Cancer, Chemicals and History
January 26, 2005 10:28 AM   Subscribe

Cancer, Chemicals and History. Some of the biggest chemical companies in the US have launched a campaign to discredit two historians who have written a book about the industry's efforts to conceal links between their products and cancer. Some of the internal documents referenced in the book can be found at the Chemical Industry Archives, a site dedicated to exposing the industry's attempts to conceal the dangers of their products. [Via Disinformation.]
posted by homunculus (11 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Would this be the same chemical industry that successfully fought efforts to secure their plants from terror attacks?
posted by nofundy at 11:30 AM on January 26, 2005


Oooh, that is an interesting bit of reading. A ton of documents obtained by subpeona, a bunch of incriminating evidence directly from the chemical industry itself, a manuscript that's been vetted far more than usual, and a lot of dead people.

Little wonder the chemical companies are shitting themselves. Once again, putting business before people has resulted in short-term gain and long-term pain.

When will corporations learn that they have to do good if they are to thrive over the long term?

When will the general population get a clue and start demanding better of corporate behaviours?
posted by five fresh fish at 12:52 PM on January 26, 2005


five fresh fish said:
When will corporations learn that they have to do good if they are to thrive over the long term?

When will the general population get a clue and start demanding better of corporate behaviours?

to which I shall respond:
never.
and
never.

Don't you get it? It takes interest (generally the "selfish" kind of interest) for people to even bother being clued in on something. As for corporations "doing good" and this "long term" thing, what are you babbling about. No where in the charter of any corporation does it state anything about "doing good" unless by "good" you mean "making money for the shareholders" and by "long term" you mean "until the executives currently in charge have made a pile of dough and can retire to Aruba". Think about it. Humans are involved. Of course it's going to suck.
posted by daq at 1:46 PM on January 26, 2005


I'll add that my style of writing in my previous post was purely assinine and blatently offensive. Please feel free to be annoyed.

-- Captain Obvious.
posted by daq at 1:47 PM on January 26, 2005


Here's a previous post about the Moyers documentary that's mentioned in the article.
posted by homunculus at 1:50 PM on January 26, 2005


My friend's dad, a lifetime non-smoker and teetotaller, fell ill suddenly in January 1986. He was dx'd with lung and liver cancer, and was dead by March 20, 1986. He worked at a company that sold supplies to dry cleaners. His son worked at the same company, and about six or seven years after his dad's death, he noticed that bags of one particular chemical they sold now had a "possible carcinogen" warning label on it.
posted by Oriole Adams at 4:38 PM on January 26, 2005


I heard a report by National Radio Project on the radio (imagine that!) a while ago. This program or any of their programs can be downloaded or you can view a transcript. What I found interesting was the discussion of the corporate supporters for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. A claim is made that attention is being diverted away from the causes of cancer (i.e. certain chemicals) to finding a cure. Personally I find this very disturbing because I believe that possibly the only cure is prevention.

That last line must have come out of some mawkish public service announcement. Jeez. Oh well, its concise.
posted by nathanos at 6:26 PM on January 26, 2005


Percholate, yum!
posted by homunculus at 10:46 PM on January 26, 2005


No where in the charter of any corporation does it state anything about "doing good" unless by "good" you mean "making money for the shareholders" and by "long term" you mean "until the executives currently in charge have made a pile of dough and can retire to Aruba". Think about it.

Good point. Perhaps delivered in a manner more of my style but, hey, nevertheless accurate.

The more I see, the more I become convinced that the ONLY solution to many of our societal ills is reform of corporate structure itself. Some thoughts on corporate reform:

Corporations should NEVER have the same rights as persons, PERIOD.
Corporations should have to PROVE they benefit society in order to exist.
Corporations should have a DEATH PENALTY for consistent bad behavior.
Corporate boards should ALWAYS have to give at least equal weight to employees and customers and not just consider shareholders.
Corporations should never be able to AVOID LAWS concerning taxes, the environment, shareholder obligations and worker's rights by "moving offshore."
Corporations and their influence should be taken entirely out of the political process as politics should be about persons, not (other known) soulless entities.

Only then will accountability for the evils of companies be actualized.

Your input requested.
posted by nofundy at 6:43 AM on January 27, 2005


You've got my vote, nofundy.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:00 AM on January 27, 2005


no doubt, nofundy, but without a hell of a lot of guns your proposal has about as much chance of happening as, say, gwb going on tv tomorrow and resigning, his speech filled with apologies and corrections of lies told by him and his puppeteers.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:59 PM on January 27, 2005


« Older Iraq-raq-on!   |   Sucked into the void Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments