Posted By Becky Allen Dear all, I wondered if anyone saw the following article in the Sunday Telegraph (13/01/01). I'm writing a small piece on it for OHR, if anyone would like to comment on it they can contact me at becky.allen@irseclipse.co.uk Regards, Becky Allen Journalist, OHR, 18-20 Highbury Place, London N5 1QP, tel: 020 7354 6786 *********************** Christopher Booker's Notebook (Filed: 13/01/2002) Billions to be spent on nonexistent risk THANKS to a decision by officials in Brussels and Britain to confuse two totally different chemicals sharing the common name "asbestos", Britain will soon face a wholly unnecessary bill running into tens of billions of pounds. Everyone knows that "asbestos" is a highly dangerous product, which it is officially claimed will kill 250,000 people in the European Union in the next 35 years. This is why the Health and Safety Executive now wants to issue a new law imposing on property owners all sorts of costly requirements that even the HSE admits will cost £8 billion, just for surveying and monitoring. What is less well known is that there are two quite different chemicals lumped together under the name "asbestos", so that 85 per cent or more of this expenditure will be directed at a product that poses no risk to human health and is chemically identical to talcum powder. Furthermore, the highly alarmist projections of deaths are based on a study that unwittingly confused the two chemicals. And although scientific studies commssioned by the HSE itself brought this confusion to light, EU and HSE officials - unlike their US counterparts - have refused to alter their policy. It was in the 1950s that scientists including Professor Richard Doll, who first linked cancer with tobacco-smoking, discovered that "blue" and "brown" asbestos, with its sharp, metallic fibres of iron silicate, is a killer, causing a range of lung diseases and cancer. But by one of the most unfortunate sleights of hand in scientific history, this demonisation was extended to include "white" or chrysotile asbestos, magnesium silicate, just because it shares the same name. The silky fibres of white asbestos are used in a huge variety of products, from cement roofing slates and tiles to ironing boards and cookers. It also occurs naturally in the air, so that we each have an average two million asbestos particles in our lungs, adding 20,000 a day. Until the 1980s, legislation recognised the difference between the two asbestos types. But a report by Professor Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research, based on workers at a Rochdale textile factory, seemed to show that white asbestos was just as dangerous as the blue and brown variety. A series of Brussels directives lumped the two together. Since then this has driven UK policy and law, and official projections of the asbestos-related death rate, claiming 3,000 deaths a year, are based on figures from Peto and Doll. It is astonishing, however, that the HSE itself subsequently commissioned other studies, such as those by Dr Alan Gibbs and Professor F Pooley, which show that Peto misread the evidence, and that residues in the workers' lungs that he studied came from blue and brown asbestos. Further internal HSE studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from white asbestos is "virtually zero". Yet despite all this disproof, the HSE has not changed its policy. This is partly because it cannot defy EU law, and partly because there is now a very powerful lobby representing commercial and consultancy interests, which stand to make billions of pounds from surveys and from replacing white asbestos with products such as cellulose that may well pose a greater health risk. Already householders are being told that they cannot sell their properties unless they replace asbestos cement products at a cost of thousands of pounds. The one professional expert in Britain who has tried to shout about this is John Bridle, based in south Wales, now UK scientific spokesman for the Asbestos Cement Product Producers Association, which covers producers in 17 countries. Mr Bridle, who is anxious to advise any firm with an asbestos problem via jbridle@whiteasbestos.fsnet. co.uk, is particularly alarmed by the wildly unscientific claims made in the growing number of asbestos-related court cases, and even more the new regulations proposed by the HSE, which will require every non-domestic property owner to pay for expensive surveys and monitoring of their premises. This, the HSE estimates, will cost £8 billion, apart from the far greater cost of replacing asbestos ruled to be "dangerous". In the 1980s the US Environmental Protection Agency went down this same track until, in 1992, a senior US court dismissed evidence based on the Peto report, ruling that more people are likely to "die from inhalation of toothpicks than from white asbestos fibres". That is why, when 40 tonnes of white asbestos were released by the collapse of the World Trade Centre, the EPA advised that this posed no danger. In Britain we are still in thrall to one of the craziest health scares on record, and we are all about to pay the price: tens of billions of pounds.

