5 Ways Corporations Get Away With Selling Products That Can Kill—Part 1

People often find it extremely difficult to believe that it is “legal” for corporations to sell products “if they can cause kill/cause cancer.”  So how do they do it?  At first I wanted to make the list and give it in one fell swoop.  It grew too long and so I ended having to split it up.  Therefore, this is the first in a 5-part installment on how Corporations can get away with selling products that can kill.  I hope it is informative!

1.       Paying for Your Own Scientific Evidence

In the world of toxic torts (lawsuits involving toxic substances, generally defined), we hear a lot about how a certain chemical can cause a certain illness.  In fact, it is generally accepted that certain chemicals are harmful and should not be in a consumer product—a fact which is admitted in many cases of cancer caused by a consumer product. 

Yet many times, corporations beat consumers in court even after a consumer shows he/she used a product with a specific carcinogen and that this carcinogen causes the consumer’s specific illness.  This is a primer on how they do it.

a.       The Analogy- 2005 Scott Peterson Trial

Everybody knows who Scott Peterson is, right?  No one saw him kill his pregnant wife Laci Peterson, yet he was convicted in large part because Scott Peterson’s scientific expert, Dr. Charles March, was discredited by the prosecution. 

At first, Dr. March was very impressive to the jury.  He was an excellent speaker, and the jury paid close attention to him.  During the break following his direct examination, the defense was confident in an acquittal.  

After the break, the jury saw that Dr. March based his testimony exonerating Scott Peterson on only anecdotes.  Dr. March was crushed by this admission and the jury started rolling their eyes at him.  He was finished.

Imagine if Dr. March had relied on hard evidence or even valid scientific research?  The jury would have had no reason to disbelieve him.  The California state prosecutors would have not a much weaker line of questioning.  It is generally agreed that this was the turning point of the Scott Peterson trial.

b.      Corporations creating evidence for other Corporations

In reality, corporations can pay for scientific evidence that is useful to them in court using these 6 easy steps:

1.       Chemical Corporations pay a scientific-sounding corporation to create scientific studies saying their product containing benzene/asbestos/diacetyl/beryllium/etc. does not increase risk for causing an illness. 

2.       Chemical Corporations sell the product containing benzene/asbestos/diacetyl/beryllium/etc. to a consumer.

3.       Consumer gets sick.

4.       Consumer sues corporation.

5.       Corporation points to the scientific studies to say their product is safe.

6.       Corporation wins and Consumer loses!

 

c.       Moral of the story: Only impartial science is good science

In the old days, there was a requirement that scientific studies be conducted by an uninterested party to assure accuracy and lack of bias.  Today, more and more scientific studies are bought and paid for because a corporation wants to get away with something it should not.  Therefore, be careful what you rely on—it may not be worth the paper it was printed on.

Weekend Trivia Quiz: What 1 Thing Does ALEC’s Legislative donors and Chinese’s Cancer Villages Have in Common?

To the surprise of no one, China has finally admitted yesterday what Lee Liu of Environment reported in 2010 and the rest of the world already knew: There are hundreds of “cancer villages” in China.

What does that have to do with the U.S. or ALEC?  Well let’s see.

The cancer villages are an astonishing Chinese phenomenon in that, according to Liu, "China appears to have produced more cancer clusters in a few decades than the rest of the world ever had."

China is often touted for its economic boom and lack of regulations that support it.  But now that China’s admission ends the debate of what price it pays, the world is forced to ask itself “Is unregulated, unfettered pollution a price the world is willing to pay for strong industry and cheap exports?”

ALEC appears to already know the answer to that question—“of course it is”. 

You see, ALEC isn’t actually a person even though a certain Baldwin does carry that moniker.  ALEC is “non-profit” entity whose operations in the simplest terms can be described thusly: the money goes in and the legislation comes out.  This begs the question—who puts the money in?

One such organization is the “Donors Trust” operating out of a townhome in Alexandria, VA.  It describes itself as “dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.”  In reality, what the Donors Trust actually does is hand out nearly $400 million in private donations (now unfettered by pesky campaign finance laws thanks to the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court opinion) and ask in return for the ability to pollute and deny climate change.  For more on this subject, Democracy Now has said more and better than I ever have: here

Nonetheless, what we have is an example of a world without meaningful pollution regulation: China’s “Cancer Villages”.  And you name the cancer--leukemia, lung cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, the list goes on.  We have a group in the U.S. who want the same in the U.S.—ALEC and its shady donors such as the Donors Trust.

It is up to us to decide what kind of world we want.  Choose well.

