In a recent deposition, the former corporate safety director for Fisher Scientific - a man who testified that “the buck stopped with me” regarding the determination of whether any danger or hazard existed with any product that Fisher Scientific supplied to its customers – was questioned under oath about when did Fisher know about the dangers of asbestos and when if at all did it warn its customers.

Here is just a sampling of what  in our opinion  this deposition revealed . The entire deposition is posted on this site for you to draw your own conclusions  :

• Regarding Fisher Scientific’s expertise on asbestos and its dangers?  The witness testified that he was the only person in the Corporate Safety Department, and stated repeatedly that he was not an expert on the issue of asbestos, and neither was anybody else at Fisher Scientific.  The witness testified that he’d never taken a single safety course that related to asbestos.

• Regarding Fisher Scientific’s interest in making sure that the asbestos-containing items it sold in its catalogs were safe?  The witness testified that he never asked any supplier to the catalog of asbestos-containing products to prove that the products were safe for their intended uses, and he has no idea if the manufacturers ever conducted tests on the products.

• Regarding education of Fisher Scientific’s sales staff?  The witness testified that he never spoke to the sales staff about asbestos.

• Regarding his responses to a 1978 letter from concerned 7th grade school children worried that asbestos pads in the classroom might cause cancer? The testimony given by the witness as to how he would have responded to such “straightforward” questions from school children was painfully at odds with the responses actually provided to the children by the witness in 1978.

• Regarding the impermissible use of language such as “OSHA Approved” “Meets OSHA Requirements” in Fisher Scientific’s catalogues?  The witness, during questioning by Fisher Scientific’s counsel, described the use of such language as “a lie so don’t say it.”

• Regarding a 1978 letter to an OSHA Regional Administrator in which he states that several asbestos containing laboratory products do not ordinarily liberate airborne fibers – but can experience dusting through age and usage?  The witness testified that although the letter was signed by him, he was unfamiliar with the term “dusting” and believed the marketing department had “infused their language” with his letter.

• Regarding monitoring of asbestos containing laboratory products (to determine whether they liberate asbestos fibers) prior to their entrance in the marketplace?  The witness testified that no monitoring was ever done during his tenure “because there’s no need to” including in the plants where Fisher Scientific manufactured asbestos-containing products.

• Regarding corporate responsibility?  “If we gave you cancer, then we’re responsible.  If we didn’t give you cancer, we’re not responsible.” and “If I harmed you then I owe you; If I haven’t harmed you then leave me alone.”

You can read and decide in your own opinion as to the adequacy of Fisher Scientific’s understanding of its responsibility to warn customers of the dangers of exposure to asbestos.  Click here to read the entire deposition.

For years the Canadian asbestos mining companies have refused to pay fair compensation to US citizens whom they have poisoned for decades. They hide behind the laws of Quebec and tell US mesothelioma victims come chase us in Canada if you want just compensation. This is despite the fact that these Canadian mining companies pumped millions of tons of asbestos into the United States responsible for the death of tens of thousands of US citizens. The proof is quite clear that these companies knew about the dangers of asbestos going back to the 1930s and were actively involved in a cover up to prevent workers from learning about the true dangers associated with these products. The story below is but another example of how money in Canada has surpassed the concern for people.

LONDON – A medical journal is criticizing Canada for exporting asbestos to poor countries, joining others who have condemned the practice as hypocritical.

A report in the journal Lancet on Thursday notes that Canada virtually bans the use of asbestos. But, unlike other rich nations, it remains a major exporter of chrysotile, or white asbestos.

The Canadian Minister of Natural Resources office said its practice has a “sound scientific basis.”

Asbestos is a natural mineral which can be processed for use in rooftops, piping, or building materials. Inhaling its fibers scars the lungs and can lead to respiratory diseases, including cancers.

The World Health Organization says all types of asbestos cause cancer and more than 50 countries have banned it. About 100,000 people die every year from asbestos-related diseases and 125 million people remain exposed to the deadly substance worldwide.

Canada is the world’s fourth biggest exporter of asbestos, after Russia, Kazakhstan and Brazil. Last year, Canada shipped 150,000 tons to countries including India, Indonesia and the Philippines, where few laws exist to protect people from asbestos.

In Canada, the government has spent millions of dollars removing asbestos from buildings across the country, including its Parliament.

Numerous Canadian organizations, including the Quebec Medical Association, Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Medical Association have labeled Canada’s asbestos exportation as deplorable, shameful and unethical. They describe it as Prime Minister “Stephen Harper’s killer legacy.”

“Canada should not be exporting asbestos to developing nations where there are few or no workplace regulations,” Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, said in a statement.

He called for an end to “this immoral export of asbestos-related death and disease to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.”

The report was written by the Lancet’s Tony Kirby.

With asbestos deposits dwindling in Quebec, where Canada’s asbestos is mined, the industry appeared doomed. But an international consortium proposed converting a closed mine into a new operation that could produce about 260,000 ton of white asbestos a year. Quebec is considering providing a $57 million loan guarantee for the project, according to previous published statements by the provincial government.

The international consortium that wants to reopen the mine claims Canadian asbestos is only sold to manufacturers with responsible use practices in place. Developers said all the mined asbestos would be sent abroad, with about half of it going to India. The consortium also said they would use pictures to instruct people on the safe and responsible usage of asbestos.

The office of the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources said they believe the risks linked to asbestos can be managed.

“Canada’s policy of controlled use has a sound scientific basis and is a responsible approach,” said Paul Duchesne, a spokesman for the minister in an e-mailed statement.

“Through the enforcement of appropriate regulations to rigorously control exposure to (white asbestos), the health risks associated with processes and products can be reduced to acceptable levels,” Duchesne said.

The Canadian government says the risks from white asbestos can be managed in controlled conditions, like if the substance is covered by another material so the asbestos layer is not releasing dust.

Kathleen Ruff, a senior human rights adviser to the Rideau Institute, an independent research and advocacy organization in Ottawa, said that exporting asbestos and refusing to alert poor countries to its dangers, Canada is intentionally doing harm.

In 2006, Canada led an effort to block a United Nations convention that would have made it mandatory to warn countries of hazardous substances like asbestos, she said.

“Canada has blood on its hands,” Ruff said. “What we are doing is unconscionable. The whole world should condemn us.”

Protesters plan to hit the street this week in Asia, London and Quebec, to demand a global ban on asbestos in any building materials.