing the nation in suffocating heat every summer. The personnel purge could also hamstring OSHA at the Department of Labor, as the agency considers whether to move forward with finalizing the heat rule under Trump or ditch it. Preserving it promises to be harder without the heat experts. 'The ability to reach out to experts and work together and solve problems and keep people safe in an efficient manner — that's not going to be possible when you have an agency turned into Swiss cheese,' said Doug Parker, who led OSHA during the Biden administration. Lawsuits have brought back some NIOSH staffers who work mostly on coal mining and firefighting projects, or who test respirators and other personal protective equipment. Some of them have heat expertise in those industries. But most NIOSH heat experts — including those who work with the farming and construction sectors, which see the most heat-related deaths, and those who specifically examine heat as a hazard — have not returned to their jobs. The agency has also stopped all public communications on heat, just before summer threatens to bring suffocating temperatures. In the past, the agency would use social media campaigns and in-person presentations with employers to raise awareness about the dangers of heat. None of that has happened. Its social media accounts have been silent since April 1, when HHS told its workforce of the layoffs. 'If it stays the way it is right now, no one is going to be doing heat,' said one NIOSH worker who came back to the agency after being laid off and was granted anonymity to speak frankly. 'Very open line of communication' Congress created NIOSH in 1970 — by passing the same law that enacted OSHA — to 'develop and establish' safety standard recommendations for regulators. NIOSH had the experts, and OSHA had the regulators. In the 50 years since the agency initially advocated for a heat safety standard, it has made similar recommendations two other times, most recently in 2016. Because NIOSH has been at the forefront of identifying heat as a danger to workers, its experts have also been the preeminent researchers on the issue. The agency has conducted research into how electrolyte drinks compare to water when rehydrating workers and how protective equipment can make workers hotter than if they were only exposed to ambient air. It has also helped determine how to measure what heat truly feels like in work environments. When OSHA finally proposed national heat protections last summer, it cited its sister agency's work more than 250 times. The regulation would require employers to provide water and rest breaks to workers when heat rises above 80 degrees and paid rest breaks when temperatures exceed 90 degrees. 'We had a very open line of communication to discuss any questions they had while working on the regulation,' said one NIOSH worker who was laid off and was granted anonymity to speak frankly. Almost every aspect of the proposed rule has a citation that leads back to NIOSH, from the definitions of heat stress, to the explanation of how heat affects the human body, to a description about how hydration helps prevent heat-related dangers. 'We really fostered a strong relationship with NIOSH and it was at a peak level, so it is a tragedy what has happened,' said Parker, the former OSHA leader. As the layoffs take effect this week, it could complicate OSHA's consideration of the heat rule. In mid-June, the agency is scheduled to hold a weekslong hearing to let the public weigh in on the draft regulation. Normally, when worker advocates and industry representatives testify at OSHA hearings, agency staff is able to ask follow-up questions that can help shape the outcome. It's unclear if NIOSH experts — those who still have jobs — will testify at the hearing. Neither HHS nor the CDC responded to questions about expert testimony. HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said Kennedy "has been working hard to ensure that the critical functions under NIOSH remain intact." "The Trump administration is committed to supporting coal miners and firefighters, and under the secretary's leadership, NIOSH's essential services will continue as HHS streamlines its operations," she said. "Ensuring the health and safety of our workforce remains a top priority for the department." 'They are neutral' Parker said holding a public hearing, and continuing the heat rulemaking, without NIOSH experts would be like prosecutors trying to convict a murderer without having the testimony of a medical examiner. 'It's like going to trial without your expert witness,' he said. 'They are neutral; they help review not only the content of the rule, but the comments of other advocates and industries. It's a well you can go to again and again.' Jordan Barab, former deputy assistant secretary of OSHA during the Obama administration, said NIOSH is a helpful resource when industry and worker groups provide conflicting information. The laws governing OSHA say it can only issue rules to protect workers that are also practical and cost-effective for employers, which means the agency has to be able to justify every aspect of a regulation. Most end up in court. 'If they have two opposing opinions and their rule is agreeing with one, they need to carefully explain why they chose what they did, and they spend an enormous amount of time justifying their rules, often with the help of NIOSH expertise and research,' Barab said. Rebecca Reindel, safety and health director at the AFL-CIO, said she is worried that without NIOSH testimony OSHA will be more likely to kill the heat rule. The agency has been under pressure from industry groups to stop work on the rule or water down its protections. The oil and gas industry has said moving forward on the rule would jeopardize Trump's vision of achieving 'energy dominance.' NIOSH's testimony, she said, would be important to counteract that narrative. 'When you have industry groups saying 'we don't want this' or 'it's too expensive,' you want that neutral party that has actually done the research into what interventions work and that knows of how they have been successfully deployed in other workplaces,' Reindel said. 'Without NIOSH experts at this hearing, we lose a very critical part of the testimony and a part of the record we need to ensure that OSHA does regulate this hazard and uses the best available evidence and information.'
E&E News
03-06-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Trump fired the heat experts. Now he might kill their heat rule.
