Document Rj6KZex5Mkbj7ex574B5wyr8B

--:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ; 4ohns-Manville Corporation 1978 Annual Report jjjj . relying upon basic business philosophies and concentrating on superior products and services, controlling expenses and expanding in areas of high return..." H&S industrial Hygiene jj,e Asbestos issue 3,,'.'3 1978 the media continued :s sensationalized coverage of the av.sJts and government hearings r.-.z -ring occupational health arz asbestos-related diseases. : is a credit to the officials of the Et. 'onmental Protection Agency and r~ Occupational Safety and Health -c" nistration that they have -a rained a rational and scholarly acc'oach to the asbestos situation in re ;ace of so many exaggerated : a -s by the media and plaintiff a.v;srs. jghout history whenever there -=s seen adversity or tragedy, men -=.e sought a scapegoat. And, even it appears that our legal system 5 T-re concerned with finding a fault v e /ery undesired happening than \oroviding fair and reasonable. ::~oensation for the consequences r i-ch happenings. : a 'ow known that excessive "*= ation of asbestos fiber can, over = ceiod of time, cause or contribute :: cccupational disease. Asbestos 's s:ed disease does exist; thus, it is csmaps understandable that people a: j!d cast about for an "asbestos spegoat.' What is inexcusable is :~s manner in which many lawyers, re media, and even some in t~s 'public interest" arena have =: jght to exploit the tragedy of sscestos-related disease through the 'scetition of inaccuracies, half-truths =' 0 exaggerations. 5 evidence does not support the = egations leveled at J-M, and we 23 want you, our shareholders, to know A newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia the facts. publishing a headline misrepresenting the ruling of a United States District Statements on asbestos and health Court judge. by the media and some officials have been inaccurate, incomplete, A cabinet official speculating on exaggerated and sensationalized. disease estimates without disclosing the almost total lack-of scientific All too familiar are the tendencies support for the figures. of the media to capitalize on and sensationalize tragedy and the A Congressman issuing press eagerness of some in the public eye releases and making inflammatory to grab for quick and easy headlines. comments based only upon Nowhere has this been more evident information supplied by attorneys than in the treatment of asbestos and for people suing the asbestos health issues. While some of the companies. untruths presented by the media and others may be from lack of facts, A "journalist" attacking J-M in which in itself is inexcusable, far more Environmental Action magazine, often they have resulted from a producing an article so inaccurate deliberate distortion in the face of and vicious as to suggest malice. facts and out of a very apparent anti-business bias. For example: These examples are not fiction, but merely a few of many instances we A reporter from a leading New York have witnessed which exhibit the daily newspaper stating to a person philosophy, "a good story at any cost." being interviewed about asbestos All too often reporters and others that she was "not interested in have dutifully published as fact the facts--only a story." adversary conclusions fed them by lawyers suing J-M. One can but A financial daily newspaper failing to conclude that fantasy and publish vital medical information on sensationalism make better copy smoking and its direct relationship to than fact, and that fantasy and lung cancer in asbestos workers. sensationalism it shall be. Television producers carefully editing The asbestos-related diseases answers of J-M officials to conform to of today are a result of past high an apparently preconceived story line. exposures which were thought to be safe at the time by the United States A reporter from a Washington, D.C. Public Health Service. daily refusing to explore fully the particular dangers of cigarette Unfortunately, asbestos-related smoking in conjunction with asbestos diseases have a long latency period; exposure because he was only that is. a long period of time between interested in a cover-up story. first exposure and onset of any disease. Accordingly, we know that mmom ED uia:n--uw the asbestos-related disease being seen today is the result of exposure of 20,30 and 40 years ago when medical knowledge concerning asbestos was only a fraction of what it is today. In years past people were exposed to airborne asbestos particles in excess of what is now considered a safe exposure level. In 1938, limits for exposure to asbestos were recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service and adopted shortly thereafter by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and these limits were accepted by industry as safe working conditions for employees. Further, these levels were accepted without criticism by government health officials and the medical and scientific communities for over 30 years. Knowledge subsequently gained has shown the earlier research to be incomplete. This is the simple fact, not sensational ...but true. Individuals exposed to asbestoscontaining insulation materials are particular victims of the incomplete knowledge of earlier years. Much of the present asbestos litigation involves individuals who were overexposed to dust from industrial thermal insulation materials which contained small amounts of asbestos (usually less than 15 percent). Incidentally, many of these persons worked in environments controlled by the government and used products which were delivered to government specifications. Scientists and physicians studied these workers and repeatedly concluded that their occupational exposures to asbestos were consistently below the "safe level" recommended by the United States Public Health Service. In fact, in 1946, eminent scientists employed by the United States Navy studied several shipyards and concluded that insulation work was "not a dangerous occupation"--a finding which went uncriticized and unchallenged in American medical literature for almost 20 years. It was not until 1964 that the particular risk to this category of worker was clearly identified by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff of Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City. We are asked why earlier knowledge generated from studies of mine, mill and factory situations where workers had been exposed to 100 percent asbestos fiber did not lead to earlier knowledge of a possible hazard to those exposed to industrial insulation products. The completely different work environments and experiences were thought by the medical community to make any extrapolation from one group to another invalid. Dr. Selikoff himself indicated this very clearly and concisely in 1970. stating: `In the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry, the risk of heavy exposure to the occupational dusts had been recognized for some years. And this primary industry has understood the need to install ventilation systems and other dust control devices to reduce the hazard. Experience had indicated that reduction of dust levels and exposures could result in greatly improved health experience among asbestos factory workers. But the extrapolation of that experience to another classification of workers-- specmcaiiv those who fabricate and install insulating materials--was a more sopnistiratpd tagl< fnr riini^gi medicine and epidemiology." How different things might have been had modern methods of medical research been available to the U.S. Public Health Service in those early years. How different things might have been had it not taken the scientists and physicians decades to discover that the recommended limits were not stringent enough. Perhaps it is partly the frustration of "how different things might have been" that causes the shallow thinker to engage in hindsight and raise questions about standards of conduct. Unfortunately, such an exercise contradicts the facts. J-M has acted responsibly to discover the cause of and eliminate occupational disease among asbestos workers. Media representatives and some elected officials have consistently ignored J-M's intensive efforts to solve asbestos health problems and, in fact, have untruthfully portrayed those efforts. Whether such untruths have been deliberate, we leave to reasonable men to judge. But, it is clear that J-M's actions have been appropriate and proper. Some examples of action taken by J-M: Initiation in 1930 of the first American The first to place warning labels on medical studies of possible health asbestos insulation products in 1964 hazards from asbestos. This was in in response to the new evidence that response to information that the dust from such products might create heavy and constant asbestos a hazard to people working with exposures in the textile mills of the products. England might be hazardous. These studies preceded by years any Continued funding of independent independent action by the United medical and scientific research States Public Health Service or any including that of leading experts such medical organization. as Dr. Irving J. Selikoff of Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City. Organization in the 1930's of industry support for extended research at the Cooperative programs with industry Saranac Laboratories of the Trudeau and with labor organizations to Foundation, a leading pulmonary disseminate information about disease research facility. asbestos and health, and to continue research. Voluntary adoption and adherence to the recommended exposure limits of Adoption of mandatory no-smoking the United States Public Health programs for workers occupationally Sen/ice. exposed to asbestos--the first broad-scale, anti-cancer program in Physical examination programs American industry. available for employees continually since the 1930's; leading research The historic concern of efforts in the early detection Johns-Manville for its employees is of disease. exemplified by a 1934 statement stating that it was undertaking Information prepared and investigations to obtain "the best distributed since the 1930's practice possible for the elimination of to inform employees of the work dust and the protection of practices and protections necessary employees." Additionally: to eliminate the hazards recognized at the time. In 1938, "It is the policy of Johns-Manville to make working Respirator programs installed where conditions in its factories and mines exposure might exceed "safe everywhere safe, healthful and exposure levels." pleasant." competitive standpoint to make these installations, we will elect to discontinue a particular operation rather than knowingly endanger the health or life expectancy of a single employee." The numerous allegations made in the public media inferring that Johns-Manville failed to act in a responsible manner in developing and communicating medical and scientific information on the possible health hazards of asbestos in the interest of sales and profits are false and inexcusable. The facts clearly show that nothing could be further from the truth. Johns-Manville's long history of voluntary commitment to the resolution of asbestos-related occupational disease problems is unparalleled in industry, labor or government. The media and government have ignored the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, the most serious and insidious of diseases in asbestos workers. If it were not for cigarette smoking. lung cancer would not be a significant occupational disaasp prnhlpm_ among asbestos workers. This simple, yet crucial, fact has been repeatedly confused by the medical community and continues to be largely ignored by the media and government. Hundreds of engineering projects and millions of dollars spent for dust control, including the "invention" of equipment where none existed. 