Chrysotile Poses Cancer Risk, Not Just Reverse Greenwash, Researchers Say
Friday, November 20th, 2009A recent opinion piece by a retired University of North Carolina geologist published in The News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh, N.C. espousing the industrial merits of chrysotile asbestos drew a critical rebuttal today from health researchers.
In a letter to the editor, John Dement, a professor at Duke University Medical Center who has published research on the health effects of asbestos, and David P. Brown, director of Health Sciences Research at SRA International, a provider of health consulting services, say that retired UNC Prof. John J.W. Rogers’ article grossly underrepresented the human health risks associated with exposure to chrysotile asbestos. The researchers note that the National Toxicology Program, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have established chrysotile asbestos as a known human carcinogen.
In his Nov. 12 opinion piece, Rogers contended that asbestos was the victim of a scare campaign by groups seeking to make the mineral more a problem than it really is. Its positive attributes include that asbestos is inflammable, has good insulating properties and adds strength to products as diverse as plastics and cement. Rogers argued that chrysotile was safer than the other main mineral form of asbestos, amphibole, and could continue to be used safely by industries.
While there is some scientific debate about the relative risks of mesothelioma from the various forms of asbestos, the World Health Organization recently affirmed that all forms of asbestos cause cancers of the lung, larynx, ovary as well as mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs and abdomen. The WHO estimates that 90,000 people a year die of asbestos-related disease and called for a ban on all forms of asbestos. To date, 43 countries have enacted bans.
Dement and Brown write that appropriate substitute materials are now available for asbestos, including chrysotile, precluding the need to continue using it for industrial purposes.
“We see no need to further the legacy of asbestos-related diseases in the U.S. and worldwide through the continued use of chrysotile and other forms of asbestos,” Dement and Brown say. “Elimination of asbestos exposure is not ‘reverse greenwash’—it is sound public health policy.”
