Talk:Asbestos and the law

message: The whole "Online Battle" thing is a myth, has no truth to it at all - mesothelioma and asbestos actually have very average cost per click in online advertising - and was probably put there simply to give a free link and traffic to the supposed reference site, which has no real verifiable information (a simple search using the google tool shows that the conclusions are fake) and is full of pay-per-click advertising ITSELF, which I find hilarious.
Serious NPOV issues still exist.  No data is provided to support the validity of such asbestos class action suits, but rather only their legitimacy is questioned.
::I absolutely agree with this statetment.  Moreover, a BBC article was completely misrepresented, in an effort to claim the "World's largest insurance companies" were being threatened by asbestos litigation.  IN fact, the article stated that investors were suing Lloyd's for fraud.  Therefore, if Lloyd's was being financially threatened, it was because of its own fraud, and not because of asbestos litigation.MollyBloom 04:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JFW | T@lk 23:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Hmm. You can't get enough, can you? :-) JFW | T@lk 01:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The whole "Online Battle" thing is a myth

message: Proposed new Title': Asbestos-Related Diseases: Industrial Health and Safety Issues
:When the VFD debate is finished, I think this page should get a new title. Suggestions? The above is a bit long. JFW | T@lk 13:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article body

message: I'm not so sure about your latest edit, Ed (20:27, 27 Jan 2005). Ok, they admit that there's still no universal consenus (frankly I doubt there ever will be!!) but the HSE are generally very conservative  from what I've seen (hence their admission of lack of consensus). Maybe we should at least keep something on the fact that the evidence shows ("seems to indicate"?) that any minimum "cut-off" must really be at a very low level. What do you think? 
With, or without a partial revert along these lines, I vote to remove the NPOV and CLEANUP.
Wikityke 22:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimum Exposure Limit?

message: The US Senate is now considering the trust fund bill. I'll try to keep this current. --Christofurio 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs updating

message: This was what was stated in the article: ..."settlements have also threatened some of the World's largest insurance companies." (BBC report on Lloyds).
This statement is not only unsubstantiated, but the article it references says nothing about the "world's largest insurance companies" being threatened.  This is an article about Lloyd's investors suing Lloyds for fraud, over the pending losses.  If Lloyd's is threatened, it is because of its own misrepresentation and fraud, not because of asbestos lawsuits. MollyBloom 04:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from which, Lloyd's isn't a "company." It's a "market," as the BBC accurately said in the third graf of that story. Which is precisely why such lawsuits have problems. --Christofurio 18:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reported what the article stated.  But yes, you are correct.  Lloyd's is not a 'corporation' in the sense that the initial sentence of the article implied.  Corporations are not the only legal entities capable of being sued.  Here is an interesting court summary of the complexity of legal entities of Lloyd's:
The Names sued four defendants: the Corporation of Lloyd's, the Society of Lloyd's, the Council of Lloyd's, (collectively, "Lloyd's") and Lloyd's of London, (the "unincorporated association").
Lloyd's is a market in which more than three hundred Underwriting Agencies compete for underwriting business.  Pursuant to the Lloyd's Act of 1871-1982, Lloyd's oversees
and regulates the competition for underwriting business in the Lloyd's market. The market does not accept premiums or insure risks. Rather, Underwriting Agencies, or syndicates,
compete for the insurance business. Each Underwriting Agency is controlled by a Managing Agent who is responsible for the financial status of its agency. The Managing Agent must attract not only underwriting business from brokers but also the capital with which to insure the risks underwritten.
I suspect the news article did not make the legal differentiation.  But the cause of action was undoubtely accurate.jgwlaw 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresenting references & POV

message: This is not a forum for bashing lawyers.  It is not a political forum. To make this a rant on tort reform, or an article by political pundits on alleged fraud is wrong.  Instead, it should be a discussion of the legal issues related to asbestos.  This includes regulation, civil litigation (existing and proposed) and criminal prosecution.  Corporate losses from asbestos are not only attributable to civil litigation,. Corporations are being indicted on criminal charges, as well.  There also is a section on Environmental law & criminal prosecution.  The environmental issues surrounding asbestos removal are huge.  I said 'dozens' of cases have been prosecuted...it's probably many more than that.  This is a health issue, as evidenced by the WR Grace prosecution. Please people, lets stop with the lawyer bashing.  I couldn't believe the article as it was when I first saw it.  That's not informative; it's a rant.  Let's keep it clean, factual and informative.MollyBloom 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asbestos and the Law

message: I added a reference list, and am starting the process of adding proper citations for the references.  IT will take some time, and I welcome any help available.  I am still a little inexperienced at the Wiki formatting but am getting the hang of it.  Still, help would be nice!  ;-)   jgwlaw 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a Reference List

message: A front page story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal suggests there is a developing scandal over insider trading in the asbestos context. Apparently, somebody in Congress or working for a member of Congress told investors or the agents of investors that there would be some movement soon in the tort claims relief bill re: asbestos, and the investors loaded up on the instruments of the corporations that would benefit. Anybody want to tackle this? --Christofurio 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a copy of the article?   I could look for it at the library, but it would be easier if someone had a copy.  WSJ is one that is not obtainable online.  It sounds like something surely that would be in other news articles, but I did not see anything.  I am not surprised, but my guess also is the recent changes in Congress may also affect the way the bill proceeds, or individual provisions in it.  That, of course, does not affect a possible insider trading that already occurred.  You have got me most interested now, and if there isn't anymore info by next weekend, I will look it up.Jance 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal 