25 And today, "We equip our plants for the highest degree of personal safety, assuming it is economically and technically possible to do so. When technology is not available, or when it is not feasible economically from a Our knowledge of the relationship of an increased incidence of lung cancer among asbestos workers is of rather recent vintage. A few cases of lung cancer among individuals with asbestosis were reported in the journals are worded so as to minimize late 1930's and the 1940's, but the the hazard. Courageously, Rep. researchers were careful to disclaim a Millicent Fenwick of New Jersey causal relationship. In the 1950's an recognized the cigarette connection English study strongly suggested an and introduced legislation to provide increased incidence of lung cancer. a system of uniform compensation for But, an industry-sponsored study asbestos-related disease. This bill of the type recommended by the called upon the tobacco companies American Medical Association failed to join the asbestos industry and to disclose any such increased government in funding such incidence in the North American compensation. Mrs. Fenwick's bill workers studied. This confirmed a died in committee while tobacco 1956 publication by E. Cuyler subsidy payments were approved Hammond, a noted scientist, Vice as usual. President of the American Cancer Society and co-author with Dr. One can but wonder why federal Seiikoff of many of the leading regulatory agencies have made no articles on asbestos-related move to prohibit cigarette smoking diseases. In that study Hammond among those occupationally exposed concluded that sufficient evidence to asbestos. J-M has adopted such a did not exist to causally relate lung non-smoking policy, and amazingly, cancer and asbestos exposure. some of the very same parties who attack J-M for alleged failures to It was not until the mid 1960`s that protect employees are now criticizing enough evidence became available us for restricting a worker's freedom to show an increased incidence of to smoke. Frankly, it is inconceivable lung cancer among individuals who and intellectually dishonest for those smoked cigarettes and whowere who cry cover-up and negligence occupationally exposed to asbestos. to ignore the role of cigarette smoking ToThis day scientists disagree as to in causing cancer. whether asbestos is causally related to lung cancer or whether it acts Charges of cover-up and conspiracy only as a modifier tor smoking" are unfounded. induced cancer. However, there is agreement in the medical community Perception often substitutes for fact on the simple fact set forth earlier: and reality; untruths repeated often but for cigarette smoking, lung cancer and loudly become accepted as would not have been a significant health factor among people reality. The fact is that there simply is no credible evidence that J-M should occupationally exposed to asbestos. have known of particular health hazards associated with asbestos at One can but wonder why the media earlier periods of time than when we steadfastly refuses to give any did, and there is no evidence that J-M significant or serious attention to the role of cigarette smoking in cancer causation. The few mentions in failed to respond appropriately to medical knowledge of possible hazards as the information became available. Faced with this absence of damaging evidence, certain irresponsible members of media, elected officials and lawyers ignore the facts, alleging cover-up and conspiracy, and seek to alter the perception of J-M as a responsible corporation and employer. These allegations are a red herring.`A few examples reveal the sham of such allegations: It is claimed that J-M and others conspired in the 1930's to prevent publication of information on asbestos health issues. The fact is that the documents relied on to demonstrate a conspiracy are dated a full 10 months after the publication by the United States Public Health Service of the results of J-M sponsored asbestos medical studies--the first such studies done in this country. If suppression were a goal, publication in the United States Public Health Service reports ' would seem a poor vehicle to reach that goal. J-M and others are claimed to have manipulated the data published by the United States Public Health Service. Unable to ignore the existence of industry-sponsored medical research, our detractors argue that research conducted by CAnthony Lanza was tainted by virtue of pre-publication review of the findings. Pre-publication review is nothing sinister, and. in fact, takes place today for virtually all sponsored medical research including that sponsored by the federal government Such allegations are deliberate untruths totally unsupported by the evidence. No one in the media has had the courage to admit that the review of this 1935 paper resulted in no substantive changes as published by the United States Public Health Service except to accentuate one possible hazard. This can hardly be called a cover-up. There can be but one motive for such a callous disregard of the truth--to distort, mislead, sensationalize and thereby profit from the adversity of others. Another charge is that the industry sought to control and suppress the development and publication of medical information concerning asbestos through its research programs at Saranac Laboratories. Some elementary reasoning reveals this argument for what it is--a myth. If suppression were a motive, why would J-M lead an effort to sponsor and fund research at a leading institution? Additionally, if data were suppressed, then how does one explain the published reports of the Director of'the Saranac Laboratories which annually reviewed the ongoing research projects and listed the yearly publications in leading medical journals? How does one explain the attendance of the chief medical officer of the United States Public Health Service at the Saranac Symposia to discuss ongoing research? How does one explain the efforts of J-M and others to speed up, complete and publish research even after the death of the director of the laboratory in 1946? Some allege that J-M's settlement years ago of asbestos disease- related lawsuits meant that we knew of possible hazards to applicators or users of asbestos insulation products long before the medical acknowledgment of such a hazard in the mid 1960's. The fact is that such cases involved neither insulation applicators nor insulation products. They were cases arising