Posted By Jack When I first saw this article in Beckys posting I thought it was the usual euro bent bananas stuff but having looked at the links posted in the second posting it is at least based in fact. I had not seen the paper by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton and I’ve still only seen the summary on the HSE site. However, it does seem the HSE is taking its findings seriously and appear to have taken it into account in deciding on their stance with regard to the European proposals. For example, they have listed their arguments as to why they felt the proposed standard should be the same for chrysotile (despite the findings of this paper) on their website and they do seem reasonable to me. On the article itself: It says the “HSE estimates, (surveying) will cost £8 billion”. I haven’t got the 2 CDs to hand but I think the first one estimated costs (of implementing the whole Regs – not just surveying) of just over £5B but with benefits of between £5B & £8B; ie a net benefit. The Second one estimated slightly lower costs but still over £5B with benefits much lower at about £3.5B ie a net cost. The HSE says the changes took account of responses to the first CD and does make reference to new information on risks. Was this change in costing made (at least partly) as a result of Hodgson and Darnton paper? If so I think HSE should have given it greater emphasis and been more open about it. It “also occurs naturally in the air” (Naturally?) His “just because it shares the same name” & “sleights of hand” points are almost touching! Has anyone read this paper? Is it true that “John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton in 2000, concluded that the risk from white asbestos is "virtually zero"”? Although I have no gripe with the proposed regulations I do feel HSE could have been a bit more open about this (or have they been and I missed it?). It will have implications for employers. For example, in a case of accidental exposure, if analysis shows it to be chrysotile it will be possible to offer greater reassurance (& create less anxiety) & it may have implications for civil cases. Perhaps you could pursue the HSE view on this and why it has not been widely publicised as part of your article for OHR Becky?

Posted By Jack Brian, this is from the “DRAFT UK NEGOTIATING LINE AND REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT” discussed by HSC in May 2001. HSE supports the proposal for a single limit and reducing it further. However, the current proposal to reduce the limit to 0.20 f/cm3 as an eight-hour time weighted average (TWA) is a relaxation of the current UK limit for amphibole (0.2 f/ml over any continuous period of four hours). The increased risks of mesothelioma from amphiboles justifies a further reduction in the proposal to a limit of 0.10 f/cm3. It could be argued that a lower limit should not apply for chrysotile in the light of a recent paper on the quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer from exposure to asbestos. However, a single limit of 0.10 f/cm3 is justified because: * although the research indicates that the risk of contracting an asbestos related disease from exposure to chrysotile is lower than indicated by previous research, there is still a significant risk; * amphiboles and chrysotile are classified as Class 1 carcinogens; * HSE believes the control limit is technically achievable; * in practice, the removal industry makes no real distinction between the types of asbestos; * chrysotile is often contaminated (unknowingly) by amphiboles. * an analysis of recent notifications confirms that over 80% of asbestos work notified to HSE is for single amphiboles or mixed asbestos, hence the lower limit will apply anyway; * the emphasis should be on reducing exposure to as low as reasonably practical; * a single control limit simplifies matters, making planning and implementing the controls easier.

Posted By Robert K Lewis The problem is that without looking at the full article in the Annals of Occ. Hygiene, I think it is, there is no sure way of knowing how accurate a picture is painted by the Telegraph. The HSE in there review on the web are almost dismissive of the research, as I read it, with the closing action comment of NONE. This whole business will continue to roll on with the opposing vested interests finding comfort where they can. The real problem is that almost anything can be a cause of cancer - it depends on so many things not just chemistry. The arguements for asbestos are also on fibre shape and sharpness. We all know that cotton dust is capable of causing cancer in the right exposures and the fibre shapes are very different as I understand. I would be interested to know if the projections of Doll and Peto for the last decade were accurate or not. Bob

Posted By David .J. Minnery I recently read that one of the producers of asbestos cement products , I think it was in Belgium , found that former employees were now suffering or had died from the effects of exposure to this supposedly "safe product" , literature pertaining to cementation asbestos states that is safe if left alone and intact , but if in poor or weathered condition , cutting/sawing , drilling or scraping off moss etc can be extremely dangerous and appropriate precautions taken . D.M.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Also look at the news notes for the site on my last e-mail with regard to the Simian virus in polio vaccine and Mesothelioma Bob