message: Does anyone have a primary source for this assertion?  I have found evidence of workers' compensation claims starting in 1927, and there may be some tort action at about the same time (particularly if employer's liability before the workers' comp law began to cover occupational disease) but the cited source http://www.1-stop-mesothelioma-asbestos.com/html/history.html has the look of a site that is used to feed plaintiffs into lawyers (just a suppostition on my part).  It would be nice to cite a more direct source.    Bob Herrick 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers were brought in 1929 

message: I would like to see the "United States" subsection under "Regulation and government action" section
to begin with a line like, "United States has not joined the ranks of the many advanced countries that have banned asbestos".
This is the biggest subsection with a lot of clutter with the ASTM stuff, but does not clearly and concisely state the
fact that asbestos is NOT banned in US. Of course it says there have been calls for a ban.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many uses of asbestos are banned in the US, including most "consumer" uses. Other countries (eg, France) have implemented "total" bans, but with exceptions… I'm collecting references on the point for other articles, which could equally well be used here. Still, I think it is important not to take a "political" line, but merely try to give information as to what has happened in various countries in response to this (in my mind obvious) health risk. Physchim62 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regulation and government action:United States" section needs a better starting line 

message: (so I guess if you want safe and healthy indoor air quality today, you'd have to move to france?)
"A. July 1989 EPA rule commonly known as the "Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule" (40 CFR 763 Subpart I, Sec. 762.160 - 763.179)
NOTE: Much of the original rule was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991. Thus, the original 1989 EPA ban on the U.S. manufacture, importation,
processing, or distribution in commerce of many asbestos-containing product categories was set aside and did not remain in effect." (ref, from http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbbans2.pdf)
I just learned about this, but this article needs this information in it- and information about how and why the ban was vacated by who in what court in 1991! (can one biased judge with a personal agenda really have the power to change everything?) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  asbestos ban in usa being canceled and why 

message: The section about regulation is quite fair and pays attention on many countries. On the contrary, the litigation section is focused on America. In other countries too we had big trials against companies because of asbestos damage. Often they are the most important trial against a company and took headlines on mass-medias. Lele giannoni (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographic bias

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Asbestos and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/books/asbestos/asb09.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ewg.org/reports/asbestos/printerfriendly.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Asbestos and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524214330/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;sessionid=TVKIZWVQ4IZGRQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC?xml=/money/2002/06/22/cnequt22.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=50642 to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;sessionid=TVKIZWVQ4IZGRQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC?xml=/money/2002/06/22/cnequt22.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=50642
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Asbestos and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121129012206/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Quebec+Budget+Finance+Minister+Nicolas+Marceau+tightens/7586017/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Quebec+Budget+Finance+Minister+Nicolas+Marceau+tightens/7586017/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Asbestos and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208063934/http://www.salute.gov.it/dettaglio/pdPrimoPiano.jsp?id=111&sub=3 to http://www.salute.gov.it/dettaglio/pdPrimoPiano.jsp?id=111&sub=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423142527/http://www3.nhk.or.jp:80/daily/english/19_33.html to http://www.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/19_33.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030182149/http://www.hse.gov.uk:80/statistics/causdis/asbfaq.htm to http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asbfaq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724161112/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si2006/20062739.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20062739.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304163322/http://blog.pannone.com:80/personal-injury/pannones-landmark-legal-victory-for-widow-on-asbestosis-case-349 to http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury/pannones-landmark-legal-victory-for-widow-on-asbestosis-case-349/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111103453/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/05/senate-judiciary-committee-wants.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/05/senate-judiciary-committee-wants.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Asbestos and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707172946/http://www.asbestoslegaljournal.com/Asbestos-Lawsuit-Documents/1924-Cooke-Fibrosis-of-the-Lungs-Due-to-the-Inhalation-of-Asbestos.pdf to http://www.asbestoslegaljournal.com/Asbestos-Lawsuit-Documents/1924-Cooke-Fibrosis-of-the-Lungs-Due-to-the-Inhalation-of-Asbestos.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822030538/http://www.nohsc.gov.au/NewsAndWhatsNew/MediaReleases/mr_AsbestosBan.htm to http://www.nohsc.gov.au/NewsAndWhatsNew/MediaReleases/mr_AsbestosBan.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Quebec%2BBudget%2BFinance%2BMinister%2BNicolas%2BMarceau%2Btightens/7586017/story.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/19_33.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402192750/http://health.joseilbo.com/html/news/?f=read&code=1327972365&seq=2992 to http://health.joseilbo.com/html/news/?f=read&code=1327972365&seq=2992
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022011642/https://nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1205/1153/ to http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1205/1153/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041209024410/http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm?mins=262 to http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfm?mins=262
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/asbfaq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725060838/http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/10/18/asbestos-workers-lose-right-to-claim-91466-19970287/ to http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/10/18/asbestos-workers-lose-right-to-claim-91466-19970287/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2006/20062739.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury/pannones-landmark-legal-victory-for-widow-on-asbestosis-case-349/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606141046/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C12%5Cstory_12-6-2006_pg6_25 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C12%5Cstory_12-6-2006_pg6_25
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606141046/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C12%5Cstory_12-6-2006_pg6_25 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C06%5C12%5Cstory_12-6-2006_pg6_25
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040626204116/http://www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos.pdf to http://www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/6_2_asbestos.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041229080508/http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_21.htm to http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_21.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Greetings, thank you for this entry. Very informative. The introductory paragraph of this article is U.S based and focuses on asbestos & law in the US however, the article is a general title and includes international content. This introduction seems inappropriate and better suited for the Abestos and the law (United States) page rather than this page. Please clarify and correct. Thobeka-77 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the introduction is very poor. Be WP:BOLD and feel free to make any improvements you see fit. Greenman (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Asbestos and the law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041225151309/http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/11/1016 to http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/155/11/1016
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified