8
   

Lobbyists push use of deadly asbestos in developing nations - The threat from deadly asbestos

 
 
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 09:40 am
July 21, 2010
Lobbyists push use of deadly asbestos in developing nations - The threat from deadly asbestos
By Jim Morris | International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

WASHINGTON — A global network of lobby groups has spent nearly $100 million since the mid-1980s to preserve the international market for asbestos, a known carcinogen that's taken millions of lives and is banned or restricted in 52 countries, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists has found in a nine-month investigation.

Backed by public and private money and aided by scientists and friendly governments, the groups helped facilitate the sale of 2.2 million tons of asbestos last year, mostly in developing nations. Anchored by the Montreal-based Chrysotile Institute, the network stretches from New Delhi to Mexico City to the city of Asbest in Russia's Ural Mountains. Its message is that asbestos can be used safely under "controlled" conditions.

As a result, asbestos use is growing rapidly in countries such as China and India, prompting health experts to warn of future epidemics of lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, an aggressive malignancy that usually attacks the lining of the lungs.

The World Health Organization says that 125 million people still encounter asbestos in the workplace, and the United Nations' International Labor Organization estimates that 100,000 workers die each year from asbestos-related diseases. Thousands more perish from exposures outside the workplace.

Dr. James Leigh, the retired director of the Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health at the Sydney School of Public Health in Australia, has forecast a total of 5 million to 10 million deaths from asbestos-related cancers by 2030, an estimate he considers conservative.

"It's totally unethical," Jukka Takala, the director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work and a former International Labor Organization official, said of the pro-asbestos campaign. "It's almost criminal. Asbestos cannot be used safely. It is clearly a carcinogen. It kills people."

Indeed, a panel of 27 experts convened by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer reported last year, "Epidemiological evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos ... with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma."

The asbestos industry, however, has signaled that it will fight to protect sales of raw fiber and finished products such as asbestos cement roofing and water pipes. Among its allies are industry-funded researchers who have contributed hundreds of articles to the scientific literature claiming that chrysotile — white asbestos, the only kind sold today — is orders of magnitude less hazardous than brown or blue asbestos. Russia is the world's biggest chrysotile producer, China the biggest consumer.

"It's an extremely valuable material," argued Dr. J. Corbett McDonald, an emeritus professor of epidemiology at McGill University in Montreal who began studying chrysotile-exposed workers in the mid-1960s with the support of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association. "It's very cheap. If they try to rebuild Haiti and use no asbestos it will cost them much more. Any health effects (from chrysotile) will be trivial, if any."

McDonald's sanguine view of chrysotile assumes that employers provide proper dust controls, ventilation and protective equipment for workers, but public health experts say that such measures are uncommon in the developing world.

"Anybody who talks about controlled asbestos use is either a liar or a fool," said Barry Castleman, an environmental consultant based near Washington who advises the WHO on asbestos matters.

Fire- and heat-resistant, strong and inexpensive, asbestos — a naturally occurring fibrous mineral — once was seen as a construction material with near-magical properties. For decades, industrialized countries from the United States to Australia relied on it for countless products, including pipe and ceiling insulation, shipbuilding materials, brake shoes and pads, bricks, roofing and flooring.

In the early 20th century, reports of the mineral's lung-ravaging properties began to surface. By the century's end, millions of people were sick or had died from asbestos exposure, and billions of dollars in compensation had been paid to claimants.

Ninety-five percent of all the asbestos ever used has been chrysotile.

This sordid history, however, hasn't deterred the asbestos lobby, whose longtime leader is Canada. The federal government and the government of Quebec, where chrysotile has been mined for decades, collectively have given 35 million Canadian dollars to the Chrysotile Institute, formerly known as the Asbestos Institute.

Canada uses little asbestos domestically but it sent 168,000 tons abroad last year; more than half of that went to India. Canada has fought to keep chrysotile from being listed under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, a treaty that requires exporters of hazardous substances to use clear labeling and warn importers of any restrictions or bans.

