Scranton (p.35) criticizes a reference in Markowitz’ six page “Report to the Court” because it did not come from the document cited but came from another industry representative. He is correct that this was a mis-citation but, nonetheless, the point Dr. Markowitz was making is absolutely accurate and the quotation is absolutely correct. It should be noted that the quotation was from an internal memo from a representative who had attended the meeting in question and was summarizing the conclusions reached at the meeting. Scranton is correct that the industry group in question was not the MCA but it was the Vinyl Chloride Safety Association, another trade group that represented the sub-set of the chemical industry that specifically produced vinyl chloride. The members of this trade group were also members of the MCA. The important point about this document was that in private the companies admitted that acroosteolysis was “caused by repeated exposure to low concentrations of VCM (50 ppm),” a point they never revealed in public. [32]
It is impossible for us to respond to all the mistakes and misstatements that appear on nearly every page of Scranton’s statement. Hence, we briefly review just a few of the errors Scranton makes on page 35 of his allegations as an example of the kind of mistakes he makes throughout his report. Here Scranton alleges that “in Chapter 6&7 of D&D, not only did Markowitz offer multiple assertions for which he provided no references to sources, but he also erred repeatedly when citing sources for other claims and arguments.” (Scranton, p.35). Specifically, he says that “in discussing Americans’ ambivalence about plastics, [Markowitz] cited a 1998 article by Ashish Aurora and Nathan Rosenberg, but nothing there cited refers to this issue.” We are quoting two specific parts of the chapter (not an article) in that book that make exactly the point we make. The Aurora and Rosenberg citation is to this sentence in our book: plastics “were offered to the new middle class at a fraction of the costs of the ‘real thing’ yet they were still recognized as ‘mere imitations.’” We are correct in our use of this reference.
Also on p. 35 he alleges that we “offered an extended quote then cited a document in which it did not appear.” In fact, the quote is in the very document that is referenced of the second full paragraph of the second page of the document.
Also on p. 35 he alleges that we “referenced a person’s activities to a document in which the person was not mentioned.” The point of the footnote was not to reference an individual's activities, but to document that the industry had been effective in delaying EPA action in lowering the vinyl chloride ambient air standard.
Also on p. 35 he alleges that we “provided unsupported quotes on several occasions.” He cites two such “occasions.” In the first he says that the document, Lucille C. Henschel to the Vinyl Chloride Audit Task Group, did not contain the quote: “the study by IBT is scientifically unacceptable.” In fact, the document, which includes the Final Report of the Audit Task Group, has that exact quote on p. 3 under the heading Conclusions and Recommendations.” He also says that the quote, “foul play by IBT,” did not appear in the May 10, 1980 Bob West document cited. Even here he is wrong. It appears in the notes of the VCM Technical Panel Meeting of May 14, 1980 that is also cited in the same footnote. Both references were cited so readers could examine the two documents. Scranton repeatedly lectures us that “such sloppiness should not appear in work offered as historical scholarship” (Pp. 35-36) when in fact it is his sloppiness that characterizes his critique of these pages. We acknowledge that errors slip into even the most careful scholar’s work, and we have no doubt that some appear in Deceit and Denial, but in this case Scranton is just wrong about the errors that he has claimed to find in our book. This one page is indicative of the nature of Scranton’s report on behalf of corporate defendants.
Previous Page | Page 26 | Next Page