Proposed Changes to CalOSHA Bloodborne Pathogen Regs Officially Released…

Even those these regs were leaked last week they have now been officially released by the California Department of Industrial Relations and CalOSHA. The regulations (California Code of Regulations sec 5193.1 ) are attached below.

Here is the email that was sent today by CalOSHA.

Thank you for your participation in this project. The Division has edited the previous draft, which was provided in June 2011. This draft has been sent to the Board staff for their review. It is not a rulemaking proposal at this time. The draft can be found at:

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/doshreg/Section-5193.1-STI-form-9-text.pdf

Additional information is also available at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/DoshReg/5193Meetings.htm

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Amalia Neidhardt, Senior Safety Engineer at aneidhardt@dir.ca.gov .
Thank you for your interest in this project.

Amalia Neidhardt MPH, CIH, CSP

Proposed Section-5193.1-STI

Decriminalizing Prostitution, OSHA and Porn

In my research I often happen upon interesting articles, cases or even regulations. A few weeks ago I was involved in a conversation on Twitter with Maggie McNeil that peeked my interest into the status of sex industry in New Zealand ( http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/ ). Ms. McNeil is a self described librarian, housewife, call girl and a madam, who likes to own the word “whore.” During the conversation she kept referring to how New Zealand had decriminalized prostitution and how it could serve as a model to other to other countries. Not knowing much about New Zealand law or how they treat escorts and prostitutes I decided to do some research.

What I found is not only interesting in its application to the escorting industry but also to adult entertainment in the United States. In 2003 New Zealand passed the Prostitution Reform Act. The Act removed voluntary adult (18) prostitution from the criminal law and replaced it with civil law at both national and local level. A distinction was made between voluntary and involuntary prostitution. To this day it remains a crime in New Zealand to coerce someone to provide sexual services. Contracts between provider and client are know recognized by the courts of New Zealand and providers have the right to refuse services to clients. Advertising however is still banned with the exception of print media which is restricted.

Upon passing the Prostitution Reform Act, the government of New Zealand went even further and decided to adopt health and safety regulations in regards to prostitution. New Zealand’s version of Cal-OSHA devised a 101 page detailed “Guide to Occupational Health and Safety in the New Zealand Sex Industry” ( Download a copy here NewZealandOSHAregsexindustry-1 ).

New Zealand OSHA’s guide to the sex industry is comprehensive and detailed. It addresses a wide range of issues, including employees, independent contractors, appropriate clothing for prostitutes, repetitive stress injuries, unions, work breaks in between clients to even fire extinguishers and safety equipment in brothels. It is far more detailed then the regulations currently being instituted by Cal-OSHA on the adult entertainment industry and does so in a manner that works with the those it tries to regulate instead of forcing it upon them

New Zealand OSHA devised the regulations with the assistance and help of the sex industry. The first page of the guide states;

“These guidelines are based on those developed by the Scarlet Alliance, an
Australian forum for sex workers’ rights organisations, and the Australian
Federation of AIDS Organisations, titled A Guide to Best Practice:
Occupational Health and Safety in the Australian Sex Industry, compiled
by David Edler.
OSH acknowledges the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective who provided
industry-specific information and understanding of the sex industry in
New Zealand.”

Not only did New Zealand OSHA work with a New Zealand sex worker’s alliance but also an Australian sex workers’ rights organization ( Please see: http://www.nzpc.org.nz/ and http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/ ). They they also worked with Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations ( Please see: http://www.afao.org.au/ ). The Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations also work closely with the Scarlet Alliance and the Australian Sex Workers Association, unlike AHF in the United States that does not have a relationship with any of the sex worker industries.

What is even more surprising is what the New Zealand OSHA regulations state in regards to condoms. From page 37 of the Guide;

“Employers should not only require condom use, but should also identify
condom use and other safer sex practices clearly to employees and clients as
the standard, expected practice of the establishment.”