out of factory operations in New Jersey, where, due in large part to J-M sponsored research, a possible hazard of continual exposure to raw asbestos fiber in a factory environment had been identified. Neither the product which contained less than 15 percent asbestos nor the work environment were comparable. The workers' claims took the form of lawsuits because in the 1930's asbestosrelated illness was not covered by New Jersey workers' compensation laws. These are facts--unglamorous facts withheld by reporters, public figures and lawyers who must rely on unsupported accusations in an effort to alter perceptions. Perceptions based upon fact are useful in moving the involved parties to a resolution of the problem. But, perceptions based upon untruthful, misleading, inaccurate and unfounded accusations can only delay a much needed consensus on this pressing societal concern. J-M stands ready to join with responsible parties to seek adequate and uniform compensation for asbestos-related illnesses. While the incidence of disease is diminishing and will eventually disappear, the tragic fact remains: asbestos-related disease does exist, and people have been disabled. There are two options for dealing with this reality. J-M can continue to litigate claims in the courts, or we can seek an equitable, uniform compensation system. Litigation is based upon a finding of fault, and with respect to asbestos-related disease, there simply is no fault on the part of J-M. a fact increasingly recognized by juries throughout the nation. Litigation is. of course, favored and fostered by lawyers in search of lucrative fees and by "media personalities* in search of sensational stories. Litigation carries with it personal hardship for everyone--delay, extraordinary expense, and uneven and uncertain results. Fortunately, there is a choice. Forward-thinking members of Congress have concluded that the time for dwelling on fault is past, and the time has arrived to address the issue of compensation for asbestos-related disease. They have proposed a system of speedy, equitable and uniform compensation, and have called upon industry and government to share the responsibility of providing the funds necessary to provide compensation. While such a program will be costly, perhaps more costly lo J-M than continuing to litigate claims. J-M has endorsed the concept, as has the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, whose members are perhaps the 27 most directly affected. We believe it is the only way in which those injured will be fairly and uniformly compensated without extraordinary delay and expense. J-M and others who support such legislation have been castigated and criticized for such support. Some claim, perhaps from self interest, that such legislation would be a "bail out" of the industry. Far from a "bail out," such a system would, in all probability, entail as great or greater costs to J-M than continuing litigation since the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that J-M acted positively and progressively, consistent with medical and scientific knowledge. A compensation system to replace lawsuits in appropriate situations continues to gain favor among industry, labor, academia, professional task forces within the federal government and members of Congress. It is simply the most effective and efficient way to satisfy a goal of fair compensation for persons suffering from occupational disease. We will continue our support of such programs--it is the right thing to do. There is no evidence of danger in the use of asbestos in schools or other public buildings. Much has been made of the use of sprayed insulation containing asbestos on school ceilings. Again, the facts have been ignored in favor of headlines. Johns-Manville neither made nor sold such materials. Further, the facts are that the use of asbestos spray materials in the construction of schools or other public buildings has not been shown to be hazardous. Nevertheless, a well-designed program to determine the presence of airborne asbestos fibers in such buildings would be prudent. Should excessive levels be discovered, programs to seal or remove the material would be in order. Fibers in most asbestos-containing products are "locked in" and safe. In most of our asbestos-containing products, the fibers are "locked in" by cement, plastic or other binders; such fibers are not easily released during normal handling and application. We are confident that, with proper precautions, asbestos and asbestos-containing products can continue to be used without a health risk. An example of this is asbestos-cement pipe which has been in useful sen/ice in the U.S. for decades. After an extensive study, the American Water Works Research Foundation, concluded: "No firm evidence shows that the proper use of asbestos-cement pipe poses a hazard to health by reason of ingestion of asbestos fiber." Summary Johns-Manville has been a leader in establishing safety precautions and has acted responsibly over the years consistent with the known facts of the health hazards of asbestos fiber. We deeply regret that many people, ou' friends, colleagues and employees among them, are currently suffering the effects of having years ago inhaled an excessive amount of asbestos fiber. Cigarette smokers have been especially hard hit. However, there is nothing to be gained by witch hunts to determine fault where none exists. Industry, cigarette manufacturers, governme": the medical profession, labor, the scientific and academic communities and the media are all involved. Attention today should not be on assessing blame, but on how those suffering from asbestos-related diseases can be properly and fairly compensated. This is why we, as a company, are encouraging legislate" which would establish uniform, equitable and comprehensive means of providing compensation for asbestos-related occupational disease. The events of the past cannot be undone. Johns-Manville has learnec from those events and, today, continues to be a leader in American industry in providing healthful worklr z conditions and advanced medical programs for its employees.