Ontario Ministry of Labour

On Nov. 16, 1999, Labour Minister Chris Stockwell announced the government's intention to update Ontario's OELs, the new limits to be based on the 1999 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) list of recommended exposure limits.”

All this information was obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Labour web sight athttp://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/ohs/ohse.htm


Mesothelioma

Some patients decide to fight mesothelioma aggressively, while others choose to pursue those treatment that prolong life and comfort, unlike other asbestos?related diseases, can occur as the result of very low levels of exposure to asbestos fibers.
. Additionallymesothelioma can be caused by asbestos exposure that occurred 20 ? 40 years

prior to diagnosis. Therefore, it can be difficult to trace when and where theexposure to asbestos occurred.

undergo various procedures and potential side effects.

This information came from http://www.flipside.org/vol2/feb99/99fe15a.htm

FORMER SARNIA CHEMICAL WORKERS 'DROPPING LIKE FLIES'

“Clare Hall, a former worker at Holmes' foundry operation, recalls in the early 1970s that when new chemicals were

brought into the plant, the pigeons that used to roost there began dying. 

‘They'd hit the floor. Sometimes they'd kick their feet but they'd be dead,’ he said. v The foundry used silica, and

powerful chemicals like isocyanates and triethylamine. 

Mr. Hall suffers from heart disease, and he's worried because three friends who used to work at Holmes, all in their

50s, have recently died. Two died from heart attacks and one from cancer. “

Saturday, February 13, 1999 MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT The Globe and Mail

http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/Health/19990213/UCANCM.html

The Asbestos Tragedy

by 

Paul Brodeur 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=U.S+National+Institute+of+Occupational+Health+Paul+OR+Brodeur&btnG=Google+Search

Back in the nineteen?twenties, when the word "ASBESTOS" frequently

appeared in large block letters on the fireproof drop curtains that

closed off the proscenium openings of theatre stages, it was

customary for youngsters attending Saturday?matinee performances of

"Charley's Aunt" or "The Vagabond King" or "Mrs. Wiggs of the

Cabbage Patch" to greet the raising of the asbestos curtain with the

chant "All school boys eat stewed tomatoes on Saturday!" This was

not, of course, an exercise in mnemonics but an expression of

youthful exuberance, and, to a lesser extent, perhaps, a reflection

of the tendency in an era celebrated for parochialism and flippancy

to dismiss strange and exotic substances with jokes. Among older

people, it was certainly common knowledge that asbestos was

non?combustible, for when "Joe and Asbestos"?the syndicated comic

strip about horse racing?first appeared in the Baltimore Sun, in

1925, the stableboy named Asbestos explained to the readership that

he had acquired his odd moniker because "no matter how hot my tips

are, they'll never burn a hole in your pocketbook." Such knowledge

was hardly universal, however, for it was also true that a popular

put?on of the flapper age consisted of solemnly assuming a

susceptible theatre companion that the funny?looking word on the

curtain meant "Welcome" in Latin. The fact of the matter is that

although asbestos was linked one way or another in the public mind

with fireproof theatre curtains, many people thought its name was a

trademark, few people knew that it was being utilized in a wide

variety of industrial products, only a handful of medical

researchers were just then beginning to suspect that it was

affecting the health of the workers who handled it, and virtually no

one had any idea that it would one day prove to be one of the most

important industrial causes of cancer in the world.

Asbestos, which comes from a Greek word meaning inextinguishable or

unquenchable, is a broad term embracing a number of fibrous silicate


minerals that are found in practically every country in the world.

Although known to mankind as early as the Stone Age, when it was

used in pottery, asbestos was considered a novelty until the late

1870s, when it began to be mined on a commerical basis. It soon

achieved enormous industrial importance because of its unique and

astonishing physical properties.

Weaver JM Textile Division circa 1934

Asbestos appears to be highly combustible, yet it can withstand the

fiercest heat. It seems as perishable as grass, but by virtue of

being almost immune to the forces of corrosion and decay under

almost every condition of temperature and moisture (and of being

resistant as well to the action of most acids, alkalies, and other

chemicals) it is just about indestructible. It looks extremely

fragile, yet its fibers have a tensile strength equal to that of

piano wire. Apparently as light and feathery as thistle or

eiderdown, it is actually as heavy and dense as the rock from which

it is extracted. In one sense, then, it is a fiber of stone. In

another sense, however, it is a mineralogical vegetable whose fibers

are so soft and flexible that they can be carded, spun, and woven as

easily as fibers of cotton or flax. 

