Where was it used, when, what types?

During the 1950's, 1960's and early 1970's asbestos was used extensively in the construction of coal fired, oil fired and nuclear power stations throughout the UK. Asbestos was used as an insulating material in order to assist in reaching the high temperatures necessary to run the boilers and generate electricity.

Many of the power stations were located in less populated areas e.g. Hinkley Point, Eggborough, Calder Hall, High Marnham, Cottam; particularly the nuclear power stations. Men came from all over to help build them. Many of these men did not handle asbestos products personally but were exposed to the asbestos dust from those who were lagging.

The asbestos fibre was mixed with water in large buckets to form a paste and then applied in layers. Blocks of asbestos were cut and applied.

After the power stations were constructed, testing and maintenance of equipment continued and asbestos lagging was removed by cutting or hacking it off producing more asbestos dust. Those people who were involved in shutdowns or outages often breathed in a lot of asbestos dust. Most men were not provided with any masks at all and were not warned that asbestos was dangerous until the late 1970's/early 1980's but by that time the damage had been done.

We have represented many clients who have developed asbestos related diseases including plaques, asbestosis and mesothelioma in successful claims for compensation. We have also dealt with a number of asbestos related lung cancer cases, these men have had very heavy and prolonged exposure dust. These are just a few examples:

Case study 1

My client has given me permission to write an article about his case because he realises that it has significance for the others with asbestos lung cancer. However, he wishes to retain his anonymity bearing in mind the level of compensation that he received. Compensation is never sufficient in asbestos disease cases because every client would prefer to have their health back. However, in this case we turned a very difficult case into a success, settling the day before trial. My client is also still alive almost 5 years on from diagnosis.

Our client worked in power stations from 1967 until he retired when he developed lung cancer in 2002.

In the 1960's/1970's and part of the 1980's he had exposure to asbestos dust when working as a labourer and burner and plater, he worked for a number of companies of which we pursued 7 companies for compensation.

Initially, when my client was diagnosed with lung cancer, the treating consultant did not realise that it might be to do with asbestos. It is a common problem that treating consultants don't recognise this. He was a smoker and he was told his lung cancer was due to smoking.

He underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy which made him very poorly. When he was told he had lung cancer, he was told that they didn't know if he was going to survive. This was absolutely devastating news for him and his family since he was only 54 when he got the diagnosis.

Another of his work colleagues who had worked in the same conditions has also been diagnosed with lung cancer and another has died from it.

My client contacted a non-specialist firm of solicitors. They had his case for a couple of years but hadn't even issued Court proceedings or progressed his case. This is very concerning since it is often touch and go whether or not someone will survive lung cancer. My client was the main breadwinner and has one daughter still at college.

My client had lung cancer and had had heavy exposure to asbestos dust but there was no evidence that he was suffering from a condition called asbestosis. Medical opinion is divided as to whether or not cancer without asbestosis can be caused by asbestos. The main medical paper which deals with this is called The Helsinki Criteria. This was a paper studying causes of asbestos lung cancer. It came to the conclusion that where there was a high fibre count in lung tissue on post-mortem or where there is evidence of asbestosis or crucially, for this case where there had been very heavy exposure to asbestos dust, lung cancer was related to asbestos.

Many of those who have worked in Power Stations including my client are smokers or ex-smokers. It is certain that smoking can cause lung cancer as can asbestos. The effect of both smoking and being exposed to asbestos dust is not just additional but multiplicative which means that if you have both sources of exposure to lung cancer, you don't just double your risk but it more than doubled the risk by many times. There are people who aren't aware of this. A lot of people who have had very heavy exposure to asbestos dust have worked in manual trades and have smoked. I know that my client, had he known about the multiplicative effects, would have given up smoking straightaway.

My client instructed local solicitors who said that they had a specialism in industrial disease work but it became clear to him that they didn't know what to do with his case. He transferred his case to me and within 18 months his claim was settled for a substantial sum. My client is relatively well and the cancer has not reoccurred. This is a very rare happening for people with asbestos lung cancer. It means that with his compensation he can provide for him and his family and I hope that he will enjoy some of the money.

December 2006

Case study 2

The Claimant aged 52 contracted lung cancer. He did not have asbestosis. He was a smoker.

He had exposure to asbestos dust whilst working in Power stations during shutdowns on and off over a 10 year period.

The engineers were agreed that the Claimant had been exposed to asbestos dust in excess of that which could cause asbestosis.

The Defendants sought to argue relying on Dr Hind that in the absence of asbestosis that there was no causal link between the asbestos exposure and lung cancer. They sought to blame his smoking. The claimant relied on Dr Rudd who said that the asbestos exposure had made a material contribution relying on the Helsinki criteria.

The case was expedited for trial to be heard last month. On the Eve of the trial settlement was reached between the parties at £231,000 gross. The Claimant did not give any discount for the risk of losing on the causation issue.

April 2005