Asbestos Podcast EP19 Transcript
Episode 19: Two Prosecutions
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 | 19 |
| Title | Two Prosecutions |
| Arc | Arc 4 — The Warnings Ignored (Episode 5 of 5 — Arc Finale) |
| Produced by | Charles Fletcher |
| Research and writing | Charles Fletcher with Claude AI |
| Listen | Apple Podcasts · Spotify · Amazon Music |
Episode Summary
In 1931, Britain enacted the Asbestos Industry Regulations — the world's first workplace regulations specifically targeting asbestos exposure.[1] The regulatory process itself exposed the compromise between government protection and industry cost: when Parliament convened a drafting conference in July 1930, six government factory inspectors faced seven industry representatives, with workers entirely excluded from the deliberations.[1] The sub-committee writing the actual regulations gave industry a three-to-two majority over government inspectors. Industry raised three objections during drafting — medical examinations were too expensive, respirator requirements were impractical because workers wouldn't wear them, and restrictions on young workers would eliminate cheap labor.[1] Rather than adopting Merewether's proposed numerical dust limits, the regulations employed a qualitative "dust datum," defined as conditions "arising from flyer spinning carried out without exhaust under good general conditions."[2] Modern reconstruction estimates this standard translated to approximately 20 fibers per milliliter of personal exposure — roughly 200 times today's permissible exposure limit of 0.1 fibers per milliliter.[3] Enforcement was virtually nonexistent. The widely-cited claim that only two prosecutions occurred under these regulations between 1931 and 1968 is a historical myth that obscures three conflicting accounts: Tweedale and Bartrip document 1935-1936 conviction data (five charges, four convictions), Wikeley records circa 1964 prosecutions including Central Asbestos Company in Bermondsey (£170 in fines), and Dalton's 1979 account conflated these into the "two prosecutions" soundbite repeated ever since.[2][4] UK asbestos production increased 60% in the decade after the regulations were enacted — from 250,000 tons in 1930 to 400,000 tons by 1940 — indicating the regulatory framework posed no meaningful economic constraint on industry expansion.
Key Takeaways
|
Key Concepts
The Dust Datum and Unmeasurable Standards
The Asbestos Industry Regulations of 1931 rejected Merewether's proposed numerical dust limits in favor of a qualitative "dust datum" — a subjective standard rather than a measurable threshold. The datum was defined as conditions "arising from flyer spinning carried out without exhaust under good general conditions."[3] Modern reconstruction estimates this corresponded to approximately 20 fibers per milliliter of personal exposure. Today's permissible exposure limit is 0.1 fibers per milliliter, making the 1931 standard roughly 200 times what contemporary occupational health standards consider safe. This shift from quantifiable limits to qualitative language eliminated objective grounds for enforcement and allowed companies to claim compliance with unmeasurable standards.
The Three Conflicting Prosecution Accounts
The widely-cited claim that only "two prosecutions" occurred under the 1931 regulations between 1931 and 1968 is a conflation of three distinct historical accounts. Account A (Tweedale and Bartrip) documents two conviction-years in 1935 and 1936 with five charges and four convictions, averaging £12 per conviction (£8 in 1935, £15 in 1936).[2] Account B (Wikeley, 1992) records two firms prosecuted circa 1964 — Central Asbestos Company in Bermondsey (three counts, £170) and an unnamed Company Two (one count, £50).[4] Account C (Dalton, 1979, repeated by subsequent scholars) conflates Accounts A and B into the single soundbite that "only two prosecutions" occurred, erasing the 1935-1936 cases entirely. The real total across 35 years is likely three to four distinct prosecution events, but the myth has persisted for over fifty years because no one checked the underlying arithmetic.
Industry-Dominated Regulatory Drafting
The regulatory process that produced the 1931 Asbestos Industry Regulations was structured to favor industry interests. The initial conference convened on July 8, 1930, consisted of six government factory inspectors and seven industry representatives — a seven-to-six industry majority on the full body.[1] The sub-committee responsible for drafting the actual regulations contained three industry representatives and only two government inspectors, giving industry a three-to-two controlling majority over the officials charged with protecting workers. Workers, trade unions, and independent medical experts — despite the disease being medically documented by Merewether — were entirely excluded from the drafting process. Industry objections to medical examinations (expense), respirators (impracticality), and age restrictions (loss of cheap labor) were all cost-based, and all prevailed.
