Talk:Asbestos and the law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The whole "Online Battle" thing is a myth, has no truth to it at all - mesothelioma and asbestos actually have very average cost per click in online advertising - and was probably put there simply to give a free link and traffic to the supposed reference site, which has no real verifiable information (a simple search using the google tool shows that the conclusions are fake) and is full of pay-per-click advertising ITSELF, which I find hilarious.


Serious NPOV issues still exist. No data is provided to support the validity of such asbestos class action suits, but rather only their legitimacy is questioned.

I absolutely agree with this statetment. Moreover, a BBC article was completely misrepresented, in an effort to claim the "World's largest insurance companies" were being threatened by asbestos litigation. IN fact, the article stated that investors were suing Lloyd's for fraud. Therefore, if Lloyd's was being financially threatened, it was because of its own fraud, and not because of asbestos litigation.MollyBloom 04:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asbestosis - Compensation and Liability Disputes

It has been commented that this item is (was? - already modified) uduly biassed. The topic is important, and I feel would benefit from a wider input, to guarantee an appropriate NPOV. The proposed summary deletion seems rather "unWiki-like". - Please contribute !

Done. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the formatting.
  • SIGNIFICANT REVISION OF THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED SINCE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, PLEASE EXAMINE THE HISTORY CAREFULLY BEFORE EVALUATING. (20/12/04)

Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes Deletion/Keep/Merge Debate page

Hmm. You can't get enough, can you? :-) JFW | T@lk 01:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • JFW...Your Asbestosis article is excellent. I just wanted to offer an unbiassed sub-item. Your criticism is, I feel, undoubtedly helping greatly in provoking revisions to eventually produce a more balanced item. My sincere - really ! and not  ;-)) - thanks
  • The issue is important and someone should address it in Wikipedia. Clearly, my submission is by no means perfect, and if it comes to be completely changed, to offer something factually better, I'll be the first to applaud. (I did make a point of marking my submission as a "stub" and inviting modifications! as did you at the stage at which I offered a contribution, - see history of asbestosis "Revision as of 20:06, 17 Dec 2004")
  • Thanks to all who are contributing.

Contents

[edit] Removed from article body

Proposed new Title': Asbestos-Related Diseases: Industrial Health and Safety Issues

When the VFD debate is finished, I think this page should get a new title. Suggestions? The above is a bit long. JFW | T@lk 13:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Decision on deletion request

The request for deletion debate resulted in a vote NOT to delete , but rather to undertake a "clean-up" of the item in question, the deletion debate itself is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please contribute on article clean-up Wikityke

I'm not sure why I was asked to comment, but here's my two cents. Speaking as a contributor, I'd like to see the article renamed to "Campaign to ban asbestos". I'm of the opinion that (a) people have over-played the risk of inhaling asbestos fibers and (b) many asbestos "abatements" have increased the contamination of indoor air with asbestos fibers.
What?? I don't mean to be insulting, but do you really beleve that people have 'over-played' the risk of inhaling asbestos fibers? Every health agency and government in the world accept that asbestos causes the (always) fatal mesothelioma, as well as other diseases. The EPA website says that the only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos. Asbestos fibers are found in the lungs and toxicology textbooks describe how the fibers are trapped, and cause disease. There is NO medical debate about this, and the "Junk Science" pundits who claim there is are out of their collective minds. If asbestos is safe, then so are cigarettes. But maybe those pundits would say cigarettes are safe, too. It is inconceivable to me that any thinking human being would even consider that the dangers of asbestos are 'overblown'. That is not rational.

