From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Okay, pppppp-- (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)there is big bucks in finding asbestosis victims for compensation claims. That's why you guys are publishing this stuff here, in the hope to attract more clients. Well, here's the news:

  • The history section was copied vertabim from here. That's a copyvio. We don't do copyvios here; we write our own, un-biased stuff.
  • The compensation stuff was all about mesothelioma. As this page is only about asbestosis, I found this a good reason for removing the compensation stuff.
I didn't see the history stuff before, so I really can't comment. But I like the article very much the way it is now. Whoever wrote this did an outstanding job. This article should only be about the disease, and disease process, imho. It is logical to mention mesothelioma and other lung diseases, to differentiate them from asbestosis. The legal issues have no place here. Btw, not all lawyers are trolling for clients. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all greedy scum suckers. I left a lucrative career where I made more than I probably ever will as a lawyer. I went into law because I wanted to learn it, and because I wanted to do something I believed in. And now I am, and I make a fraction of what I made in engineering. And I am happier. MollyBloom 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Googling for Merrywater Price asbestosis disturbingly brings up Wikipedia as the first search result. This means that you have been using this non-profit site as an advertising medium. Go away. Please. I may have the page protected if this carries on. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow ! - that's quite a strong assertion to make, isn't it?, we have argued endlessly about this elsewhere. I wrote this before the debate on the "compensation" article started, and I cannot be bothered to argue about it again. JFW | T@lk 13:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today's version seems okay. I suggest controversial stuff be moved to an article like asbestosis controversy or asbestos removal or asbestos abatement; or my favorite, campaign to ban asbestos. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:31, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would move to delete any article entitled "Campaign to ban asbestos". My guess is that it would be a rant about the poor companies and how much they have been harmed. At least one of those poor companies, Johns-Manville, lied repeatedly to its workers and to the public about the dangers of asbestos. This is not conjecture or political twisting. There is a volume of written documents that were found, written by executives and a medical director" advising the corporate hq not to tell workers of their 'condition' because they should have the 'peace' to go on working in these conditions until they dropped. There were others that warned their colleagues to stay silent, and not discuss any of this to the public or medica, to avoid 'problems.' These companies are not the victim. As to jobs, more jobs were created cleaning up asbestos and developing new products, and diversifying. So that does not hold water either.

I am floored that any thinking person would suggest this. 60 countries have banned asbestos for good reason. IN the US, 10,000 people die a year from asbestos; 5,000 a year in the UK, and 3,000 a year in Australia. That does not begin to count the many who become disabled from chronic lung problems. I simply don't see how even the hard right wingers/industry apologists can argue this is not cause for serious concern, even banning. There are other fire retardants that are safe than asbesots. Cheap and easy to use does not outweigh the pain and agony familes go thorugh, who have had loved ones die. I know aobut this, because my father died of mesothelioma, 5 months after he was diagnosed. This was 40 years after he worked 3 months cutting asbestos shingles.MollyBloom 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think JFW? I've made a few changes myself, over on the "compensation" page Asbestosis_-_Compensation_and_Liability_Disputes, paraphrasing some quotes, removing some of the more emotional language and including text and references on predatory "runaway litigation" aspects. Should the NPOV and CLEANUP be maintained, or is it ready to have these tags removed? Thanks for any suggestions. Wikityke 11:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 03:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) Edited the one paragraph to remove "Why Antoine I pu" from the bottom of it, seemed like someone had either written a talk statement on the main page or had randomly vandalised it a bit. R.Hicks

This is an excellent article, JFW!! The only criticism I have of it is the note about mesothelioma. I have researched this at length, because my father died of it in 1986. I have spoken to oncologists and researchers about it. The consensus (and statistics) seems to be

(1) it is rare but frequency has increased as those exposed to asbestos age.. The latency period is 20-50 years. It is still a rare disease, but the rate increase is significant,. That rate increase should level off this decade, as the majority of asbestos was installed in the years following WWII.

(2) Mesothelioma, unlike even asbestosis, does not take prolonged exposure. My father's oncologist, a specialist in this area, explained that they don't know how much exposure it takes. He also said he treated execs from Johns-Mansville whose only exposure was through the ventilation system, and for a short time. In fact, they believe mesothelioma requires less exposure than the more common asbestosis. My father worked a summer job cutting asbestos shingles 40 years before he died. You are quite right that the prognosis is grim, and the disease is usually fatal within 12 months of diagnosis. I saw on another article 2-4 years, but that seems high.MollyBloom 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asbestosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Epidemiological info[edit]

This article lacks epidemiological info. Especially it's comparison to mesothelioma (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


It's a small point but...I improved the non-standard-English syntax in the intro and it was reverted, then there was a simultaneous change to exactly the same sentence in line with what I had said! I've now made it even better! Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see: not "sufferers". Gotcha (although if I had it, I'd feel like I was suffering!). Dr Greg Wood (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)