Spoolers JM Textile Division circa 1940s

Asbestos is the only mineral that can be woven into cloth, and its

fibrous structure is, if anything, even more amazing than its

remarkable ability to withstand heat. In fact, if it were not for

the electron microscope, the extent to which asbestos is fibrous

would be difficult to believe, for there are approximately a million

individual fibrils lying side by side in a linear inch of chrysotile

asbestos?a variety of the mineral that accounts for 95% of the

world's production?whereas only 3,800 glass fibrils, such as those

found in various insulation materials, or 630 human hairs can be

aligned along the same distance. Moreover, in addition to their

extreme fineness, high tensile strength, and unusual flexibility,

spinnability, and resistance to heat and the elements, asbestos

fibers possess great powers to adsorb and to filter. Small wonder,

then, that when asbestos, which had been known to the ancients as

"the magic mineral," was, in effect, rediscovered a little more than

a century ago in the age of industrial expansion, it was put to


work.

JM Salesman's Chrysotile Asbestos Insulation Samples

During this century, the demand for asbestos rose almost as fast as

the stuff could be mined from the earth and milled from its host

rock. In 1879, when the world's first commercial asbestos mine was

opened at Thetford, in the Province of Quebec, only 300 tons of the

mineral was produced. By 1910, annual world production had jumped to

30,000 tons; by the middle thirties, it had increased to 500,000

tons; and by 1970 the total output was more than four million tons a

year. For several decades, asbestos was called "the mineral of a

thousand uses" by those who sold it, but by the late 1960s this

label had become obsolete, especially in the United States, where it

is estimated that asbestos may have as many as 3,000 different

industrial applications. As a result, asbestos has become

practically ubiquitous in modem society. There is not an automobile,

airplane, train, ship, missile, or engine of any sort that does not

contain asbestos in some form or another, and it has found its way

into almost every building, factory, home, and farm across the land.

And, because its minuscule fibers are eminently respirable, asbestos

has also found its way into the lungs of human beings, where, by

remaining as indestructible as it does in nature, it can wreak

terrible havoc.

Life Magazine Ad circa 1940s

The adverse biological effects of asbestos were observed as early as

the first century by the Greek geographer Strabo and by the Roman

naturalist Pliny the Elder, both of whom mentioned in passing a

sickness in the lungs of slaves whose occupation was to weave

asbestos into cloth. Strabo and Pliny were calling attention for the

first time in history to a disease that would one day be known as

asbestosis?a form of pneumoconiosis (the general term for all dust

diseases of the lung) caused by the inhalation of the fine fibers

and particles of asbestos. The use of asbestos in Europe appears to

have diminished greatly during the Medieval period, but with the

advent of the industrial revolution, asbestos came into widespread

use. As a result, the fact that the magic mineral could produce lung

disease, which had been forgotten since Strabo and Pliny first

recorded it around the time of Christ, soon manifested itself again.


Modern knowledge of asbestosis dates from the year 1900, when a

postmortem examination was performed by Dr. H. Montague Murray, a

physician in London's Charing Cross Hospital, on the body of a

33?year?old man who had worked for 14 years in an asbestos?textile

factory. The patient, found to have been suffering from severe

pulmonary fibrosis, which is scarring of the lungs, had been the

last survivor of a group of ten men who were working in the carding

room of the factory in 1886, and since Dr. Murray found spicules of

asbestos in the lung tissues at autopsy, he was able to establish a

presumptive connection between the man's occupation and the disease

that killed him.

It was not until 1924 that the first clear case of death due to

asbestosis appeared in medical literature. That year, Dr. W. E.

Cooke, an English physician, who gave the disease its name,

performed a postmortem examination on a 33?year?old woman patient

who had started working at the age of thirteen in an

asbestos?textile factory. By 1917, after thirteen years of exposure,

she had been coughing and in bad health. The autopsy showed

extensive lung scarring and dense strands of abnormal fibrous tissue

connecting the lungs and the pleural membranes surrounding them. 