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear all, Doll & Peto's estimates were correct in part, they underestimated risk for those born before 1930 and were roughly correct for those born between 1930 and 1960. However, the current models have collapsed for those born after 1970. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Robert K Lewis Adrian Does that mean a gross over-estimate of the numbers by Doll and Peto? If so has there been any work to re-terate their calculations to produce a new number Bob

Posted By John Webster Never could a thread have been more timely! I had nearly finished reading the original posting when in through the door came two of our engineers "can you come and have a look at the room we are refurbishing, we have found some white stuff that looks like asbestos behind the radiators." The responses have helped me enormously in dealing with the problem, and in particular with dealing with the inevitable reactions which ranged from somewhere around "were all going to die" to "you must be off your *@&%ing head wasting all that money on ppe" etc. It is especially good to see an authoritative statement from IOSH. Thanks

Posted By Becky Allen Dear all, Just to update news on the white asbestos saga. Christopher Booker repeated his claims in the Sunday Telegraph on 27/01/01 (see below), and the HSE today issued a position statement on the subject. It'll be at www.hse.gov.uk attached to press release E010:02. Becky Allen Occupational Health Review Christopher Booker's Notebook (Filed: 27/01/2002) 'Unnecessary' asbestos bill will top £8bn TWO weeks ago I reported on an extraordinary crisis soon to be unleashed by new Health and Safety Executive regulations regarding asbestos. The proposed Control of Asbestos at Work regulations will, according to the HSE, cost £8 billion just for surveying and monitoring asbestos in all non-domestic properties, and the cost of replacing one of our commonest building materials could be many times that. Yet most of this cost is based on a scientific sleight of hand, which confuses two quite different chemicals. Some forms of asbestos, "blue" and "brown", iron silicates, are proven killers. But the commonest form, white asbestos or chrysotile, used in everything from roof tiles to ironing boards, is chemically indistinguishable from talcum powder. The key to the confusion, now reinforced by European Union legislation, rests essentially on a single scientific study carried out by Peto and Doll in 1985, which seemed to show that white asbestos was as dangerous as the other types. Yet subsequent studies, including one commissioned by the HSE itself from Prof Fred Pooley, found this research had misread the evidence. Findings supposedly based on white asbestos were based on the blue and brown forms. On the basis of this misunderstanding, official policy made a dramatic switch, and an immensely powerful lobby now stands to make billions from demonising white asbestos. This includes two multinational companies which dominate the market in asbestos substitutes; an army of specialist contractors and consultants licensed to survey and replace asbestos; and law firms which specialise in making compensation claims. In view of the interests at stake, and the emotion stirred up by this confusion, I expected my article a fortnight ago to meet with outrage. Two letters appeared last week: one from a former trade union safety officer and the other from a lady who sadly lost her husband to cancer. Neither answered the scientific papers cited in my article. More interesting was a letter from Timothy Walker, the HSE's director general. This also sidestepped my evidence that several scientists for his own organisation had raised fundamental doubts over the Peto findings. He pointed out that white asbestos is listed by the EU as a Category 1 carcinogen, which may sound sinister. However he omitted to mention that this list also includes oral contraceptives, alcoholic beverages, sawdust, furniture-making and nickel compounds (from which are made billions of euro coins). The fact that these are all classified with white asbestos is not used to justify a ban on beer-drinking, love-making or using the euro. Last week, therefore, I put to the HSE a series of questions. These ranged from how they could justify a policy based on a study now discredited by their own experts, to their response to the US Government's reversal of its earlier ban on white asbestos, after the same scientific evidence was rejected by the US courts. The woolliness of the HSE's replies was alarming. Apart from a careful admission that, "with the benefit of additional evidence which has accrued" since the Peto study, they now accept that his estimate of the risk from white asbestos was "too high", the general line was: "we do not believe that the hazards of chrysotile should be considered negligible". Yet, on this flimsy basis, the HSE now proposes the most expensive law ever imposed on the British people. The response to my article has highlighted just what this ludicrous exaggeration of the dangers of white asbestos is already leading to. A hospital in North Wales faces a bill for £40 million because surveyors have ordered it to strip out all asbestos. A school is told it must pay £100,000 because two asbestos panels are torn, when these could be safely replaced for less than £100. Yet the HSE cannot change its line because it is now locked into a policy laid down by EU directives which, it turns out, were themselves based on that same discredited study. This is madness. A truly independent inquiry should be set up to review all the scientific evidence, before this country commits itself to a law which it has been estimated could cost anything up to £80 billion, to achieve almost no useful purpose whatever.

Posted By Mark Preston I wonder if it would help to approach the Booker articles in a slightly different way - rather than a head on criticism of the science look at the logical consequences: (ignoring the shed-load of logical fallacies in Booker's argument) If we accept that some asbestos types are substantially more dangerous than another asbestos type, and we wish to treat the higher risk type with a higher level of control than the lower risk type; and we know that we have a lot of materials in buildings that may contain any or all of these types - how are we to establish which materials are high risk unless we survey (which is what the new law will require)? To put it another way - the results of the survey that will be required by the new CAW Regs may also find that this panel is plywood, and that wall is plaster board - has the survey been unnecessary? I also worry that we will meet an increase in (usually hopelessly misinformed) "I thought it was the safe kind of asbestos, Guv", which I still meet too frequently in the building maintenance industry. And finally - at the risk of incurring the ire of our moderators - I'll observe that no one in this thread so far appears to have made the link - which I have absolutely no doubt is utterly specious… Booker is employed by the Sunday Telegraph, which is owned by Conrad Black, who is a famously right wing free-trade advocate from Canada, which is the most vociferous proponent of the continued trade in Chrysotile at the WTO. QED

Posted By Paul Clarke-Scholes MIOSH Fascinating debate everyone. Speaking as an experienced surveyor, you might like to know that there is a clear ranking of materials in the industry with asbestos cement toward the lower end. All the UKAS accredited companies use a score system of some sort, all of which turn out broadly similar recommendations ranging from "do nothing" with a cement bike shed to "remove the material immediately" for damaged pipe insulation. As demolition firms know (and it explains why most are licenced asbestos removal contractors as well), asbestos is found in almost every building built before 1990-ish. And as HSE know (and I can testify from experience) many employers and landlords simply do not know what sort of (if any) asbestos problem they may have. What we have then is another example (like Coshh and almost every other regulation since) of a form of risk management that everybody should already be doing to comply with HASAWA s2 but that since only the best and biggest can see the cost benefits of doing it without being told we have to have regs to make us. The debate is therefore somewhat acedemic as Mark Preston points out. Bookers arguments are defunct as there is already an appropriate system for ranking risk and Chrysotile is in the right place. The costs he quote will be spent anyway dealing with the problem whether as a result of legislation or as a consequence of the passage of time - these materials have already been installed. Now, if he wanted to argue that the use of Chrysotile in the future should be allowed (the Canadian connection) then he might have a point. We've seen substitution go wrong in the past, 1-1-1 Trichloroethane being the best example that springs to mind, and even HSE say leave good condition asbestos materials in place. Can we not control and manage risk arising from the use of hazardous substances? No, probably not.

Posted By Geoff Burt Jay 'Surely, no-one doubts the effects of exposure to asbestos dust/fibres !!' I'm sure no one does but it depends on the exposure levels and length of exposure. The point being made (at least my interpretation of it) is does the extent of exposure in these premises warrant the OTT approach and the spending of billions of £s? As an apprentice joiner in the 60s I use to regularly cut, file and sand sheets of asbestos - we didn't know any different and subsequently the direct ill health effects to people manufacturing and working with asbestos are now well known - we can even 'forecast' the number of deaths in 2010 but these people have already been grossly exposed. Does the level of exposure in a 60/70s built building pose the same risks - you tell me? More than 10 people a day are killed on our roads, many many more are injured. In a practical world we would put the resources where they are most needed. Geoff