Thanks Fred. You put it much better than I did, but that's exactly what I was trying to say. I wasn't looking for a fight by the way but perhaps I'm underestimating peoples awareness of the harm that this stuff can do. I don't because I watched my grandfather slowly die from coming into contact with it. That doesn't make my argument right of course.
My perception was that everyone knows that asbestos is highly dangerous - an entire block of flats had to evacuated just a few days ago in Fife after workmen had an accident removing old water tanks. All the furnishings have now to be destoryed and all the householder clothes - in the entire block, not just that one flat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_ and_east/7109207.stm
The questions of duty of care, forseeability, and intent, would I think, be the main factors involved. If a court could show that the person or company who dumped the material (whether it's asbestos, dirty syringes, acid, etc), has sufficient knowledge of the potential harm of such material, and that it was reasonable to expect someone to later come into contact with that material then, if that contact with the material was the cause of death, in my view that is sufficient for a charge of culpable homicide/manslaughter to be competent. But yes, the proximity of death from the date when harm was caused to whomever came in to contact with the material may be a problem. I don't think it would have to be immediate though.(thinking about those kids who were charged with manslaughter after a fairly minor assault, and the victim later died after a heart attack).