Condoms are “expected” not mandated. Fines can be imposed for not requiring condoms however, unlike violating Ballot Measure B, violating the condom expectation in New Zealand will not result in jail time. Even customers can be fined for removing condoms during sex ( Please see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-355879/NZ-man-fined-removing-condom.html )

It also appears that New Zealand OSHA takes a more reasoned approach to STIs in the prostitution industry then Cal-OSHA does in regards to porn, from page 39;

“Each person must accept responsibility for preventing themselves and
others from becoming infected with sexually transmissible infections.
There are many infections, including HIV, that can be transmitted through
sexual intercourse. The consistent use of condoms for oral, vaginal and
anal sex will prevent most of these from being transmitted.
Syphilis and blood-borne viruses such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C
can be transmitted by means other than penetrative sex and other sexual
activity. This includes the sharing of needles and other drug-injecting
equipment among injecting drug users (IDUs), unsterile skin-piercing
procedures, childbirth and breastfeeding, and transfusion of infected
blood.”

It implies a personally responsibility to remain safe as opposed to treating semen and bodily fluids as though they were dangerous chemicals requiring immediate treatment.

The other interesting aspect to the regulations is that they only apply to employers with more than 5 employees and/or any group of 5 or more prostitutes working together in a collective situation ( Please see: http://www.nzpc.org.nz/page.php?page_name=Law ). This is unlike Ballot Measure B which will affect all legal commercial sex in Los Angeles County, even married monogamous couples web camming from their own home. The United States’ Americans with Disabilities Act only applies to employers with 15 or more employees ( Please see: http://www.ada.gov/q%26aeng02.htm ) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s version of the ADA, only applies to employers with 5 or more employees for most claims. ( Please see: http://www.fehc.ca.gov/act/default.asp ). Ballot Measure B will effect all employers whether they have no employees or 100+ employees. This will place a tremendous financial burden on the smallest of producers who will be required to obtain an expensive health permit if Ballot Measure B passes.

None the less, it is this author’s opinion that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles City Council and Cal-OSHA can take a valuable lesson from the government of New Zealand on how to work with an industry they are trying to regulate. New Zealand OSHA, obviously was better informed and more understanding of the health and safety of prostitutes as well as the business necessities of the brothels when they developed their regulations than Los Angeles county and city officials as well as Cal-OSHA has been in regards to the adult entertainment industry in California.

Testing and Condoms: Straight Porn vs. Gay Porn

As I continue to research the issue of Ballot Measure B, the “Condoms in Porn” law, it became apparent that we have a divided industry. Actually it is more like two separate and distinct industries. We share common interests. We often share the same distribution channels and profit streams. There are now even companies that produce both gay and straight content ( ie., Naughty America-> http://www.suite703.com/ and Manwin-> http://www.men.com/ ). San Francisco and Los Angeles lie only 382 miles from each other but they might as well be on different coasts. When it comes to the issues of testing and condoms we could not be any more different or diametrically opposed.

The straight industry tests and doesn’t usually use condoms. The gay industry rarely tests and usually uses condoms, though in recent years even the use of condoms in gay porn is diminishing while testing is increasing. For performers in the gay community the issue of HIV status is treated as a closely guarded secret while in the straight industry test results are passed out like candy at a five year old’s birthday party.

In the straight industry if a performer is HIV+ there simply is no work for them. According to an article in Out Magazine, according to Michael Stabile, then Marketing Director for NakedSword.com, it was estimated that nearly 50% of all performers in gay porn are HIV+ ( Please see:  http://www.out.com/entertainment/2007/07/23/baring-truth?page=0,1 ). A survey by TheSword.com of 100 gay male performers put that estimate closer to a 30% HIV+ rate (Please see: http://www.advocate.com/health/2009/08/12/business-pleasure?page=0,1 ).

Kent Taylor of Raging Stallion Studio claims;

“We don’t currently ask [about HIV status]. We assume everyone is [HIV-positive], and if they say they are not, we assume they are lying.”