5 Causes of Lung Cancer in the Workplace (Smoking Excluded)

I use the term “cause” as an analog of “increase risk” as a tip of the hat to the difference between language found in medical and scientific literature and language that we non-science background types typically.  Science rarely deals in absolutes.  And because we are all made differently, science cannot say with 100% certainty that most industrial pollutants “will cause” a cancer in a certain people, only that there is a certain likelihood that a disease or injury will occur.  Otherwise stated, science can help determine “risk” associated with pollutant for developing a disease.  And with that said, here are your 5 lung cancer baddies:

1.       Asbestos

As covered in previous blog posts, it has been known/knowable since the 1930s that asbestos can cause lung cancer.  The asbestos industry did not necessarily get the information out to the public on this point—in fact they actively suppressed this knowledge.  Be that as it may, asbestos is thought to be the leading cause of occupationally-related lung cancer in the U.S.

So now we know that asbestos is an occupational cause of lung cancer; which workplaces to we mean?  To name a few, workers who worked with the following products:

• Drywall and joint compound
• Plaster
• Gas mask filters pre 1960s
• Mud and texture coats
• Vinyl floor tiles, sheeting, adhesives
• Roofing tars, felts, siding, and shingles[33]
• "Transite" panels, siding, countertops, and pipes
• Popcorn ceilings, also known as acoustic ceilings
• Fireproofing
• Caulk
• Industrial and Marine Gaskets, including those made by Garlock Sealing Technologies
• Packing, a system for sealing a rotating shaft
• Brake pads and shoes
• Stage curtains
• Fire blankets
• Interior fire doors
• Fireproof clothing for firefighters
• Thermal pipe insulation
• Filters for removing fine particulates from chemicals, liquids and wine
•  HVAC flexible duct connectors
• Drilling fluid additives​

 

                Another question which typically arises is: how much exposure to asbestos do I need to be at greatly increased risk for lung cancer?  There is no clear answer for reasons a and b below:

a.       Cigarette smoking together with asbestos exposure can have an additive or even multiplicative effect on the risk of developing lung cancer; and

b.      Every individual has a different level of susceptibility to developing a particular type of cancer.

However, one bit if information is important in knowing where risk occurs: asbestos-induced lung cancer is a dose-responsive disease.  This means that a greater exposure carries greater risk.  For these reasons—stay away from asbestos.

2.       Arsenic

Arsenic was first listed in the “First Annual Reports on Carcinogens” in 1980, although knowledge of its hazards dates back well before then.  In addition to lung cancer, arsenic is known to cause cancer of the skin, digestive tract, liver, urinary bladder, kidney, and the lymphatic and hematopoietic systems. 

In what types of occupations do we see exposure to arsenic?

• Mining operations
• Copper smelting
• Agricultural-related pesticide
• Wood preservation processes
• Glass manufacture
• Drinking water in areas where arsenic-based pesticide use occurs.
• Solar cell manufacture
• Nonferrous alloys (lead, brass, etc.)
• Degraded poultry litter (through arsenic’s use as an anti-microbial agent in poultry feed)
• Electronic equipment manufacture and semiconductor applications

3.       Diesel Exhaust

In 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reclassified diesel exhaust from a probable to a known human carcinogen.  The U.S. Center for Disease Control has not yet changed its designation of diesel exhaust from the “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” designation, but discussions are ongoing as to that.  http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/DieselExhaustParticulates.pdf#search=diesel%20exhaust   

In what occupations do we see exposure to diesel exhaust fumes?

• Mining operations
• Garage-station attendants
• Diesel truck operators

4.       Silica

Silica has been a known occupational hazard for over a century.  Sometimes referred to as “sand”, crystalline silica has been listed as “a reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” since 1991 and reclassified as a “known human carcinogen” since 2000 in the U.S. Report on Carcinogens.  Importantly, silica also causes a condition known as “silicosis”, which is a debilitating chronic lung disease for which there is no known cure.

In what occupations do we see exposure to silica?

• Quarry and granite work
• Ceramic and pottery work
• Sculpting and carving
• Sandblasting
• Industrial and Marine cleaning applications
• Construction
• Crushed-stone related industries
• Nonmetallic milling industries
• Refractory brick and diatomaceous earth industries

5.       Chromium

Chromium Hexavalent (“Chrome 6” as many refer to it) has been listed as a “known human carcinogen” since the First Annual Report on Carcinogens in 1980, and IARC concluded there was sufficient evidence of human carcinogenicity in 1979.

Of all agents known to cause lung cancer listed above, Chromium is likely the one with the largest modern-day exposure.  The steel industry is THE major user of chromium in the U.S.  The NIH estimates that consumption of chromium was 78% in stainless and heat-resistant steel, 13.8% for other steel uses, 3.7% in superalloys, and 4.5% in “other” alloys end uses.  http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/ChromiumHexavalentCompounds.pdf#search=chromium   

The U.S. is one of the, if not THE, world leaders in chromium production.  In what occupations do we see exposure to chromium?

• Steelmaking
• Leather tanning
• Wood preservatives (phased out in 2000)
• Refractory production
• Pigment production
• Textile dying production
• Drilling muds
• Pyrotechnics
• Water Treatment
• Chemical manufacturing