Jump to content

Asbestos Podcast EP17 Transcript

From WikiMesothelioma — Mesothelioma Knowledge Base


Episode 17: Asbestosis Gets a Name

Full transcript from Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making — a 52-episode documentary podcast produced by Danziger & De Llano, LLP.

Episode Information
Series Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making
Season 1
Episode 17
Title Asbestosis Gets a Name
Arc Arc 4 — The Warnings Ignored (Episode 3 of 5)
Produced by Charles Fletcher
Listen Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Amazon Music

Episode Summary

Episode 17 traces the path from medical evidence of asbestos disease (documented in Nellie Kershaw's autopsy and death in 1924) through formal disease naming (1927 British Medical Association meeting and Cooke's BMJ publication introducing "asbestosis") to government investigation (Merewether-Price Report, 1930) and regulatory capture (Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, effective 1932). The episode establishes that institutional recognition of a disease through formal naming is prerequisite to regulation, but also demonstrates how this process can be exploited: the disease remains unnamed long enough for companies to deny its existence (Turner Brothers works manager's 1924 testimony claiming "no definition or knowledge of such a disease exists"), then once named, industry cooperates with regulatory design to create loopholes. The 1931 regulations covered only textile factories, excluded insulation workers (the largest exposure population), set a 33% disease threshold as acceptable, and resulted in only 2 prosecutions in 37 years. The episode concludes with 2006 memorial to Nellie Kershaw and asbestos victims—82 years after her death—unveiled by an unnamed relative, contrasting company preservation of all economically relevant records (legal strategies, profit margins) with destruction/withholding of all humanistically relevant records (worker health, worker names, fatality documentation). The arc moves from institutional denial of disease existence (1924) through institutional recognition and naming (1927) to institutional complicity in inadequate regulation (1931-1968).

Full Episode Transcript

COLD OPEN

HOST 1: A woman is dying. Rochdale, England. March, nineteen twenty-four. She writes one last letter to her employer.

HOST 2: Turner Brothers Asbestos.

HOST 1: "What are you going to do about my case? I have been home nine weeks now and have not received a penny. I think it's time that there was something from you as the National Health refuses to pay me anything. I am needing nourishment and the money."

HOST 2: What did they do?

HOST 1: Three systems. Three denials. And then—a disease gets a name.

HOST 2: This is Episode Seventeen. Asbestosis Gets a Name.

COLD OPEN SPONSORSHIP

HOST 2: Asbestos: A Conspiracy Four Thousand Five Hundred Years in the Making is brought to you by Danziger & De Llano, a nationwide mesothelioma law firm with over thirty years of experience and nearly two billion dollars recovered for asbestos victims. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, they offer free consultations and only get paid if you win. Visit dandell.com. That's D-A-N-D-E-L-L dot com.

SEGMENT 1: KERSHAW AFTERMATH

HOST 1: Last episode, we followed four threads of evidence to a microscope in Wigan. Doctor William Edmund Cooke measured particles in Nellie Kershaw's lungs. Matched them against government reference samples. Published his conclusion in the British Medical Journal: beyond a reasonable doubt, asbestos caused her death.

HOST 2: And the death certificate said mineral particles.

HOST 1: The inquest verdict came back: death by asbestos dust inhalation. Accidental. No negligence proven.

HOST 2: Accidental.

HOST 1: And that's where the machinery kicks in. Nellie's husband—Frank, a slater's labourer—applies for sickness benefits from National Health Insurance. They say no. Her doctor's diagnosis was too specific. He said asbestos poisoning. Not on the official list.

HOST 2: So being honest about what killed her—

HOST 1: Locks her family out of benefits. Frank applies under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Turner Brothers says no. Same reason—asbestos poisoning isn't a scheduled disease.

HOST 2: And the coroner's verdict? The coroner said asbestos.

HOST 1: Verdict says accidental death. Doesn't establish employer liability. So Frank asks the company for funeral expenses. Compassionate grounds.

HOST 2: How much was the funeral?

HOST 1: Seven or eight pounds. About three to four weeks of Frank's wages.

HOST 2: And Turner Brothers said—

HOST 1: No. Internal documents: it would "create a precedent and admit responsibility."

HOST 1: Nellie Kershaw was buried in an unmarked family grave at Rochdale Cemetery. No headstone. No compensation ever paid. No record that she received a penny from any official source between July nineteen twenty-two and her death.

HOST 2: Seven pounds.

NAMED ENTITY - NELLIE KERSHAW (CASE AFTERMATH):

  • Full name: Nellie Kershaw
  • Birth: Approximately 1891
  • Death date: March 14, 1924
  • Age at death: Approximately 33
  • Occupation: Textile worker, asbestos factory
  • Employer: Turner Brothers Asbestos, Rochdale, Lancashire
  • Years of exposure: Approximately 10-12 years
  • Spouse: Frank Kershaw
  • Spouse occupation: Slater's labourer
  • Letter written: Final months of life to Turner Brothers Asbestos
  • Letter content: Plea for financial support; documented denial of benefits from National Health Insurance and company
  • Clinical diagnosis: Asbestos poisoning (Dr. Walter Scott Joss, 1922)
  • Pathological diagnosis: Asbestos-induced pulmonary fibrosis (Dr. William Edmund Cooke, 1924)
  • Death certificate: Issued April 2, 1924; cause listed as "fibrosis of the lungs due to the inhalation of mineral particles"
  • Coroner's inquest verdict: Death by asbestos dust inhalation (accidental; no negligence proven)
  • Inquest legal representation: Turner Brothers sent legal team (McCleary/barrister, Collins/solicitor, Bateman/medical adviser)
  • Benefit applications and outcomes:
 1. National Health Insurance (sickness benefits): DENIED - diagnosis "asbestos poisoning" not on official list
 2. Workmen's Compensation Act: DENIED - asbestos poisoning not a scheduled disease
 3. Turner Brothers Asbestos (funeral expenses request): DENIED - "would create a precedent and admit responsibility"
  • Funeral cost: 7-8 pounds (equivalent to 3-4 weeks of Frank's wages)
  • Burial: Unmarked family grave, Rochdale Cemetery, Lancashire
  • Compensation received: Zero pounds from all sources
  • Historical significance: First documented death formally attributed to asbestos exposure; catalyst for Cooke's BMJ publications; established pattern of institutional denials despite medical certainty
  • Featured prominently in: Episode 14 ("The First Death"), Episode 16 ("The Doctors Who Knew"), Episode 17 ("Asbestosis Gets a Name")
  • Letter archive: Original letter to Turner Brothers preserved; quoted in episode

NAMED ENTITY - FRANK KERSHAW:

  • Full name: Frank Kershaw
  • Relationship: Husband of Nellie Kershaw
  • Occupation: Slater's labourer
  • Wages: Approximately 2-3 pounds per week (estimated from 7-8 pound funeral cost reference)
  • Wife's death: March 14, 1924
  • Actions after death: Applied for benefits on behalf of wife's estate
  • Benefit applications:
 1. National Health Insurance (sickness benefits for Nellie) - DENIED
 2. Workmen's Compensation Act - DENIED
 3. Turner Brothers Asbestos (funeral expenses) - DENIED
  • Final situation: Buried wife in unmarked grave; received no compensation; no documented resolution
  • Historical significance: Represents thousands of working-class families left without recourse despite coroner's verdict

KEY FACTS - DENIAL SEQUENCE:

  • First denial: National Health Insurance - diagnosis "asbestos poisoning" not on official list of insured diseases
  • Second denial: Workmen's Compensation Act - asbestos poisoning not a scheduled disease under Act
  • Third denial: Turner Brothers Asbestos - funeral expense request denied with internal rationale: "would create a precedent and admit responsibility"
  • Timeline of denials: All three occurring in 1924, same year as death
  • Medical consensus: Coroner's verdict ("death by asbestos dust inhalation"); Dr. Joss's diagnosis ("asbestos poisoning"); Dr. Cooke's pathological confirmation ("beyond reasonable doubt")
  • Bureaucratic response: All official denials based on terminology ("not on official list"; "not a scheduled disease")
  • Company response: Based on liability concern ("precedent"; "responsibility")
  • Result: Complete institutional failure to provide any benefits despite medical certainty of asbestos causation
  • Significance: Demonstrates systemic design that allowed companies to avoid liability through absence of official disease naming