When federal regulators were crafting a first-ever proposal to protect workers from extreme heat, they relied on government health experts who had been working on the deadly effects of high temperatures for years. Now that entire team is gone due to President Donald Trump's personnel purges. It comes ahead of summertime heat waves that are intensifying because of climate change, raising the stakes for the 2024 draft heat rule that took decades to propose and whose fate now rests in the hands of an administration that is eviscerating climate programs. Extreme heat kills more U.S. residents annually than all other disasters. Advertisement The heat experts have been fired, placed on leave or forced out at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency, called NIOSH, was the first one to sound the alarm on the dangers that heat poses to workers. It recommended safety regulations in 1975, decades before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed the nation's first heat rule last year. The entire heat team at NIOSH was pushed out of the agency this spring, along with hundreds of experts who were studying other issues, as part of a massive reorganization at the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The layoffs, which take effect this week, come as climate change supercharges temperatures, blanketing the nation in suffocating heat every summer. The personnel purge could also hamstring OSHA at the Department of Labor, as the agency considers whether to move forward with finalizing the heat rule under Trump or ditch it. Preserving it promises to be harder without the heat experts. 'The ability to reach out to experts and work together and solve problems and keep people safe in an efficient manner — that's not going to be possible when you have an agency turned into Swiss cheese,' said Doug Parker, who led OSHA during the Biden administration. Firefighter Geo Mulongo drinks water while taking a break during the Line Fire in Highland, California, last year. | Jae C. Hong/AP Lawsuits have brought back some NIOSH staffers who work mostly on coal mining and firefighting projects, or who test respirators and other personal protective equipment. Some of them have heat expertise in those industries. But most NIOSH heat experts — including those who work with the farming and construction sectors, which see the most heat-related deaths, and those who specifically examine heat as a hazard — have not returned to their jobs. The agency has also stopped all public communications on heat, just before summer threatens to bring suffocating temperatures. In the past, the agency would use social media campaigns and in-person presentations with employers to raise awareness about the dangers of heat. None of that has happened. Its social media accounts have been silent since April 1, when HHS told its workforce of the layoffs. 'If it stays the way it is right now, no one is going to be doing heat,' said one NIOSH worker who came back to the agency after being laid off and was granted anonymity to speak frankly. 'Very open line of communication' Congress created NIOSH in 1970 — by passing the same law that enacted OSHA — to 'develop and establish' safety standard recommendations for regulators. NIOSH had the experts, and OSHA had the regulators. In the 50 years since the agency initially advocated for a heat safety standard, it has made similar recommendations two other times, most recently in 2016. Because NIOSH has been at the forefront of identifying heat as a danger to workers, its experts have also been the preeminent researchers on the issue. The agency has conducted research into how electrolyte drinks compare to water when rehydrating workers and how protective equipment can make workers hotter than if they were only exposed to ambient air. It has also helped determine how to measure what heat truly feels like in work environments. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seen here with President Donald Trump, is overseeing mass layoffs this week at the Department of Health and Human Services. | Jacquelyn Martin/AP When OSHA finally proposed national heat protections last summer, it cited its sister agency's work more than 250 times. The regulation would require employers to provide water and rest breaks to workers when heat rises above 80 degrees and paid rest breaks when temperatures exceed 90 degrees. 'We had a very open line of communication to discuss any questions they had while working on the regulation,' said one NIOSH worker who was laid off and was granted anonymity to speak frankly. Almost every aspect of the proposed rule has a citation that leads back to NIOSH, from the definitions of heat stress, to the explanation of how heat affects the human body, to a description about how hydration helps prevent heat-related dangers. 'We really fostered a strong relationship with NIOSH and it was at a peak level, so it is a tragedy what has happened,' said Parker, the former OSHA leader. As the layoffs take effect this week, it could complicate OSHA's consideration of the heat rule. In mid-June, the agency is scheduled to hold a weekslong hearing to let the public weigh in on the draft regulation. Normally, when worker advocates and industry representatives testify at OSHA hearings, agency staff is able to ask follow-up questions that can help shape the outcome. It's unclear if NIOSH experts — those who still have jobs — will testify at the hearing. Neither HHS nor the CDC responded to questions about expert testimony. HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said Kennedy 'has been working hard to ensure that the critical functions under NIOSH remain intact.' 'The Trump administration is committed to supporting coal miners and firefighters, and under the secretary's leadership, NIOSH's essential services will continue as HHS streamlines its operations,' she said. 'Ensuring the health and safety of our workforce remains a top priority for the department.' 'They are neutral' Parker said holding a public hearing, and continuing the heat rulemaking, without NIOSH experts would be like prosecutors trying to convict a murderer without having the testimony of a medical examiner. 'It's like going to trial without your expert witness,' he said. 'They are neutral; they help review not only the content of the rule, but the comments of other advocates and industries. It's a well you can go to again and again.' Jordan Barab, former deputy assistant secretary of OSHA during the Obama administration, said NIOSH is a helpful resource when industry and worker groups provide conflicting information. The laws governing OSHA say it can only issue rules to protect workers that are also practical and cost-effective for employers, which means the agency has to be able to justify every aspect of a regulation. Most end up in court. 'If they have two opposing opinions and their rule is agreeing with one, they need to carefully explain why they chose what they did, and they spend an enormous amount of time justifying their rules, often with the help of NIOSH expertise and research,' Barab said. Rebecca Reindel, safety and health director at the AFL-CIO, said she is worried that without NIOSH testimony OSHA will be more likely to kill the heat rule. The agency has been under pressure from industry groups to stop work on the rule or water down its protections. The oil and gas industry has said moving forward on the rule would jeopardize Trump's vision of achieving 'energy dominance.' NIOSH's testimony, she said, would be important to counteract that narrative. 'When you have industry groups saying 'we don't want this' or 'it's too expensive,' you want that neutral party that has actually done the research into what interventions work and that knows of how they have been successfully deployed in other workplaces,' Reindel said. 'Without NIOSH experts at this hearing, we lose a very critical part of the testimony and a part of the record we need to ensure that OSHA does regulate this hazard and uses the best available evidence and information.'
