<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>e-space Collection:</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2173/31659</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:35:43 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2013-05-22T00:35:43Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Mondays without dread: the trade union response to byssinosis in the Lancashire cotton industry in the twentieth century</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2173/84434</link>
      <description>Title: Mondays without dread: the trade union response to byssinosis in the Lancashire cotton industry in the twentieth century
Authors: Tweedale, Geoffrey; Bowden, Sue
Abstract: Trade unions have often been criticized for their failure to address occupational health issues. This article explores their response to byssinosis—a chronic respiratory disease caused by exposure to cotton dust that was rife in the Lancashire cotton industry in the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Using the archives of the cardroom and spinning unions, it is demonstrated that trade union efforts to combat byssinosis began before the First World War and were sustained for over 70 years. During that period, byssinosis became a recognized medical condition and a compensatable disease, due in no small measure to the trade unions campaigning tirelessly for better dust control, compensation for all affected workers, and more medical research.
Description: This metadata relates to an article accepted for publication in Social History of Medicine following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version, 2003, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 79-95 is available online at: http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jan 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2173/84434</guid>
      <dc:date>2003-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Chrysophiles versus chrysophobes: the white asbestos controversy, 1950s-2004</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2173/72914</link>
      <description>Title: Chrysophiles versus chrysophobes: the white asbestos controversy, 1950s-2004
Authors: Tweedale, Geoffrey; McCulloch, Jock
Abstract: In the first half of the twentieth century, asbestos was a controversial mineral because of its association with asbestosis and asbestos related lung cancer. It has proved no less so since the 1960s, when another asbestos cancer, mesothelioma, was identified. Mesothelioma appeared to be more strongly linked with blue asbestos (crocidolite) than with the other asbestos varieties, brown (amosite) and white (chrysotile). This finding triggered a fierce debate between “chrysophiles” (those who declared chrysotile innocuous) and “chrysophobes” (those who believed it was a mortal hazard). This essay attempts the first history of the chrysotile controversy, which shows that a scientific consensus on the safety of white asbestos was very slow to emerge. This was only partly due to the complexities of scientific research. Political, economic, and social factors have militated against a speedy resolution of the debate, facilitating the continued production and use of asbestos in the developing world.
Description: Full-text of this article is not available in this e-prints service. This article was originally published [following peer-review] in ISIS, published by and copyright University of Chicago Press.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2004 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2173/72914</guid>
      <dc:date>2004-06-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Asbestos and its lethal legacy</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2173/70489</link>
      <description>Title: Asbestos and its lethal legacy
Authors: Tweedale, Geoffrey
Abstract: Asbestos has become the leading cause of occupationally related cancer death, and the second most fatal manufactured carcinogen (after tobacco). In the public's mind, asbestos has been a hazard since the 1960s and 1970s. However, the knowledge that the material was a mortal health hazard dates back at least a century, and its carcinogenic properties have been appreciated for more than 50 years.
Description: Full-text of this article is not available in this e-prints service. This article was originally published following peer-review in Nature reviews, cancer, published by and copyright Nature Publishing Ltd.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2173/70489</guid>
      <dc:date>2002-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Employment in host regions and foreign direct investment</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/2173/70497</link>
      <description>Title: Employment in host regions and foreign direct investment
Authors: Tuselmann, Heinz; McDonald, Frank; Heise, Arne; Williams, David
Abstract: This paper examines the relationship between foreign direct investment inflows and employment using international business strategy literature to identify the factors influencing the development of subsidiaries that might affect employment growth in host regions. A survey of German subsidiaries in North West England is used to test the significance of the variables that are identified as likely to affect employment. The results of logit regression indicate that entry mode, technology transfer, and firm age affect the growth of employment. The study also highlights that other factors, such as sector, organisational structure, the level of diversification of operations by subsidiaries in the local economy, and range of markets supplied may have important affects on employment. The research indicates that further conceptual and empirical work is required to clarify our understanding of how the organisational, operational, and diversification characteristics of subsidiaries affect employment.
Description: Full-text of this article is not available in this e-prints service. This article was originally published [following peer-review] in Environment and planning c: government and policy, published by and copyright Pion Ltd.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/2173/70497</guid>
      <dc:date>2003-05-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

