Asbestos: The lies that killed

Asbestos, now banned in the EU, kills up to 4,000 people a year in the UK alone. In this exclusive r

There are nearly one million documents on microfiche sitting in the office of the Manchester Metropolitan University Business School academic Geoffrey Tweedale. They expose a scandal that ranks among the biggest and costliest of our age: how the Lancashire manufacturing giant Turner & Newall (T&N), once the world's largest asbestos conglomerate, exposed millions to a lethal carcinogen in full knowledge of its dangers, using PR firms and politicians to hide a truth that it had secretly admitted to in 1961, namely that "the only really safe number of asbestos fibres in the works environment is nil".

Hidden in this massive archive are documents, revealed here for the first time, which tell the story of corporate recklessness that has led to the deaths of thousands of men and women in Britain who were once exposed to asbestos.

People living in the Spodden Valley area of Rochdale in the 1950s used to joke that they would get frost all year round. The local wood was nicknamed "the snow trees" and even the blackberries picked in late summer were covered with a fine white powder. But the "frost" was no joke - it was asbestos blown from extractor fans at the Turner & Newall factory in the heart of the valley.

Derek Philips never worked there, but for 19 years lived just yards from the site. He played bass in a band with T&N workers and recalls the factory as "the centre of the community". The guitars hang on the walls of his current home, a static caravan in the Pennine foothills where he waits to die of one of the asbestos-related diseases - meso thelioma, which appears decades after exposure to asbestos and which is killing more than 2,000 people every year in the UK.

His plight has been all too common in Rochdale. In the 1980s the New Statesman reported that on some roads near the factory every second household had lost a family member to asbestos diseases.

"I was diagnosed in October [2007]," says Philips. "A month later they drained three litres of fluid from my lungs. I couldn't even stand up properly. I've just no chance, have I? I didn't know about the risks."

In the coming months, how he was exposed to asbestos and who he was working for at that time will become vital issues as lawyers fight to win compensation for Derek.

The latest gambit of some insurers is to claim that their liabilities extend only to victims whose disease manifests (is triggered) when they are actually at work, not when they were negligently exposed, which can occur decades earlier. The union Unite is backing one of six test cases that have been presented on behalf of victims to Mr Justice Burton, who will rule in the high court this autumn. If he finds for the insurers, thousands of mesothelioma victims could find themselves without compensation for their suffering.

This long-running war between victims and insurers has an unlikely new player: Warren Buffett, the richest man in the world, who will watch the results of the "trigger issue" case with interest. Next year, National Indemnity Company, a division of the billionaire's Berkshire Hathaway, will take control of an office in the City of London that is unable to respond to telephone inquiries and has only one full-time employee. This skeleton of a business is called Equitas. It was worth $8.7bn in cash and securities when Buffett took it over in 2006. It had been created a decade earlier by Lloyd's of London to solve a multibillion-dollar crisis in insurance: the overextended liabilities of Lloyd's Names.

Who is liable?

By the 1980s, the burden of asbestos-related insurance claims underwritten by Lloyd's Names had become so great that the Names were threatened with bankruptcy. Equitas was established to manage the liabilities. Nearly half its reserves are dedicated to asbestos reinsurance claims predominantly from the United States. Some experts considered even Equitas's billions insufficient to cover the insurers. Buffett's deal augments the fund by a further $7bn to cover any shortfall and the Names will heave a collective sigh of relief when the transaction is approved formally by the high court next year.

So, what is in it for Buffett? When the Financial Times first interviewed him about the proposed deal in 2006, he admitted: "It will be long after I am dead before we know the final answers on how it all works out." Meanwhile, however, he will gain access to some of the most capable reinsurance analysts in the world.

Geoffrey Tweedale, author of Magic Mineral to Killer Dust, comments: "The deal will only be profitable if Berkshire Hathaway can limit their liabilities." In other words, Buffett would have to limit payments to the insurers that compensate victims. Alistair Darling's "bonfire of red tape" announced in the last Budget will help.

In July, the Treasury amended the Employers' Liability Regulations to revoke the requirement for businesses to keep insurance records for 40 years. But, in asbestos-related cases, decades can pass between exposure and the development of the disease. Without records, victims may be unable to establish who is liable. Tony Whitston, who runs the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK, says: "It's a body blow to our groups who have to pick up the pieces when victims are unable to obtain justice."

