Conference 7.286::digital

Sounds like we're doing what's right in offering transfers.  Of course,
transferring to a different *kind* of work (production vs. non-production)
may not be easy.

Bob

    
    	Like most studies (unfortunalty), this one lacks any real hard
    numbers.  It claims that there were 471 women involved in a study
    in the Hudson plant.  It does not state whether any of these women
    ever got pregnant while working at the plant.  As far as anyone
    is concerned, none of the women could have been pregnant making
    the study worthless and a joke.
    	To make things worse, it claims SOME of the women were in
    photolithograpy , which makes the sample much smaller.  
    	The study then goes on to say that on the average 18% of the
    women who are pregnant suffer miscariages.  That means if there
    are 5 pregnant women working, on the average 1 will suffer a
    miscariage.  According to the study, that figure was up to 39% with
    the women who worked in photolithagraphy.  That could mean that
    an extra women just happened to suffer a miscariage.  And that's
    all.  In that case the study uses way too small a sample and is
    easily within the margin of experimental error.
    	Now don't get me wrong.  If there is a serious problem or even
    the hint of a problem, then Digital should immedialty look into
    the situation and inform it's employees at all times.  Especially
    if it turns out that the study involved 200 pregnant women who worked in
    photolithagraphy and 39 of them had miscarriages.  Then you have
    a real serious problem.
    	What drives me nuts is that at the first hint of trouble, or
    when a study comes out, people start acting like chicken little
    and yell "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".
    	Obviously what numbers the study is missing is HOW MANY of the
    women in photolithagraphy WHO WORKED, WERE PREGNANT, and HOW MANY
    of those women actually HAD a miscarriage.
    	Then you have something to really argue about.
    
    Ron
                           
    P.S.  Sorry, I didn't mean to go on a wild arguement, just that
    I see enough of this stuff from the media all the time as it is.

    There is also a parallel discussion going on in WOMANNOTES, Note
    # 154.*.
    
    RAINBO::WOMANNOTES
    
    

    The study sounds very much on the level, and I believe we Did the
    Right Thing.
    
    Some other chip companies have been denying the hazard all along.
    If you don't know there's a problem, how can you fix it?  Digital
    had the good sense to let a university do a study.  The numbers
    may need some clarification for statistical significance (I'm sure
    UMass did it; AP probably didn't bother to run it), but they sound
    convincing.
    
    Silicon Mountain in Hudson is a squeaky-clean plant, and I'm sure
    our standards are very high.  Given the chemicals used in the semi
    industry, it's no wonder there are risks.  At least we don't belive
    in cover-ups!

There is a longer discussion of the study in today's Boston Globe.
I would recommend that the author of .1 read the actual study before
criticizing the AP report of it -- or make it clear that it is the
AP's journalism that is the issue.

Martin.

    Before I had a chance to read this note my wife told me the basic
    story. At the end she said "I'm glad that DEC went outside to get
    help with the study (she doesn't work for DEC). So am I. DEC does
    well by it's employees. As far as having a hard time placing employees
    in other jobs goes maybe you should check into the placement record
    of STRIDE.
    Merry Christmas and/or Happy Hollidays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

STRIDE is an acronym for "strategic and tactical resource identifi-
cation and development". It was established a year ago and is in-
tended mainly for employees who are "reassignable", that is, whose
jobs are being eliminated. It provides on-the-job training in new
skills so people can transfer more easily. It is an interesting
question whether people in situations such as the one at Hudson
could get into this program. 

From what I've seen about this on TV, because "Silicon Valley Industry
Spokesmen" were so quick to discuss the study, everyone has forgotten
that the problems were found at Digital (including toxic waste and labor
health interests).
				/AHM

Associated Press Mon 19-JAN-1987 09:13                           Miscarriages

   Study Shows High Incidence of Miscarriages
   LOS ANGELES (AP) - An unpublished study suggesting that women
who assemble computer chips have a high incidence of miscarriages
shouldn't alarm the semiconductor industry, says the principal
author of the study.
   ``This is not the definitive study,'' Edward J. Calabrese, a
toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts School of Public
Health in Amherst, told the Los Angeles Times.
   The study sent shock waves through the industry, challenging its
reputation as a clean industry that poses few health and safety
problems for its workers.
   The industry-sponsored report last week prompted American
Telephone & Telegraph Co. to recommend transfers for all pregnant
women on its computer chip production lines in Florida, Missouri
and Pennsylvania and to guarantee them new jobs at comparable pay
and benefits.
   In California, major Silicon Valley manufacturers such as Intel,
Advanced Micro Devices and National Semiconductor Corp. informed
employees of the study but have not changed policies governing
pregnant workers.
   ``There just isn't enough information yet,'' said Sheila Sandow,
a spokeswoman for the Semiconductor Industry Association, the
industry's Cupertino-based trade organization.
   The study of the Digital Equipment Corp.'s plant in Hudson,
Mass., which was completed last fall, is the first comprehensive
look at the health of semiconductor production workers, many of
whom are exposed to a variety of dangerous solvents, acids and
gases.
   The study said there were seven miscarriages in a group of 67
female production workers, compared to the three or four
miscarriages that would have been expected by chance.
   The industry responses are ``clearly more conservative than our
conclusions would necessarily warrant,'' Calabrese told the Times.
He applauded semiconductor manufacturers, however, for ``erring on
the side of safety.''
   ``Reproductive success is a sensitive issue,'' Calabrese said.
``The concern about job-related miscarriages is real but this is
not the study that will end the debate.''
   Digital commissioned the study by Calabrese and his colleague
Harris Pastides, an epidemiologist, in 1984, after production
workers at the plant west of Boston expressed alarm about what
seemed to be a high number of miscarriages.
   After the University of Massachusetts researchers briefed
Digital on their results in November, word of the study spread
rapidly. But some criticized the industry response as inadequate.
   ``The position AT&T has taken only goes half way,'' said Ted
Smith, executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition,
an activist community organization based in San Jose. ``The
industry should remove the dangerous chemicals from the workplace,
not the workers.''
   Later this month, a team of occupational health experts from the
Semiconductor Industry Association will meet with the University of
Massachusetts researchers and then make recommendations about
further actions, perhaps including an industrywide study of
miscarriages and other medical issues.