Join Forces in the Asbestos Fight: Unity is Everything
Dr. Yvonne Waterman LL.M FFAAM
Specialist (asbest-)aansprakelijkheidsrecht / (asbestos) liability law, Editor in Chief Global Asbestos Forum Magazine, President European Asbestos Forum, independent legal scientist, author, lecturer and global speaker
by Yvonne Waterman, Ph.D. LL.M.[1]
No one organisation or person can assume leadership in the fight against asbestos; we must all be leaders united in purpose for a united global eradication campaign to be effective. Unity and the willingness to reach out to each other are essential: only arm in arm will we defeat the powerful asbestos industry. Any personal resentments, petty squabbles, perceptions of 'owning' the field and the like are detrimental to our purpose; we simply must be bigger than that.
Recently, a debate entitled ‘How Much Cancer Does Chrysotile Cause?’ was held at the global iMig[2] conference in Birmingham. Two medical specialists debated on the numbers of asbestos victims. The debate evolved into an unpleasant international dispute on the strategic wisdom and (un)desirability of such a subject. As a result, everybody lost something precious: unity.
Why is any internal disagreement such a boon to the asbestos industry?
This recent debate is just an example, but it will suffice for an explanation. Firstly, debating the possibility that the death toll figures are exaggerated during an important global conference, provides the asbestos industry a platform which it should not ever be granted. It provides the asbestos industry with the argument to say to developing countries: “See? They don’t even agree amongst themselves what they are talking about.”
Secondly, lawyers will instantly recognise the familiar method of casting doubt on recognised science. We have learned the hard way from the tobacco industry that this can lead to decades of delay in taking health measures to prevent unnecessary deaths. The asbestos industry knows how to wield this argument also, as we may see in a many a courtroom.
Thirdly, because the booming asbestos industry is patient and secure in its huge financial profits: nibbling away at scientific certainties, feeding on internal spats, rejoicing at cracks in the wall of international unity. It has time; we don’t. So let’s not make it so easy for them.
The need for unity: only by a unified stance will we defeat the asbestos industry
Too often, I see that persons think they own the field, are even willing to stoop to scandalously low levels of morality and lies to villify and slander others (even friends, imagine) in order to 'protect' their precious position in the international network and keep others out. What is that all about? Aren't we in this to save lives? Don't we have mutual goals? It isn't about any one person or organisation and it sure as hell shouldn't be. Isn't it obvious then that we should work together to find solutions? Come on, be kinder to one another and pull together. If that is too much to ask for, then go do something else instead. We have no time to spare for possessive attitudes.
We need to get on with a global asbestos ban – and that is just the beginning
We should be discussing how to reach the global asbestos ban, rather than why – we were long ago agreed on that one already. It is getting late in the day, a global ban is a matter of urgency. The renowned Dr. Richard Lemen, retired US Assistant Surgeon General and retired Acting Director of NIOS, rightfully says: “We need to get on with a global ban on asbestos by following the principles of good public health by removing the source of disease, in this case all asbestos including chrysotile.”
Also, as we may see in the EU, an asbestos ban is just the beginning. For even so we still have a long and difficult fight ahead of us to remove asbestos from our homes, our industry and our environment. The sooner we get cracking, the better. Together, we can make it so.
[1] Yvonne Waterman Ph.D. LL.M. founded the European Asbestos Forum (EAF) in 2014. It will hold an international conference in Amsterdam on 30 September 2016, see www.europeanasbestosforum.org. In daily life, she is the proprietor of Waterman Legal Consultancy and specialises in employers' liability law and asbestos liability law.
[2] iMig stands for International Mesothelioma Interest Group, a global organisation with a predominantly medical perspective on mesothelioma, which is a type of asbestos cancer.
Retired
8 年Anyone interested in improving the way we deal with asbestos across the world should attend and share their knowledge and experiences
Teammanager Expertise Milieu en Duurzaamheid Omgevingsdienst Noordzeekanaal gebied
8 年It is good to read all participants in this discussion essentially have the same objectives!
Specialist (asbest-)aansprakelijkheidsrecht / (asbestos) liability law, Editor in Chief Global Asbestos Forum Magazine, President European Asbestos Forum, independent legal scientist, author, lecturer and global speaker
8 年Dear Mavis Nye and Hilda Palmer, where do you get the idea that I went by hearsay, that I got the wrong end of the stick? I All I wrote on the facts was the following. 1.) A certain debate took place in Birmingham, which you’ll agree it did. 2.) The subject of the debate was unwise from a legal strategic viewpoint, which is a judgement that I, with a Ph.D. in liability law, am entitled to make and I explained three well-known and accepted reasons for thinking this. I did not choose sides either, please note. 3. I wrote: “The debate evolved into an unpleasant international dispute on the strategic wisdom and (un)desirability of such a subject.” Well, I have been confidential piggy in the middle of this ensuing dispute, which has taken place globally, by private emails over the past few days and after the iMig conference was concluded. (So at this point, I am not even writing of the debate itself.) You may not have been aware of this nor of its extent; but I am. And I can tell you from what I have seen with my own eyes – again, not hearsay – that the tone in which some of the authors address other participants in this ensuing dispute is disgustingly rude, proprietary and egoistical. This, I may add, to our fellow asbestos activists and supporters who are on the same side of the fence. And all I am asking is this: play nice, because we need each other. If we can’t even manage that, then the asbestos industry must be getting stitches from howling, derisive laughter. The fact that the iMig did not even manage to get out a joint statement on the dangers of chrysotile perhaps goes to show how divided we have become. (I fervently wish it would, it is not too late.) How you could think that my call to be respectful, kind and helpful to our fellows is contrary to unity, is a bit difficult to follow. Be that as it may, I know both you ladies always have good intentions and a kind heart.
Owner at Watson&Winter Design.. #Recycle #Re-purpose & Citrus Media
8 年Lets talk #Asbestos at EAF
Co-ordinator at Greater Manchester Hazards Centre
8 年I attended this meeting and don't think you have been accurately informed! We are all trying to get a global ban on all forms of asbestos but the industry is pushing heavily on the lie that crysotile is safer/safe/doesn't cause mesothelioma etc. It's their argument and it wins ground when scientists publish work that seems to support it. Professor Peto's work on crysotile using lung fibre burdens and dose response relationships has been used by the International Crysoitile Association to support the lie that crysotile asbestos can be exported and safely used, thus continuing the asbestos epidemic in Asia etc. He was challenged in this by Dr Egilman who questioned his methodology very seriously. There was no 'disunity' and I do not recognise or understand the criticisms being made in this piece or why it was necessary to write it when so much is being made of 'unity'. Some things take time and the outcome from that meeting will become apparent. Unity means trusting those we work with, collaborating and supporting them. The UK Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum, IBAS, other campaigners, and others on the iMIG organising committee agreed to this meeting to tackle a very difficult block in our campaigning to get all asbestos banned. As the chair of the UK Hazards Campaign I was there to support them. I have only been involve din this work for 30 years, so many will know better than me and I trust and work with them. But most of all we are working for victims all over the world, and for people we never want to fall victim to asbestos.