The people of Rochdale have long experience of that.

Samuel Turner was a pioneer, spinning fireproof and corrosion-resistant textiles from Canadian asbestos on secondhand cotton machinery in the 1870s. From meagre beginnings, T&N grew to be the biggest asbestos conglomerate in the world, as well as a popular local factory.

Brian Penty worked at the site from 1963 until 1996: "There was a bowling green and Christmas parties for the kids," he explains. "It was a family thing. People never really took on board what was being said about asbestos."

Beneath the rosy tale of northern endeavour lurked a darker story. As early as 1898, government factory inspectors were warning that asbestos "easily demonstrated danger to the health of the workers". The T&N files first refer to asbestos cancer in Rochdale in the 1930s.

By 1947, the national factory inspector's report emphasised the incidence of lung cancer among asbestos workers but, astonishingly, no detailed research was undertaken by the government. Only in 1955 did Richard Doll, then a junior academic (and later famous for establishing the connection between tobacco-smoking and cancer), complete an epidemiological study in Rochdale which established the link between asbestos and cancer. He had been approached by T&N but the company initially refused to allow him to publish the findings. Later T&N persuaded its own scientist, Dr John Knox, to draft a paper discrediting Doll's work. Knox encouraged academic scepticism about asbestos diseases but clearly knew there was a problem. He regularly X-rayed employees and when the results showed them developing signs of disease moved them to less dusty jobs. They were not told why.

The signed witness statement of a worker who later died states: "They did not say in 1974 that I had asbestosis but I expect there was something on my X-ray which made them think it was time I came out."

And Brian Penty remembers a so-called "blood pressure survey" in 1982: "They actually drew blood. A couple of years later I was at my GP's surgery - he'd been sent the results. Apparently they were testing for asbestos in my bloodstream."

In public, T&N strove to be portrayed as a responsible employer. In 1944, a manager of the plant wrote to factory inspectors: "In a number of cases we make ex-gratia payments in addition to the statutory compensation. Where an employee has no standing for some technicality we pay compensation, as it appears desirable to deal with the problem on broad lines, and not to rely on some legal point in our favour."

Yet, when the first official asbestosis victim, Nellie Kershaw, died in 1924, the firm wrangled about paying compensation to her bereaved family. Finally they decided not even to contribute towards funeral expenses since, as one company manager warned, it "would create a precedent and admit responsibility". She was buried in an unmarked grave.

The T&N archives are full of death certificates of former employees, placed with internal correspondence never disclosed to grieving families. The official cause of death attributed to Edna Penham, a 64-year-old asbestos stripper at T&N, for example, was peritonitis. The company's personnel manager noted that his records showed she was "40 per cent disabled due to asbestosis", though there was no reference to this on her death certificate. It appears the coroner did not know. There was no inquest.

Keeping quiet

Eventually T&N employed the insurance giant Commercial Union to administer a fund for diseased employees. Geoffrey Tweedale found examples of former employees being placed under surveillance by the firm - desperate not to be held liable. Company policy appeared to be to mislead coroners' inquests, pay compensation only if forced and avoid payouts that might create precedents.

In 1964, T&N solicitors warned the directors: "We have, over the years, been able to talk our way out of claims but we have always recognised that at some stage solicitors of experience . . . would, with the advance in medical knowledge and the development of the law . . . recognise there is no real defence to these claims and take us to trial."

The company found government representatives only too pliant. One medical adviser is recorded as advising T&N to keep quiet about the cancer dangers of their product. In correspondence between two directors of the plant, the opinion of Professor Archie Cochrane, director of epidemiology at the Medical Research Council, was noted: "In tackling a problem of this nature [mesothelioma] one should either be completely frank with everyone or maintain complete secrecy - it is the latter that he feels is best at the moment."

In 1968, T&N circulated a confidential five-point plan entitled "Putting the Case for Asbestos". Drafted by the international PR firm Hill & Knowlton and designed to enable staff to field questions about asbestos cancer, it began, in capital letters: "Never be the first to raise the health question."

