Summary
Richard Burrows, Graham Dean and Peter Ward discuss the recent press coverage of firefighters who had attended the Grenfell Tower tragedy and who have now developed terminal cancer. They consider how this cancer could possibly have been caused by the firefighters’ own personal protective equipment, and how looking back on historical disasters such as 9/11 may give an indication as to what the future may hold for personal injury litigation trends arising from the events of 2017.
Transcript
Richard Burrows: Hello, and welcome to this latest law behind the headlines podcast. My name is Richard Burrows, and I'm a principal associate in Weightmans national disease team. I am today joined by Graham Dean and Peter Ward, Partner and Legal Director respectively also in our national disease team. Welcome, Graham and Peter.
Graham Dean: Hi Rich.
Peter Ward: Hi Rich.
Richard Burrows: So in today's discussion concerns the somewhat alarming press coverage in recent weeks horizon from firefighters who attended the Grenfell Tower to be back in 2017.
The suggestion being that around 12 of these firefighters have now developed terminal cancer and which is said to have been attributed to attending the scene of that tragedy.
To just to set up it if background was to that, what happened with the Grenfell Tower tragedy with it being a number of years ago now. In the early hours of the 14 June 2017 a call was made to London fire brigade, reporting that fire had broken out in Grenfell Tower in the fourth floor flat. And just over half an hour later after that call had been made the flames had managed to reach the the top of the 24-story building. So the fire is believed to have been caused by an electrical fault in a refrigerator, and it took almost two days for it to be declared extinguished. Sadly 72 people died a as a result of the the tragedy, and since then there's been a public inquiry into the disaster, and what exactly happened. So the composition of the building is known to have contain asbestos of and various other toxins.
But what's different about these recent articles is that it seems to be relating to the firefighters themselves, and the personal protective equipment that they were wearing, and rather than necessarily solely the materials that the building was composed of.
So the recent articles say that, for example, the firefighters when they first arrived at the scene of the tragedy, they had to wait in a smoked filled basement for six hours before they were actually allowed to enter the building and start the rescue efforts. And some firefighters it's said to have been wearing their safety suits and all other personal protective equipment for 10 hours or more at a time. And there's also reports, although there's none of these photographs in the articles, but there's reports of photographs of firefighters actually taking their breaks on the grass surrounding the building, eating and drinking whilst wearing their PPE that they'd been into the building wearing.
So research quotes in the articles from the University of Central Lancashire is that firefighters are at least twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they remain wearing their contaminated PPE for more than four hours after attending a fire and so obviously, if they were wearing it for 10 hours that's more than double that figure to 2 1/2 times. So we're looking at exposure here, which has taken place six years ago. And certainly, I mean, it just feels effective. I think the three of us are more familiar with a greater period of time between the exposure and the developing of cancer, such as an asbestos related lung cancer. And it doesn't appear in this instance with Grenfell Tower that these are necessarily respiratory linked cancers and they're different types of cancers. So what sprung to my mind was how exactly would this exposure have caused the injury here? How does exposure actually occur from simply wearing PPE? Pete if you have come across these sorts of cancers before?
Peter Ward: Yeah thanks Rich. So the cancers identified appear to either be digestive or bloodborne cancers. And as you say, the recent press coverage alleged that the firefighters have been sitting in suck sort of personal protective equipment and as you say, while eating and drinking and things like that. So obviously I don't want to speculate too much about the causes as these cases they will undoubtedly be many factors to consider. But in the same Central Lancashire study that you mentioned, University of Central Lancashire study, they found various substances that can be harmful in sufficient quantities.
So those included polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phosphorous, flame retardant, benzene and analysis, iron. Eight so it is possible, at least that the firefighters could have been exposed to various substances, and if they spent longer than would be usual in their protective gear, that might have increased the risk of exposures.
Richard Burrows: Yeah that's really interesting Pete thanks. It's certainly shows doesn't it that it's not just the inhalation of fumes and smoke which can cause serious injury and that there's many other ways in which the toxic material can be ingested. And I suppose thankfully incidents such as Grenfell tower don't actually occur that frequently so it's hard really to look at other similar incidents further in the past to actually look at the pattern of claims which has emerged from the same over time. But I suppose one being in recent history, which is similar, or be it on a much greater scale, was the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001 and obviously that's around 22 to 23 years ago now, so that might give us an idea as to that what types of claims may emerge. And I know Graham that you've looked at this previously, um, what was the pattern over in the US, was that where the similar claims to these that are coming out of the Grenfell Tower or are they different claims in their entirety?