Regulatory Exclusions and Affected Populations
The 1931 regulations covered only workers in "scheduled areas" — specific manufacturing processes in registered factories — while excluding the vast majority of people exposed to asbestos. Explicitly excluded were laggers (insulators), construction workers, shipyard workers, brake and clutch workers, automotive workers, anyone working fewer than eight hours per week with asbestos, and all workers using asbestos products rather than manufacturing them.[1] The 1921 Census counted 3,762 people in asbestos manufacturing; this narrow population received some regulatory protection. By World War Two, 4.5 million American shipyard workers handled asbestos daily with no comparable regulatory protection. This exclusionary design meant that the regulations existed primarily to satisfy political demands for action while covering only a small fraction of the exposed workforce.
Named Entities
Historical Figures
| Individual | Role/Affiliation | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Duncan Wilson | Government official | Sent June 19, 1930 letter launching the 1931 regulatory process |
| Edward Merewether | Government physician | Co-author of the Merewether Report; recommended numerical dust limits (superseded by qualitative "dust datum") |
| Charles W. Price | Engineering Inspector of Factories | Merewether Report co-author; served on the drafting sub-committee |
| Arthur Greensmith | Carder, J.W. Roberts, Armley, Leeds | Diagnosed with asbestosis 1939; died within months of leaving work in August 1943 despite regulatory protections |
| Robert Turner | Turner Brothers executive | Reportedly proposed removing asbestos from the dangerous occupations schedule in 1932 (one year post-regulation) |
| Geoffrey Tweedale | Historian | Source for Account A prosecution data (Table 9.1, citing Factory Inspector Annual Reports) |
| Peter Bartrip | Historian | Provided prosecution breakdown for 1935-1936 cases (five charges, four convictions) |
| Nigel Wikeley | Legal scholar | Source for Account B prosecution data (1992, footnote 54) |
| Andrew Dalton | Historian | 1979 source for Account C conflation ("two prosecutions" soundbite) |
Organizations and Companies
- Turner Brothers — Major asbestos manufacturer, Rochdale; Robert Turner an executive.[1]
- J.W. Roberts — Asbestos manufacturer, Armley, Leeds; employed Arthur Greensmith; admitted internal memo that they had "no realistic defence" to regulatory violations from at least 1950 onward.[6]
- Central Asbestos Company — Bermondsey, London; prosecuted April 1964 under Asbestos Industry Regulations (three counts, £170 fine, cited by Wikeley).[4]
- Environmental and Equality Alliance — Repeated the "two prosecutions" myth in 2002, perpetuating Dalton's conflation.[5]
- Danziger & De Llano, LLP — Nationwide mesothelioma law firm producing this podcast series; recovered nearly $2 billion for families affected by asbestos exposure over 30+ years.[7]
Locations
- Rochdale — Turner Brothers asbestos manufacturing headquarters
- Armley, Leeds — J.W. Roberts factory location, Arthur Greensmith's workplace
- Bermondsey, London — Central Asbestos Company location, site of April 1964 prosecution
- National Archives — Repository of undigitized Factory Inspector Annual Reports containing prosecution records
Timeline
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| June 19, 1930 | Duncan Wilson sends letter launching regulatory process | Official start of 1931 Asbestos Industry Regulations drafting |
| July 8, 1930 | Regulatory conference convenes | Six government inspectors, seven industry representatives, zero workers, unions, or independent medical experts |
| March 1931 | Asbestos Industry Regulations enacted | World's first asbestos-specific workplace regulations; featured qualitative "dust datum" instead of numerical limits |
| 1935-1936 | First documented prosecutions (Account A) | Five charges, four convictions, fines averaging £12 (Tweedale/Bartrip Account A) |
| 1939 | Arthur Greensmith diagnosed with asbestosis | At J.W. Roberts, Leeds; regulations required suspension from hazardous work |
| August 1943 | Arthur Greensmith leaves employment | Dies within months despite regulatory protections; company later admits regulatory violations |
| 1950+ | J.W. Roberts admits internal violations | Internal memo states company had "no realistic defence" to regulatory violations from at least 1950 onward |
| April 1964 | Central Asbestos Company prosecuted (Account B) | Bermondsey, London; three counts, £170 fine (Wikeley Account B) |