When government departments did raise questions about the safety of asbestos, the Board of Trade intervened, arguing that any suggestion that asbestos presented a danger would damage British jobs. So, the sale of asbestos products continued to grow in the UK throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

T&N also relied on the assistance of Cyril Smith, the larger-than-life Rochdale MP and parliamentary pioneer of the Saturday-night television chat-show sofa. During the summer recess of 1981, Smith wrote to Sydney Marks, the head of personnel, informing him that the House would debate EEC regulations on asbestos in the next parliamentary session.

The letter asks simply: "Could you please, within the next eight weeks, let me have the speech you would like to make (were you able to!), in that debate?"

T&N's draft is almost identical to the speech delivered by the Rochdale MP, stressing the need for less regulation and arguing that substitutes for asbestos should be approached "with caution". "The public at large are not at risk," said Smith. "It is necessary to say that time and time again."

Writing in the local paper, he claimed to have "worked very hard on the speech and have spent hours, both in reading and in being at the works, trying to master the facts about safety in asbestos".

A year later he declared 1,300 shares in the company. Six months after that J B Heron, the chairman of T&N, wrote to Smith again, thanking him for his assistance with the Commons select committee meetings which followed Alice, a Fight for Life, the Yorkshire Television documentary that highlighted the plight of T&N employees.

When last month the New Statesman approached Smith for a comment, he said: "If you've got the documents, it is all true."

Some may receive nothing

By 1999, the game was up for T&N when the European Union banned the import and production of asbestos throughout the EU. But with the factory's demise came the greatest in justice of all. In the UK, neither T&N nor its insurers faced substantial product liability claims or decontamination costs. Instead, the company was purchased by Federal-Mogul, a US company which later declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy - a status that ring-fenced its compensation liabilities.

With the company protected from its creditors, a UK-based T&N asbestos compensation scheme of just £100m was established by Federal-Mogul's UK administrators.

Those who, like Derek Philips, may have been victims of environmental exposure at T&N's factories may end up receiving little or nothing.

"The hardest thing," says David Cass, a solicitor specialising in compensation for mesothelioma victims, "is having to tell people who walk into my office, 'I won't get you an apology.'"

Who is left to provide one? T&N is now a shell. The civil servants and politicians who failed to regulate the industry are no longer in post; the insurers who took on the liabilities are long retired. They cannot account for their decisions now. But we will live, and many will die, with the consequences.

Asbestos: the killer facts

    1

    asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related death in the UK

    4,000

    number of asbestos-related deaths in the UK in 2005

    79

    number of teachers who died from mesothelioma between 1991 and 2000

    13,000

    schools in Britain may have been built using asbestos materials

    60

    number of years after exposure to fibres it may take for an asbestos-related disease to manifest itself

    25%

    of victims of mesothelioma work in the building or maintenance industry

    2.2 million

    tonnes of asbestos were mined worldwide in 2005

    Research: Adam Lewitt

    26 comments

    STEVEN's picture

    This is truly disgraceful. That the UK government has allowed the former T&N companies, under the umbrella of Federal-Mogul, to protect themselves from asbestos claimants by putting the company in the US and the UK into administration and then emerging from it minus its liability. Why can it not be the case that Federal Mogul on an ongoing basis ,and out of its profits, should be forced to set aside an amount of money to pay for their liability? It is bizarre that at the time when the company in the UK & US was in administration that the remainder of the company in europe and in other parts of the world was not in administration and it continued to function normally in those places. Before T&N was acquired by Federal-Mogul the T&N companies in the UK had sought and obtained an insurance policy in order to pay any future claims in the UK. what happened to that insurance? Was it diluted when T&N became part of Federal-Mogul, or has it been absorbed or even forgotten?

    Mark Quigley's picture

    As a solicitor specialising in asbestos illness claims I know all too well the difficulties faced by sufferers. Having to speak to a widow who's husband died on the day that the 'trigger' litigation began was one of the hardest things I have had to deal with. The insurers admitted breach of duty but are relying on policy wording to avoid responsibility. My client died a dreadful death, made worse by the failure to settle his claim and ensure his wife was provided for. It is time for a strict liability law to end the interminable financial manouvering and consequent legal wrangling. Insurers and policy holders (where extant) should bear the brunt, not the sufferers

    Mark Quigley

    Janette D.Sherman, M. D.'s picture

    My collection of scientific articles concerning the hazardous of asbestos begins in 1898. We knew by the 1930s that asbestos caused cancer.
    I have examined dozens of workers exposed to asbestos.
    For a corporation and any government to deny a link between asbestos and cancer/ mesothelioma/ fibrosis is pure fraud.

