Scranton argues (p. 14) that we were not justified in saying that company executives were upset with Viola’s findings that rats exposed to vinyl chloride monomer developed cancers at 5,000 ppm, far below the 30,000 ppm that Viola had reported a year earlier, and that the industry was hopeful that it would not prove applicable to humans. But at an MCA meeting there was discussion of the possible human significance of this data and later Wheeler of Union Carbide reported that “publication of Doctor Viola’s work in the U.S. could lead to serious problems with regard to the vinyl chloride monomer and resin industry.” [23] Further, Scranton charges that we ignored “significant information” that there were impurities in Viola’s vinyl chloride monomer that may have affected his results (Scranton, p. 14). But at a conference on vinyl chloride sponsored by the MCA and attended by representatives of some 24 companies, the minutes said: “Inasmuch as the material used by Dr. Viola was of undocumented composition, and variously noted to contain from 1 to 3 percent impurities, and whereas American commercial practice now may specify total organic impurities to as low as 100 ppm (99.99% assay), some, but not great confidence, was expressed that it could be shown that Dr. Viola’s results were attributable to the impurities in his sample.” (November 19, 1971) Thus, it is just not true, as Scranton claims, that MCA scientists “challenged Viola’s presumption of vinyl chloride causality.” (P. 15)
Also in this section, Scranton says that we violated historical standards because we did not quote Vernon Rose of NIOSH who praised B.F. Goodrich for its role in announcing and recognizing the angiosarcomas of the liver in its Louisville plant in January 1974. But when Rose praised the company, he did not know that Goodrich had earlier kept secret its knowledge that animals had been diagnosed with the exact same kind of rare cancer as the workers had died from. When, several months later, this information was revealed, there was no longer praise for the industry’s actions; in fact there was harsh criticism! Marcus Key, head administrator of NIOSH, recalled after hearing industry claim that it had been open and forthright with his agency in July, 1973, said that “at this [July, 1973] meeting there was no mention of angiosarcoma of the liver in humans or animals, no reference to production of liver tumors in animals by another Italian investigator, and no reference to Professor Cesare Maltoni by name.” [24]
Scranton also criticizes us for not quoting the business magazine, Fortune, which said “as of January, 1974 literally all the information linking vinyl chloride to cancer had been developed by the industry on its own initiative.” What Fortune either did not know or did not reveal was that the research was conducted in secret and was purposefully withheld from the government.
Previous Page | Page 17 | Next Page