Vickie Warren, a victim of mesothelioma and an anti-asbestos, mesothelioma awareness activist, was recently awarded more than $5 million in damages by a Salt Lake City, Utah jury. The jury awarded her $1.4 million in monetary damages, and $3.7 million in other damages for a total nearing $5.2 million. The jury’s decision represents an amount unprecedented in similar Utah cases, and has been recognized in the area’s legal news publications.

Mesothelioma is a terminal cancer of the mesothelium, a soft tissue which protects many of our body’s vital organs. The disease is caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos, a mineral whose microscopic, needle like fibers wreak havoc on the lungs and digestive tract when accidentally inhaled or ingested.

Mesothelioma can take years or even decades to develop after initial exposure to asbestos fibers. Once inhaled or ingested, the fibers slip through many of the body’s tissues due to their tiny size and peculiar shape. Eventually they become entangled in the sticky mesothelium, a tissue which provides lubrication to the vital organs. The asbestos fibers then cause mild scarring, which over time can develop into malignant tumors.

Asbestos fibers occur in a wide variety of construction materials and other products. While bans and restrictions have reduced the prevalence of the mineral in recent years, millions of people in a variety of industries have been exposed to asbestos throughout the latter half of the twentieth century.

Vickie Warren was exposed to asbestos as a young adult while helping her father with residential construction projects. The mineral was present in a joint compound manufactured by Georgia-Pacific LLP and Hamilton Materials, a company that negligently included the substance in their products despite knowledge of its potential dangers. Union Carbide, a separate company which manufactured the asbestos additive used in the joint compound, was also indicated in the lawsuit.

Like many victims of mesothelioma, Vickie was unaware of her disease and of her exposure to asbestos until she was diagnosed in 2007. Many of the symptoms of the disease are not only difficult to recognize, but also do not develop until the illness has already progressed dangerously.

When presented with the facts concerning Vickie’s history with the joint compound and the analysis of the compound’s makeup, Georgia-Pacific LLP and Union Carbide were found guilty of negligence and held responsible for Vickie’s disease. They were held legally responsible and ordered to pay a total of $5.2 in damages.

The Collegium Ramazzini, an international society with almost two hundred scientists and clinicians as members, has joined a myriad of other organizations in writing to Quebec Premier Jean Charest protesting a $58 million loan guarantee that will resuscitate Quebec’s struggling asbestos industry. The letter was joined by a host of others from organizations such as the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Medical Association and more.

Led by Joseph LaDou, M.D., the Collegium Ramazzini advocates a world wide ban on the substance, arguing that it undeniably causes a wide array of completely avoidable, terminal illnesses such as mesothelioma, a cancer of the soft tissue lining the body’s organs.

The society’s most recent appeal appeared in July’s issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal which discusses the connection between environmental issues and human health. Environmental Health Perspectives is a well respected, peer-reviewed publication, sponsored by a division of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

While the ultimate goal of the Collegium Ramazzini and other like-minded organizations is to effect a world wide ban on asbestos, much of their efforts are focused on the small town of Asbestos in Quebec, Canada. The town of Asbestos houses the Jeffrey Mine, one of the last asbestos mines in North America. Even in the face of public outcry, many continue to support the mining operation as a means of economic stimulus - a sentiment reflected by Premier Jean Charest’s consideration of a new $58 million loan aimed at expanding the mine.

Asbestos exposure has been conclusively linked to the terminal cancer mesothelioma, as well as a variety of respiratory illnesses and other cancers. As many as 90,000 people world wide die each year from asbestos related diseases, nearly all of which come into contact with the substance at their workplace.

The ill effects of asbestos have been understood for more than half of a century, but bans, regulations and restrictions have faced opposition as the affluent asbestos industry struggles to remain profitable. Asbestos, says the Collegium Ramazzini, has been banned altogether in 52 nations worldwide, with many others such as the United States enforcing strict handling and use regulations.

With mounting public protest, an ever growing collection of medicine and science professionals voicing their disapproval, and the constant increase of asbestos related litigation, the asbestos industry certainly has its hurdles to overcome. Mines such as the Jeffrey Mine in Quebec, however, continue to produce millions of metric tonnes of the substance, which, when shipped to developing nations with loose asbestos regulations affects the health of more than 125 million workers.