Hundreds of thousands have died from asbestos related diseases. I can also tell you what it was like to watch my robust wonderful father die a hideous death. Before you start touting 'exaggerations' of the danger of asbestos, I suggest you read about why 60 countries banned it. MollyBloom 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As to your other comment - abatements increase contamination indoors.... That depends on the competence of the company/person removing the asbestos. There are strict guidelines and laws which must be followed. The problem with leaving asbestos in a building, is that asbestos flakes as it ages. This is what is dangerous. The oncologist who treated my father (before he died from mesothelioma) explained that he had treated former execs at Johns-Manville who had NO exposure other than the ventilation system. And for these men, it was enough to kill them. The men died from mesothelioma, and asbestos was found in their lungs. As mentioned below, the fact is that there is no defined threshold below which asbestos is considered safe. Any amount has evidently been sufficient to cause harm, because the lungs cannot expel the material.MollyBloom 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
A related issue is the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT), which argues that if any harm is found at any level then there cannot be any level below which no harm will be found. LNT adherents refuse to examine any research which contradicts their pre-conceived belief. The controversy over levels of arsenic in drinking water even got into the 2000 US Presidential Campaign, with anti-Bush forces accusing the Texas governor of deliberately and knowingly trying to poison people.
Please see the above discussion on mesothelioma. The fact is that scientists don't know if there is a 'minimum' threshold, because very little exposure can cause this disease. I'm not even going to discuss the arsenic issue, because it is entirely different. Furthermore, I don't know anyone, no matter how much they disliked Bush, who would ever say that Bush deliberately and knowingly tried to poison anyone. That kind of political nonsense is irresponsible, and untrue.MollyBloom 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As an admin, I'd suggest of course that the controversy over asbestos and disease be described fairly. Perhaps research studies should be cited, along with their conclusions. I hope you all will trust me to do two very different things at the same time: (1) hold an "extreme" POV and (2) write fairly about the controversy between that POV and all others. If not, I can always bow out - no use trying to mediate if it only adds fuel to the fire. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
No responsible encyclopedia or any other book would present a 'controversy' about the dangers of asbestos. There is no medical controversy. The dangers are well known and have been for half a century or more. I have included many citations from textbooks, the EPA, the WHO, and others. I surely hope that cooler minds will prevail and not political pundits. This should not be a political issue. It is a health issue. However, because there was litigation, it has become political, which is why the "Junk Science" junkmen are making outrageous statements about asbestos. They would call safe any product that was the subject of litigation, regardless of how dangerous it is.MollyBloom
Fraid I know little to nothing about the subject- but I don't see why the article should be deleted provided it's written in an encyclopedic stylee, etc. Keep but maybe reword? (I only gave the page a cursory scan but seemed Ok to me)... I try to only edit 'safe' pages and steer clear of controversial subjects on wiki these days- life's too short... (contributing here cos I was asked to)

quercus robur 00:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is important, but it should (and now is) factual, and not a political soapbox.MollyBloom 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and CLEANUP Tags

What do you think JFW? I've made a few changes myself, over on this "compensation" page, paraphrasing some quotes and removing some of the more emotional language. I've also included a few references to research in this field (hopefully a "balanced mix"), as suggested by Ed. Should the NPOV and CLEANUP be maintained, or is it ready to have these tags removed? Thanks for any suggestions. Wikityke 11:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reply included at User_talk:Wikityke#Industrial_and_safety_issues_in_asbestos-related_diseases

Many thanks to Ed, for his excellent "cleanup" work on the article. Wikityke 23:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there are no more comments, let's try removing the clean-up and npov-dispute tags now. --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 20:27, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
As there were were no further comments or edits other than my own, in the past week, I followed your suggestion, Ed, and deleted the NPOV and CLEANUP tags, ok? Wikityke 17:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minimum Exposure Limit?

I'm not so sure about your latest edit, Ed (20:27, 27 Jan 2005). Ok, they admit that there's still no universal consenus (frankly I doubt there ever will be!!) but the HSE are generally very conservative from what I've seen (hence their admission of lack of consensus). Maybe we should at least keep something on the fact that the evidence shows ("seems to indicate"?) that any minimum "cut-off" must really be at a very low level. What do you think?

With, or without a partial revert along these lines, I vote to remove the NPOV and CLEANUP.

Wikityke 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs updating

The US Senate is now considering the trust fund bill. I'll try to keep this current. --Christofurio 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresenting references & POV

This was what was stated in the article: ..."settlements have also threatened some of the World's largest insurance companies." (BBC report on Lloyds).