KEY CONCEPT - THE DENIAL MACHINERY:

  • Definition: Institutional system designed to reject compensation claims based on disease not being "officially recognized" despite medical evidence of causation
  • Mechanism 1 (National Health Insurance): Claims asbestos poisoning not on official list; operates on scheduled disease principle
  • Mechanism 2 (Workmen's Compensation Act): Same principle; requires disease to be formally scheduled to trigger liability
  • Mechanism 3 (Company discretion): Uses "precedent" concern; reframes responsibility issue as financial risk
  • Timing significance: All three denials occur while disease is medically proven but not officially named
  • The gap: Medical certainty (Cooke's publication and coroner's verdict) vs. administrative/legal non-recognition
  • Industry knowledge: Turner Brothers knew they bore responsibility (internal documents) but could use absence of official disease name to avoid payment
  • Systemic result: Incentivizes institutional delay of official disease recognition; allows companies to profit from interim period of medical/administrative mismatch
  • Future consequence: Not naming the disease becomes a legal strategy, not an epistemological limitation

TIMELINE - KERSHAW DENIAL SEQUENCE: | Date | Event | Outcome | Rationale | |------|-------|---------|-----------| | March 14, 1924 | Nellie dies | Death occurs | - | | April 2, 1924 | Death certificate issued | Cause listed as "mineral particles" | Vague terminology (not "asbestos") | | 1924 | National Health Insurance application | DENIED | Diagnosis "asbestos poisoning" not on official list | | 1924 | Workmen's Compensation Act application | DENIED | Asbestos poisoning not a scheduled disease | | 1924 | Turner Brothers funeral expense request | DENIED | Company concern: "would create a precedent and admit responsibility" | | July 26, 1924 | Cooke's BMJ publication | Published; describes asbestos particles "beyond reasonable doubt" | After all denials already delivered | | 1924 | Coroner's inquest | Verdict: death by asbestos dust inhalation (accidental) | No negligence findings; no liability established | | Burial | Unmarked grave, Rochdale Cemetery | Finalized without compensation | Family buried Nellie without financial support |

SEGMENT 2: COOKE'S PUBLICATIONS

HOST 1: But Nellie's death set something in motion that Turner Brothers couldn't stop with lawyers. The pathologist who examined her lungs—William Edmund Cooke—kept working.

HOST 2: On what?

HOST 1: The lungs. He had preserved tissue samples from the autopsy. And he was writing. July twenty-sixth, nineteen twenty-four—four months after Nellie's death—he publishes in the British Medical Journal. The first peer-reviewed description of asbestos-caused lung disease.

HOST 2: Does he call it asbestosis?

HOST 1: Not yet. Fibrosis of the lungs due to the inhalation of asbestos dust. A description, not a name. But the description attracts attention.

NAMED ENTITY - DR. WILLIAM EDMUND COOKE (PUBLICATIONS):

  • Full name: Dr. William Edmund Cooke, MD
  • Affiliation: Wigan Infirmary and Leigh Infirmary (UK)
  • Specialization: Pathology and bacteriology
  • Key role: Examined lungs of Nellie Kershaw; performed microscopic analysis
  • Publication 1 (July 26, 1924):
    • Title: "Fibrosis of the Lungs Due to the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust"
    • Journal: British Medical Journal
    • Volume/Issue: Vol. 2(3317)
    • Pages: 140-142, 147
    • PMID: 20771679
    • PMCID: PMC2304688
    • Content: Description of asbestos-induced fibrosis; particle measurements; comparison methodology
    • Significance: First peer-reviewed medical journal article on asbestos causation
    • Terminology: Uses "description" not disease name; avoids term "asbestosis"
  • Publication 2 (December 3, 1927):
    • Title: "Pulmonary Asbestosis"
    • Journal: British Medical Journal
    • Volume/Issue: Vol. 2(3491)
    • Pages: 1024-1025
    • PMID: 20773543
    • PMCID: PMC2525313
    • Presentation: Paper read in Section of Preventive Medicine, British Medical Association Annual Meeting, Edinburgh
    • Content: Introduces disease name "asbestosis"; formal medical designation
    • Figures: 12 histological figures
    • Significance: Coins term "asbestosis" in publication title; becomes standard disease nomenclature
    • Timing: 3 years 9 months after Nellie's death; same year as coordinated BMA session
  • Publication 3 (September 28, 1929):
    • Title: "Asbestos Dust and the Curious Bodies Found in Pulmonary Asbestosis"
    • Journal: British Medical Journal
    • Volume/Issue: Vol. 2(3586)
    • Pages: 578-580
    • PMID: 20774951
    • Content: Characterization of asbestos bodies (morphological features of asbestos-damaged lung tissue)
    • Significance: Identified and named microscopic markers of asbestos disease
  • Total publications: Three peer-reviewed BMJ papers (1924, 1927, 1929)
  • Historical impact: Established scientific nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for asbestos disease
  • Language precision: 1924 uses "description"; 1927 introduces formal "name"; progression from description to naming to characterization

KEY FACTS - COOKE'S PUBLICATION SEQUENCE:

  • 1924 article: Descriptive language; no disease name; methodology emphasis
  • Timing of 1924: Published 4 months after Nellie's death; 2 months after all denials delivered
  • 1927 article: Introduces "asbestosis" in title; formal disease designation
  • Significance of naming: Term "asbestosis" becomes equivalent to "silicosis" and "pneumoconiosis"
  • Progression: Description → Naming → Characterization (1924-1929 arc)
  • Institutional context: 1927 presentation at British Medical Association Annual Meeting signals acceptance by medical establishment
  • Terminology impact: Once disease is named, absence from official disease lists becomes indefensible

KEY CONCEPT - THE POWER OF NAMING:

  • Definition: Process of transforming observed condition into formal disease entity with medical designation
  • Pre-naming phase (1924): Condition described as "fibrosis due to asbestos dust" - vague, deniable
  • Naming moment (1927): Disease formally called "asbestosis" - specific, comparable, undeniable
  • Institutional significance: Named disease can be discussed in regulatory/legal contexts with precision
  • Comparison framework: Once "asbestosis" exists, it joins established occupational disease taxonomy (silicosis, pneumoconiosis)
  • Legal consequence: Disease name enables creation of "scheduled disease" regulations; requires employer liability
  • Company strategy shift: Cannot repudiate disease that has published, peer-reviewed name; must shift to causation denial
  • Timeline relevance: Disease naming (1927) precedes regulations (1931) by 4 years; naming enables regulation

SEGMENT 3: THE NAMING—BMA EDINBURGH 1927

HOST 1: Nineteen twenty-seven. A medical student at the University of Edinburgh—Ian Martin Drever Grieve—writes his doctoral thesis. He's documented cases of asbestos lung disease at the J.W. Roberts factory in Armley, Leeds. Part of the Turner and Newall group.

HOST 2: Same company.

HOST 1: Same parent company. Different factory. Same disease.

HOST 1: And that same year—Edinburgh again—the British Medical Association holds its Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting. Section of Preventive Medicine. Multiple papers on asbestos lung disease are presented in a coordinated session. Including one by Sir Thomas Oliver, who uses a new term in his title: Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis.

HOST 2: So it's not just Cooke anymore.

HOST 1: No. This is the medical community recognizing a pattern. And on December third, nineteen twenty-seven—three years and nine months after Nellie died—Cooke publishes his second BMJ paper. New title.

HOST 2: What title?

HOST 1: Pulmonary Asbestosis.

HOST 2: There it is.

HOST 1: There it is. A name. Not asbestos poisoning—which companies could argue wasn't real. Not fibrosis associated with—which was too vague for compensation law. Asbestosis. Like silicosis. Like pneumoconiosis. A recognized disease with a formal medical designation.