Cooke's discovery, which was published in the British Medical

Journal, was the point of departure for an intensive study of

asbestosis in Britain over the next seven years. Here 'In the United

States, no investigations of the health experience of asbestos

workers were undertaken by the United States Public Health Service.

As early as 1918, however, the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

published a report by Frederick L. Hoffmann, a consulting

statistician for the Prudential Insurance Company of America, who

not only called attention to the fact that American asbestos workers

were experiencing unusually early deaths, but also revealed that it

had become the practice of some American and Canadian insurance

companies not to issue life?insurance policies to asbestos workers,

because of the "assumed health?injurious conditions" that existed in

the asbestos industry.

By the early 1930s, asbestos workers who had developed asbestosis

were bringing damage suits against Johns?Manville, of New York City,

the largest asbestos manufacturer in the nation, and against

Raybestos?Manhattan, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, the second largest

asbestos company. As a result, the two firms, together with other

leading asbestos manufacturers, initiated a cover?up of the asbestos

hazard that continued for more than forty years. Here are some of

the highlights of that cover?up:


In 1933, Lewis Herold Brown, the president of Johns?Manville,

advised the company's board of directors that eleven pending

lawsuits brought by employees who had developed asbestosis while

working at the company's plant in Manville, New Jersey, could be

settled out of court, provided that the attorney for the plaintiffs

could be persuaded not to bring any more cases against the company.

Lewis H. Brown, President of Johns?Manville 1933

In 1934, Vandiver Brown, the head of the Johns?Manville's legal

department, persuaded Dr. Anthony Lanza, a physician at the

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, to delete unfavorable

information from a report about disease among asbestos workers that

was soon to be published by the U.S. Public Health Service.

In 1935, Sumner Simpson, the president of Raybestos?Manhattan, wrote

Vandiver Brown a letter, telling him that "I think the less said

about asbestos the better off we are," to which Brown replied, "I

quite agree with you that our interests are best served by having

asbestosis receive the minimum of publicity."

In 1936, Vandiver Brown and Sumner Simpson, together with officials

of several other asbestos manufacturing companies, arrange to

finance animal experiments at the Trudeau Foundation's Saranac

Laboratory, at Saranac Lake, New York, in order to gather data that

they expected would help the asbestos industry defend against claims

brought by workers who had developed asbestosis. The studies showed,

however, that significant numbers of animals developed asbestosis

after being allowed to inhale asbestos. These results were

suppressed by the asbestos manufacturers for more than forty years.

In 1943, Vandiver Brown told representatives of the Union Asbestos &

Rubber Company, Paterson, New Jersey, that Johns?Manville did not

inform its employees when their chest X?rays showed that they had

developed asbestos disease. Brown said that if the workers were

told, they would stop working or file claims against Johns?Manville,

and that it was company policy to let them work until they quit

because of asbestosis, or die as a result of it.

In 1949, Dr. Kenneth Smith, who would subsequently become the

medical director of Johns?Manville, sent a memorandum to company


headquarters concerning seven asbestos mill employees whose X?rays

showed signs of early asbestosis. The memo, which did not come to

light until 1976, provided written evidence that Johns?Manville was

following a policy of not informing its workers when they developed

the disease. 

"But as long as the man is not disabled it is felt that he should

not be told of his condition so that he can live and work in peace

and the company can benefit by his many years of experience."

In 1952, the Seventh Saranac Symposium a week?long meeting on

pulmonary dust disease?was held at the Saranac Laboratory. It was

attended by more than two hundred medical doctors, research

scientists, state and federal public health officials, insurance

executives, and asbestos manufacturers, who were told about medical

evidence implicating asbestos as a potent lung?cancer producing

agent. Unlike the proceedings of six previous symposia, the

proceedings of this meeting were never published. And because only

one or two of the participants spoke out about what they had heard,

almost no information about the carcinogenicity of asbestos found

its way into the press for another decade.