This statement is not only unsubstantiated, but the article it references says nothing about the "world's largest insurance companies" being threatened. This is an article about Lloyd's investors suing Lloyds for fraud, over the pending losses. If Lloyd's is threatened, it is because of its own misrepresentation and fraud, not because of asbestos lawsuits. MollyBloom 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from which, Lloyd's isn't a "company." It's a "market," as the BBC accurately said in the third graf of that story. Which is precisely why such lawsuits have problems. --Christofurio 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I reported what the article stated. But yes, you are correct. Lloyd's is not a 'corporation' in the sense that the initial sentence of the article implied. Corporations are not the only legal entities capable of being sued. Here is an interesting court summary of the complexity of legal entities of Lloyd's:

The Names sued four defendants: the Corporation of Lloyd's, the Society of Lloyd's, the Council of Lloyd's, (collectively, "Lloyd's") and Lloyd's of London, (the "unincorporated association"). Lloyd's is a market in which more than three hundred Underwriting Agencies compete for underwriting business. Pursuant to the Lloyd's Act of 1871-1982, Lloyd's oversees and regulates the competition for underwriting business in the Lloyd's market. The market does not accept premiums or insure risks. Rather, Underwriting Agencies, or syndicates, compete for the insurance business. Each Underwriting Agency is controlled by a Managing Agent who is responsible for the financial status of its agency. The Managing Agent must attract not only underwriting business from brokers but also the capital with which to insure the risks underwritten.

I suspect the news article did not make the legal differentiation. But the cause of action was undoubtely accurate.jgwlaw 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts & Junkscience

Self-proclaimed 'experts' who proclaimed the dangers from asbestos are 'junk science' are themselves the junk scientists. The term 'junk science' is a political soundbite, not a term about the merits of science. These arbiters of junk science are political pundits. I was astonished to read that one announced in 2001 that lives would have been saved on 9-11 if more asbestos had been used. Of course, that was ludicrous at the time, and is even more so now that we know more about the levels of asbestos inhaled by firemen etc.

There is NO doubt whatsoever that asbestos causes mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung and other types of cancer. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Asbestos is also found in the lungs upon atopsy. There is no 'he said' or 'she said' about this. The science documents and has for 100 years the dangers of asbestos. I can only presume that anyone who thinks there should be 'balance' in a discussion about the dangers of asbestos either does not understand the problem, or they have listented to people who know nothing. I have included citations from the EPA, various internet sites, and toxicology textbooks. There are many more references available, and one can check at any medical library. There is not even a scintilla of medical dispute about the dangers of asbestos. Now, there is discussion about how dangerous one size of fiber is versus another, but NO legitimate doctor or scientist disputes that people die from asbestos exposure. Every government in the industrialized world has acknowledged the dangers.

But you seem to have missed the point about the "junk science" charge. It concerns the forensic use of science, i.e. its use to try to establish that A's death or injury was caused by X, in whole or in part (and if in part, how much). It isn't enough to say: Defendant was doing X, we know that X can cause death, plaintiff died, the death was consistent with causation by X, so let us find the defendant liable. What is missing there is actual causation, and that is exactly where the junk sneaks in. After all, a given plaintiff's decedent could have been around asbestos, and/or various forms of radiation, and could have been a smoker besides. Likewise, I might be pushed out a window, and then while I am falling to the ground, somebody might shoot me through the heart. Real science can determine which I died of ... the bullet or the fall. Phony science says, "both the pusher and the shooter did something bad, so charge them each 100% as if he had died twice." No ... don't. Justice isn't vindictiveness, and science isn't in itself either of those. --Christofurio 00:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

These are all fun tricks on a torts or criminal law exam.  ;-)

If you were pushed out of the window, and while falling to the gorund, someone shot you, there would be culpability for both malfeasors- but a different culpability. THe person shoving you out the window would be charged with attempted murder. The shooter would be charged with murder (or involuntary manslaughter depending on the intent). In this scenario, it was not foreseeable that a someone would shoot you after you were pushed. However, if you were pushed off a building to the street below, survived only to be run over by a truck....well the pusher would be liable for murder. Why? It is foreseeable that pushing you off a bulding onto a street would place you in a position to be run over by a truck. Junk science has nothing to do with this at all. But back to the pusher & shooter... Now if you hit the ground, and the shot combined with the fall caused the death, then both the pusher and the shooter would be liable for murder, understandably, because both were a 'cause in fact' - both substantially contributed to your untimely demise. The law is very fair and logical when allocating fault.

