Document LK9NQqdZko9mxqro3LqvNdNjz

FILE NAME: Eternit (ETN) DATE: 1977 Apr 18 DOC#: ETN007 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to Dr. Schmidheiny April 18, 1977 Dr. Stephan Schmldhefny AMIANTIUS CENTER CH-8867 Nlederurnen Switzerland Dear Dr. Sehaldheiny: Francis Kay has asked me to respond to your letter of March 23 concerning the 0CAW slide presentation. I an delighted to do so, particularly to explain J-M*s participation and our own opinion of the final show. At the request of an OCAtf representative, I asked Walter Cooper, our Manager of Environmental Communi cations, to offer assistance from Johns*Kanvllle to the free-lance writer developing the program. Thus we became involved at an early stage, and OCAW seemed very anxious to have our help. We were asked to provide any and all educational material we have developed to educate our employees about asbestos health concerns, which we did. We were also asked for slides showing dust control systems in asbestos operations, and we went what we felt were the best and sort representative. In addition we suggested other authorities in the field who should be contacted in order to ensure accuracy In the presentation. Although we had no control o^er the end results and we did not see the program uutil several weeks after it ha d beeu completed ssd distribution bad bagun, we deemed it Important to offer full cooperation to the union in this project. We felt that by offering factual, objective Information, we might be able to influence to some extent the way in which industry was portrsysd. Not to have made that attempt, regardless of the out come, would have been remiss on our part. We can only speculate how many more things you might have been dissatisfied with in the program had J-M not made an attempt to educate the writers. The credit to J-M was given without our knowledge and without request on our part, although we would have had no objection to it if asked. The mere fact that a major international labor union came to us for some advice and help is a giant step forward to a better relaaidnshl^p with the labor community* If our cooperation spurs this and other unions to eeek our advice in the future, we will have gained far more then we may have lost. The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Un&on la ona of tha moat militant unions in the United States particularly in health and aafaty Issues. Viewed In this light, the elide show ie rather mild to us end In most respects responsible. It Is important to realise that this presentation emphasises hazards of aabaetos exposure but It doaa not suggest a ban on tha uaa of asbestos. With all tha hysteria In the press both here and abroad and tha situation in many other countries where the unions and the public are demanding for stronger controls (I am enclosing copies of letters to me from Dr. Tore Dalhem and Dr* Ahlmark about the Swedish problems), we feel that J-M's position that asbestos can be used responsibly and without hazard is being accepted, sore slowly perhaps then we would like, but nonetheless the point le getting across. As for the mlainformation you cited, these examples are not mietetemente of fact but differences in emphasis.' For exampla, nonsmoking asbestos workers have e lung cancer rate less then that for the general population because smokers ere Included In the general population. At the same time the rats of lung es*cer is higher among asbestos workers when s m o k e r s nonsmoksrs both are considered. It is true ``hat ths synergistic effect of smoking and asbestos exposure is hardly mentioned in the OCAW program. This is one area where we still have to educate union leadership to gain their support for no-smoking programs for asbestos workers, 1 hope that these comments help you to understand our position. Cordially,