Asbestos: Businesses Are Open to Wrongful Blame

To the Editor: why did you allow this article to go unedited? It is your job to prevent an unedited article from being published, just as it is the responsibility of the business owner to protect employees and customers from asbestos exposure, sickness, and diseases. Do you need a good lawyer?

I tend to agree both with you and kramarat. The article gives the impression of having been written by a lawyer looking for more business. I'm convinced that the billions of dollars spent removing asbestos from schools and businesses would have provided significantly more benefit had they been spent on educational lab equipment, computers, etc., and perhaps a bit of sealing of the already-in-place asbestos.

That small fraction of asbestos that was indeed dangerous, was only dangerous to those who regularly breathed the fibers during installation and especially removal (and of course to the miners and producers).

It is interesting that all compensation for asbestos claims comes from the asbestos manufacturers. Non is derived from the architectural and engineering firms that specified it's use, or from the firms that ordered the (at the time) cheapest method of insulating their pipes or cladding their buildings.

When asbestos was developed as a building material and for many years after it came into use, the risks to health were unknown. This is one of the few cases where firms have been held responsible retrospectively for actions that were considered safe at the time. Generally our legislators take the very reasonable view that an offense can only committed after it is established that the action is an offense.

Much of the asbestos used in insulation has been replaced by fibrerglass, which when carelessly handled or vibrated breaks down into fine glass particulates. If breathed in more than minor quantity the glass particulates seriously scare the lining of the lungs. This is widely known and workers are required to wear breathing masks when installing fibreglass. A case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Will we see fibreglass manufacturers in the future facing claims for lung related diseases and deaths?

Asbestos is a Mineral, not an element.

2 updated discussions
Home | Chemical & Material Science | Glass, Ceramics, Fibers & Fabrics
Comment Preview:

Good answer. Is it really that bad? I know some medication is a lot cheaper in Canada, but there are plenty which are not.

We here in Canada also have a system in which you cannot get medication of some kinds except by prescription. I noted on my last trip to the US that much of my medications are available "over the counter" and were consequently cheaper. Also they were cheaper because I did not have to pay the pharmacist his filling fee.

Generics ought to be about the same since there is no liability on them. I have heard bitter complaints about that in the US. They wanted to sue the original producer even though the victim took generic drugs. I see that as suing the previous owner of a car in a crash since the owner who was in the crash was poor and there was no money to be had.

Wieth Labs went belly up over Fen-fen. They were bought up by a company that the cash to pay out the billions in reparations.

Each country has their own maze to get over the counter status. I do not know if the manufacturer thinks over the counter is a good thing.

Both the US and CA use a court system created in England when most persons couldn't read. They need to be revised to something fair. I think anyone giving testimony in court ought to be wired to a lie detector. Just because they don't work on delusional psychopaths doesn't mean they are worthless. Any time a lab is used the state needs to make available statistics as to how accurate the lab actually is. This way the rich can't get off so easily by sending in 100 'test samples' and only making public the errors. The jurors will know up front how reliable the test results are. As things stand now the poor get convicted much easier than the rich.