| Circa 1964 | Company Two prosecuted (Account B) | Unknown second company, one count, £50 fine; identity cannot be determined from available records |
| 1979 | Dalton publishes conflated account (Account C) | "Two prosecutions" claim first appears, conflating 1935-1936 cases and 1964 cases into single soundbite |
| 2002 | Environmental and Equality Alliance repeats myth | Perpetuates Dalton's conflation; myth becomes entrenched in historical literature |
Statistics and Quantification
| Statistic | Value | Context/Source |
|---|---|---|
| Dust datum exposure level (estimated) | 20 fibers per milliliter | Modern reconstruction of 1931 standard |
| Modern permissible exposure limit | 0.1 fibers per milliliter | Contemporary occupational health standard; 200x safer than 1931 datum |
| Ratio of 1931 standard to modern safety | 200:1 | 1931 regulations 200 times less protective than modern standards |
| Industry representatives on drafting conference | 7 | Out of 13 total attendees (six government inspectors + seven industry) |
| Government inspectors on drafting conference | 6 | Out of 13 total attendees; sub-committee gave industry three-to-two majority |
| Workers on drafting committee | 0 | Zero workers, trade unions, or independent medical experts represented |
| UK asbestos production (1930) | 250,000 tons | Baseline production year |
| UK asbestos production (1940) | 400,000 tons | Ten years post-regulation |
| Production increase post-regulation | 60% | 1930-1940 decade increase despite new regulations |
| Workers covered in 1921 Census | 3,762 | Approximate population of asbestos manufacturing workers at time of regulation |
| American shipyard workers (WWII era) | 4.5 million | Exposed daily to asbestos; excluded from 1931 regulations |
| Exclusion: workers under 8 hours/week | All such workers | Did not meet threshold for regulatory coverage |
| 1935-1936 convictions (Account A) | 4 | Total convictions from five charges (Tweedale/Bartrip) |
| 1935-1936 fines (Account A) | £23 total | £8 (1935) + £15 (1936) = £11.50 average rounded to £12 |
| Central Asbestos Company fine (1964) | £170 | Three counts: £75 + £75 + £20 + 10 shillings costs (Wikeley) |
| Company Two fine (1964) | £50 | One count; company identity cannot be determined |
| Total fines, 1964 prosecutions (Account B) | £220 | Central Asbestos (£170) + Company Two (£50) |
| Prosecutions across 35 years (1931-1968) | 3-4 events | Likely total: 1935-36 cases + 1964 cases = multiple distinct events |
| Duration of Arc 4 episode | ~22 minutes | Episode runtime |
| Word count | ~4,200 | Transcript length |
References
External Resources
Government and Regulatory Sources
- OSHA Asbestos Standards — Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- EPA Asbestos Information — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- ATSDR Asbestos and Your Health — Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
- NCI Malignant Mesothelioma — National Cancer Institute
Asbestos Exposure and Health
- Asbestos Exposure — Danziger & De Llano
- Asbestos Exposure Information — Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
- What Products Contained Asbestos? — Mesothelioma.net
Compensation and Legal Resources
- Mesothelioma Compensation Guide — Danziger & De Llano
- Asbestos Trust Funds Guide — Mesothelioma Lawyer Center
- Asbestos Trust Funds — Mesothelioma.net
Podcast Resources
- Episode 19: Two Prosecutions — MLNM podcast landing page
- Asbestos Podcast Hub — All episodes and series information
- Asbestos: A Conspiracy on Apple Podcasts
- Asbestos: A Conspiracy on Spotify
Series Navigation
| Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making — Arc 4: The Warnings Ignored | ||
|---|---|---|
| Previous: Episode 18: The Merewether Report | Episode 19: Two Prosecutions (Arc Finale) | Next: Episode 20: Less Said About Asbestos |
Related Wiki Pages
- Asbestos_Industry_Regulations_1931 — Detailed page on the world's first asbestos workplace regulations
- Merewether_Report — Medical documentation of asbestos disease prevalence in manufacturing workers
- Asbestos_Occupational_Exposure_Quick_Reference — High-risk occupations and exposure statistics
- Asbestos_Trust_Fund_Quick_Reference — Compensation mechanisms for occupationally exposed workers
- Arthur_Greensmith — Case study of regulatory enforcement failure
- Central_Asbestos_Company — 1964 prosecution case
- The_Asbestos_Podcast — Main podcast page with all episodes
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.
