What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending the Indefensible: The Global Asbestos Industry and its Fight for Survival
In the early twentieth century, asbestos had a reputation as a lifesaver. In 1960, however, it became known that even relatively brief exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma, a virulent and lethal cancer.
Yet the bulk of the world's asbestos was mined after 1960. Asbestos usage in many countries continued unabated.
This is the first global history of how the asbestos industry and its allies in government, insurance, and medicine defended the product throughout the twentieth century. It explains how mining and manufacture could continue despite overwhelming medical evidence as to the risks. The argument advanced in this book is that asbestos has proved so enduring because the industry was able to mount a successful defense strategy for the mineral--a strategy that still operates in some parts of the world. This defence involved the shaping of the public debate by censoring, and sometimes corrupting, scientific research, nurturing scientific uncertainty, and using allies in government, insurance, and medicine.
The book also discusses the problems of asbestos in the environment, compensating victims, and the continued use of asbestos in the developing world. Its global focus shows how asbestos can be seen as a model for many occupational diseases--indeed for a whole range of hazards produced by industrial societies. The book is based on a wealth of documentary material gained from legal discovery, supplemented by evidence from the authors' visits and researches in the US, the UK, Canada, Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, Australia, Swaziland, and South Africa.
Yet the bulk of the world's asbestos was mined after 1960. Asbestos usage in many countries continued unabated.
This is the first global history of how the asbestos industry and its allies in government, insurance, and medicine defended the product throughout the twentieth century. It explains how mining and manufacture could continue despite overwhelming medical evidence as to the risks. The argument advanced in this book is that asbestos has proved so enduring because the industry was able to mount a successful defense strategy for the mineral--a strategy that still operates in some parts of the world. This defence involved the shaping of the public debate by censoring, and sometimes corrupting, scientific research, nurturing scientific uncertainty, and using allies in government, insurance, and medicine.
The book also discusses the problems of asbestos in the environment, compensating victims, and the continued use of asbestos in the developing world. Its global focus shows how asbestos can be seen as a model for many occupational diseases--indeed for a whole range of hazards produced by industrial societies. The book is based on a wealth of documentary material gained from legal discovery, supplemented by evidence from the authors' visits and researches in the US, the UK, Canada, Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, Australia, Swaziland, and South Africa.
338 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2008
2 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 23, 2016
Asbestos is a paradox. Despite well-established links between exposure to the fibers and asbestos related diseases (ARDs), the biological mechanisms by which the mineral causes mesothelioma and lung cancer remain poorly understood. Even though consensus exists that the presence of asbestos in buildings is a serious public health problem, removing the substance carries its own set of risks. Determining which parties should be held accountable for the societal costs of asbestos is complicated, especially because so many people have been indirectly exposed. Even though the asbestos problem, by nature, defies simple solutions, McCulloh and Tweedle argue in Defending the Indefensible that several decades of deliberate and coordinated deception by the global asbestos industry directly contributed to the dire circumstances around the globe today.
Links between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma appeared as early as the 1930s, but the asbestos industry claimed well into the early 2000s that the mineral might be harmless. McCulloh and Tweedle document a litany of evidence of suppression, distortion, and deliberate ignorance on the part of asbestos companies, so that, “in effect, the industry wrote its own history” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 81). Similar to the tactics employed by lead companies, big tobacco, and climate change denial, “the industry learned how to transform the systematic doubt characteristic of good science into a political weapon” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 85). Beyond merchandising doubt, big asbestos bought their own scientists such as Dr. Wagner, who received $6,000 per month to parrot a pro-industry stance (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 145).
Widespread deception on the part of industry notwithstanding, multiple questions still remain about why asbestos is harmful. Even though MucCulloh and Tweedle claim that “neither complex scientific research nor laboratory work was necessary to understand the dangers of asbestos” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 77), they admit that “the mechanisms by which any type of asbestos induce cancer is still not fully understood” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 157). Even though industry demonstrably exploited this seeming uncertainty to continue extracting, processing, and promoting asbestos with minimal regulatory oversight, the same ambiguity renders some of McCulloh and Tweedle’s arguments problematic about who should be held responsible for the devastation wrought by asbestos. For the same reasons that, “asbestos was never a single entity and to single out one variety as safe was reckless” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 147), identifying one culprit to compensate asbestos claims might be a fool’s errand.
Some of the most egregious and dangerous deception described in Defending the Indefensible didn’t come from a company directly involved in the asbestos industry at all, but rather Grace, the vermiculite manufacturing company whose products were contaminated with tremolite. Given that, “Grace estimated in 1985 that 30,000 additional lung cancers” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 219) could be attributed to homeowners using their products, it’s exceedingly difficult to determine whether one person’s mesothelioma arose due to the insulation in their elementary school or the potting soil in their garden.