NAMED ENTITY - IAN MARTIN DREVER GRIEVE:

  • Full name: Ian Martin Drever Grieve
  • Status: Medical student, University of Edinburgh
  • Year: 1927
  • Academic work: Doctoral thesis (MD thesis)
  • Research focus: Asbestos-induced lung disease
  • Study location: J.W. Roberts factory, Armley, Leeds
  • Factory affiliation: Part of Turner and Newall group
  • Thesis documentation: Cases of asbestos lung disease from factory workers
  • Significance: Independent confirmation of asbestos disease pattern at different factory location
  • Publication status: Thesis work referenced in 1927 context; specific publication details limited
  • Historical significance: Part of coordinated medical community recognition of asbestos disease pattern in 1927

NAMED ENTITY - SIR THOMAS OLIVER:

  • Full name: Sir Thomas Oliver (knighted)
  • Profession: Physician and occupational health specialist
  • Role in 1927 BMA Edinburgh meeting: Presented paper in Section of Preventive Medicine
  • Paper title: "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis"
  • Significance: Introduced disease term "asbestosis" in publication title at major medical association meeting
  • Timing: Same 1927 coordinated session as Cooke's work; same as Grieve's thesis
  • Distinction: Used formal disease name before Cooke's December publication; may have independent discovery or coordinated terminology
  • Historical impact: Established medical consensus on disease name and clinical presentation

NAMED ENTITY - BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION EDINBURGH MEETING 1927:

  • Event: British Medical Association, Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting
  • Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
  • Year: 1927
  • Section focus: Section of Preventive Medicine
  • Session type: Coordinated session on asbestos lung disease (multiple papers)
  • Papers presented:
 1. Sir Thomas Oliver - "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis"
 2. William Edmund Cooke - (title and date details referenced separately)
 3. Others unspecified in episode but session described as "multiple papers"
  • Significance: Represented institutional recognition of asbestos disease pattern by major medical body
  • Terminology: Session established "asbestosis" as formal disease designation at professional level
  • Geographic scope: London-based BMA's major annual meeting

NAMED ENTITY - J.W. ROBERTS FACTORY:

  • Location: Armley, Leeds (Yorkshire, England)
  • Industry: Asbestos manufacturing
  • Parent company: Turner and Newall group
  • Workforce: Unknown specific number; asbestos textile workers
  • Disease prevalence: Multiple documented cases of asbestos lung disease (Grieve thesis documentation)
  • Significance: Second factory location (different from Nellie Kershaw's Turner Brothers Rochdale location) showing same disease pattern
  • Historical context: Company diversification showing asbestos exposure across multiple facilities

KEY FACTS - THE 1927 NAMING MOMENT:

  • Date: December 3, 1927 (Cooke's BMJ publication with "asbestosis" in title)
  • Preceding events: 1927 BMA Edinburgh meeting with Oliver's paper using same terminology
  • The name: "Asbestosis" - formal disease designation
  • Parallel terminology: Silicosis (silicon dioxide-induced disease); pneumoconiosis (dust-induced disease)
  • Medical community alignment: Not single researcher; coordinated session with multiple presenters using same name
  • Significance threshold: Named disease enters formal medical nomenclature; becomes discussable in regulatory/legal terms
  • Timeline marker: 3 years 9 months after Nellie's death; enables industry claims about "previous ignorance"
  • Institutional context: Published in British Medical Journal; presented at British Medical Association; peer-reviewed; institutional endorsement

TIMELINE - THE NAMING SEQUENCE (1927): | Date | Event | Location | Actor | Terminology | |------|-------|----------|-------|-------------| | 1927 (BMA Annual Meeting) | Oliver presents "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis" | Edinburgh | Sir Thomas Oliver | Introduces "asbestosis" in title | | 1927 (Same session) | Coordinated multi-paper asbestos session | Edinburgh | Multiple physicians | "Asbestosis" terminology | | 1927 (Same year) | Grieve completes Edinburgh MD thesis documenting asbestos disease | Edinburgh University | Ian Martin Drever Grieve | "Asbestos disease" (thesis terminology) | | December 3, 1927 | Cooke publishes "Pulmonary Asbestosis" in BMJ | Published/London | William Edmund Cooke | Formalizes "asbestosis" in peer-reviewed journal |

KEY CONCEPT - INSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION MOMENT:

  • Definition: The convergence of multiple independent researchers and institutions using the same disease name and presenting coordinated findings
  • Components:
 1. Academic documentation (Grieve thesis)
 2. Institutional endorsement (BMA meeting)
 3. Multiple researchers (Oliver, Cooke, others)
 4. Peer-reviewed publication (BMJ)
 5. Formal nomenclature (disease name)
  • Significance: Moves asbestos disease from "interesting cases" to "recognized disease"
  • Regulatory enabling: Named disease can be formally scheduled; scheduling enables compensation mechanisms
  • Industry impact: Cannot deny disease exists after institutional recognition
  • Timeline function: Marks transition from individual physician warnings to systemic medical acknowledgment

HOST 1: Because in nineteen twenty-four, Turner Brothers' works manager—Percy George Kenyon—testified at Nellie's inquest: We repudiate the term 'Asbestos Poisoning.' Asbestos is not poisonous and no definition or knowledge of such a disease exists.

HOST 2: And in nineteen twenty-seven?

HOST 1: The definition existed. Published. Peer-reviewed. Presented at the BMA. You can't repudiate a term that's in the British Medical Journal.

HOST 2: And suddenly workers who've been told "it's just tuberculosis" or "probably your smoking" have language to describe what's happening to them. A word a doctor can write on a death certificate. A diagnosis that triggers legal obligations.

HOST 1: A word that changes the law.

NAMED ENTITY - PERCY GEORGE KENYON:

  • Full name: Percy George Kenyon
  • Title: Works manager, Turner Brothers Asbestos
  • Location: Rochdale factory
  • Role in Kershaw case: Testified at Nellie Kershaw's coroner inquest
  • Testimony date: 1924 (at time of Kershaw inquest)
  • Testimony content: Repudiation of disease terminology
  • Exact quote: "We repudiate the term 'Asbestos Poisoning.' Asbestos is not poisonous and no definition or knowledge of such a disease exists."
  • Prior communication: Had written to Dr. Joss inquiring about his "asbestos poisoning" diagnosis of Kershaw
  • Company context: Represented company position; delivered coordinated legal defense
  • Significance: Example of industry repudiation of disease terminology in 1924
  • Later implications: By 1927-1928, identical repudiation becomes legally untenable
  • Historical role: Establishes baseline of company denialism before naming

KEY FACTS - THE KENYON STATEMENT (1924):

  • Date: 1924, Kershaw inquest testimony
  • Speaker: Percy George Kenyon, Turner Brothers works manager
  • Context: Company legal defense; witnessed by coroner and inquest
  • Claims:
 1. Repudiate term "asbestos poisoning"
 2. Asbestos "is not poisonous"
 3. "No definition or knowledge of such a disease exists"
  • Audience: Coroner, inquest jury, legal representatives
  • Response capability: Company able to deny disease terminology in official proceeding
  • Consequence: Denial published in inquest records; no immediate legal penalty

KEY CONCEPT - THE TERMINOLOGY REPUDIATION AS LEGAL STRATEGY:

  • Definition: Formal denial of disease name's validity as means of avoiding employer liability
  • 1924 Kenyon strategy: Deny disease even has a name; therefore name has no legal meaning
  • Underlying logic: "If disease has no name, it cannot be scheduled; if not scheduled, no liability exists"
  • Effectiveness (1924): Works within legal framework where disease not yet formally named
  • Vulnerability (post-1927): Disease name exists in BMJ; repudiation becomes factually false
  • Timeline significance: Shows industry deliberately preventing disease recognition while ability exists
  • Shift (1928 onward): Industry cannot repudiate name; shifts strategy to causation denial
  • Pattern establishment: 1924-1927 period shows industry understood disease was real but used naming gap to avoid liability

SEGMENT 5: MACGREGOR AND THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION

HOST 1: And then the evidence comes from an unexpected direction. February, nineteen twenty-eight. Glasgow. Doctor MacGregor—the city's Medical Officer of Health—reports a case of non-tubercular pulmonary fibrosis in an asbestos worker to the Factory Department. No tuberculosis complicating the picture. No other dusty trade. Just asbestos. Just fibrosis. The case is later published by Doctor H.E. Seiler in the British Medical Journal that December.

HOST 2: And that triggers a government investigation?

HOST 1: The Home Office assigns two inspectors. Doctor E.R.A. Merewether—Medical Inspector of Factories—and C.W. Price, an engineering inspector. Their assignment: examine asbestos workers across Britain.

HOST 1: Three hundred and sixty-three workers.

HOST 2: How many had the disease?

HOST 1: Twenty-six point two percent. Overall.

HOST 2: One in four.

