legal history

The first trial? S against manufacturers of asbestos? T? port? in 1929. The parties? Established that justice, and under the agreement, the lawyer accept? not to prosecute the case. He '? Was not until 1960 that an article published? by Wagner et al m? Soth? officially liom? established as a disease r? resulting from exposure? crocidolite asbestos. [22] The article by r-f? Competition of more than 30? Case studies of people who have suffered m? Soth? Liom in South Africa. Some exhibitions have? T? and some transitional? were minors. In 1962, McNulty has signal? the first case, the diagnosis of m? Soth? liom malignant asbestos workers in Australia. [23] The worker had worked? in the plant? the asbestos mine in Wittenoom? from 1948? 1950.

In the town of Wittenoom, asbestos-containing and d? Waste mines? T? being used to cover es? schools and playgrounds. In 1965, an article in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine? Established that people who lived in areas of asbestos factories and mines, but do not work in them, a contract? m? Soth? liom.

Despite? evidence that the dust? re asbestos? exploitation mini? and re grinding of the causes of diseases li? es? asbestos, exploitation mini? first began? ? Wittenoom in 1943 and continued until 1966. In 1974 the first public warning about the dangers of blue asbestos have? T? public? s in a cover article of appeal? ? Killer is it in your home? "In Australia \ 's Bulletin magazine. In 1978, the Government of Western Australia d? Cid? d '? LIMINATE of the town of Wittenoom,? Following the publication of a booklet sant? Dept, "The danger to health? ? Wittenoom ", containing the r? Results of the? Subset of air and appr? Ciation of information m? Union in the world.

In 1979, the first? Re orders? la n? negligence Wittenoom have? t? ? made against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society? t? form? for e repr? represent the Wittenoom victims.