Michael Lucas, owner of Lucas Entertainment, does not believe that HIV status should be discussed in polite circles ( Please see: http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/09/27/oped-live-world-where-everyone-has-hiv )

“I’m in favor of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Not in the military, of course — those days are behind us — but in the bedroom. What I’m talking about, specifically, is HIV. And my point is that, at least when it comes to sex, we should talk about it less.”

So in gay porn it is a matter of not testing and/or not sharing of HIV status and just simply using a condom to protect the performers. However, do condoms really protect the performers ? Does less than complete adherence to condom use even in a performer’s private sexual life keep them safe ? According to Stabile ( Please see: http://www.out.com/entertainment/2007/07/23/baring-truth?page=0,1 );

I’ve talked to some of them [gay male performers], and they say, ‘The only time I ever have sex with a condom is on-screen.’

Therefore, if some gay performers are only using condoms on set and not in their personal lives and not testing, it is impossible to know actually how many HIV transmissions are occurring on gay sets. Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is not concerned with performer health and safety in the gay industry because according to a statement he made to this author at a September 17, 2012 press conference “the majority of gay porn is made with condoms.” His belief is that condoms protect.

This opinion is echoed by Michael Lucas;

“In fact, it’s hard to get HIV even from sex — as long as you use a condom. I dated a positive guy for two years in the 1990s; we had safe sex almost every day, and I never seroconverted. Today, it is even more difficult to become infected through protected sex. Recent studies suggest that HIV-positive men who are taking their medications pose a vastly reduced risk of transmitting the virus.”

Obviously there is a school of thought in the gay porn production community that test results do not really mean much if you are using a condom. Most gay studios only use condoms for anal sex. Rarely are they used for oral sex. Condoms may protect from HIV but they do not protect from oral chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and herpes if they are not being used. How many gay performers have contracted chlamydia, gonnorhea and HPV of the throat or herpes simplex 2 around their mouths ? Without testing there is simply no way to know. And therefore Michael Weinstein’s belief that gay performers are some how better protected from STIs because they use a condom for anal sex is terribly flawed logic.

In straight porn there is almost no one that will work with a known HIV+ positive performer with or without a condom. Matter of fact, the way the FSC/APHSS testing system works is to flag a performer that tests positive for HIV. The database will indicate that they are not cleared to work. At that point the straight industry would undergo a complete shut down of production until a full tree of potential exposures could be established and all performers that had been exposed re-tested. Any positive performers would then be re-tested again to confirm their status. This is a completely different from the gay industry that almost assumes all performers are HIV+.

According to many producers in straight porn, mandatory condoms would decimate the industry in Los Angeles. According to producers in gay porn, mandatory testing would decimate the industry in San Francisco ( Please see: http://www.advocate.com/health/2009/08/12/business-pleasure?page=0,1 ).

So how does an industry divided rectify this situation and come together to be united ? Can that even be achieved ? Can there be common ground reached to ensure profits while maintaining worker safety and participation ? The issues of government mandated condoms or industry mandated testing must be discussed openly. As more performers cross in-between both sides of the industry this topic will only become more heated and divisive if not handled properly.

 

Weinstein Says Focus Should Not be on HIV in Porn !!!

As I continue to do more research into the condom issue I came across a very interesting report from June 4, 2004. For those of you that might not realize the “condoms in porn” debate as been going on for quite some time. Some of the players have changed, most have stayed the same.

On June 4, 2004, Paul Koretz (then Assemblyman Paul Koretz, now Los Angeles City Council Member who in fact voted in favor of the Safer Sex in Adult Films Ordinance passed by the Los Angeles City Council earlier this year) called for an informational hearing entitled, “Worker Health and Safety in the Adult Film Industry.” The meeting was held after the Darren James HIV outbreak (The same Darren James that is now doing commercials for AHF). Numerous stake holders were asked to provide testimony.

“The hearing was held in response to recent incidence of HIV infection among performers in the adult film industry. It was reported that five performers were infected and that over 50 performers were exposed. Government and the industry responded to identify the infected and control the spread of the disease. A core issue, which will influence any public policy response, is whether performers in the industry are employees or independent contractors. The Committee also considered the viability and legality of mandated testing, reporting, and mandated condom use.”

