The four most pernicious myths in asbestos litigation: Part II: safe thresholds for exposure and Tyndall lighting as junk science.

Part I of this survey confronted the first two Most Pernicious Myths in Asbestos Litigation: the supposed harmlessness of chrysotile asbestos; and so-called idiopathic mesothelioma. Part II discusses the pernicious notions of safe exposure thresholds for asbestos and the unreliability of Tyndall lighting. Defendants' attempts to preclude plaintiffs' experts from testifying about these generally accepted scientific facts are a disservice to the legal system and to plaintiffs who have been harmed by asbestos. These defense tactics attempt to deny reality and to spin scientific facts in order to keep them from the jurors' eyes and ears. This undermines the legal system and harms the integrity of the scientific enterprise. Defendants' efforts to manufacture "controversy" over previously uncontroversial facts are bald attempts to infect the legal process with junk "doubt science." The role of this type of "doubt science" is being steadily exposed as legitimate researchers resist the degradation of their disciplines and the scientific literature by unprincipled purveyors of this insidious brand of junk science.