Despite mounting pressure from public health officials to stop asbestos exports, Canadian officials continue to defend the industry.

"Since 1979, the government of Canada has promoted the safe and controlled use of chrysotile and our position remains the same," Christian Paradis, the natural resources minister in Canada's conservative government and a former president of the Asbestos Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in a written statement.

Amir Attaran, an associate professor of law and medicine at the University of Ottawa, calls the government's position unconscionable. "It's absolutely clear that (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper and his government have accepted the reality that the present course of action kills people, and they find that tolerable," Attaran said.

The Chrysotile Institute's president, Clement Godbout, said his organization's message had been misinterpreted.

"We never said that chrysotile was not dangerous," he said. "We said that chrysotile is a product with potential risk and it has to be controlled. It's not something that you put in your coffee every morning."

The institute is a purveyor of information, Godbout emphasized, not an international police agency.

"We don't have the power to interfere in any countries that have their own powers, their own sovereignty," he said.

Godbout said he was convinced that large asbestos cement factories in Indian cities had good dust controls and medical surveillance, though he acknowledged there might be smaller operations "where the rules are not really followed. But it's not an accurate picture of the industry. If you have someone on a highway in the U.S. driving at 200 miles per hour, it doesn't mean everybody's doing it."

The Chrysotile Institute offers what it describes as "technical and financial aid" to a dozen sister organizations around the world. These organizations, in turn, seek to influence science and policy in their own countries and regions.

Consider the situation in Mexico, which imports most of its asbestos from Canada. Promoting chrysotile use is Luis Cejudo Alva, who's overseen the Instituto Mexicano de Fibro Industrias for 40 years. Cejudo said he was in regular contact with the Chrysotile Institute and related groups in Russia and Brazil, and that he gave presentations in Mexico and abroad on the prudent use of chrysotile.

Dr. Guadalupe Aguilar Madrid, a physician and researcher at Mexico's federal Social Security Institute, said the Instituto Mexicano de Fibro Industrias had had a major influence on Mexico's workplace and environmental rules, which remain weak. The nation is on the cusp of an epidemic of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases that could take 5,000 lives per year, the doctor said.

In Brazil, a state prosecutor is seeking dissolution of the Brazilian Chrysotile Institute, a self-described public interest group with tax-exempt status. The prosecutor charges in a court pleading that the institute is a poorly disguised shill for the Brazilian asbestos industry. The institute denies the allegation, saying it "ensures the health and security of workers and users."

In India, where the asbestos market is growing at the rate of 25 percent per year, the powerful Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers Association, a trade group, has a close relationship with politicians and has received $50 million from the industry since 1985, according to government officials.

One of the group's specialties is "advertorials," faux news articles that extol the safety and value of asbestos products. An ad placed in The Times of India last December is typical. It said, among other things, that the cancer scourge in the West had come during a "period of ignorance," when careless handling of asbestos insulation resulted in excessive exposure. Such exposures are long gone, the ad said. It neglects to note, however, that asbestos either has vanished from products or has been banned in industrialized nations.

The asbestos lobby's argument hinges to a great extent on scientists who minimize the health risks of white asbestos.

Industry-funded science on chrysotile began in earnest in the mid-1960s, when damning studies on asbestos cast unwanted scrutiny on Quebec's then-thriving mines. Minutes of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association's November 1965 meeting suggest that the group saw the tobacco industry as a paradigm: It "was recalled that the tobacco industry launched its own (research) program and it now knows where it stands. Industry is always well advised to look after its own problems."

The studies have proved helpful to an industry that's under growing pressure to disband. They're disputed by other scientists, who argue that chrysotile is clearly capable of causing mesothelioma and lung cancer.

"Is there a legitimate scientific question as to whether white asbestos is less dangerous (than blue or brown)? Yes," said Dr. Arthur Frank, a physician and professor at the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia. "But is it safe? No."