You can download and read the entire report here — koretz_posthearingreport-1

At this hearing, several members of the industry testified. Jeffrey Douglas, Esq. of the Free Speech Coalition, Gil Sperlin, Esq. of Titan Media, Sharon Mitchell of AIM and Nina Hartley. Dr Fielding, Director of Los Angeles County Public Health, testified as well.

However, the most interesting testimony, in my opinion, came from Michael Weinstein of the AIDs Healthcare Foundation. This is the actual summary of his testimony from the report;

“Mr. Weinstein made the point that there are thousands of HIV infections occurring all over the country and the world and yet the media and Legislature are now focused on the handful of infections that have recently occurred in the porn industry. He also stated that AIM may be best suited to deliver HIV testing and prevention services to the porn community rather than other HIV related organizations like AIDS Healthcare Foundation.”

No mention of condoms. No claim that testing is inadequate. No argument that the industry cannot police itself. Quite the opposite. He felt that the focus should not be on HIV in porn. And he felt that AIM was best suited to deal with this problem, even more so then his own organization.

Keep in mind his testimony came less then two months after 5 performers tested positive for HIV. Since then we have not had a single transmission within the industry but now he wants mandatory condoms…

Oh, how eight years changes everything…

But then again in 2004 porn wasn’t free and reaching every person in every country with an Internet connection and condom sales weren’t expected to reach $6 billion dollars a year… http://www.prweb.com/releases/condoms/male_female/prweb4376334.htm

 

Condoms & The First Amendment…

Los Angeles County’s Measure B, the “Condoms in Porn” law, has caused much discussion in the media as well as the industry as to whether such a mandate is a violation of a performer and producer’s First Amendment free speech rights. Whether it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution will be left to the courts to decide. It is, without question, a law that can be challenged. The United States’ Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Which means no other law can violate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution – not even workers’ safety laws.

In regulating commercial speech the government has to show that condom law passes what is known as the Central Hudson test ( Please see: http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Commercial_speech ). In regards to free speech and pornography, the United States’ Supreme Court has indeed ruled that hardcore pornography is legal and in fact is protected by the First Amendment and therefore entitled to protection under the Constitution ( Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California ).

Many have also questioned who holds such free speech rights – the producers or the performers ? The answer is that both producers and performers hold equal rights in that regard. Performers, like dancers in gentlemen’s clubs, do in fact express themselves while performing in an adult scene or movie. There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that hold a dancer’s nude dancing is in fact expressive free speech. ( Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_v._Glen_Theatre,_Inc. )

Can Free Speech Be Restricted ?

Commercial free speech can be regulated. There are two types of restrictions on commercial free speech, content and non-content based restrictions. An example of content based restriction would be a law that prohibited a newspaper from publishing the name of a rape victim. An example of a non-content based restriction would be zoning laws regulating the time, manner and place a business owner could operate a gentlemen’s club within a city or county. Content based restrictions require the court to impose a “strict scrutiny” test, meaning that the law has to promote a compelling governmental interest and it has to do so in the least restrictive means possible. For non-content based restrictions the court will used what is called “intermediate scrutiny,” meaning the law has to promote a significant, substantial or important government interest and it must be done in a way that is narrowly tailored to the governmental interest. Under intermediate scrutiny there are basically two tests the court uses 1) time, place and manner and 2) incidental, which means regulations that are aimed at conduct that is not speech but do infringe on speech.

A government mandated condom law would be a regulation that is not aimed at actual speech but rather conduct however it does infringe on the free speech rights of the producers and performers. In U.S. Supreme Court cases that have primarily been focused on gentlemen’s clubs, those looking to restrict nude dancing have used the argument that regulations imposed on them are merely trying to alleviate the “secondary effects” that gentlemen’s clubs supposedly cause such as crime, prostitution and blight on the neighborhood they are located in. I imagine that the government may also try to use a secondary effects argument in favor of the condom law, if it were ever to be challenged. I believe that they will claim that condoms in porn will protect the health of the general public since members of the adult industry will spread disease to those in the general public. Whether this argument will work is unknown.