HOST 1: Workers with fewer than four years' exposure? Zero percent. Workers with more than twenty years? Approximately eighty percent.

HOST 2: Eighty percent.

HOST 1: The disease was dose-dependent. The longer you breathed it, the more certain it was to kill you.

NAMED ENTITY - DR. MACGREGOR:

  • Full name: Dr. MacGregor (first name not specified in episode)
  • Title: Medical Officer of Health
  • Location: Glasgow, Scotland
  • Case date: February 1928
  • Case identification: Non-tubercular pulmonary fibrosis in asbestos worker
  • Action taken: Reported case to Factory Department
  • Significance: Triggered Home Office investigation
  • Case characteristics: Pure asbestos exposure (no TB complication; no other dusty trades)
  • Publication: Case later published by Dr. H.E. Seiler, BMJ, December 1928
  • Historical role: Institutional recognition from government health authority; initiated regulatory investigation

NAMED ENTITY - DR. H.E. SEILER:

  • Full name: Dr. H.E. Seiler (first name(s) not fully specified)
  • Publication date: December 1, 1928
  • Journal: British Medical Journal
  • Title: Case publication related to Glasgow asbestos worker (exact title not specified in episode)
  • Content: Describes non-tubercular fibrosis case from Glasgow (MacGregor's case)
  • Significance: Published pure asbestos causation case; reinforced disease pattern
  • Contribution: Part of medical documentation supporting government investigation

NAMED ENTITY - DR. E.R.A. MEREWETHER:

  • Full name: Dr. E.R.A. Merewether (spelled "Merewether" throughout episode; pronunciation emphasis in original script but removed per transcription rules)
  • Title: Medical Inspector of Factories
  • Organization: Home Office (UK government)
  • Assignment date: 1928 (following MacGregor report)
  • Assignment: Examine asbestos workers across Britain
  • Study scope: 363 workers examined
  • Role: Medical investigator and data analyst
  • Co-investigator: C.W. Price (engineering inspector)
  • Key findings:
    • Overall asbestosis rate: 26.2%
    • <4 years exposure: 0%
    • >20 years exposure: approximately 80%
  • Conclusion: Dose-dependent disease relationship
  • Publication: Merewether-Price Report (presented to Parliament March 24, 1930)
  • Historical significance: Definitive government study establishing asbestos disease causation and prevalence
  • Later role: Referenced in 1933-1934 retrospective commentary on Beattie's work
  • Archives: Papers related to investigation; government records

NAMED ENTITY - C.W. PRICE:

  • Full name: C.W. Price (first name(s) not specified in episode; may be "Charles" or similar)
  • Title: Engineering inspector
  • Organization: Home Office (UK government)
  • Assignment date: 1928
  • Assignment: Joint investigation with Merewether on asbestos worker health
  • Role: Engineering/technical inspector; non-medical counterpart
  • Study participation: Co-conducted examination of 363 asbestos workers
  • Report authorship: Co-authored Merewether-Price Report
  • Expertise: Engineering conditions; ventilation; workplace conditions
  • Publication: Merewether-Price Report (March 24, 1930)

KEY FACTS - THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION:

  • Trigger: February 1928 Glasgow case report from Dr. MacGregor
  • Government response: Home Office assignment of investigators
  • Scope: 363 workers across Britain's asbestos factories
  • Timeline: Investigation conducted 1928-1929; Report presented March 24, 1930
  • Investigators: Merewether (medical) and Price (engineering)
  • Overall asbestosis prevalence: 26.2%
  • Prevalence by exposure duration:
    • <4 years: 0%
    • 4-20 years: (intermediate percentage not specified)
    • >20 years: ~80%
  • Key finding: Dose-dependent relationship (longer exposure = higher disease risk)
  • Statistical significance: Clear correlation between exposure duration and disease manifestation
  • Regulatory precedent: First government-sponsored definitive study on asbestos disease
  • Publication venue: Report presented to Parliament (official government channel)
  • Timeframe significance: 4 years after Cooke's 1924 first publication; 3 years after 1927 naming

TIMELINE - THE MACGREGOR REPORT TO GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION: | Date | Event | Location | Actor | Significance | |------|-------|----------|-------|-------------| | February 1928 | MacGregor reports Glasgow case | Glasgow | Dr. MacGregor (MOH) | Triggers government attention | | 1928 | Home Office commissions investigation | UK | Government | Assigns Merewether and Price | | 1928-1929 | Worker examination phase | Multiple UK locations | Merewether & Price | Examine 363 workers | | December 1928 | Seiler publishes Glasgow case | BMJ | Dr. H.E. Seiler | Medical documentation of case | | 1929 (estimated) | Data compilation phase | Home Office | Merewether & Price | Analyze findings; prepare report | | March 24, 1930 | Merewether-Price Report | Parliament | Merewether & Price | Present definitive findings to government |

KEY CONCEPT - DOSE-DEPENDENT DISEASE RELATIONSHIP:

  • Definition: Disease prevalence increases with duration/intensity of exposure; no safe threshold below which disease does not occur
  • Merewether-Price findings:
    • <4 years exposure: 0% disease prevalence
    • >20 years exposure: ~80% disease prevalence
    • Implication: Even within "safe" category (<4 years), some workers may develop disease; trend is clear upward
  • Epidemiological significance: Establishes causation vs. coincidence (causation shows dose-response; coincidence shows random distribution)
  • Regulatory importance: Once dose-dependency proven, cannot argue "asbestos is safe at any level"
  • Future consequence: Establishes scientific basis for exposure limit regulations
  • Industry implication: Cannot claim "some workers tolerate asbestos fine"; must acknowledge universal risk with dose variation

HOST 2: If asbestos has touched your family—if you're listening because someone you know worked the mills, the shipyards, the construction sites, the refineries—you already understand what three denials in a row feels like. The runaround. The bureaucratic maze.

HOST 2: Larry Gates understands it too. His father—Dan Gates—worked the Shell refinery in Pasadena, Texas. Came home every day covered in dust his family breathed. Dan died of mesothelioma in nineteen ninety-nine.

HOST 2: Now Larry, at seventy-two, is a Senior Client Advocate at Danziger & De Llano. He's currently battling his own cancer. And when he tells families "I know what you're going through," he means it.

HOST 2: Free consultation. No upfront costs. Dandell dot com. That's D-A-N-D-E-L-L dot com.

NAMED ENTITY - LARRY GATES:

  • Full name: Larry Gates
  • Current age: 72 (as of podcast recording)
  • Title: Senior Client Advocate, Danziger & De Llano
  • Current health: Battling cancer (diagnosed condition referenced in episode)
  • Father: Dan Gates
  • Father's occupation: Shell refinery worker, Pasadena, Texas
  • Father's exposure: Daily asbestos dust inhalation; brought dust home on work clothes; family respiratory exposure
  • Father's death: Mesothelioma, 1999
  • Personal relevance: Direct family experience with asbestos disease
  • Role at law firm: Advocates for families facing mesothelioma
  • Credibility statement: Tells families "I know what you're going through" with personal authenticity
  • Specialization: Client advocacy and family support
  • Professional context: Works within firm's framework of nearly $2 billion recovered for asbestos victims

NAMED ENTITY - DAN GATES:

  • Full name: Dan Gates
  • Occupation: Shell refinery worker
  • Location: Pasadena, Texas (Shell refinery facility)
  • Exposure type: Asbestos dust (daily at workplace; brought home on work clothes)
  • Family impact: Wife and son (Larry) exposed to dust brought home on work clothing
  • Diagnosis: Mesothelioma
  • Death year: 1999
  • Age at death: Unknown
  • Historical significance: Represents American asbestos disease victims; refinery workers not typically counted in UK asbestos statistics
  • Family continuation: Son Larry continues advocacy work in legal field

KEY FACTS - LARRY GATES' TESTIMONY:

  • Family connection: Son of mesothelioma victim (Dan Gates)
  • Personal experience: Witnessed father's death from asbestos disease
  • Current condition: Battling cancer (type not specified; likely mesothelioma given family history)
  • Professional placement: Senior Client Advocate at Danziger & De Llano
  • Advocacy approach: Uses personal experience to build trust with affected families
  • Credibility source: Direct family experience; current personal health challenge
  • Firm affiliation: Works within firm with 30+ years experience; ~$2 billion total recovery record
  • Geographic scope: Texas-based case; demonstrates US asbestos disease pattern

SEGMENT 6: THE MEREWETHER-PRICE REPORT AND REGULATIONS

HOST 1: March twenty-fourth, nineteen thirty. The Merewether-Price Report is presented to Parliament.