The result of the pervasive cover?up of the asbestos disease hazard

was a national public health disaster of unparalleled magnitude,

which is unfolding to this very day. Some twenty million

unsuspecting American workers?four and a half million men and women

in the wartime shipyards alone?underwent exposure to dangerously

high levels of asbestos dust as they applied, or worked near people

who were applying, asbestos insulation to boilers and

high?temperature pipes in ships, power plants, oil refineries, and

chemical factories; as they sprayed asbestos insulation on the steel

girders of high?rise buildings, or worked at trades in close

proximity to such operations; and as they toiled in mines from which

raw asbestos was extracted, and in factories where asbestos products

were manufactured. Hundreds of thousands of these people have either

developed or will develop incurable asbestos disease. Tens of

thousands of them have died of it.

The asbestos cover?up might have gone on indefinitely had it not

been for two extraordinary developments during the early and middle

1960s?one in law and the other in medicine?which would ultimately


result in exposing the misconduct of the asbestos manufacturers and

making them accountable to some of their many victims. The legal

development occurred in 1965, when the American Law Foundation

defined tort law to make the sellers of all unreasonably dangerous

products strictly liable to users and consumers unless their

products carried adequate warning labels. The medical development

consisted of some pioneering epidemiological studies of the health

and mortality experience of asbestos insulation workers which had

been conducted during 1962 and 1963 by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff,

director of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine's Environmental

Sciences Laboratory, in New York City; Dr. Jacob Churg, chief

pathologist at Banert Memorial Hospital, in Paterson, New Jersey;

and Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond, vice?president for epidemiology and

statistics of the American Cancer Society.

Dr. Selikoff gave X?ray examinations, pulmonary function tests, and

blood tests to 1, 1 17 asbestos insulation workers who were members

of New York Local 12 and Newark Local 32 of the International

Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. He

found radiological evidence of asbestosis in fully half of these

men. Moreover, he found that among 392 men with more than twenty

years of exposure, 339 (slightly less than 87%) had developed the

disease. Even more alaring were the results of a carefully conducted

mortality study of 632 workers who were on the union rolls at the

two locals as of December 31, 1942. According to the standard

mortality tables, 203 deaths could have been expected among the 632

workers. Instead, there were 255, not counting seven men who had

died before incurring twenty years of exposure?an excess of 25 %.

The reason for the excess was not hard to find: these men had

succumbed to lung cancer at seven times the expected rate, and to

gastrointestinal cancer at three times the expected rate.

Dr. Irving J. Selikoff in his Mt Sinai office 1990

The studies of Dr. Selikoff and his associates furnished

incontrovertible evidence that industrial exposure to asbestos was

extremely hazardous, and they marked a turning point in the views

held by doctors and health officials in many parts of the world.

Unfortunately, state and federal health officials in the United

States were lamentably slow in reacting to the studies of Selikoff

and his colleagues. Indeed, in some cases they were clearly

reluctant to take any action at all. During the 1960s, the chief


industrial hygienist for the U.S. Public Health Service's Division

of Occupational Health entered into confidentiality agreements with

asbestos manufacturers that prevented him from giving out any

details concerning the asbestos exposure of any of the workers

employed at the asbestos factories his division was inspecting. As a

result, the Public Health Service did not make any recommendations

to asbestos workers or to their unions about how workers might

protect themselves from the hazard of toiling in excessive dust

levels. For its part, the U.S. Department of Labor merely saw fit to

reduce its ludicrously inadequate and almost totally unenforced

standard for occupational exposure to asbestos from one that allowed

workers to inhale tens of billions of asbestos fibers and fibrils

each day, to one that allowed them to inhale hundreds of millions of

fibers and fibrils each day. As for the Environmental Protection

Agency and its predecessors, these organizations allowed asbestos

insulation to be sprayed on the steel girders of high?rise buildings

until 1972, when this extremely hazardous practice was banned

nationwide, and to be used in the construction of thousands of

schools, offices, and apartment buildings across the United States.