(This story is part of "Dangers in the Dust," a joint investigation by the BBC's International News Services and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The consortium is a collaboration of some of the world's top investigative reporters. Launched in 1997 as a project of The Center for Public Integrity, the consortium globally extends the center's style of watchdog journalism, working with 100 journalists in 50 countries to produce long-term, transnational investigations.)

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97625/lobbyists-push-use-of-deadly-asbestos.html#ixzz0uKd87zJp
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 3,481 • Replies: 28

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 09:51 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
July 21, 2010
Asbestos' U.S. legacy may be half-million deaths
By Jim Morris | International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

WASHINGTON — The first sign of trouble came as Bill Rogers was mowing his lawn one January morning in 2007. "As I would go back and forth with the mower, I would run out of air," said Rogers, 67, of Palm Bay, Fla.

Rogers went to the doctor and learned that his right lung was full of fluid. Three days later he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a lethal tumor that occurs in the lining of the chest or the abdomen and almost always is associated with asbestos exposure. "I'd heard of it, but I didn't really know what it was," he said. "They told me it's not a good cancer to get."

That Rogers is alive more than three years after his diagnosis is something of a miracle. To him, the source of his illness is clear: He worked on or around asbestos-containing automobile brakes, mostly at General Motors dealerships, for 44 years. He and his co-workers had used compressed-air hoses to clean out brake drums, where debris from worn asbestos brake shoes would collect, and had filed and sanded the shoes when installing new brakes.

Although he routinely wore a respirator while sanding plastic filler during bodywork, he said, no one ever told him he needed one for brake work. He sued GM, Ford, Chrysler and seven manufacturers and suppliers of brakes and clutches in 2008 and settled with the last of them in 2009.

Rogers is among hundreds of former mechanics and body shop employees known to have developed mesothelioma after working on brakes, clutches and gaskets, which contained the most common form of the mineral — chrysotile, or white, asbestos — well into the 1990s. Many have sued auto manufacturers and parts makers, litigation that reflects the unceasing burden of asbestos disease in the United States.

Asbestos has decimated the ranks of miners, millers, factory workers, insulators and shipyard workers, some of whom began filing workers' compensation claims as far back as the 1930s. The modern era of asbestos lawsuits began in the 1970s with claims from these same groups of workers. Many had taken in massive doses of fiber and died of diseases such as asbestosis, which can develop within a decade of initial exposure. Some of the cases involved mixtures of amosite, or brown, asbestos, which is no longer used, and chrysotile.

In court now, aside from a few heavily exposed claimants, are mechanics, teachers from asbestos-filled schools and the wives and children of workers who brought home asbestos on their clothing. Most of these people had relatively light exposures and developed mesothelioma, a disease that can take 30, 40 or even 50 years to appear.

"The people who were exposed to a ton of asbestos are dead. They've all been killed off by this stuff," said lawyer Jonathan Ruckdeschel, who's handled nearly 200 mesothelioma cases, including Rogers'. "What we're seeing now are people, like Bill Rogers, who are getting mesothelioma, often without any other associated asbestos disease."

Although asbestos use in the U.S. plummeted from a peak of 885,000 tons in 1973 to 1,609 tons in 2008, the nation's epidemic is far from over. As many as 10,000 Americans still die of asbestos-related diseases each year; one expert estimates that 300,000 or so will die within the next three decades.

Once broadly utilized by U.S. industry — not only in brakes but also in construction, insulation and shipbuilding — asbestos was heralded for its remarkable resistance to fire and heat. Strong and inexpensive, the fibrous mineral acquired a darker reputation in the 1960s as its health effects became widely known.

Internal documents showing corporate knowledge of the mineral's carcinogenic properties began to surface, and by 1981 more than 200 companies and insurers had been sued. The following year, the nation's biggest maker of asbestos products — Johns Manville Corp. — filed for bankruptcy protection in an effort to hold off the tide of litigation.

From the early 1970s through 2002, more than 730,000 people filed asbestos claims in the U.S., resulting in costs to the industry of about $70 billion, according to a 2005 study by the RAND Corp., a research center. About $49 billion of that went to victims and their lawyers, and the remainder toward other legal costs.

