> In this case there were a number of companies who actively obfuscated critical safety information
Did companies lie? Sure, but companies lie all the time. The so-called experts failed wildly too. From the article:
> Arconic realised its polyethylene-cored cladding had a horrendous reaction to fire following French tests in 2005, where it burned fiercely and obtained a basement ranking of Class E. Despite this, Arconic continued to market it as the much safer Class B (based on an earlier certification obtained using limited test data which had persuaded a respected British certification body, the British Board of Agrément, to produce the certificate apparently confirming this).
The BBA is chock full of these "experts". Who turn out to have been more of an industry-whitewashing exercise.
The costs to detect this would have been extremely low; for example, any "modeling" appears not to have been done based on reality (build a model, light a piece on fire) but rather on... who knows.
> You wouldn’t condemn the entire medical profession because one pharma company produce and sold a dangerous drug, obfuscating it’s risk and only highlighting its benefits.
The experts and the entire testing regime would, quite reasonably, be called wholly into question. Particularly when the experts proved susceptible to what sure looks like bribery. To wit, France managed to ban this stuff just fine.
Did companies lie? Sure, but companies lie all the time. The so-called experts failed wildly too. From the article:
> Arconic realised its polyethylene-cored cladding had a horrendous reaction to fire following French tests in 2005, where it burned fiercely and obtained a basement ranking of Class E. Despite this, Arconic continued to market it as the much safer Class B (based on an earlier certification obtained using limited test data which had persuaded a respected British certification body, the British Board of Agrément, to produce the certificate apparently confirming this).
The BBA is chock full of these "experts". Who turn out to have been more of an industry-whitewashing exercise.
The costs to detect this would have been extremely low; for example, any "modeling" appears not to have been done based on reality (build a model, light a piece on fire) but rather on... who knows.
> You wouldn’t condemn the entire medical profession because one pharma company produce and sold a dangerous drug, obfuscating it’s risk and only highlighting its benefits.
The experts and the entire testing regime would, quite reasonably, be called wholly into question. Particularly when the experts proved susceptible to what sure looks like bribery. To wit, France managed to ban this stuff just fine.