Scranton seeks to create the illusion that there was a “working partnership between the chemical industry and federal agencies.” (Scranton, p.11)(Note that Scranton uses the term “industry” which he critiques us for using) But there was no working partnership, as the industry asserted. As the history shows, when confronted with the choice between its loyalty to its European counterparts or the U.S. government, the industry chose the former, despite the misgivings of members. Scranton criticizes us for omitting information contained in a memorandum from one of the defendants (Airco) that he believes contradicts our contention that the industry did not do enough to protect its workforce and hid critical information from them. The memorandum, Scranton asserts, shows that Goodrich had taken “a thorough and scientific approach to exploring the ‘hand disease,’ [acroosteolysis]” by “X-raying all employees in their PVC plants” (Scranton, p. 11). There are two things wrong with this statement. First, Scranton has no way of knowing whether Goodrich did or did not x-ray its employees and, if it did, whether Goodrich told them why they were being x-rayed. If he had looked at the depositions of several workers and the plant nurse at a Goodrich plant in Henry, Illinois he would have learned that they do not recall any such program or even any information about AOL until the early 1970s, several years after this 1966 memo. Second, the really appropriate intervention would have been to reform work practices to make sure that workers were no longer exposed to VCM at the levels that damaged them. Nor does any of the information presented in Scranton contradict the fact that for two years Goodrich kept information about AOL secret and, when it did tell other members of the industry in 1966, urged them to keep it secret as well: “They [Goodrich] hope all will use discretion in making the problem public….They particularly want to avoid exposes like Silent Spring and Unsafe at Any Speed...” [21]
Scranton lists a number of places in this document where he believes we do an injustice to industry by not quoting instances where he claims the industry acted responsibly (Scranton pp.11-12). He says that “these silences indicate once again Markowitz’ lack of professional integrity when selectively reviewing and reporting sources not in line with his interpretations.” But the industry’s extensive documentation of knowledge of disease caused by vinyl is redundant and merely reinforces our point that it knew there was a problem. Scranton criticizes us because he believes that Goodrich behaved responsibly during the time when AOL was an issue for the industry, between 1964 and 1970. Yet we know from one worker’s deposition (not quoted in our book) that when this worker was hired in 1968 (after Scranton claims Goodrich was taking corrective action) this worker was shown around the plant and, when he passed a polymerization vat, he was told to put his head into it to smell vinyl chloride. He recalled that he was told: “‘Now, stick your head in here [polymerization vat]. That sweet smell you smell will be vinyl chloride, but it won’t hurt you.’ So we did.” [22]
Previous Page | Page 16 | Next Page