HOST 2: And the industry's response?

HOST 1: They cooperated. Publicly. July, nineteen thirty—conferences between Factory Inspectors and asbestos manufacturers. The industry agreed to regulations.

HOST 2: That sounds—

HOST 1: Reasonable? Historians who've studied the negotiation records say the regulations were—quote—heavily influenced by manufacturers. The threshold that emerged: conditions where no more than one in three workers would develop asbestosis were considered acceptable.

HOST 2: Thirty-three percent.

HOST 1: Thirty-three percent. The Asbestos Industry Regulations, nineteen thirty-one. Effective March first, nineteen thirty-two. Seven years after Nellie's death. And they covered only asbestos textile factories. Specific processes—opening, carding, spinning, weaving.

HOST 2: Not laggers.

HOST 1: Not laggers. Not shipbuilders. Not construction workers. Not insulation installers. Not the millions of downstream workers who handled asbestos products every day.

HOST 2: How long before those workers got protection?

HOST 1: Broader regulations? Nineteen sixty-nine. Nearly four decades later. And in that entire period—nineteen thirty-one to nineteen sixty-eight—there were exactly two prosecutions under the original regulations.

HOST 2: Two.

HOST 1: Two. In thirty-seven years.

HOST 1: And here's what changed. Before Merewether-Price, the industry could claim ignorance. After? They cooperated with the regulations publicly while privately ensuring those regulations covered as few workers as possible with as little enforcement as they could manage.

HOST 2: That's not cooperation. That's regulatory capture.

HOST 1: It's the moment passive negligence becomes active strategy. And across the Atlantic, it was about to get much worse.

NAMED ENTITY - MEREWETHER-PRICE REPORT:

  • Full name: Report on the Health of Workers in Asbestos Factories (exact title varies in sources)
  • Lead authors: Dr. E.R.A. Merewether (Medical Inspector) and C.W. Price (Engineering Inspector)
  • Date presented: March 24, 1930
  • Presented to: Parliament (UK government)
  • Study population: 363 workers across British asbestos factories
  • Key findings:
 1. Overall asbestosis prevalence: 26.2%
 2. <4 years exposure: 0% prevalence
 3. >20 years exposure: ~80% prevalence
 4. Dose-dependent relationship established
  • Impact: Definitive government-sponsored evidence of asbestos disease hazard
  • Publication: Presented as official government report to Parliament
  • Consequence: Triggered industry-government negotiation on regulations
  • Regulatory outcome: Led to Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931 (effective March 1, 1932)
  • Enforcement record: Only 2 prosecutions in 37 years following regulations (1931-1968)
  • Historical significance: Last major government document on asbestos health before regulatory capture

NAMED ENTITY - ASBESTOS INDUSTRY REGULATIONS 1931:

  • Full title: The Asbestos Industry Regulations, 1931
  • Enactment date: 1931
  • Effective date: March 1, 1932
  • Scope: UK asbestos industry (textile factories and related processes)
  • Negotiation period: July 1930 - December 1930 (between Factory Inspectors and manufacturers)
  • Negotiating parties: UK government Factory Inspectors vs. asbestos industry representatives
  • Industry influence: Historians note regulations were "heavily influenced by manufacturers"
  • Key threshold: Conditions where no more than 1 in 3 workers (33%) would develop asbestosis were considered acceptable
  • Coverage scope: Limited to asbestos textile factories only (opening, carding, spinning, weaving processes)
  • Exclusions:
    • Insulation/lagging workers
    • Shipbuilders using asbestos
    • Construction workers
    • Downstream workers handling asbestos products
    • Non-textile asbestos industries
  • Duration: Remained as sole asbestos regulations for 37 years (1931-1968)
  • Enforcement record: Only 2 prosecutions under these regulations in 37 years
  • Successor regulations: Broader regulations introduced 1969 (covering additional industries and processes)
  • Significance: Established pattern of regulatory capture; manufacturers helped design regulations limiting their own liability

KEY FACTS - REGULATORY CAPTURE:

  • Definition: Process where regulated industry influences government regulations to minimize their own regulatory burden
  • Pre-Merewether-Price (pre-1930): Industry could claim ignorance; no definitive evidence of disease
  • Post-Merewether-Price (post-1930): Industry cannot deny hazard; response is cooperative negotiation
  • Industry goal: Design regulations that:
 1. Acknowledge hazard (maintain public credibility)
 2. Limit scope (fewer factories covered)
 3. Set high thresholds (allow significant worker disease as "acceptable")
 4. Limit enforcement (create conditions for lax prosecution)
  • 33% threshold significance: Means regulations considered it "acceptable" for 1 in 3 workers to develop asbestosis
  • Comparison: Merewether-Price showed 26.2% overall prevalence (already disease rate); setting 33% threshold allows HIGHER disease rates
  • Coverage limitation: Textile factories only; excludes insulation (likely largest use category)
  • Enforcement failure: 2 prosecutions in 37 years = effectively no enforcement
  • Pattern significance: Established template for industry-friendly regulation that would be repeated globally

TIMELINE - REGULATORY CAPTURE SEQUENCE: | Date | Event | Actor | Outcome | |------|-------|-------|---------| | March 24, 1930 | Merewether-Price Report presented to Parliament | UK government | Evidence of hazard publicly established | | July 1930 | Conferences begin between Factory Inspectors and manufacturers | Government & Industry | Negotiation on regulations | | July-December 1930 | Negotiation period | Government & Industry | Industry influence over regulation design | | December 1930 (estimated) | Negotiations concluded | Government & Industry | Draft regulations agreed | | 1931 | Asbestos Industry Regulations enacted | Parliament | Regulations take effect 1932 | | March 1, 1932 | Regulations effective | Industry | Limited-scope rules take effect | | 1931-1968 | Enforcement period | Factory Inspectors | 2 prosecutions in 37 years | | 1969 | Broader regulations introduced | UK government | Coverage expanded; textile-only limitation removed |

KEY CONCEPT - ACCEPTABLE HARM THRESHOLD:

  • Definition: Regulatory setting of disease/illness rate as "permissible" despite known hazard
  • The 33% threshold: Regulations permitted conditions where 1 in 3 workers would develop asbestosis
  • Comparative baseline: Merewether-Price had measured 26.2% prevalence; regulations set 33% as acceptable
  • Implication: Regulations designed to allow disease prevalence HIGHER than measured baseline
  • Logic inversion: Instead of "how low can we reduce disease," became "how high can disease rates be before violation"
  • Dose dependency: Merewether-Price showed ~80% disease at >20 years exposure; 33% threshold meant allowing workers up to near 20-year exposures
  • Consent framework: Implicit consent that worker population would sacrifice ~1/3 of cohort as cost of industry operation
  • Regulatory failure: Setting threshold above existing prevalence means regulations did not improve worker protection

SEGMENT 7: THE MEMORIAL

HOST 1: April, two thousand six. Rochdale. The town center.

HOST 1: Over a hundred people gather. The Save Spodden Valley campaign—an action group fighting asbestos contamination at the old Turner Brothers factory site—has organized a memorial to asbestos victims worldwide.

HOST 2: Who unveils it?

HOST 1: A relative of Nellie Kershaw's. We don't know which relative. The name doesn't appear in any of the sources—not in the medical journals, not in the legal histories, not in the memorial coverage.

HOST 2: A relative.

HOST 1: Eighty-two years after Nellie's death.

HOST 2: And Turner Brothers?

HOST 1: Turner and Newall—after the nineteen twenty merger—became one of the world's largest asbestos companies. Kept operating into the nineteen nineties. Filed for bankruptcy in two thousand one.

HOST 1: The Rochdale factory site? Seventy-two acres in Spodden Valley. So contaminated they're still cleaning it up. Residents from the fifties and sixties recalled asbestos dust coating cars, pavements, trees. The woods surrounding the factory were so white with dust they called them snow trees.

HOST 2: How many people worked there when Nellie did?

HOST 1: About five thousand.

HOST 2: And if Joss's numbers held—ten to twelve deaths a year—

HOST 1: Over eighty-two years? Do the math.

HOST 2: They documented everything except what happened to the workers.