    KateQ's picture

    I was very interested to read the opening to this article, stating that (and I summarize) the only real number of asbestos fibres is nil.

    I was recently forced to move due to the Housing Association who are freeholders of my building deciding to employ unqualified (cheap) contractors to rip up (physically tearing them up without any protection to themselves or those around them) the asbestos containing flooring tiles found throughout the building and replace them with new flooring, all this without informing any residents (or even their contractors) of the potential risks. Trying to get someone to do something about this, I keep being told by all those who should know better (Local council's environmental health officer, Building industry people, Health and Safety Executive) that I should not worry too much, as it is "the safest type of asbestos" and "pretty low risk". Indeed, one Environmental Health inspector even helpfully suggested hoovering up any potentially hazardous dust left by the builders (as the fibers are too small to be caught in ordinary vacuum cleaner filters, this is not the best advice to give).

    Interestingly, when asking friends in Germany (from medical and building backgrounds) about this low risk argument, the answer is always: there should be no such thing as "low" risk with asbestos. Any risk is too high.

    The article also highlights the plight of teachers working in Asbestos-riddled schools... One should add social housing tenants to this list who, often with little understanding of hazardous material, are at the mercy of "social" landlords, who will put their tenants' lives at risk for the sake of saving a few hundred pounds. I am lucky, I can afford to get out and find alternative accommodation. There are many others who can not. The laws for regulating this may exist but they only seem to apply to "non-residential" premises, and with no one interested in applying them even where this would be possible, what good do they do?

    degilman's picture

    Excuse me. Did you write "revealed here for the first time?"

    The Lady Inspectors revealed this in 1898. Murry published a case in 1907. The companies knew about this since the late 1880s.

    There is nothing new and nothing has changed. These are the externalities of capitalism. Companies profit by externalizing as many costs as possible. Generally these are in the form of worker and consumer illness, and environmental degradation.

    These corporate executives are doing what the system allows. It is not a crime to kill workers or consumers. (Well it probably is a crime, but prosecutors do not go after rich white establishment killers). Until the bosses go to jail for this conduct nothing will change.

    David Egilman MD, MPH

    garry saunders's picture

    David Egilman is quite correct in my experience. It is capitalism in its true self, the iron hand beneath the velvet glove of lies.

    Asbestos use and management has been and continues to be an outrage. Canada, South Africa and Russia continue to mine, process and export asbestos, despite what is known. How many UK investors are financing this, how many UK companies are parents for this activity?

    My other beef is that the asbestos situation is awful but look at the marketing of cigarretes in Africa and Asia. The Firms know that damage but they are using the same Ad campaigns to link smoking to being virile, being a "real man" and being a sophisticated woman about town.

    The other is the way artificial breast milk is marketed. Very few woman cannot breast feed. Poor formula practice kills 100,000's of babies each year according to WHO. Breast milk provides the right nutritian for the infant at whatever age. Breast milk is free and carbon nutral, unlike formula. Millions of years of evolution has provided lactating animals with the right milk for their young. The forumla companies know they cannot replicate this but insist they have.

    Asbestos, tobacco, formula milk all have something in common. Capital seeing a market where money can be made despite the full knowledge that the product will kill, maim and disadvantage the vulnerable.

    Garry Saunders CFIOSH, MA

    Follow the Money's picture

    The million pages of documents on the secret history of asbestos contain an interesting revelation about one of the gatekeepers of "accepted wisdom" on health risks of environmental exposures. Industry memos apparently say that Archie Cochrane, director of epidemiology at the Medical Research Institute said:

    "In tackling a problem of this nature [mesothelioma] one should either be completely frank with everyone or maintain complete secrecy - it is the latter that he feels is best at the moment."