Asbestos use has largely moved overseas, fueled by an aggressive industry campaign that's pushed up consumption in fast-growing countries such as China, Brazil and India. Banned or restricted in 52 countries, asbestos products can still be sold in the U.S. but rarely are, and are largely limited to auto and aircraft brakes and gaskets. China, the world's leading consumer, used 690,000 tons of asbestos in 2007.

The decline in usage in the U.S., however, has done little for those who've already been exposed and perhaps for those who continue to be.

Long latency periods for mesothelioma and lung cancer ensure that there'll be victims for years to come, health experts say. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 18,068 Americans died of mesothelioma from 1999 through 2005, with the annual toll edging toward 3,000. Another 1,500 or so die each year of asbestosis, a rate that's apparently plateaued, according to the CDC. The number of asbestos-related lung cancer deaths is harder to pin down, given the ubiquity of smoking, but it could be as high as 8,000 per year.

Dr. Richard Lemen, a former assistant U.S. surgeon general who consults for plaintiffs in asbestos cases, has cited estimates of 189,000 to 231,000 worker deaths from all asbestos-related diseases from 1980 to 2007. "Another 270,000 to 330,000 deaths are expected to occur over the next 30 years," he told a Senate committee in 2007.

If Lemen's figures are correct, that would put the death toll from America's asbestos age at a half-million people. In its 2005 study, RAND similarly projected 432,465 asbestos-related cancer deaths from 1965 through 2029; this number excludes fatal cases of asbestosis.

The Environmental Protection Agency tried to ban asbestos in 1989 but was stopped by an industry lawsuit. Legislation to impose a ban has failed to pass since Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash, introduced it in 2002.

Murray has pointed out that imported asbestos brakes are still being sold for older vehicles, putting professional mechanics and weekend tinkerers at risk, and that asbestos can be found in a variety of items.

Laboratory tests commissioned by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, a victims' advocacy group, have revealed the presence of asbestos in products as diverse as U.S.-made window glazing and a toy fingerprinting kit made in China. The organization's CEO, Linda Reinstein, said she was hopeful that proposed revisions to the notoriously weak Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 would close loopholes that allowed the 1989 ban to be overturned.

Experts say that the current U.S. workplace standard for asbestos — 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air, which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration adopted in 1994 — still allows a worker to inhale more than 1 million fibers over the course of a day. The CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health estimates that exposures at this level will produce five lung cancer deaths and two asbestosis deaths for every 1,000 workers over a lifetime. Federal officials think that 1.3 million workers in general industry and construction and 45,000 miners are still exposed to asbestos in the U.S.

Mindful of their potential liability on brake linings, GM, Ford and Chrysler have fought the current round of mesothelioma lawsuits with vigor.

Court records show that the three have paid nearly $43 million since 2001 to scientific experts at two consulting firms — ChemRisk and Exponent — who've testified that the amounts of asbestos fibers released from handling brake shoes (used in older drum brakes) and pads (used in newer disc brakes) either were harmless or in insufficient quantities to cause disease.

Several of these experts — most notably Dennis Paustenbach, the president of ChemRisk and a former vice president of Exponent — have published papers in peer-reviewed journals concluding that brake mechanics are not at increased risk of developing mesothelioma or lung cancer.

The papers are offered as evidence by defendants seeking to avoid financial blows such as the $15 million verdict that a Baltimore jury returned against Ford on April 28.

In that case, Joan Dixon, 68, died of mesothelioma after washing her husband's asbestos-coated work clothes for 14 years. Her husband, Bernard, had done part-time brake work in a garage that specialized in Ford vehicles. A ChemRisk toxicologist, Brent Finley, was a defense expert in the case. A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment on the verdict.

In an unrelated amicus brief filed with the Michigan Supreme Court in 2007, more than 50 physicians and scientists took aim at industry consultants retained in the brake litigation.

"It is in no way surprising that the experts and papers financed by these manufacturers conclude that asbestos in brakes can never cause mesothelioma," the brief says.