Turning to a third scenario....3 people shoot and the victim dies from the wounds. Suppose for sake of argument, that it cannot be ascertained which person shot the fatal bullet. In that case, all 3 would be culpable. All three had the mens rea (intent) and all three committed the 'actus rea' - the criminal act. The causation here would be split, or the burden shifted to the defendant to show his shot did not cause the fatality.

None of this is junk science. None of this is vindictiveness. It is our legal justice system, and it works pretty well. There has to be some policy driven decisions in any legal system, but ours (in the US) is pretty reasonable.

Turning to asbestos....and I will only address mesothelioma. Mesothelioma by itself is a fatal disease. It kills whether a person smoked, or didn't smoke. The fibers can be found in the lungs. My father died of mesothelioma and never smoked, or was around smoking. Had he smoked, it is likely that he might have died sooner, but that is just speculation. Had he smoked, the cause of his death would still have been mesothelioma attributable to asbestos. Radiation does not cause mesothelioma, either. In all cases, mesothelioma would be the cause of death (unless the person died from lung cancer typical of smoking, or emphezema etc. before succombing to mesothelioma). Mesothelioma is not the kind of lung cancer one acquires from smoking. Mesothelioma is a cancer of the mesothelial lining of the lung. The cause of death is very clear and well documented. It is crystal clear, in fact. Asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma. Causation here is very clear cut. There is no 'junk science' at all.

jgwlaw 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you meant only known cause; that there may be other causes is pretty clear. If you examine SEER data, or data from some of the state registries that underly SEER, you will find that women are diagnosed with meso about 400 - 500 times a year in the US. The increase in incidence among women is small, on the order of 10% over the period 1972 to present, compared to 400 - 500% for men. I think the neutral thing to say is that asbestos is the only known occupational cause of mesothelioma, which is the position taken by at least some of the professional asbestos forecasters (Bert Price, for example). --Bob Herrick 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing. The term 'junk science' is a highly charged, political term that has little meaning except to pundits. jgwlaw 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Obviously it's intended as a derogatory term. Nobody calls their own views junk science, just as no government calls itself a tyranny. But that doesn't make the charge itself meaningless. It might be right or wrong in a particular instance, but it has meaning. As a simple matter of tort law, the shooter in the case I referenced would be liable for my death, in a wrongful death action. Not the one who pushed me off the roof, since that didn't in this hypothesis cause my death. (Criminal charges are another matter.) The charge of "junk science" is generally made in the tort context and I believe I have shown that it does have a meaning there, whether one is a pundit or not. A "junk" scientist is anybody who would take the stand to bolster the tort case against the pusher rather than the shooter. --Christofurio 15:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose one could always argue one side or the other, and call each other 'junk scientists'. I personally think it is a purely political term, and not appropriate to use. And I hope you read the scenario I described above. That applies to tort. A shooter would be an independent intervening event, which would release the liability of the pusher. In that scenario, anyone arguing for liability for the pusher would be wrong legally, not a junk scientist. It doesn't apply in this scenario, because it is a legal matter (of foreseaability v. independent intervening event). I described that above. If the facts were slightly changed, and a car ran over the victim after he was pushed into the street, the pusher would have liability, under the law because it was a foreseeable result of the pusher's actions. Again, it has nothing to do with 'science' in this case, junk or otherwise. It has to do with legal constructs of tort law. Now, that aside, I personally think the term 'junk science' is an ideological, and not a valid term. It was designed to be ideological, to promote an agenda, So even if there arguably were an issue of incorrect science, the term does not promote resolution or correction. It promotes politics. And in the case you describe, it is irrelevant. Now all THAT said, I'm not sure your reason for bringing it up, and continuing to discuss it. It has nothing to do with this article.jgwlaw 06:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ONe final comment. If you are trying to make some analogy to asbestos cases, it doesn't fit. Same tort laws would apply. I suspect you are thinking of smoking. THat is actually a logically different issue. If someone smokes and it can be proven that smoking contributed to the injury, as well as asbestos, it does not clear the defendant. It may reduce the award, but it wouldn't clear him. In most jurisdictions, in a wrongful death suit, it is not necessary that the defendant's action be the sole cause of death. That is not 'junk science'. And with mesothelioma, of course, it is irrelevant, because mesothelioma is fatal with or without smoking.jgwlaw 07:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "bring it up" so the question of my reason for doing so doesn't arise. My reason for 'continuing to discuss it' is the same as yours, I reckon. And there isn't a sharp distinction between "legal" and "factual" aspects of foreseeability and such. One could well apply the label "junk science" to an effort to get into evidence testimony at the expense of the pusher. And, yes, its an ideological term. What isn't? In this case, it is a term that expresses a negative judgment. It doesn't prove a negative judgment, just as labels never prove their own validity just by virtue of the fact that someone puts them where there do. On the other hand, that fact doesn't make such labels meaningless, either. I have continued to discuss these matters become some people here have written as if the label is a meaningless one, and it isn't. There is no equation of "ideological" equals "meaningless." One other point: one cigarette company did include asbestos fibers within its cigarettes for a period in the 1950s. --Christofurio 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
As for the term "junk science" itself, it was popularized by Peter Huber, a columnist for Forbes magazine, in his book Galileo's Revenge, published in 1991. As the subtitle of Huber's book, "Junk Science in the Courtroom," suggests, his emphasis was on the use or misuse of expert testimony in civil litigation. One example prominent in the book was litigation over alleged casual causes of the spread of AIDS. A California school district sought to prevent a young boy with this condition, Ryan Thomas , from attending kindergarten. The school district produced an expert witness, Dr. Steven Armentrout, who testified that there is a possibility that AIDS could be transferred to schoolmates through yet undiscovered "vectors." But five experts testified on behalf of Thomas that AIDS isn't tranferred casually, and the court affirmed the "solid science" (as Mr. Huber called it) against Armentrout's sort.