Graham Dean: Yeah thanks Rich. Yeah, I've had a look at this obviously and I think the first thing to say is we are talking about two separate incidences and obviously we've got to look at each of its facts. But obviously the scale of the World Trade Centre was very different to Grenfell Tower. You know, obviously if we just look at the height of the buildings that Grenfell Tower was about 67 meters and the World Trade Trade Centre was 386 meters. Obviously, we are talking about hugely different sized buildings now, obviously there were similarities as well in that both were absolute tragedies. But as a result from what happened that huge mountain materials were released into the general atmosphere. Obviously most of the materials were construction materials, whatever that be, concrete, various dust and glass. But I think it's clear in both the asbestos that there is other toxins were released into the atmosphere. Obviously it wasn't just the people who were or the victims who were on site, it was the first responders, be it the firefighters, the police and then obviously everybody else in the local area as well.
Now, one thing they did say about the World Trade Centre was that they thought people up to a mile and a half away from the actual site were at risk. We are talking about different numbers here, but they put it about half a million and obviously they were saying they were exposed, the phrase toxic dust is generally what they used as well. But obviously there are similarities here. So the first responders, the firefighters were on site for quite a long period of time. They would have stayed in their protective outfits, etc. as well. When you look back at 9/11, they were on a long period of time before they're able to go get changed, etc. Following the disaster in the US, the US government did set up a compensation scheme. The victim compensation fund, which is self-explanatory, are probably more relevant for what we're talking about here. They set up what was called the World Trade Centre Health program then now obviously the people then monitored the people who did attend on site and it will not surprise you that the firefighters were one of the risk groups.
What they did find is that the most common conditions after that was something that they call the World Trade Centre cough syndrome, asthma, bronchitis, rhinitis, things like that as well. But increasingly over time, they're now saying asbestos related cancers and various other cancers as well. And one of the things that I did see is that sort of since that time, classified 68 different cancers as possibly being linked or eligible for payments as a result of 9/11. Obviously, this is a scheme that was set up so we're not talking about direct that this actually says that causation is established, but it won't surprise you that it's like prostate cancer, breast, thyroid, lung, kidney, colon, skin cancer, melanoma. But obviously the stuff that we're talking about here is there was various lymphomas and leukemias, related to blood cancers, etc. So obviously you know, there are similarities there.
Now, what they've done over the years that we are now talking 21, 22, 20, I think it was probably 22, 23 years ago now that we're looking at 9/11 and obviously the health program has been in place for quite a long period of time so verious studies have been done. The most recent study I was able to find was from 2021 and what they did is they monitored the health of the 11,000 people who attended site of the firefighters against 9,000 who didn't. So we're talking like quite large numbers here. Now, we can't read too much into it because it was an observational study so it doesn't actually establish causation. But what that study did find is that those attended the site as against the firefighters who didn't they were 13% more likely to develop cancer. There had been previous studies before that said 25%. Interestingly as well one of the things they did say is that those who developed cancer, they were on average about four years younger than those who didn't. So as well now, obviously, what we do know is that firefighters in general, the figures for them are higher than the general population.
One of the actually one of the interesting things to come out about the study that the firefighter says they did find out that if they developed cancer, they were 35% more likely to survive. And obviously, that's one of the benefits of the health screening as it is as well. Now, one of the main things that they had to take from this is it doesn't establish causation, but they were worried by what they call surveillance bias because obviously firefighters are more closely monitored than the general population. So obviously it's more likely to be picked up as well. And the conclusion basically from the report was obviously these figures were quite concerning, but basically that further research and modeling is required to establish causation basically.
Now if you compare that to the UK, the coroner following Grenfell did say that similar type of scheme should be set up in the UK to monitor the health of the victims and also the emergency services. So obviously we're just going to have to watch that space here and obviously the inquiry is ongoing and my understanding that is the report from that is not due to probably till the end of this year the earliest anyway. So suddenly these things will develop over time.
Richard Burrows: Right, that's great Graham. I think it certainly shows the benefits of health screening, which is something which is now being called upon, certainly for the firefighters at least who went into Grenfell Tower. As you say, there were other people in the tower as well as that emergency services. You've got the people that were spent hours in there waiting to be rescued, even the ones that were fortunate enough to escape. And I think, yes, causation is certainly going to be something that there'll be a lot of attention paid to. I mean, at the moment, this links been established potentially in 12 firefighters, but besides 1,300 firefighters who actually attended the tower at various points. So, you know, it's still very low numbers at the moment. So you do wonder and you know, what further research is available to establish that it was definitely attending Grenfell Tower which caused those and that level of cancer. So and so we'll see. And I suppose the thing that they've touched on and we've all touched on is that this is something that actually came. And as it moves on with time, we'll see what sort of trends emerge. And so the volumes of these claims that we see. So that's great. Yeah so essentially a one to watch and a risk, which is on the horizon.
So thank you both for joining us today and listening to this podcast and look out for the future ones in the law behind the headlines series. Thank you.