Episode 19 concludes Arc 4 ("The Warnings Ignored"), which documented the arc from the first clinical recognition of asbestos disease through the Merewether Report and into the regulatory framework designed to appear protective while remaining fundamentally ineffective. Arc 5 begins next episode with the Sumner Simpson letters — the moment when the industry's response shifted from negligence to deliberate suppression.
Approximately 3,000 Americans are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year.[7] Mesothelioma has a latency period of 20-50 years, meaning people exposed decades ago are still being diagnosed today. Over $30 billion remains available in asbestos trust funds for victims.
If you or a loved one were exposed to asbestos or have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact Danziger & De Llano for a free case evaluation. Call (855) 699-5441. Available seven days a week.
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 Asbestos Industry Regulations 1931, The National Archives (UK). World's first asbestos-specific workplace regulations; enacted following the Merewether Report. Drafting process included seven industry representatives and six government inspectors; sub-committee gave industry three-to-two majority. Covered only "scheduled areas" in manufacturing; excluded construction, shipyard, automotive workers and product users. See Asbestos Exposure, Danziger & De Llano; and Episode 19 transcript analysis.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Tweedale, Geoffrey. Table 9.1, cited in Episode 19 analysis. Factory Inspector Annual Reports show two conviction-years (1935 and 1936) with five charges and four convictions, averaging £12 (£8 in 1935, £15 in 1936). Bartrip provides detailed breakdown. This is Account A in the three-account prosecution analysis.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Merewether Report (1930). Government investigation following Merewether and Price's clinical documentation that 80.9% of workers with 20+ years asbestos exposure developed asbestosis. Recommended numerical dust limits (superseded by qualitative "dust datum" in final regulations). See Asbestos Exposure, Danziger & De Llano.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Wikeley, Nigel (1992), footnote 54. Records two firms prosecuted circa 1964: Central Asbestos Company, Bermondsey (three counts, £170: £75+£75+£20 plus ten shillings costs) and unnamed Company Two (one count, £50). Total fines £220. This is Account B; physical Annual Reports remain undigitized at National Archives.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Dalton, A.C. (1979). Account C: conflates Accounts A (1935-1936 cases) and B (1964 cases) into single "two prosecutions" soundbite that has been repeated uncritically for 50+ years by subsequent scholars and reports including Environmental and Equality Alliance (2002).
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arthur Greensmith case study. Carder at J.W. Roberts, Armley, Leeds; diagnosed 1939 with asbestosis. Regulations required suspension from hazardous work; company appealed (purportedly with worker's approval). Never properly suspended; left employment August 1943; died within months. J.W. Roberts' internal memo admits "no realistic defence" to regulatory violations from at least 1950 onward. Example of enforcement failure despite regulatory framework.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Danziger & De Llano, LLP. Nationwide mesothelioma and asbestos disease law firm specializing in occupational injury litigation. 30+ years of practice; nearly $2 billion recovered for over 1,000 families. Produces "Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making" podcast series. Visit dandell.com or call (855) 699-5441 for free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Episode 19 of the Asbestos podcast about?
In 1931, Britain enacted the Asbestos Industry Regulations — the world's first workplace regulations specifically targeting asbestos exposure. The regulatory process itself exposed the compromise between government protection and industry cost: when Parliament convened a drafting conference in July 1930, six government factory inspectors faced seven industry representatives, with workers entirely excluded from the deliberations. The sub-committee writing the actual regulations gave industry a three-to-two majority over government inspectors.
Where can I listen to the Asbestos podcast?
The Asbestos podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Amazon Music — all free. Search for 'Asbestos: A Conspiracy 4,500 Years in the Making' or use the links on any episode transcript page. The 52-episode series is produced by Danziger & De Llano, LLP, a nationwide mesothelioma law firm.
How does asbestos history relate to mesothelioma and legal claims today?
Mesothelioma is caused by asbestos exposure, and U.S. law provides multiple compensation pathways. Over $30 billion remains available through 60+ asbestos bankruptcy trust funds, with average payments of $300,000–$400,000. Victims may also pursue personal injury lawsuits, VA disability benefits (for veterans), or wrongful death claims. The statute of limitations is as short as 1 year in some states, so consulting a mesothelioma attorney promptly is critical. Danziger & De Llano has recovered nearly $2 billion for asbestos victims over 30+ years of practice.