By this time, asbestos?insulation workers were bringing

product?liability lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos

insulation, who had failed to attach labels to their products

warning that asbestos could cause disease. As might be expected, the

studies of Dr. Selikoff and his associates were of considerable

importance in helping these plaintiffs establish the health hazard

of asbestos. Equally important was the determination of Ward

Stephenson, a trial lawyer from Orange, Texas, who won the first

asbestos product?liability lawsuit, in 1971. This landmark verdict

was upheld by a federal court of appeals in 1973, and it paved the

way for the greatest toxic tort litigation in the history of

American jurisprudence.

During the next ten years, Johns?Manville, Raybestos?Manhattan, and

more than a dozen other manufacturers of asbestos insulation were

the targets of some 15,000 lawsuits. At first, the defendant

manufacturers tried to claim that they did not know about the

asbestos hazard until Dr. Selikoff's pioneering studies of the early

1960s. However, plaintiff attorneys soon unearthed Sumner Simpson's

correspondence, Vandiver Brown's letter asking Metropolitan Life to

water down its report about asbestos disease, Dr. Smith's memorandum

about why diseased asbestos workers were not informed of their

condition, and hundreds upon hundreds of other documents that

furnished overwhelming proof that officials of Johns?Manville,

Raybestos?Manhattan, and other leading asbestos companies had known


about and engaged in a cover?up of the disease hazard of their

products for more than forty years. As a result, juries from one end

of the nation to the other began awarding large compensatory damages

to diseased asbestos workers and the survivors of workers who had

died of asbestos disease. They also began assessing punitive damages

against asbestos manufacturers for outrageous and reckless

misconduct. Indeed, during 1981 and the first half of 1982, juries

in ten different cases found Manville liable for punitive damages

totalling more than six million dollars. The company and its

insurance carriers had already settled some 2,000 asbestos?disease

cases out of court for tens of millions of dollars. 

A new era in the asbestos tragedy began in August of 1982, when

Manville?a corporation with assets of more than $2 billion?filed for

protection under Chapter I I of the federal Bankruptcy Code,

claiming that it had been unfairly victimized by thousands of

unwarranted lawsuits. During the next six and a half years, while

the affair languished in the Dickensian coils of the federal

bankruptcy system, Manville was not required to pay a single dime to

any of its thousands of victims. Moreover, when the final bankruptcy

plan was approved, it made provision for compensating only 100,000

asbestos?disease victims.

This estimate was absurdly low by any reasonable standard of

judgment. To begin with, Dr. Selikoff and his associates have

estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 people will die of

asbestos?related lung cancer during the next twenty to thirty years.

Secondly, of the 18 million or so American men and women still alive

who have undergone occupational exposure to asbestos, it can

reasonably be expected that as many as two million of them may

develop X?ray evidence of asbestos disease. Third, studies already

conducted indicate that fully 30% of the wives, children and family

members of heavily exposed asbestos shipyard and factory

workers?some 200,000 people in all?are developing X?ray evidence of

asbestos lung disease. Fourth, other studies show that about 30% of

the school custodians in Boston, New York, and San Francisco are

developing X?ray evidence of asbestos disease. And, finally, surveys

presently underway indicate that about 30% of the nation's merchant

seamen, who have been exposed to asbestos by virtue of having worked

in the confines of ships, are also developing signs of asbestos

disease. Thus, to assume that only 100,000 of nearly three million

potential asbestos?disease claimants would bring claims was clearly

preposterous. Indeed, there are now 150,000 asbestos?disease victims

who have filed claims against the Manville Trust and other asbestos

manufacturers.


From the foregoing, it seems clear that the extent of the asbestos

tragedy has yet to be ascertained, and that when the statisticians

have tallied the final toll, the casualties will have been far more

numerous than our present society and its legal system is willing to

acknowledge. Statistics can, of course, be a way of dehumanizing and

thus denying the true dimensions of the misery that afflicts

asbestos victims and the victims of other industrial and

environmental disease who live among us. Fortunately, as an antidote

to this possibility, we now have "Breath Taken," Bill Ravanesi's

moving chronicle of the asbestos tragedy. By focussing upon the

human condition, Ravanesi's splendid photographs demonstrate the

inadequacy of statistics. Indeed, by revealing the pain,

bewilderment, despair, and resignation etched in the faces of

asbestos victims, he provides us with an indelible reminder that

statistics are human beings, with the tears wiped off. 

 

To go back to my main page click HERE