HOST 1: Production numbers. Profit margins. Legal strategy—all preserved. Worker health records? Nothing.

NAMED ENTITY - SAVE SPODDEN VALLEY CAMPAIGN:

  • Type: Action group / community advocacy organization
  • Location: Rochdale, Spodden Valley
  • Focus: Fighting asbestos contamination at old Turner Brothers factory site
  • Founded: Date not specified in episode (active by 2006)
  • Major action: Organized memorial to asbestos victims (April 2006)
  • Memorial event: Over 100 people gathered
  • Memorial purpose: Commemorate asbestos victims worldwide
  • Unveiler: Nellie Kershaw's relative (name unknown; not documented in sources)
  • Geographic scope: Local Rochdale community with international memorial significance
  • Continuation: Ongoing cleanup efforts at factory site
  • Environmental focus: Factory site contamination (72 acres); long-term remediation

NAMED ENTITY - ROCHDALE FACTORY SITE (SPODDEN VALLEY):

  • Location: Spodden Valley, Rochdale, Lancashire
  • Company: Turner Brothers Asbestos / Turner & Newall
  • Size: 72 acres
  • Operational period: At least 1910s-1990s (Nellie worked there 1912-1924; factory continued operations into 1990s)
  • Contamination type: Asbestos dust (airborne, surface, environmental)
  • Environmental impact: Dust coating cars, pavements, trees; surrounding woods called "snow trees" due to white asbestos dust coating
  • Remediation status: Still being cleaned up as of 2006 (22 years after Turner & Newall bankruptcy)
  • Community history: Resident accounts from 1950s-1960s of visible dust contamination
  • Scale: Approximately 5,000 workers employed at peak
  • Company history: Operated as part of Turner & Newall; filed bankruptcy 2001
  • Memorial: Unveiled April 2006 by Nellie Kershaw relative

NAMED ENTITY - TURNER BROTHERS ASBESTOS / TURNER & NEWALL:

  • Original name: Turner Brothers Asbestos
  • Location: Rochdale, Lancashire (original factory); other locations including Armley (J.W. Roberts)
  • Merger event: 1920 (Turner Brothers merged with Newall; became Turner & Newall)
  • Post-merger status: Became one of world's largest asbestos companies
  • Operations duration: At least 1910s through 1990s
  • Company scale: Multiple factories across UK; international operations
  • Nellie Kershaw employment: Worked at Turner Brothers Rochdale factory (~1912-1924)
  • Fatality rate: Joss estimated 10-12 deaths per year from asbestos disease at Rochdale location alone
  • Company records: Preserved production numbers, profit margins, legal strategy documents; destroyed/withheld worker health records
  • Legal history: Sued and required to defend against asbestos-disease claims throughout 20th century
  • Corporate documents: Contained explicit strategy language ("evade financial liability"; "create a precedent")
  • Bankruptcy: Filed 2001
  • Site remediation: 72-acre Rochdale site still being cleaned up decades after bankruptcy

KEY FACTS - THE MEMORIAL (2006):

  • Date: April 2006
  • Location: Rochdale town center
  • Organizer: Save Spodden Valley campaign
  • Attendance: Over 100 people
  • Purpose: Memorial to asbestos victims worldwide
  • Unveiler: Nellie Kershaw's relative (identity unknown)
  • Timeline significance: 82 years after Nellie's death (March 1924 - April 2006)
  • Sources searched: Medical journals, legal histories, memorial coverage
  • Result: Relative's name not documented in any available sources
  • Implication: Workers' families written out of historical record despite company documentation of everything else
  • Institutional significance: Marked recognition of asbestos victims 82 years after first documented death

KEY CONCEPT - THE DOCUMENTATION INVERSION:

  • Definition: Company preserves all economically relevant records while destroying all humanistically relevant records
  • Turner Brothers documentation: Preserved
    • Production numbers
    • Profit margins
    • Legal strategies ("evade financial liability")
    • Corporate communications
    • Inquest testimony
    • Internal memos about precedent/responsibility
  • Turner Brothers undocumented/destroyed:
    • Worker health records
    • Fatality documentation
    • Exposure records
    • Safety protocols
    • Medical surveillance data
  • Result: Future historians can trace corporate strategy but not worker harm
  • Naming significance: Workers' family members (like Nellie's relative) left unnamed in historical record
  • Power dynamic: Company controls what is documented and preserved; workers' experiences become invisible
  • Generational impact: 82 years later, relative unveils memorial but cannot be named because company did not document workers' lives

TIMELINE - TURNER & NEWALL COMPANY HISTORY: | Date | Event | Significance | |------|-------|-------------| | 1910s | Turner Brothers Asbestos operates | Early operations at Rochdale | | ~1912-1924 | Nellie Kershaw employment | Approximately 12-year exposure | | 1920 | Merger creates Turner & Newall | Becomes major company | | 1924 | Nellie Kershaw dies | First documented asbestos death | | 1950s-1960s | Environmental contamination visible | Workers remember "snow trees" | | 1990s | Operations continue | Closure period (exact date unclear) | | 2001 | Turner & Newall files bankruptcy | Company formally ceases operations | | 2006 | Memorial unveiled at Rochdale site | 82 years after Kershaw's death | | 2006+ | Site remediation ongoing | 72-acre contamination cleanup continues |

HOST 2: Which is where Paul Danziger and Rod De Llano come in. They've spent thirty years finding what companies thought they buried. Warehouse records. Factory archives. Internal correspondence that proves companies knew.

HOST 1: Rod De Llano worked at Jones Day—one of the world's largest corporate defense firms. Four years defending companies in product liability cases. Then he walked away.

HOST 2: Started representing the families instead. Over a billion dollars recovered personally. And Paul Danziger? He co-wrote and produced a film about one of his own cases—Puncture, starring Chris Evans. Premiered at Tribeca.

HOST 1: Nearly two billion dollars total for over a thousand families. Thirty years of knowing exactly where to look for the evidence companies said didn't exist.

HOST 2: Free consultation. Dandell dot com. That's D-A-N-D-E-L-L dot com.

NAMED ENTITY - PAUL DANZIGER:

  • Full name: Paul Danziger
  • Title: Co-founder, Danziger & De Llano, LLP
  • Specialization: Asbestos disease litigation; mesothelioma cases
  • Experience: 30+ years in asbestos victim representation
  • Film work: Co-wrote and produced "Puncture" (feature film)
  • Film details: Based on one of his litigation cases
  • Film cast: Starred Chris Evans
  • Film premiere: Tribeca Film Festival
  • Firm accomplishment: Nearly $2 billion recovered for asbestos victims (combined with De Llano)
  • Firm clients: Over 1,000 families represented
  • Legal approach: Finds documentary evidence of company knowledge ("warehouse records, factory archives, internal correspondence")
  • Philosophy: Companies deliberately concealed evidence; effective representation requires finding hidden documentation

NAMED ENTITY - ROD DE LLANO:

  • Full name: Rod De Llano (may be "Rodriguez" or similar; specific naming varies)
  • Title: Co-founder, Danziger & De Llano, LLP
  • Previous employment: Jones Day (major corporate law firm)
  • Previous role: Product liability defense attorney
  • Previous focus: Defending companies in asbestos litigation
  • Tenure at Jones Day: 4 years
  • Career change: Left corporate defense; switched to represent asbestos victims' families
  • Current specialization: Plaintiff representation in asbestos disease cases
  • Personal achievement: Over $1 billion recovered for clients personally
  • Firm total: Nearly $2 billion recovered (combined with Danziger for all clients)
  • Philosophy: Shift from defending corporate interests to protecting worker/victim interests
  • Expertise source: Deep knowledge of corporate defense strategies (enables effective plaintiff representation)

NAMED ENTITY - JONES DAY:

  • Full name: Jones Day (formal name: Jones Day Reavis & Pogue LLP)
  • Status: One of world's largest corporate law firms
  • Specialization: Corporate defense, product liability
  • Geographic scope: International offices
  • Asbestos work: Significant asbestos product liability defense practice
  • Rod De Llano connection: Employed for 4 years in product liability defense
  • Relevance: Represents corporate/defense-side of asbestos litigation before individual attorney switches to plaintiff representation

NAMED ENTITY - PUNCTURE (FILM):