None the less, a government mandated condom law is a restriction of free speech of both performers and producers. Since it is not content based, if challenged in court, it would receive intermediate scrutiny and the court would examine whether the government has a significant, substantial or important governmental interest and whether the law is narrowly tailored to those goals.

Therefore the question will be is the health and safety of workers in the adult industry a significant, substantial or important governmental interest. And if so, is the condom law narrowly tailored to promoting that goal. In other words does the law restrict the least possible amount of speech to accomplish the goal of protecting adult industry workers.

More than likely the courts will find that the health and safety of adult performers are an important governmental interest. The argument on behalf of the industry would probably be that STI testing achieves the same goal of the condom mandate without restricting any speech.

The industry could also make the argument that only the state of California has the ability to regulate workplace safety and therefore the law exceeds the power of Los Angeles County or any city that adopts a similar law such as the City of Los Angeles Safer Sex in Adult Films Ordinance.

In the coming weeks I will be writing more on this subject. However, if you are interested in this issue I suggest that you do some research and educate yourself. Especially if you are a producer or performer in the industry. You might be interviewed by someone in the media in the coming weeks as Election Day approaches.

A good starting primer on First Amendment issues is attached to this article. It was written by an attorney for the Congressional Research Service in October 2009. It basically states how the government can regulate free speech and how it needs to go about doing it. Its an inside look inside their “playbook.”

FreeSpeechPrimer

 

Can the HIV Virus Pass Right Through Latex Condoms ?

In my research on whether condoms contain the cancer causing chemical Nitrosamines I also stumbled upon other interesting facts about condoms. The most interesting came from the June 1993 Rubber World Magazine ( http://www.rubberworld.com/ ). Rubber World Magazine is the rubber industry’s technical trade magazine. The author of the article is Dr. C.M. Roland, Head of Polymer Physics Naval Research Laboratory. Here is his brief bio;


Biographical Sketch:
Mike Roland is a physical chemist and head of the Polymer Physics Section at the Naval Research Laboratory. His research interests are the mechanical and viscoelastic properties of materials. He received his PhD in chemistry from the Pennsylvania State University in 1980, and prior to joining NRL in 1986 was a group leader at the Firestone Central Research Laboratories in Akron, OH. From 1991 to 1999 he edited the American Chemical Society journal “Rubber Chemistry & Technology”, and currently is on the editorial board of “Macromolecules”. His awards include the Sparks-Thomas Award (ACS) in 1991, Edison Award (NRL) in 2000, Melvin Mooney Award (ACS) in 2002, Sigma Xi Award for Pure Science (NRL) in 2002, and he became a Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals, and Mining (UK) in 2008. He has authored over 300 publications and holds 13 patents.

Dr. Roland’s has stated that latex condoms are actually ineffective in stopping the spread of the HIV virus. His research showed that latex condoms, on the molecular level, have holes in them that are simply too large to stop the HIV virus from passing through the latex membrane.

I suggest that everyone reading this article read his article in its entirety. You can find it here -> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+barrier+performance+of+latex+rubber.-a014089514. I will quote some of the more important facts from his article.

Dr. Roland states;

“The defining feature of viruses is their diminutive size; electron microscopy reveals the AIDS virus to be only 100 to 120 nm (0.1 micron) in size. This is consistent with their passage through polycarbonate filters with holes in the 0.1 to 0.2 [Micro]m range.  The size of HIV is 60 times smaller than the bacteria causing syphilis and 450 times smaller than human sperm… Clearly, the use of a condom or rubber glove for barrier protection from a virus represents a different problem from that of preventing bacterial infection or conception.”

Condoms were developed to prevent pregnancy. They have also proven to be useful in preventing certain bacterial sexually transmitted disease such as gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis. However, according to Dr. Roland, based on the extremely small size of the HIV virus – latex condoms are not completely effective to prevent the spread of the HIV virus.

