Forum
You are not logged in.
Announcement
#1 11-19-2009 11:56:20
- bkynoch
- New member
- Registered: 11-13-2007
- Posts: 4
Article by John J. W. Rogers - Asbestos is "Reverse Greenwash"
On Friday 11-13-2009, EAI included an article by John J. W. Rogers as a part of our weekly "Net News" distribution to members.
The full text of the article can be found here:
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/186537.html
EIA has received a record number of comments regarding this article, many of which suggested that EIA should not have disseminated the article.
As Managing Director, I feel like articles such as this SHOULD be disseminated to our membership, instead of just one-sided articles. In fact, the citations and references in Mr. Rogers article are so antiquated, dated and flat-out incorrect, that we at EIA were hoping that it might cause some of our members to write a letter to the editor of the News and Observer with a dissenting opinion.
There is no doubt that Mr. Rogers is all wrong in his depiction of asbestos as reverse greenwash, and we, as members of EIA, should rebut his article. I also find it very interesting that he cites an article from 1988 in the medical journal "Chest." Has not looked at any of the more current issues, or is he mired 21 years in the past???
I'll let you be the judge. I would also welcome more comments and even someone to step forward to write to the News and Observer.
Brent Kynoch
Offline
#2 11-23-2009 09:02:14
- Joy Finch
- New member
- Registered: 02-11-2009
- Posts: 1
Re: Article by John J. W. Rogers - Asbestos is "Reverse Greenwash"
I was so glad to see the response in the Raleigh/News-Observer from John M. Dement, Professor, Duke University Medical Center in Durham NC and David P. Brown, Director, Program Development, Health Sciences Research at SRA International in Research Triangle Park NC. As they so aptly stated:
" Chrysotile asbestos is a known human carcinogen. Why expose workers and the public? We believe that Professor John J.W. Rogers, in his Nov. 12 Point of View article on asbestos, grossly underrepresented the human health risks associated with exposure to chrysotile asbestos."
It's interesting to me that a geologists would continue to ascribe to the theory that chrysotile is not dangerous. I think my colleague Tom Laubenthal was spot on when he recently commented that the geology textbooks have for years acquiesced to the influence of the chrysotile industry lobbyists by downplaying the health effects of serpentine asbestos.
I thought the list of agencies referenced in the rebuttal article that have identified chrysotile as a carcinogen was impressive: OSHA, EPA, NIOSH, the National Toxicology Program, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the International Program on Chemical Safety, and the World Health Organization. How can geologists continue to ignore the growing evidence against chrysotile?
Joy Finch
Offline
#3 07-12-2010 11:53:00
- Scott Rohlf
- New member
- Registered: 07-12-2010
- Posts: 1
Re: Article by John J. W. Rogers - Asbestos is "Reverse Greenwash"
Joy, I missed the rebuttal article. Is it possible to find a link for that and post it? Until I read this I didn't realize that there were still people out there who didn't get it.
Obvisouly his arguments are flawed to those who know, but for John Q. Public that article, without its rebuttal could seem pretty damning.
Offline