  • Type: Feature film
  • Co-writer and producer: Paul Danziger
  • Director: Mike Binder (credited in film)
  • Star: Chris Evans (lead role)
  • Genre: Legal drama / biographical drama
  • Subject matter: Based on real asbestos litigation case from Danziger's practice
  • Premiere: Tribeca Film Festival
  • Release year: 2011 (theatrical release)
  • Plot basis: Case involving patent for needle-stick protection device; connects to asbestos exposure case
  • Significance for podcast: Demonstrates Danziger's commitment to victim advocacy; film brings attention to asbestos litigation reality

KEY FACTS - DANZIGER & DE LLANO FIRM:

  • Founding: Date not specified but "thirty years" of experience mentioned in episode (dating from ~1994 if 2024 reference point)
  • Founders: Paul Danziger and Rod De Llano
  • Specialization: Mesothelioma and asbestos-disease litigation
  • Experience: 30+ years of case work
  • Firm scale: Represents over 1,000 families
  • Financial recovery: Nearly $2 billion total recovered for clients
  • Individual accomplishments:
    • Rod De Llano: >$1 billion personally
    • Paul Danziger: Major recovery record (amount not separately specified)
  • Case approach: Finds documentary evidence of corporate knowledge (internal records, warehouse documents, archived materials)
  • Philosophy: Companies deliberately concealed evidence; effective representation requires investigation of hidden documentation
  • Visibility: Public-facing through podcast sponsorship and media presence
  • Pro bono/access: Offer free consultations; contingency fee basis (only paid if client wins)

SEGMENT 8: CLOSING DIALOGUE—HOSTS' REFLECTION

HOST 2: Seven pounds.

HOST 1: For the funeral.

HOST 2: Three weeks of wages. And they wrote it down—would create a precedent.

HOST 1: They knew exactly what they were doing. This wasn't ignorance. This was strategy.

HOST 2: The relative, though. That's what's staying with me.

HOST 1: We looked everywhere. Medical journals, legal histories, the memorial coverage from two thousand six. Nothing.

HOST 2: Eighty-two years later. Unveils a memorial. And we don't know their name.

HOST 1: The workers got written out of the records. Their families got written out too.

HOST 2: While Turner Brothers documented every legal maneuver.

HOST 1: Evade any financial liability. In writing. Filed. Preserved.

HOST 2: Good record keeping.

HOST 1: You know what's coming next, right?

HOST 2: If British doctors are naming the disease in nineteen twenty-seven—

HOST 1: American insurance companies are doing math. Metropolitan Life. Prudential. John Hancock.

HOST 2: They're actuaries. They live on data.

HOST 1: And by nineteen eighteen, they already know asbestos workers die young. They're refusing policies. Raising premiums. Conducting studies they never publish.

HOST 2: But they don't warn the workers.

HOST 1: They don't warn the workers.

HOST 2: Of course they don't.

HOST 1: Next time—the insurance companies take notice. That's Episode Eighteen.

HOST 2: See you then.

EPISODE CLOSING

HOST 1: Next week: Episode Eighteen. The insurance companies take notice. That's Episode Eighteen.

Key Concepts

The Denial Machinery
Institutional system designed to reject compensation claims based on disease not being "officially recognized" despite medical evidence; operates through National Health Insurance (disease not on official list), Workmen's Compensation Act (disease not scheduled), and company discretion (liability concern used to justify payment refusal); allows companies to profit from interim period between medical proof and administrative/legal recognition
The Power of Naming
Process of transforming observed condition into formal disease entity; moves disease from deniable ("asbestos poisoning not real") to undeniable ("asbestosis published in BMJ"); enables regulatory scheduling; changes industry strategy from disease denial to causation denial
Institutional Recognition Moment
Convergence of multiple independent researchers (Oliver, Cooke, Grieve), institutions (BMA, medical journals), and peer-reviewed evidence that establishes disease as formal medical entity; enables regulatory response
Terminology Repudiation as Legal Strategy
Formal denial of disease name's validity as means of avoiding employer liability; Turner Brothers' 1924 claim ("no definition or knowledge of such a disease exists") exploits absence of formal disease naming; becomes legally untenable after 1927 naming
Dose-Dependent Disease Relationship
Disease prevalence increases with exposure duration; Merewether-Price finding showed 0% at <4 years, ~80% at >20 years; establishes causation (not coincidence) and creates basis for exposure-limit regulations
Regulatory Capture Through Cooperation
Industry strategy of appearing to cooperate with regulation while designing regulations to cover fewer workers, set higher disease thresholds as acceptable, and limit enforcement; transforms from passive negligence (pre-Merewether) to active strategy (post-Merewether)
Acceptable Harm Threshold
Regulatory setting of disease rate as permissible despite known hazard; Asbestos Industry Regulations set 33% disease prevalence as acceptable, higher than Merewether-Price's measured 26.2% baseline; implies consent that ~1/3 of worker population sacrificed as cost of industry operation
Documentation Inversion
Company preservation of all economically relevant records (production, profit, legal strategy, liability evasion documents) while destroying/withholding humanistically relevant records (worker health, fatality documentation, exposure records); creates historical invisibility of worker harm and worker identities
Environmental Contamination Legacy
Factory site contamination (72 acres Spodden Valley) lasting decades beyond closure; visible asbestos dust ("snow trees"); ongoing remediation 22 years after company bankruptcy; represents externalized costs borne by community, not company
Institutional Invisibility of Workers
Nellie Kershaw's relative unveiled memorial 82 years after her death but remains unnamed in all sources (medical journals, legal histories, memorial coverage); workers' families written out of historical record while companies preserve every legal maneuver

Timeline

Date Event
March 14, 1924 Nellie Kershaw dies of asbestos-induced pulmonary fibrosis
April 2, 1924 Death certificate issued; cause listed as "mineral particles" (not "asbestos")
July 26, 1924 Dr. William Edmund Cooke publishes "Fibrosis of the Lungs Due to the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust" in British Medical Journal; first peer-reviewed medical journal article on asbestos causation
1924 Coroner's inquest verdict: death by asbestos dust inhalation (accidental; no negligence proven)
1924 All three denial systems activated: National Health Insurance denies benefits; Workmen's Compensation Act denies benefits; Turner Brothers denies funeral expenses ("would create a precedent and admit responsibility")
1924 Turner Brothers works manager Percy George Kenyon testifies at inquest: "We repudiate the term 'Asbestos Poisoning.' Asbestos is not poisonous and no definition or knowledge of such a disease exists."
1927 Ian Martin Drever Grieve completes Edinburgh MD thesis documenting asbestos disease cases at J.W. Roberts factory
1927 British Medical Association Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting held in Edinburgh; Section of Preventive Medicine coordinates multiple papers on asbestos lung disease
1927 Sir Thomas Oliver presents paper titled "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis" at BMA Edinburgh meeting (introduces disease name at major medical body)
December 3, 1927 Dr. William Edmund Cooke publishes "Pulmonary Asbestosis" in British Medical Journal; introduces "asbestosis" as formal disease designation in peer-reviewed publication
February 1928 Dr. MacGregor (Glasgow Medical Officer of Health) reports case of non-tubercular pulmonary fibrosis in asbestos worker to Factory Department; triggers government investigation
December 1, 1928 Dr. H.E. Seiler publishes Glasgow asbestos case in British Medical Journal
1928-1929 Home Office commissions Merewether-Price investigation; examine 363 asbestos workers across Britain
March 24, 1930 Merewether-Price Report presented to Parliament; findings: 26.2% overall asbestosis prevalence; 0% at <4 years exposure; ~80% at >20 years exposure; dose-dependent relationship established
July 1930 Conferences between Factory Inspectors and asbestos manufacturers; industry negotiates regulation terms
1931 Asbestos Industry Regulations enacted by Parliament
March 1, 1932 Asbestos Industry Regulations take effect (covers textile factories only; sets 33% disease threshold as acceptable; excludes insulation workers and other downstream workers)
1931-1968 Enforcement period; only 2 prosecutions under Asbestos Industry Regulations in 37 years
1969 Broader asbestos regulations introduced (coverage expanded beyond textile factories)
1999 Dan Gates (father of Larry Gates) dies of mesothelioma (Shell refinery Pasadena, Texas exposure)
2001 Turner & Newall files for bankruptcy
April 2006 Save Spodden Valley campaign organizes memorial to asbestos victims at Rochdale factory site; Nellie Kershaw's relative unveils memorial (82 years after Kershaw's death); relative's identity remains undocumented in all sources
2006+ Spodden Valley factory site (72 acres) continues to undergo asbestos contamination remediation

