|
This important news involving W.R. Grace and asbestos
illustrates why the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of
asbestosis and asbestos cancers should be on a clinical basis rather
than a geological basis. W.R. Grace is trying to escape its
liability for poisoning an entire city by claiming that what is
asbestos now was not legally asbestos then. (see below)
This type of semantic gamesmanship clearly shows why
asbestosis and asbestos cancers are what should define asbestos
fibers, not a Congressional definition or legislative fiat. When
certain materials cause death under defined clinical conditions,
they are asbestos. The industry’s disingenuous claim, that even
though the substance kills it belongs (or should belong, or might
belong, or once belonged) to a different mineralogical nomenclature
and is therefore beyond the reach of regulation, is horrific.
Anything less than a complete ban on asbestos
continues to hold open the door for death motivated by greed. The
asbestos industry plays to win. So must we.
RGW,PC |
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Grace Takes Libby Asbestos Arguments to
High Court.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NEWS01/80416018
MISSOULA (AP) — W.R. Grace is
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review pretrial rulings in the government’s
case charging the company with trying to hide health risks associated with
its vermiculite mine in Libby.
The chemical manufacturer filed a petition
this week asking the high court to evaluate a decision by a federal appeals
court involving the type of asbestos found at the Libby mine.
Grace attorneys argue that when the company
operated the mine, minerals that made up the asbestos found there — winchite
and richterite — weren’t regulated by the federal government. They say the
company therefore can’t be prosecuted for them under the Clean Air Act.
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula
agreed with Grace but was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. Grace is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals
court’s decision.
According to the company’s petition, the
government “is trying to convict defendants of violating the Clean Air Act
by releasing substances that the government itself has excluded from the
list of substances covered by the act.”
Andrew Ames, a spokesman for the U.S.
Department of Justice, said Wednesday he could not comment, “as this is a
matter in ongoing litigation.”
The government has 30 days to file a
response. Following that, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the
case. If the high court declines, the 9th Circuit’s rulings will stand,
potentially clearing the way for the criminal trial to get under way in
Missoula.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its final
cases of the 2008 term next week. If it accepts the Grace petition, the
earliest it would hear oral arguments would be October.
A 2005 indictment charged Grace and seven of
its former managers with conspiring to hide health risks associated with its
Libby vermiculite mine, which closed in 1990. Grace has denied any criminal
wrongdoing.
*** POSTED APRIL 17, 2008 ***
|
PATIENT PROFILES