The brief contends that Paustenbach's work on asbestos follows a "business model" under which he publishes exculpatory papers on compounds — such as hexavalent chromium, the groundwater pollutant at the center of the 1990s Erin Brockovich case in California — that are the subject of lawsuits. Paustenbach strongly denies the charge. Records show that the big three automakers paid ChemRisk almost $12 million from 2001 to 2009.

In an e-mail, Paustenbach said he was an impartial scientist and pointed to studies on radiation and an industrial chemical in which he delivered bad news to his funders. "Our thorough and independent research and analysis stand on their own merits," he wrote of his work on asbestos, "and there has been no specific credible challenge to the conclusions we drew."

A scientist with Exponent, which received $31 million from the three automakers, agreed with Paustenbach. Epidemiological studies "have shown quite convincingly that neither lung cancer nor mesothelioma risks are increased among workers engaged in automotive, including brake, repair," Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar wrote in a statement.

Ford said in a statement that the "vast majority of money" it had spent on consultants such as ChemRisk "is directly related to expert costs incurred in defending the company against meritless lawsuits ... and is not related to the funding of scientific studies." A spokesman for Chrysler declined to comment; a GM spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment.

Warnings about asbestos in brakes go back decades and remain in effect.

In 1948, a newsletter from the National Safety Council, a public service organization, cautioned, "Asbestos used in the formulation of brake lining is a potentially harmful compound." A bulletin the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health issued in 1975 warned that brake work could produce "significant exposures" to asbestos and recommended that employers use dust-control measures. Nearly 1 million workers were at risk, the institute said. It held meetings on the subject in 1975 and 1976; among those present were representatives of Ford, GM and Johns Manville, then the nation's biggest manufacturer of asbestos products.

The message never filtered down to people such as Bill Rogers, however.

"There were no warning labels on the (brake shoe) boxes that said it was harmful to you," he said. "Nobody ever seemed to talk about it."

Lawyer Gary DiMuzio, who's represented about 200 mesothelioma victims, said automakers and brake lining manufacturers didn't give mechanics and vehicle owners "a realistic appraisal of the risks they were facing and how to minimize those risks."

Techniques to limit asbestos exposure — ventilation, the use of water to curb dust — were "widely discussed in the 1930s," DiMuzio said. "It wasn't rocket science. This was basic engineering, and they just didn't want to do it." No warnings appeared on brake products until well into the 1970s, he adds, "and those warnings were inadequate."

As mesothelioma sufferers go, Rogers is doing well. The tumor appears to be contained. Still, he said, "The thought of having cancer and knowing there's no cure for it works on your mind."

(This story is part of "Dangers in the Dust," a joint investigation by the BBC's International News Services and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The consortium is a collaboration of some of the world's top investigative reporters. Launched in 1997 as a project of The Center for Public Integrity, the consortium globally extends the center's style of watchdog journalism, working with 100 journalists in 50 countries to produce long-term, transnational investigations.)

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97624/asbestos-us-legacy-may-be-half.html?storylink=MI_emailed#ixzz0uKffIdaJ
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 12:59 pm
Sounds like American free enterprise to me.
Khethil
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 01:40 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

Sounds like American free enterprise to me.


Bingo!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2010 01:49 pm
Every time you think people have learned their lesson, they push on ahead. Not just asbestos, but almost everything else they have made that harms you.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 08:26 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Money talks, morals walks.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2010 09:02 pm
Quote:
In February 2005, W.R. Grace and seven of its current or former executives were indicted on federal charges that they knowingly put their workers and the public in danger through exposure to vermiculite ore contaminated with asbestos from the Libby mine.


You know what the human cost, ie. deaths, has been in Libby, MT?

Quote:
The asbestos fibers in vermiculite from Libby have been identified by the federal government as the cause of hundreds of deaths and thousands more illnesses.


And yet these guys were indicted, on federal charges. Compare that to the deaths and illness from tobacco. What happens to tobacco company executives who knew and know full well the damage tobacco causes? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The continue to make huge sums of money dealing death and illness, in numbers that are much more significant than those in the WR Grace situation.

