Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 25, 1990 TAG: 9003252168
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: F1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: F. DONALD BLOSS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Study after study and expert after expert, he writes, have affirmed that risks from low-level exposure to asbestos are virtually non-existent. Dr. Hans Weill and Janet Hughes of Tulane University in New Orleans put the risk figure for school exposure at an "upper estimate" of approximately 0.25 deaths per million exposed. And that's an upper estimate. They note that this compares with an expected 1,200 deaths per million for long-term smoking and one death per million for living two months with a cigarette smoker and inhaling second-hand smoke.
More than any other mineralogist, Dr. Malcolm Ross of the U.S. Geological Survey, has studied the asbestos and asbestiform minerals and the health risks they pose. Of the commercial asbestos used in the United States, he notes that 95 percent consists of chrysotile or "white" asbestos, 2 percent of amosite or "brown" asbestos, and 2 percent of crocidolite or "blue" asbestos. Chrysotile is of the serpentine group of minerals. Its fibers are flexible and long. By contrast, amosite and crocidolite both belong to the amphibole group of minerals. Their fibers are less flexible. Ross notes that white asbestos has had the least effect on those occupationally exposed, blue the most.
There is very little evidence that non-occupational exposure to white asbestos has caused any harm. This is despite its widespread dissemination in our environment - in schools, homes, public buildings and brake linings. On the other hand, non-occupational exposure to blue asbestos has caused significant mortality. Blue (and brown?) asbestos fibers, being more rod-shaped, appear able to penetrate deeper into the lung. Chrysotile fibers, which are curly and occur in bundles, seem less able to penetrate deep into the lungs.
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), a mandate from the EPA, requires inspection of the nation's public and private schools for asbestos. An explosive growth of asbestos removal and identification companies resulted from AHERA. By EPA estimates, applying the EPA requirements to approximately 733,000 public and commercial buildings will cost about $53 billion over the next 30 years. Others estimate costs for removal of asbestos may mount as high as $100 to $150 billion. Ross compares estimates of the yearly costs of asbestos abatement to estimates of the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) yearly budget as follows:
YEAR NIH BUDGET* ASBESTOS ABATEMENT**
1989 $7.2 billion $5.2 billion
1990 $7.6 billion $7.0 billion
1991 $8.1 billion $8.3 billion
1992 $8.7 billion $9.8 billion
1993 $9.2 billion $11.5 billion
*SCIENCE, Vol. 246, p. 988 (1989)
**ENVIRON. CONTRACTOR, p. 31, Nov. 1989
The Tuesday, Feb. 6, 1990, issue of the Wall Street Journal contains a review titled "Scientific Faddism" that cites a Science article by researchers from Johns Hopkins University. This article points out that the "incidence of asbestos-related lung cancer occurred mainly among asbestos workers and primarily those who also smoked. This is a long way from Johnny sitting in a classroom."
The Johns Hopkins scientists conclude, "clearly, the asbestos panic in the U.S. must be curtailed." They note that the only time serious health risks are created is when asbestos is ripped out of the walls and released into the air during the removal process. Too often, asbestos abatement is interpreted to mean removal rather than encapsulation, which can be coating over with another material.
Rip and skip operators have added to the problem. After they finish and move to another state the asbestos problem in a building may be worse than before. Moreover, the massive money-draining effort to remove asbestos is creating a new class of future victims, the asbestos-removal workers themselves. Some have been hired but neither instructed in self-protection nor provided with proper protective clothing.
Why are we mortgaging our future to address a problem that doesn't exist? The law is to blame. If the law were revised so that instead of "asbestos" the words "crocidolite and/or amosite" were substituted, we would have a sensible law. And we would save billions.
What are we gaining from all these billions being spent on asbestos removal? The Jan. 19, 1990, article in Science (p. 299) provides a table that compares the estimated risk from asbestos exposure to other risks in U.S. society. In summary:
Cause Annual Rate(deaths per million)\ Asbestos exposure in schools 0.005 to 0.093 Whooping cough vaccination (1970 to 1980) 1 to 6\ Aircraft accidents (1979) 6\ High school football (1970 to 1980) 10\ Drowning (ages 5 to 14) 27\ Motor vehicle accident, pedestrian (ages 5 to 14) 32\ Home accidents (ages 1 to 14) 60\ Long-term smoking 1200\
R.F. Fudali, a geologist and former chairman of the Department of Mineral Sciences at the Smithsonian Institution, in a letter to the editor of the Montgomery Journal (Rockville, Md.), observes that . . . "it has been repeatedly pointed out that, in the vast majority of public buildings, where airborne asbestos concentrations are already very low, abatement programs fail to reduce these airborne levels and may, in fact, cause the levels to rise by disturbing otherwise stable asbestos-containing materials. Therefore, the vast majority of asbestos abatement projects are not only very expensive and quite unnecessary, they are also pointless."
Furthermore, Fudali notes that "There is no evidence whatsoever that chrysotile is a carcinogen at low exposure levels. There is, in fact, considerable epidemiological evidence to the contrary. This is an absolutely crucial distinction because 95 of the asbestos in place in this country is chrysotile."
Asbestos is a common contaminant in the water supplies of both the U.S. and Canada. Fudali notes that "Numerous studies have failed to demonstrate any excess mortality in populations ingesting these waters for generations. The Ontario Royal Commission noted these studies and recommended that the ban on the use of chrysotile asbestos for filtering Canadian beer, wine and whiskey be dropped - and that's the simple truth."
The hysteria gripping America relative to asbestos abatement sometimes exceeds all bounds. An amateur mineralogist spoke to a primary school class about minerals, showing them specimens in the process. One specimen was of asbestos. A parent, upon hearing this, insisted that the walls, floors, etc. be scrubbed down before the children returned to this classroom.
We in Virginia are in a budget crunch. Reducing our costs of asbestos abatement, which in many cases may accomplish nothing, might help to meet our shortfall.
On the other hand, if a building containing any type of asbestos is to be demolished or renovated, proper removal procedures for asbestos, including chrysotile, must be followed to insure the health of the workers.
by CNB