Document 4v06jx4w8D03K6n5rrReJqE2Q

0 Asbestos and smoking > A deadly combination UAJ'-oe ?? dg PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health. That familiar message on cigarette pack ages and advertising likely would be disputed by only the most diehard tobacco industry advocate. Ciga rette smokers suffer nearly twice the heart disease death rate of nonsmokers and about 10 times the fre quency of lung cancer. For asbestos workers who smoke, the statistical picture is even more ominous. In 1979, Dr. Irving Selikoff of the Mount Sinai Medical Center and Dr. E. Cuyler Ham mond of the American Cancer Soci ety reported on 12,501 asbestos in sulation workers who had 20 or more years of work experience. For the asbestos workers who smoked, their risk of dying from lung cancer was 53 times greater than that of a control group exposed neither to asbestos nor to smoking. Asbestos workers who smoked showed a 5 times greater risk ofdying from lung cancer than the members of the con trol group who smoked, jwhile non smoking asbestos workers showed a similar excess lung cancer death rate compared to their non-smoking control counterparts. The asbestos industry contends that the synergistic effect of ciga rette smoking and asbestos expo sure has not been given sufficient attention by regulators and some scientists. A recent Johns-Manville Corp. publication on the asbestos issue stated: "J-M led all of Ameri can industry in establishing a no smoking policy at asbestos-using locations because asbestos-related lung cancer would not be a signifi cant health problem if it were not for cigarette smoking." Last June, Dr. Paul Kotin, J-M senior vice president for health, Lsafety and environment, stated in an merican Journal of Public Health editorial: "OSHA cannot fulfill its mandate without addressing the issue ofthe adverse effects of smok ing." Kotin noted a general failure "to recognize the crucial role of smoking in occupational health -- not just general health -- and that control of smoking in the workplace is an additional method of occupa tional environmental control, not a substitute for all other workplace environment changes." He said smoking control programs in indus try were not efforts to i` `shift the burden' to the worker" but rather were "part of the cooperative and collaborative effort necessary in occupational environmental con trol." Dr. Irving Setikoff, in a letter that ran in the Journal's January 1981 issue, replied that Kotin was right that cigarette smoking "leads to risk" which is augmented by the presence of workplace hazards. However, Selikoffstated that Kotin had "focused on one important as pect of the smoking-hazardous agent problem" and that equal at tention must be paid to "controlling the workplace exposure that makes the smoking particularly danger ous." Selikoff pointed out that some hazardous agents have effects that are not associated with smok ing and "avoidance of cigarettes won't help" in such cases. Meso thelioma, stomach cancer, colonrectum cancer, and kidney cancer, he noted, occur "with approxi mately equal excess" among smoking and non-smoking asbestos workers. David Wilson, president of United Steelworkers of America Local 2609 and chairman of the Maryland Committee on Occupa tional Safety and Health, charged in another letter to the editor of the Journal that Kotin "overempha sizes the role of smoking" in occu pational disease. Wilson said work ers "face an onslaught of toxic chemicals, many of which have been inadequately tested for health , effects." With "the dearth of cur rent efforts to control environ mental hazards," Wilson said it was "an affront to pose smoking cessa tion as an answer to our current oc cupational disease epidemic." No smoking? J-M's no smoking rule, according to company officials, generally has been well received by employees. The company has faced three court challenges to the policy and won two of them. In Johns-Manville Sales Corporation v. International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge 1609, however, the union successfully charged that the no smoking policy violated the collec tive bargaining agreement. J-M argued that smoking in an as bestos plant is contrary to public policy favoring the elimination of health hazards from the workplace. The company cited the OSH Act's general duty clause, OSHA stan dards, court decisions, and various Federal health policies in support of its position. The Machinists' union responded that no OSHA regulation bars smoking in asbestos plants. Moreover, the union argued that confirmed smokers frequently can not stop smoking and that adoption of the policy would mean loss of theirjobs. The union acknowledged the increased risk of cancer to as bestos workers who smoke, but said they should be permitted to know ingly expose themselves to danger. In affirming the trial court's deci sion that the rule was invalid, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held: "The danger . . . is to UCC 011283 >s OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS/April 1981 the smoker who willingly courts it. Marsh, director of environmental tos exposure is especially danger The issue is not merely whether affairs for Raybestos-Manhattan, ous, neither agency appears eager these employees should stop smok Inc., said his company has mounted to endorse the regulation of work ing. It is whether the company an extensive stop smoking educa place smoking. Richard Lemen, should be able to discharge them if tional campaign among its employ special assistant to the director for they do not. ..." The court of ap ees, but had not banned smoking, in standards development, NIOSH, peals ruled that the collective part because of the widely held be and chairman of the OSHA/NIOSH bargaining agreement denied the lief that such a ban would "interfere Asbestos Work Group, com company such power. Unlike Johns-Manville, most companies are reluctant to impose with the individual's lifestyle." Though both NIOSH and OSH A health officials concede that the mented: "Smoking is something that is really a personal choice, whereas workers do not always outright bans on smoking. John combination of smoking and asbes have a personal choice whether to work in a particularjob or not. Eco nomically, a person often does not have a choice because it is the only industry in a community.'There is valid concern that smoking should be discouraged . . . I'm not so sure that that is part of the regulatory function of OSHA. From NIOSH's point of view, we would recom mend very strongly that asbestos workers do not smoke, but we wouldn't say that smoking is the an swer to the whole sitation. I think that reducing the exposure to asbes tos is most important." The asbestos industry's criticism of the role of smoking iri asbestos- related disease intensified last fall when the Standard Asbestos Man ufacturing and Insulation Co., Kan sas City, Mo., sued six major to bacco companies, alleging that smoking is the primary cause oflung disease cited in lawsuits against the company by hundreds of asbestos workers. The suit, filed Sfeptember 17 in California Superior Court in Los Angeles and San Francisco, was an attempt by the company to bring to bacco companies into existing law suits and have a jury decide what their share, if any, of the damages In m to handle Iso have a v _ able cldthln protection. _ Melc disposable garments using hbd^datyTWBBler thread#?**' will last laager, protect better, and and sturdy snaps anazlppbrsrse keep your protective clothing costs that each and everygarment can 6s low as you can get them, stand up to your toughest Job. should be. Companies named in the suit are: American Tobacco Co., div. of American Brands, Inc.; Philip Morris, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc; Brown and Wil liamson Tobacco Corp.; Liggett and Myers Tobacco Co., Inc. and the Liggett Group, Inc.; and Lorillard, div. of Loew's Theaters, Inc. and When it comes to chemicals, asbestos, PCB's, Loew's Theaters, Inc. lead dust, paint and grease; orjust plain dirt, A tobacco industry spokesman disposable garments from Melco get tough. said this was the first product liability suit against the tobacco in meko, Inc. dustry in which "one industry has filed suit against another." The spokesman said no individual has For catalog and samples, coll on our totFfree line. 800-441 -9749 6603 Governor Printz Boulevard. Wilmington. Delaware 19809 successfully sued a tobacco com pany for damages due to the adverse 'Dv/'ont registered trademark *Oow Chemical registered trademark 106 Write No. 105 on reader service card Oil 284 health effects of smoking. I