Yet there are those who forward the idiotic notion that because tobacco is legal, the executives, the companies should be safe from lawsuits and prosecutions. Asbestos laden vermiculite was perfectly legal.

All quotes from,

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-11-093.html
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 05:33 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I can't believe it. Who the hell is mining it?

We're still in mesothelioma hell here in Oz...with the companies (who knew the risks) trying to prolong compensation cases so the plaintiff dies.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 07:00 am
@dlowan,
this appears to be a blog lacking in authentic verification, I find it shaky at best, but then I question everything especially when there is an obvious agenda. I spent 4 hours goggling for supporting documentation and found none. It seems quite obvious to me that people are accepting whole-hog theories/opinions without question. Fox news does that, I try not to.
dlowan
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:17 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

this appears to be a blog lacking in authentic verification, I find it shaky at best, but then I question everything especially when there is an obvious agenda. I spent 4 hours goggling for supporting documentation and found none. It seems quite obvious to me that people are accepting whole-hog theories/opinions without question. Fox news does that, I try not to.


Phew.

I hope.

But frankly it wouldn't surprise me...look at what big tobacco is doing to open new markets.

But you give me hope.

Hmmm...I note Australia appears to be down on the site BBB gives as a developing nation where asbestos is currently being pushed...(if I read correctly).

Fat ******* chance!!!
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:22 am
@dlowan,
your hope may be on thin ice, I'm not denying any of the above blog, I'm only saying it appears to me to be agenda driven without reader circumspection.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:27 am
@dyslexia,
Yeah, I am checking out the credentials of the site.

Given the Australian asbestos experience (as just one example, children being allowed to play in asbestos fibre piles, while the companies doing the mining already knew about the deadly consequences, but shut up to maximise profits as long as they could.)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:29 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:
this appears to be a blog lacking in authentic verification


odd

it's part of the McClatchy group - one of the biggest newspaper groups in the U.S.

what's in the original piece very much reflects what I hear on the CBC investigative programs here - the article itself appears to be quite well researched, with good supporting documentation
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:29 am
http://www.mcclatchy.com/
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:31 am
@ehBeth,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97625/lobbyists-push-use-of-deadly-asbestos.html


Quote:
This story is part of "Dangers in the Dust," a joint investigation by the BBC's International News Services and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The consortium is a collaboration of some of the world's top investigative reporters. Launched in 1997 as a project of The Center for Public Integrity, the consortium globally extends the center's style of watchdog journalism, working with 100 journalists in 50 countries to produce long-term, transnational investigations.

ON THE WEB

Read more on the investigation at PublicIntegrity.org and the BBC.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97625/lobbyists-push-use-of-deadly-asbestos.html#ixzz0uWINJtHt
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:32 am
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

this appears to be a blog lacking in authentic verification, I find it shaky at best,


not a fan of the BBC or investigative journalism?
dlowan
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:39 am
@ehBeth,
Yeah, it was looking good to me as I researched.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:41 am
@dlowan,
more from the same series of articles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10623725


the whole series if you're interested

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/asbestos/





(disclaimer: I'm very interested. My uncle (hamburgboy's brother) died as a result of work with asbestos in shipyards in his youth. It wasn't a nice ending. I've been following the research for a while.)
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 09:58 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

this appears to be a blog lacking in authentic verification, I find it shaky at best,


not a fan of the BBC or investigative journalism?
I suppose it's more a matter of my personality combined with my life-time of experiences with agenda driven "information." I don't deny the information, I question the information. I honestly try to question/verify all information especially information I philosophically agree with. In other words, I always try to question my own beliefs. I'm an odd duck I suppose.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2010 10:02 am
@dyslexia,
I'm still amazed that you couldn't determine that this wasn't some random blog after "4 hours" of searching.

The supporting documentation wasn't hard to find with about 5 - 10 minutes of googling and following links.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lobbyists push use of deadly asbestos in developing nations - The threat from deadly asbestos
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 11:53:50