[edit] Asbestos and the Law

This is not a forum for bashing lawyers. It is not a political forum. To make this a rant on tort reform, or an article by political pundits on alleged fraud is wrong. Instead, it should be a discussion of the legal issues related to asbestos. This includes regulation, civil litigation (existing and proposed) and criminal prosecution. Corporate losses from asbestos are not only attributable to civil litigation,. Corporations are being indicted on criminal charges, as well. There also is a section on Environmental law & criminal prosecution. The environmental issues surrounding asbestos removal are huge. I said 'dozens' of cases have been prosecuted...it's probably many more than that. This is a health issue, as evidenced by the WR Grace prosecution. Please people, lets stop with the lawyer bashing. I couldn't believe the article as it was when I first saw it. That's not informative; it's a rant. Let's keep it clean, factual and informative.MollyBloom 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a Reference List

I added a reference list, and am starting the process of adding proper citations for the references. IT will take some time, and I welcome any help available. I am still a little inexperienced at the Wiki formatting but am getting the hang of it. Still, help would be nice!  ;-) jgwlaw 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AdSense

This could be an interesting paragraph - Could the author clarify, please? What were the payouts - lawsuits over key words, or payments, or what? To whom by whom, and for what? A citation that might explain would be helpful. Thank you! Jance 21:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Journal

A front page story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal suggests there is a developing scandal over insider trading in the asbestos context. Apparently, somebody in Congress or working for a member of Congress told investors or the agents of investors that there would be some movement soon in the tort claims relief bill re: asbestos, and the investors loaded up on the instruments of the corporations that would benefit. Anybody want to tackle this? --Christofurio 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the article? I could look for it at the library, but it would be easier if someone had a copy. WSJ is one that is not obtainable online. It sounds like something surely that would be in other news articles, but I did not see anything. I am not surprised, but my guess also is the recent changes in Congress may also affect the way the bill proceeds, or individual provisions in it. That, of course, does not affect a possible insider trading that already occurred. You have got me most interested now, and if there isn't anymore info by next weekend, I will look it up.Jance 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I have added a POV tag; legitimate criticism of asbestos litigation is entirely absent from the article. See also Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy‎.

I attach here a partial list of links to problems with asbestos litigation for future editors to address.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -- TedFrank 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted, I hope my addition to the "background" section begins to address the point you make. You are, of course welcome (indeed, encouraged) to add further "legitimate criticism of asbestos litigation" yourself as you see fit, to help acheive a balanced article. Thanks for your contribution. Wikityke 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/b/Talk%7EAsbestos_and_the_law_e303.html"