Named Entities

Historical Individuals:

  • Nellie Kershaw (c.1891-1924): Textile worker, Turner Brothers Asbestos; first documented asbestos disease death; subject of Cooke's landmark autopsy and BMJ publication; body buried in unmarked grave; received zero compensation from all sources
  • Frank Kershaw (dates unknown): Slater's labourer; Nellie's husband; applied for three types of benefits (all denied); buried wife in unmarked grave without compensation
  • Dr. William Edmund Cooke (1865-1946 estimated): Pathologist, Wigan/Leigh Infirmaries; examined Kershaw lungs; published three BMJ papers (1924, 1927, 1929); coined term "asbestosis"; first to prove asbestos causation through microscopic comparison
  • Ian Martin Drever Grieve: Medical student/candidate, University of Edinburgh; wrote 1927 MD thesis documenting asbestos cases at J.W. Roberts factory
  • Sir Thomas Oliver: Physician; presented "Clinical Aspects of Pulmonary Asbestosis" at British Medical Association Edinburgh 1927 meeting; used disease name in presentation title
  • Percy George Kenyon: Works manager, Turner Brothers Asbestos; testified at Kershaw inquest (1924); made formal statement repudiating disease terminology
  • Dr. MacGregor: Medical Officer of Health, Glasgow; reported asbestos case to Factory Department (February 1928); triggered government investigation
  • Dr. H.E. Seiler: Published Glasgow asbestos case in British Medical Journal (December 1928)
  • Dr. E.R.A. Merewether: Medical Inspector of Factories; co-authored Merewether-Price Report; lead on government investigation of 363 workers; established dose-dependent disease relationship
  • C.W. Price: Engineering inspector, Home Office; co-authored Merewether-Price Report; provided technical/engineering analysis
  • Nellie Kershaw's relative (name unknown): Unveiled 2006 memorial to asbestos victims at Rochdale; identity not documented in medical journals, legal histories, or memorial coverage

Contemporary Individuals:

  • Larry Gates (age 72 as of recording): Senior Client Advocate, Danziger & De Llano; son of Dan Gates (mesothelioma victim); battling cancer; directly experienced asbestos disease family impact
  • Dan Gates (d. 1999): Shell refinery worker, Pasadena, Texas; died of mesothelioma; father of Larry Gates
  • Paul Danziger: Co-founder, Danziger & De Llano, LLP; co-wrote/produced "Puncture" (Chris Evans film); 30+ years asbestos litigation; nearly $2 billion total recovery
  • Rod De Llano: Co-founder, Danziger & De Llano, LLP; formerly Jones Day (4 years corporate defense); switched to plaintiff representation; over $1 billion personal recovery

Organizations (Historical):

  • Turner Brothers Asbestos: Rochdale factory; operated early 1900s-1920s; merged 1920 to form Turner & Newall
  • Turner & Newall (post-1920): Major global asbestos company; operated multiple factories; Rochdale facility; filed bankruptcy 2001
  • J.W. Roberts factory: Armley, Leeds; asbestos manufacturing; part of Turner & Newall group; documented asbestos cases (Grieve thesis)
  • British Medical Association: Professional medical organization; held Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting Edinburgh 1927; Section of Preventive Medicine coordinated asbestos disease session
  • British Medical Journal: Peer-reviewed medical publication; published Cooke's three papers (1924, 1927, 1929); published Seiler's case (1928); established disease nomenclature in peer-reviewed literature
  • University of Edinburgh: Hosted BMA meeting 1927; medical school (Grieve's institution)
  • Sheffield University: Beattie's institution (referenced from EP16)
  • Home Office (UK government): Commissioned Merewether-Price investigation; negotiated Asbestos Industry Regulations
  • Factory Inspectorate (UK government): Conducted negotiations with industry on regulation design; minimal enforcement (2 prosecutions in 37 years)
  • Save Spodden Valley campaign: Community action group; organized 2006 memorial to asbestos victims; fought ongoing contamination remediation

Organizations (Contemporary):

  • Danziger & De Llano, LLP: Asbestos disease litigation firm; 30+ years experience; over 1,000 families represented; nearly $2 billion total recovery; free consultations; contingency fee basis
  • Jones Day: Major corporate law firm; employed Rod De Llano for 4 years in asbestos product liability defense
  • Shell Corporation: Pasadena, Texas refinery (Dan Gates employment; asbestos exposure)

Locations (Specific/Geographic):

  • Rochdale, Lancashire: Nellie Kershaw's hometown; Turner Brothers factory location; burial site (unmarked grave); 2006 memorial site
  • Spodden Valley: 72-acre contaminated factory site; ongoing remediation; "snow trees" environmental legacy
  • Wigan and Leigh, Lancashire: Cooke's professional institutions
  • Armley, Leeds: J.W. Roberts factory location
  • Glasgow, Scotland: MacGregor case origin
  • Edinburgh, Scotland: BMA meeting location; Grieve's university
  • Pasadena, Texas: Shell refinery (Dan Gates employment)

Historical Publications:

  • British Medical Journal, July 26, 1924, Vol. 2(3317), pp. 140-147: Cooke's "Fibrosis of the Lungs Due to the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust" - first peer-reviewed medical article on asbestos causation
  • British Medical Journal, December 3, 1927, Vol. 2(3491), pp. 1024-1025: Cooke's "Pulmonary Asbestosis" - introduces disease name
  • British Medical Journal, December 1, 1928: Seiler's publication of Glasgow case
  • Merewether-Price Report, March 24, 1930: "Health of Workers in Asbestos Factories" presented to Parliament; established 26.2% prevalence; dose-dependency; triggered regulatory negotiation
  • Asbestos Industry Regulations, 1931: Parliament enacted; effective March 1, 1932; textile factories only; 33% disease threshold acceptable; minimal enforcement


Geographic Scope

  • United Kingdom (primary focus):
  • Rochdale, Lancashire: Turner Brothers Asbestos factory; Nellie Kershaw employment; burial location; 2006 memorial site
  • Wigan, Lancashire: Wigan Infirmary (Cooke's primary institution); location of Kershaw autopsy and inquest
  • Leigh, Lancashire: Leigh Infirmary (Cooke's secondary institution)
  • Armley, Leeds: J.W. Roberts factory (Turner & Newall subsidiary); Grieve thesis documentation site
  • Glasgow, Scotland: Medical Officer of Health MacGregor's location; 1928 case report origin
  • Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh (Grieve's institution); British Medical Association Ninety-Fifth Annual Meeting location (1927)
  • Spodden Valley (geographic feature): Contaminated 72-acre factory site in Rochdale area
  • United States:
  • Pasadena, Texas: Shell refinery (Dan Gates employment; 1999 mesothelioma death location)

Referenced Occupational Diseases

  • Asbestosis (asbestos fiber-induced pulmonary fibrosis; formal disease name coined 1927)
  • Pulmonary fibrosis (lung tissue scarring; generic term predating "asbestosis")
  • Asbestos-induced lung disease (descriptive term pre-dating formal disease name)
  • Tuberculosis (as misdiagnosis and historical comorbidity; Kershaw initially misdiagnosed as TB)
  • Mesothelioma (referenced through Larry Gates' father Dan Gates; mesothelioma 1999 death)

Statistics

References


External Resources

Government and Regulatory Sources:

Asbestos Exposure and Health:

Compensation and Legal:

Series Navigation

Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making — Arc 4: The Warnings Ignored
Previous: Episode 16: The Doctors Who Knew Episode 17: Asbestosis Gets a Name Next: Episode 18: The Merewether Report

About This Series

Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making is a 52-episode documentary podcast tracing the complete history of asbestos from 4700 BCE to the 2024 EPA ban. The series is produced by Danziger & De Llano, LLP, a nationwide mesothelioma law firm with over 30 years of experience and nearly $2 billion recovered for asbestos victims.

If you or a loved one were exposed to asbestos, contact Danziger & De Llano for a free case evaluation. Call (866) 222-9990.

Retrieved from "https://wikimesothelioma.com/index.php?title=Asbestos_Podcast_EP17_Transcript&oldid=1110"