Roland goes on to state that the “water-leakage” test used by many condom manufacturers is simply not suitable to test for HIV transmission rates through the latex membrane. Basically HIV is smaller then even water molecules, Roland states;

“These results indicate that the water leakage test is not adequate for the detection of the small holes relevant for viral transmission. This was directly demonstrated in a study of the ability of latex condoms to prevent passage of fluorescence labeled polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm in diameter (i.e., equivalent in size to the AIDS virus). One-third of the condoms, none of which contained holes large enough to be rejected by the water leakage test, allowed passage of the microspheres, with fluid flow rates lying in the range of 0.4 to 1.6 nanoliters per second.”

He based his opinion on the findings of a 1992 condom research study performed by the FDA. Physical science researchers tested the ability of 89 undamaged latex condoms manufactured in the US to prevent passage of HIV size particles under simulated physiologic conditions at their Food and Drug Administration laboratory in Rockville, Maryland. You can read an abstract of their research here -> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1411838

Here’s is what the FDA found;

Leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of the 89 condoms tested. Worst-case condom barrier effectiveness (fluid transfer prevention), however, is shown to be at least 10 times better than not using a condom at all, suggesting that condom use substantially reduces but does not eliminate the risk of HIV transmission.”

These findings have nothing to do with whether the condom was properly used. These test results only speak to whether the condom itself has holes in it large enough to allow the HIV virus to pass through it. Obviously, not properly using a condom, as well as breakage and slippage will only increase its ineffectiveness.

Before anyone throws anything at their screen in anger allow me to discuss the National Institute of Health’s condom effectiveness study released in July of 2001. To address the questions raised by Roland and other researchers, the NIH held a conference in June 2000 where this issue was investigated further. The report was limited to evaluating the effectiveness of male latex condoms used during penile-vaginal intercourse. It examined evidence on eight STIs—HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, chancroid, trichomoniasis, genital herpes and genital human papillomavirus. The data presented in the report found that male latex condoms are effective in preventing the most serious STI (HIV), the most easily transmitted STIs (gonorrhea and chlamydia) and another important sexually transmitted condition (unplanned pregnancy).

However, the NIH report only stoked the fires of additional debate as to the effectiveness of the male condom to prevent the transmission of STDs. Many attacked the report on political as well as scientific basis.

None the less, no matter what side of the “condoms in porn” debate you may be on the facts are relatively clear. Condoms help in preventing the transmission of HIV but are not 100% effective in the complete prevention of HIV transmission.

One study of heterosexual couples by Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health of the University of Texas found that in cases were one partner was HIV+ and the other was HIV-, a condom’s effectiveness;

“at preventing HIV transmission is estimated to be 87%, but it may vary between 60% and 96%.”

(Please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10614517 )

I strongly suggest that everyone do their own research as to this topic. There are many competing voices and view points. Please educate and decide for yourself.

Performers: Can Condoms Cause Cancer ?

As a former employment and workers’ compensation attorney I often had to research the potential side-effects of different chemicals my clients were exposed to while “on-the-job.” Since Cal-OSHA, the City of Los Angeles and now possibly the County of Los Angeles all want to make condoms mandatory for the industry one of the first questions that everyone should be asking is – Are condoms safe ?

I realize that seems like a strange question to ask since the motivating idea behind the use of condoms is to make the industry more safe from the spread of different STDs. However, the question needs to be asked since condoms may in fact do more harm than good.

I experienced this same issue several years ago, as an attorney for employers in California, when there was a push to require back braces for those that worked in warehouses. The common belief was that a back brace worn by an employee would give that employee more back support and thus cut down the rate and severity of low back injuries in the state’s workforce. It seemed like a reasonable position. Until studies were performed that showed that wearing a back brace actually INCREASED the number of back injuries since those wearing them believed it provided them with some sort of magically lifting powers. By wearing a back brace they actually tried to lift heavier items they would not have tried to lift if they did not wear a back brace. And thus, the number of low back injuries actually increase because of their use.

Therefore I wondered if there were studies about condoms as to the same issue. Does wearing a condom provide a sense of superior safety which may result in actual riskier behavior. So I did research, as attorneys often do.

