Workers’ health makes high‑octane drama

The main plot follows a series of murders of business leaders who covered up a damning asbestos report at the expense of workers’ health.

Workers were denied compensation for occupational cancers, and court cases failed due to suppressed evidence.

One devastated former worker, having lost colleagues and his wife (who laundered his clothes) to occupational mesothelioma, seeks justice on his own terms.

Protagonist Lana Wash, played by Vicky McLure, who leads the team of bomb disposal experts, actually empathises with the serial killer and is shocked by the business leaders’ disregard for wellbeing.

Yet she overlooks her own negligence and the role she plays in the psychosocial risks her team face.

As viewers, we like ex-military Lana and the bond she has with her colleagues. They casually insult each other and joke about life and death to cope.

But Lana’s resilience is deteriorating after her brother’s death. Dependent on co-codamol, her judgment suffers, and she admits to the killer she’s stopped caring about her own safety.

‘Get on with it’ culture

Early on, new team member Rich (who served in Afghanistan with Lana), nearly drowns during a rescue and later asks Lana if she thinks he’s truly ready to return to work.

We’ve seen him having flashbacks and it’s clear he’s affected by the experience. Lana advises him to “tell them (occupational health) what they want to hear and get on with it.”

This is her own approach, which demonstrably hasn’t helped her. During his first job back, Rich is dismantling a bomb when a flashback hits.

His thought process is ambiguous, and it’s not clear whether his next steps are intentional or because he’s confused – but he cuts a wire and the bomb detonates, killing him instantly.

Reasonably foreseeable?

New recruit Wren had suggested Rich’s trauma could have triggered PTSD, but the team had mocked her concerns.

She repeatedly questions Lana’s behaviour and is treated as a nuisance. The others know something is wrong but think they are being loyal to Lana.

After an outburst and some increasingly risky behaviour, the Detective Inspector leading the investigation tries to stop Lana from attending a site.

Lana allows her ego to take over, insisting that only she can save the day - and the DI backs down.

Colleagues have seen the impact of her co-codamol use and attempt to intervene – again, they step back when she takes offence. 

Of course, experiencing mental health problems does not always involve taking risks with your own safety or that of others.

But evaluating the risks, and following procedures designed to ensure safety, are absolutely critical.

Occupational health specialists play a vital role in preventing harm, but only when employers bring them in and back them, and workers are honest with them. 

Many colleagues could have acted before Lana’s judgement became so impaired that she encouraged Rich to return without ensuring he was ready.

Just as others could have refused pay-offs and exposed the asbestos cover-up, choosing to prevent harm rather than act for personal gain. In real life, countless injuries and cases of corporate manslaughter follow similar patterns.

Prepare to be unpopular

Working in OSH sometimes involves saying things people don’t want to hear and pushing them harder than they’d like.

This way, risk is identified and managed before harm can occur. These conversations can be personal and awkward, even unpleasant, but they’re essential. 

Think about it: if your mental health and decision-making were being affected and your colleagues were concerned, what approach would you want them to take? 

What improvements might happen in your organisation if you were prepared to challenge attitudes that could result in harm?