Gloria Romero, the California state senator, is rallying support to drop Serpentine, a yellow, red, brown and sometimes gray mineral, as the California state rock. She and others feel that the rock’s occasional asbestos content should bar it from the attention it gets as the state’s representative mineral. The bill that Romero has proposed, which is rapidly gaining plenty of support, seems to aim more towards increased awareness of asbestos related diseases rather than actual reduction of exposure to the mineral.

“[Serpentine] contains the deadly mineral chrysotile asbestos,” Romero says, “a known carcinogen, exposure to which increases the risk of the cancer mesothelioma.”

Geologists are contending the movement, however, pointing out that the mineral itself poses no real hazard to human health. Serpentine, they say, is actually a family of some twenty different minerals with similar makeups, only a few of which actually contain any asbestos. Additionally, the amounts of asbestos found in the mineral deposits are negligible, and exposure to the specific type of asbestos found in Serpentine - chrysotile asbestos - hasn’t been formally linked to diseases in small amounts.

Fibrous asbestos, on the other hand, has been linked to a wide variety of deadly diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and respiratory ailments. Mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer, is caused almost exclusively by asbestos and causes thousands of deaths in America each year.

The asbestos industry in the United States and around the world has taken a surprisingly long time to “wake up” to the facts of asbestos related dangers. Regulations, restrictions and other laws concerning asbestos handling have been slow to protect against exposure, resulting in fairly widespread contamination. While the Environmental Protection Agency attempted to ban the substance in the 1980’s, the powerful asbestos industry overturned the decision just a few years later.

“Smear” campaigns against the mineral, such as dropping Serpentine as California’s state rock, may prove to be an effective strategy to increase public awareness of asbestos problems. Increased awareness and a more active, tangible public sentiment could help lawyers prosecute asbestos companies more effectively for negligently exposing their employees to the cancer-causing mineral. With America as one of the few remaining developed nations without an outright ban on asbestos, it seems that desperate measures may have some merit. To some, however, it just doesn’t make much sense.

“Serpentine is a very beautiful rock,” says John Rosenfeld, emeritus professor of geology at UCLA.

“Holding the rock is not a problem and it’s nothing you should be concerned about.  It’s part of the history of California, noticed by the early settlers of this state. It’s a beautiful stone and shouldn’t be removed.”

In the case of Boley versus Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, the Ohio Supreme Court recently affirmed that industrial employers are not responsible for the “take home” effect of asbestos contamination. The “take home” effect refers to the phenomena of employees unknowingly transporting hazardous materials from the workplace to the home on clothes, tools, automobiles or through other methods. Once in the home, asbestos fibers can cause a variety of health problems in families of industrial employees such as respiratory ailments, asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

The Supreme Court’s position was affirmed when the estate of a Goodyear worker’s wife who died of mesothelioma, a fatal cancer caused by asbestos, attempted to sue the company for wrongful death. The defendant claimed that a state law immunizing property owners to asbestos exposure taking place off premises applied to the prosecutor’s position.

While the deceased woman’s estate acknowledged the Ohio law, they claimed that it didn’t apply to the case and argued that the defendants were responsible for her illness and subsequent death.

The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed, stating:

“When the provisions of [Ohio Revised Code] 2307.941 are read in their entirety, it is evident that the General Assembly intended the phrase ‘exposure to asbestos on the premises owner’s property,’ as used in R.C. 2307.941(A), to refer to the location of the asbestos to which an individual is exposed, not the location of the exposure…

“Thus, R.C. 2307.941(A) applies to all tort actions for asbestos claims brought against premises owners relating to exposure originating from asbestos on the premises owner’s property, and R.C. 2307.941(A)(1) applies to preclude a premises owner’s liability for any asbestos exposure that does not occur at the owner’s property.”

Asbestos exposure has long been known to pose considerable health risks. The airborne fibers of the dangerous material can cause the development of fatal, cancerous tumors, years or even decades after initial exposure occurs. While the Environmental Protection Agency attempted to ban the substance in the 1980’s, their proposal was overturned by industrial giants that made heavy use of the cheap, highly insulating, fireproof substance.

The process by which the asbestos dust may have been transported to the woman’s home on her husband’s person, and Goodyear’s regulations regarding the prevention of asbestos contamination in the home did not come under investigation. While many asbestos lawsuits these days result in favorable conditions for victims of asbestos related disease, the “take home” effect does not appear to be an effective approach as demonstrated by the Boley versus Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.