What I found is much more concerning and confusing. Condoms contain a substance that in known to cause cancer. And not only does it contain a substance known to cause cancer, that substance, known as Nitrosamines, is actually a REGULATED chemical under California Occupational Safety & Health Regulations ( Please see http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/339.html ). According to the United States Department of Labor, exposure (to Nitrosamines) by all routes should be carefully controlled to levels as low as possible (Please see http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_258000.html ).

And here is what US OSHA states Nitrosamines can do to the human body;

Potential Symptoms: Irritation of eyes, skin, respiratory tract; nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps; headache; sore throat, cough; weakness; fever; enlarged liver, jaundice; decreased liver, kidney, and pulmonary function; low platelet count; [potential occupational carcinogen]

Health Effects: Cancer (HE1); Liver cirrhosis (HE3); Suspect teratogen (HE5)

Affected Organs: Liver, kidneys, lungs

A German study found that; ( Please see http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1220847,00.html )

The condoms, which were kept in a solution with artificial sweat, exuded huge amounts of cancer-causing N-Nitrosamine from its rubber coating. Researchers measured amounts of N-Nitrosamine, that were way above the prescribed limits for other rubber products such as baby pacifiers.

“N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances,” the study’s authors said. “There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem.”

Then I thought to myself this cannot be true. Where are all the penis & cervical cancer cases ? Surely the world would have heard reports of an increase in these types of cancers if in fact the chemicals in condoms caused cancer. So I did more research, as attorneys often do. And then I found the actual study performed by the German researchers. It is published on the National Institute of Health Website (Please see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11759152 ).

Here is a excerpt from the study; (I highlighted the important parts relevant to this discussion)

Previously, endogenous nitrosamine formation in the vagina has been suggested as a cause of cervical cancer. It was speculated that exogenous N-nitrosamines and N-nitrosatable compounds from condoms may also lead to genital cancer. Therefore, we reviewed the literature and calculated the risk for the induction of tumors by nitrosamines from condoms. In vitro Biaudet et al. (1997) found up to 88 ng nitrosatable compounds migrating from condoms to cervical mucous within 24 hrs. During sexual intercourse about 0.6 ng may migrate in the female genital mucous membranes because of the short contact to the condom, e.g. 10 min. Comparable amounts of nitrosamines may also migrate in the penile skin. Estimating 1500 contacts to condoms during lifetime (50 condoms/year for 30 years) this may result in the adsorption of up to 0.9 microgram nitrosamines in total.

This study was based on the use of condoms for personal sexual activity NOT commercial sexual activity. The researchers used 10 minutes for an exposure period having sex once a week for 30 years. Based on that they concluded that condoms did not present a risk of increased cancer rates. I tried to find an example of another study where condom use was much greater but I could not find one (Perhaps if someone can find a research paper as to the use of condoms for sex-workers and increased cancer rates from exposure to Nitrosamines that would be most beneficial).

Taking their research a step farther and applying it to the industry sex practices, it is possible for a male performer will have to use a condom for up to 6 hours a day (2 scenes)  for up to 5 days a week. This is 17,900% increase in exposure over how much time the typical man would wear a condom in his lifetime according to the German’s study. And that is only in one week of exposure to the male performer. Compound that number by years of performing and now there is a substantial increased risk of developing cancer, even using this study’s parameters.

So here we have Cal-OSHA demanding that the industry use condoms to comply with blood-borne pathogen laws when their own regulations indicate that Nitrosamines cause cancer and there has been NO studies performed that show that long term industrial exposure to the Nitrosamines in condoms is safe.

Why hasn’t this issue been raised in the debate as to whether condom use should be mandatory? Why are condoms being forced on the industry before any controlled studies have been completed as to high exposure and long term effects of Nitrosamines are more closely examined ?

Oh yes, because condoms are being pushed by the AIDs Healthcare Foundation and the health and safety of performers would only get in the way of their safer sex message for the general public, who will never develop cancer from the use of a condom.