    Archie Cochrane is not as well known as Sir Richard Doll, the other epidemiologist mentioned (more on Doll below), but is similarly considered a leading arbiter of rigorous impartial science to address public health issues. A well known institution, The Cochrane Reviews, is named after him. The Cochrane Reviews try to promote "Evidence-based Medicine". As an aside, the current popularity of Evidence-based Medicine implies that medicine was previously practiced largely without supporting evidence. Not a reassuring thought.

    Back to Archie Cochrane. His recommendation to the asbestos company reveals an abdication of his first responsibility as a doctor: to heal people. Instead of helping sick people he was helping corrupt industries.

    Sir Richard Doll is mentioned as having shown the link between asbestos and disease in 1955. T&N first tried to criticize Doll's epidemiological study. But apparently, T&N eventually decided it would be more effective to co-opt Doll than to fight him. They did this in the time-honored manner of buying him out. Only after Doll's recent death was it revealed that he received substantial financial payments from industry, including T&N. Doll received $1000 a day from Monsanto for over 25 years. Around the same time he started receiving these payments in the 1970s, Doll shifted from blaming asbestos, chemicals, and radiation for substantial health harm, to downplaying and exonerating them. He wrote widely heralded articles downplaying environmental and occupational causes of disease. In a number of well documented cases, he testified in defense of products made by T&N, Monsanto and other companies without revealing his financial conflict of interest.

    Doll has been dethroned. Is Archie Cochrane next?

    Concerned Teacher's picture

    The letter from Cyril Smith asking the asbestos company to write his speeches says it all.

    I didn't realise he was still alive. He has a lot of soul-searching to do. But then again, politicians who take their 30 peices of silver won't have much regard for the electorate.

    As someone who has seen damaged asbestos in schools I am concerned for those children I have taught, just like the young lady refered to in the accompanying article who was at school in the 1980s and 90s.
    She has just died of mesothelioma at age 28. Born in the same decade that Cyril Smith was receiving his T&N share dividends and parliamentary speeches.

    Stateside MD's picture

    Have just done an internet search for the name "David Fallis" with the term "Chrysotile" (a mineral "David" seemed to know so much about).
    Guess what - only this comment site webpage came up. No David Fallis's anywhere else in the billions of internet pages out there. Quite an acheivement for someone coming across as an expert on asbestos and health

    Also, the english guy John Bridle is known about over here in the States, No one takes him seriously but I suppose he performs some sort of function for those wanting to cast doubt on the real dangers of chrysotile asbestos.

    Jo Burnside's picture

    A cracking article. I have to respectfully disagree with Dr Egilman on just one of his comments. Yes he is right about the danger of asbestos being known in 1898, but this article doesn't suggest that this reletively well-known fact is a new revelation by the New Stateman.

    There is stuff in the article that I didn't know about and I see myself as an occupational disease anorac.

    That there is a letter, clearly stating that UK Government Medical Research Council suggesting a cover up over mesothelioma in 1962, is an outrage.

    That T&N were enaged in blood monitoring in 1982 is chilling- espcially as, 25 years later there was much vaunted 'new' research in north america about "Mesomark" - a blood test to identify early onset asbestos cancer.

    This is the stuff of the X-files. Such a detailed article is astonishing. If they couldn't substantiate these new revalations then they wouldn't dare publish in the UK. They don't don't have 1st Ammendment rights in Britain.

    The House of Commons letter from the MP is a true shocker. It isn't often you see such a classic example of a politician with his pants down. All that is missing is a brown envelope and bank receipt. But to discover that he owned shares in the asbestos company at the same time he was so receptive to industry lobbying is a good as it gets. Well done for investigating and publishing this scandalous dirty little secret.

    There is also an important broad issue that this article highlights that Dr Egilman misses. Away from academia, few people know the full extent of the asbestos cover-up. That is where the New Statesman should really be congratulated - proper old fashioned investigative journalism in a media world usually obsessed with shallow drivel.

    What this careful research exposes is the tip of the iceberg. As other commentators have said- chrysotile asbestos is still mined and peddled to the Developing World as are cigarrettes and formula milk. It all forms a pattern.

    This article highlights new documents and interviews to expose yet more of a very sorry global saga.

    More power to the New Statesman's elbow for this!

    Latest tweets