McCulloh and Tweedle touch on the legal tangle surrounding compensation to mesothelioma victims, but don’t offer any tangible solutions. Because so many products, from brake pads to insulation, incorporated asbestos, tracing the exposure source among people not directly employed in mining or manufacturing is almost impossible, which leads to massive torts where, “by naming as many asbestos entities as possible in a claim, a plaintiff would increase the chances of success” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 164). Furthermore, oftentimes the trials took place far from the community where the harm occurred, as “plaintiff’s lawyers could engage in what was known as ‘forum shopping’ by searching for the most favorable jurisdication to try cases” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 176). Perhaps most problematically, the significant portion of most payouts that went towards legal fees makes it unclear whether the settlements truly helped victims. While some monetary recompense for harm suffered due to asbestos exposure is certainly better than nothing, significant amounts of asbestos remain in place worldwide and mesothelioma rates are expected to keep climbing until 2020.
Defending the Indefensible makes a compelling historical case that the asbestos industry carried out a protracted campaign of deceit, unfortunately the text offers little insight into the best path forward. The authors admit that, “the health impacts of environmental exposure can be slight and difficult to quantify; the hazards of asbestos in many environmental situations are sometimes small; and many of the problems, such as asbestos in buildings, have never been susceptible to an easy fix” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 225). Given that industrialized nations, with sophisticated infrastructures, well-established scientific establishments, and massive, if occasionally inefficient, legal systems are still unsuccessfully grappling with the asbestos paradox, the future seems particularly bleak for developing countries, where extraction and use of the mineral continues unabated and unregulated. If history is any indication, however, people will continue to be harmed by asbestos, and what survives of the industry will face comparably minimal consequences.
Links between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma appeared as early as the 1930s, but the asbestos industry claimed well into the early 2000s that the mineral might be harmless. McCulloh and Tweedle document a litany of evidence of suppression, distortion, and deliberate ignorance on the part of asbestos companies, so that, “in effect, the industry wrote its own history” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 81). Similar to the tactics employed by lead companies, big tobacco, and climate change denial, “the industry learned how to transform the systematic doubt characteristic of good science into a political weapon” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 85). Beyond merchandising doubt, big asbestos bought their own scientists such as Dr. Wagner, who received $6,000 per month to parrot a pro-industry stance (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 145).
Widespread deception on the part of industry notwithstanding, multiple questions still remain about why asbestos is harmful. Even though MucCulloh and Tweedle claim that “neither complex scientific research nor laboratory work was necessary to understand the dangers of asbestos” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 77), they admit that “the mechanisms by which any type of asbestos induce cancer is still not fully understood” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 157). Even though industry demonstrably exploited this seeming uncertainty to continue extracting, processing, and promoting asbestos with minimal regulatory oversight, the same ambiguity renders some of McCulloh and Tweedle’s arguments problematic about who should be held responsible for the devastation wrought by asbestos. For the same reasons that, “asbestos was never a single entity and to single out one variety as safe was reckless” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 147), identifying one culprit to compensate asbestos claims might be a fool’s errand.
Some of the most egregious and dangerous deception described in Defending the Indefensible didn’t come from a company directly involved in the asbestos industry at all, but rather Grace, the vermiculite manufacturing company whose products were contaminated with tremolite. Given that, “Grace estimated in 1985 that 30,000 additional lung cancers” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 219) could be attributed to homeowners using their products, it’s exceedingly difficult to determine whether one person’s mesothelioma arose due to the insulation in their elementary school or the potting soil in their garden.
McCulloh and Tweedle touch on the legal tangle surrounding compensation to mesothelioma victims, but don’t offer any tangible solutions. Because so many products, from brake pads to insulation, incorporated asbestos, tracing the exposure source among people not directly employed in mining or manufacturing is almost impossible, which leads to massive torts where, “by naming as many asbestos entities as possible in a claim, a plaintiff would increase the chances of success” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 164). Furthermore, oftentimes the trials took place far from the community where the harm occurred, as “plaintiff’s lawyers could engage in what was known as ‘forum shopping’ by searching for the most favorable jurisdication to try cases” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 176). Perhaps most problematically, the significant portion of most payouts that went towards legal fees makes it unclear whether the settlements truly helped victims. While some monetary recompense for harm suffered due to asbestos exposure is certainly better than nothing, significant amounts of asbestos remain in place worldwide and mesothelioma rates are expected to keep climbing until 2020.
Defending the Indefensible makes a compelling historical case that the asbestos industry carried out a protracted campaign of deceit, unfortunately the text offers little insight into the best path forward. The authors admit that, “the health impacts of environmental exposure can be slight and difficult to quantify; the hazards of asbestos in many environmental situations are sometimes small; and many of the problems, such as asbestos in buildings, have never been susceptible to an easy fix” (McCulloh & Tweedle, 2008, p. 225). Given that industrialized nations, with sophisticated infrastructures, well-established scientific establishments, and massive, if occasionally inefficient, legal systems are still unsuccessfully grappling with the asbestos paradox, the future seems particularly bleak for developing countries, where extraction and use of the mineral continues unabated and unregulated. If history is any indication, however, people will continue to be harmed by asbestos, and what survives of the industry will face comparably minimal consequences.
Displaying 1 of 1 review