A lot has been written about the hazardous nature of asbestos fibre and its use. In fact in most  of the western countries asbestos is aTaboo word.

The 1993 second edition of the World Health Organization’s Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality has recently been published and ,once again WHO affirms that asbestos in water is not a hazard to health. After years of study, WHO clearly states its position on this issue: There is therefore no consistent evidence that ingested asbestos is hazardous to health and this it was concluded that there was no need to establish a health based guideline value for asbestos in drinking water. Further this respected international body , in its revised guidelines , identifies asbestos among a short list three chemicals that are not of health significance at concentrations normally found in drinking water. This latest pronouncement by WHO is consistent with the conclusions of other authorities and should remove any remaining doubts about asbestos in water presenting a potential hazard to health. For example, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency has stated as follows: Asbestos is not classified as carcinogen in the regulations because EPA has determined it is carcinogenic only when inhalted, not ingested. (EPA News release dated January 7,1991 on Drinking Water Contaminants Rule)

EPA does not believe that installed A/C pipe should be replaced or that its use should be discontinued.(U.S.Fedral Register dated July 12,1989, page 29497)

" The Following chemical present no significant risk of cancer by the root of injestion : ASBESTOS ... " ( CA Safe Drinking Water and toxic enforcement act of 1986 (proposition 65) The Use of asbestos cement pipe " Has not been demonstrated to be a health threat." And, " California water works standards allow for the use of Asbestos cement pipes. The health effects associated with asbestos have been the result of inhalation of fibres" (CA department of health services letter dtd : february 25th. 1988)

Texas - " This department is not aware of any increased health risk related to the use of this product (A.C. Pipe) and routinely approves engineering submittals calling for A.C. Pipe. (Texas department of health letter dt: March 21, 1988)

The world health organisation says : This respected and prestigious international organisation remains firm in its finding , after years of study, that there is no health hazard associated with waterborne asbestos exposure.

The latest pronouncements by WHO are included in the 1993 second edition of the organization’s Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. WHO’s position is clearly stated as follows:

“There is therefore no consistent evidence that ingested asbestos is hazardous to health, and thus it was concluded that there was no need to establish a health-based guideline value for asbestos in drinking water.”

“It is unnecessary to recommended a health-based guideline value for these compounds (asbestos,silver and tin) because they are not hazardous to human health at concentrations normally found in drinking water”

October 21,1991 - In a landmark ruling, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overtuned the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)1989 ruling that would have banned nearly all uses of asbestos in the U.S.by 1996. In a comprehensive 57-page opinion written by Judge Jerry E.Smith,the Court concluded that the “EPA failed to muster substantial evidence to support its rule.”

EPA HEARINGS FALL SHORT The Court found EPA’s support for a ban under the Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) deficient in several major ways.

In addition, the Court chastised the EPA for not evaluating “the harm that will result from the increased use of substitute products.” In particular , the Court noted that the EPA had failed to study the effect of non-asbestos brake linings. Recent evidence shows that these products are both unsafe and constitute health risks greater than those of asbestos.

Another area in which the Court admonished the EPA was in its refusal to consider the “cost side of the TSCA equation,”to meet the statutory requirement to “balance the costs of its regulation against their benefits. “ The court noted that “EPA’s willingness to argue for spending $23.7 million to save less than one-third of a life reveals of its regulations...was meaningless.” With respect to the ruling noted that these risks are overshadowed by the actual occurrence of one death each year”from ingested tooth-picks.”

Industry reaction to the ruling has been understandably positive. Jean Dupere,President of LAB Chrysotile, the largest asbestos producer in Canada,stated that “The ruling gives just recognition to the tremendous efforts of our governments,industry and labour in prompting the safe use of chrysotile.”

For its part ,The Asbestos Institute is extremely satisfied with the ruling. The decision of the court of Appeals... clearly indicates that controlled use and not a comprehensive product ban ,is the most appropriate approach to the regulation of potentially hazardous materials,”stated Michael Gratton.