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's safety research cuts heighten workplace risks, federal workers warn
Drastic cuts at a federal workplace safety research agency increase the risk of illness and injury for workers across the US and undermine preparations for public health emergencies, fired employees warn. The Trump administration ordered widespread layoffs at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, inside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when it issued a 'reduction in force' notice to some 85% of the agency's 1,100 workers employees on 1 April. While some of those terminations were later reversed following pushback from labor unions and the public, only 328 employees were reinstated. Related: 'So many are devastated': Trump's federal firings and their ripple effect 'An immediate impact is that we're not as prepared for some type of public health emergency,' said Dr Micah Niemeier-Walsh, an industrial hygienist at Niosh in Ohio, who was fired, and then reinstated. 'Long term, the Trump administration talks about wanting to bring back or expand certain sectors of the economy like mining or manufacturing. Those are jobs that really rely on Niosh work.' Jennica Bellanca, for example, worked to train emergency responders in mining in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her role was terminated. 'It's such a hard thing. Everyone here works so hard to help support the health and safety of mine workers and other workers,' she said, noting that small companies do not have the resources to invest in alternative safety programs. 'I'm just concerned that nobody else is going to fill this gap. There's a reason that the government provides this safety net. 'In our case, the safety net is to help workers go home to their families every day and make sure that nothing bad happens.' Bellanca questioned a central argument for the cuts – efficiency in federal government spending – by noting that long-term research projects may now go unreleased. When we're gone, there's going to be nobody to get this information out Jennica Bellanca, former trainer for emergency responders 'When we're gone, there's going to be nobody to get this information out,' she said. 'And because we were so abruptly, sort of cut off in the middle of projects, all of this work that we've done, we're not able to get this out, released, as a full public product. In my mind, that's a waste of government money.' Niemeier-Walsh, the vice-president of American Federal of Government Employees Local 3840, said the reduction in force was the 'final, massive blow to our work' after earlier limitations on travel, communications and remote work imposed since Donald Trump took office in January. 'Our ability to be as successful as we have been as an institute relies on the rest of the Niosh employees coming back because our work is so interconnected,' said Niemeier-Walsh. 'I'm very, very concerned what this means for every single American worker if we're not able to fully restore Niosh. These cuts are not based in science. They're not based on the public health need. They're based on politics, and that's bad for the health of the American people.' Related: Mass resignations at labor department threaten workers in US and overseas, warn staff – as more cuts loom She cited as an example the employees in the health hazard evaluation program, which was established to reduce workplace risks and recommend ways to mitigate dangers, who were reinstated after earlier cuts. But they rely on chemists to develop analytical methods to measure chemicals in the workplace, and engineers to design solutions; these chemists and engineers have not been reinstated, she said. Since the agency was founded in 1970, recordable workplace illnesses and injuries and fatalities have been drastically reduced in the US. The rate of non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses declined from 10.9 cases per 100 full-time workers in 1972 to 2.4 in 2023. The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US, and several other labor unions filed a lawsuit this month to restore the cut programs at Niosh, arguing the cuts 'directly threaten the lives of workers whose safety and health depend on Niosh' services that are congressionally mandated. Even though some of the initial cuts have been reversed,'we have deep concerns that the whole reason Niosh was started to begin with is still eliminated,' said Rebecca Reindel, the director of occupational safety and health at the AFL-CIO, who noted that the agency's founding mandate was to assure every man and woman in the US has safe and healthful working conditions. Reindel expressed particular concern about disruption to long-term research projects. Related: US workers feel effects of Trump cuts: 'I am seeing my work dry up' 'All of this research work that they do, where they have these big cohorts, they've been following people for 40 years,' she said. 'And now they're just cut off for these occupational prospective cohorts, where they follow them over years to see what kind of diseases are developing. 'If we're just staffing those cohorts now, we're really losing 40 years worth of work. Even if they restart them, we're going to have lost so many people to follow up.' A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services did not comment on the record. Its secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, was working to ensure Niosh critical services remain intact and continue as the agency streamlines its operations, they claimed.
