Document Eq2wLJ00OBY8zE04mjeoM5RqR

FILENAME: Flintkote (FLK) DATE: 1973 Mar 13 DOC#: FLK044 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo with Attached Letter to the Editor from AIA h .\.-V ' ,, P ^ tkote Comp'amy /. "*V<L-**i/*uT"CRf'0*0, J*f . '* ^ ' - I ' -- . T - * 1 -i - I n te r -O ff i c e C o r r e s p o nd en c e ; '.'okTP - \ L ~ ~T I r -March 13; .1973 * , L -fcosorcis of safety I',c ** ' ' s-fiien . Sherrill's one-sided [ CrtJde, the saver of lives. ^ t s d J y tide" (Jan. 21X ini,i many errors of fact joterproation, The M - . theuli help clarify a of hi* more H au n t emis- fad distortions. Because of the long <0. period of asbestos-re* disease, tlhe disease .found today Is not an (ion of present condi* _ but is instead a result 'editions existing decades ', at * time when neither 'medical profession, gov- nor the Industry yen* touch about the i effects of asbestos and less about the proper ins for their control, jj) The isolated Incidents jj/ as proof of Industry In* iefence and Irresponsibility . set Indicative of the over- : Industry response to this wen. In the past decade the asbestos mznufae- pn; industry has spent ap- itd y 110-miilion oa 'ktt control and expects to ptad an additional SS5-mH- i over the next few years achieve complete eomplt- ^.ct with the final Depart* : of Labor standards, p) No mention was rude |rittevcr" of the highly re* tied end extensive medical i which has been span* eo-sponsared or co lla te d In by the industry |.rch the year*. and which | a contributed significantly j : our knowledge of the bio* TttJ effects of asbestos. la . (he festitute of Occvps* \ " *1 and Environmental * sponsored by the J*&re Asbestos Mining oditlon, is one of the i odd's largest nongovorn* 3 sources of funds for soatos-licslih research. , jj) While Dr. Irving 4. Sell* ; ** has certainly made a i :jwble contribution to our ; *#*ledgt of ashestos-rtlated j *u e, it Is unfortunate that 5 -- Sherrill did not discuss - ''`uaUon with any of the j top authorities in the ^ since many of them do beli^ye that many of Dr. I 7*0<J's recent frightening iWofietluiu are jm tuied b y . tin ted medical data. *" "(S) Tho Labor Department decision to delay adoption of the two-fiber standard for an additional two years beyond the two-year implementation period recommended by the ` National Institute of Safety and Health and the Advisory Committee was approved by Dr. Marcus M. Key, Director of NIOSH, prior to th pub lication of the standards. Furthermore, Dr. Key is in total disagreement with Dr. Selikofrs prdiction thst half . of ail those entering the asbestos industry within the next four years will die be* cause of the delay to going to two fibers. * . We believe thst the above facts demonstrate quite dear* Jy the incomplete and dis* torted* manner to which Mr. Sherrill presented the asbes* lot-health situation to his article. Mstthcw M. Swctojoc. Executive Secretary. Asbestos Information Association - New York Mr. ShcrriE replie Even if one is l:ind enough to accept Mr. Swelonie's fig ures regarding the amount * spent on dust control, the SiiO-miliion comes to less than 2 per cent of the value o f asbestos products sold to the' United States during the past 10 years, according to the U. S. Sureau of Census. Considering the health dis aster that th e. dust has erected, I don't can a 2 per *cent outlay exactly over* ' whelming. But before talcing Mr. Swetonic'a complaints too serious- ' ty, one should bear to mind that the Asbestos Information Association Is funded by 19 of the nation's largest miners, manufacturers and Importer* of asbestos and asbestos-con taining products, and the as sociation pays Mr. Swetooie to respond almost by rote. For exemple, after a recent Wall Street Journal article on the hazards of asbestos, he complained, saying it was Incomplete, erroneous, sen* Rationale:ed and distorted." Mr. Swrtenic's defense ar senal b limited la a few stand. aid blunderbusses. ' Out ***> he U not rattltog * off this non-tpcilc as an in dustry flack, he can be quite sensible about the problem. In my taped interview with him, I asked, "In general, how '.docs the industry feel about Dr. Selikofrs conclusions relating to the haratrds of as bestos?" Did hfc reply that Seiikoff s i t ah wet? No. "That Seineoff's mortality figures . were cockeyed? No. Mr. Swe- . tonic replied, "The health ex' perience of these people [as bestos . workers] has, y o u . know, been a- terrible thing and Is obviously, you know, "quite bad, and 1 think that when lbis information first started to come out of Dr. SelikofTs laboratory it was quite shocking to industry, . obviously so." I further asked Mr. Swe- " " tonic if be thought the prob lem was limited to asbestos workers. "No," be said. "1 don't think 1 would go that far. There have been fairly substantia! increases of ashes- to*-related diseases among . manufacturing workers, esp^- ; dally textile workers [whose ' work] has been notoriously * . dusty. . . .* As tor the complaint that I .-do not quote enough doctors who are sympathetic with the asbestos industry, well, let's ` turn to one of Johns-Manrille "Corp.'s top health consultant*. Dr. Coarse W. Wright, for further evidence of the indus try's slowness to meeting the problem, in Lite American Re- "view "of Respiratory Disease. October, 1659, Dr. Wright ac- knowledged that although as early a s IS30 scientists ! "demonstrated that asbestos posed a major th reat to the .health of workers is the as bestos textile trade" and al though subsequent research linked the hazard to other workers, "subruntial num--, hers of persons exposed to - asbestos in tlicir occupation have never come under a pro tective occupational hygiene program." * This Is still true, and it Is the fault not only of the as- ' bestot Industry but, as I made dear to my article, also the fault .of a lethargic, stupid .elem ent of organized labor * end most especially of a i w 4 * e q C ^ A b l W w m w