Asbestos was a popular ingredient in hundreds of home construction products through about 1975, when asbestos was identified as the source of mesothelioma and other respiratory afflictions.  The use of asbestos in construction materials has been almost entirely phased out, but millions of homes in this country still contain materials that have asbestos as a component.

Examples include asphalt and vinyl floor tiles, sheet vinyl flooring , adhesives for securing and masking, acoustic ceiling texture, heat duct insulation, asphalt composition roofing materials, plaster, stucco, drywall and joint compound.  That’s a partial list and there are many brand names and product variations to consider as well.

Many if not most home inspection contracts will exclude the disclosure of asbestos products.  The purpose is simple: these companies do not want their inspectors and the company exposed to liability over asbestos products.  There are so many common building materials that might contain asbestos that an inspector could easily list most and miss a few, leaving the client in the position of buying a contaminated home.

There are certainly many inspectors that will point out the potential of roof tiles or flooring for asbestos content on an informal basis.  It is also important to note that the presence of asbestos per se is not an immediate health threat.

Asbestos products that have been long installed will not give off dust containing the lethal asbestos fibers unless the material is disturbed.  But if you are considering a remodel on your home and it dates back a few decades, check on asbestos content before you begin and hire a licensed asbestos removal firm if you intend to remove anything that might be a problem.

A New Jersey panel of Superior Court judges has ruled that a lawsuit concerning overseas exposure to U.S. asbestos products is valid.  The action was filed by Spanish workers who were exposed to asbestos while working on U.S. Navy ships in Spanish ports.

The panel’s action overturned a previous ruling and will allow the suit to proceed.  According to trade publication Insurance Journal the action is a products liability case filed in New Jersey against, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, which manufactured the insulation in factories located in Sayreville and Berlin, New Jersey.

The plaintiffs are sixteen Spanish shipyard workers who claim that they contracted asbestosis while working on Navy vessels in Cadiz and Rota Spain, where they had put in for repair.  The workers were employed on these jobs between 1950 and 1998.  Attorneys for Owens-Illinois argued that the case should be heard in Spain.

However the judge’s panel ruled that a U.S. court was appropriate because American law holds that Navy ships are U.S. territory no matter where they are docked.   Because of that long-held position, this case belongs in a United States court.  The advantages are clear, since the issue of asbestos toxicity and the responsibility of corporate entities that manufactured and used asbestos has been well established in the U.S.

It’s likely that if this ruling holds up, the Spanish workers will have a good case.  Over thirty percent of U.S. mesothelioma and asbestosis sufferers are veterans – most of them Navy veterans who worked on a ship or in a shipyard with Navy vessels.

One of the more interesting recent tales about asbestos and community health has been the events that followed discovery of a mesothelioma “hot spot” in the little town of Libby, Montana.

Libby became a mining town when commercial mines opened up to dig vermiculite from the surrounding hills.  These mines became steady employment for many of Libby’s residents.  They also became a source of asbestos fibers because asbestos is a component of vermiculite.  The mines are owned by corporate giant W.R. Grace, the company that has become a target of lawsuits filed against the company by Libby residents who have developed asbestosis, mesothelioma and other respiratory damage.

A couple of facts make this story different from the many thousands of liability suits filed against asbestos companies.  The first is that seven corporate officials of W.R. Grace face criminal charges because the company knew from some point in the early 1970s that mining activities were hazardous to their employees.

The other interesting nugget is a peer-reviewed government study in which 7,300 people from Libby and surrounding Lincoln County were given chest X-rays and medical interviews. The study found more than 1,300 of those tested had lung abnormalities consistent with asbestos-related disease.

Currently, about 3,000 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the U.S.  The huge number of affected individuals in that study makes it clear that asbestos fibers can do their damage in the home as well as in the mine.  The study was a cross-section of local residents – male, female, and of varying ages.  Clearly, asbestos fibers carried home on job clothes and borne through the air by dust clouds has impacted the households that Libby’s miners were supporting.

Residents of an apartment complex in Colorado Springs have found themselves victims of asbestos pollution as the result of an arson fire at Castle West Apartments.  The Colorado Springs Gazette reports that a lawsuit representing fifty three former residents has been filed against the owners of the complex.  The suit alleges many violations of health and safety codes: one of those alleged violations is failure to advise potential tenants that the building contained asbestos, prior to signing of lease agreements.

The complaint about asbestos is based on the substantial financial impact on residents caused by the fire and the asbestos fibers spread by the smoke and efforts by firefighters to extinguish the blaze.  The building’s owner has brought in specialists to clean smoke and water damaged property and returned those items that could be restored to their owners.

What many former Castle West tenants have found, however, is that much of their property could not be decontaminated with regard to asbestos.  The porous surfaces of upholstered furniture, drapery, clothing and linens would not yield the asbestos fibers that had attached themselves.  Furniture, clothing and other household items that otherwise appeared normal had to be disposed of because they had asbestos fibers “woven” into fabrics and surface coverings.

The Canadian Labor Congress is calling for a ban of all asbestos mining in Canada, even though a recent study on the cancer risks of asbestos has not yet been released. Seven scientific and medical experts, hired by Health Canada, submitted their report examining the link between asbestos and cancer in March. However, the report has yet to be released.

“Nothing in the report would argue against the sensibility of an asbestos ban in Canada,” Leslie Stayner, one of the report’s authors, told the Canadian Broadcast Corporation.  It’s remarkable that Canadian officials would find a study on the ‘cancer risks’ of asbestos necessary in light of the flood of mesothelioma and asbestosis studies all over the world – and the plight of thousands of victims.

According to Canadian human resources trade publication, last weekend the labor organization passed a resolution on behalf of its members calling for an end to asbestos production, as well as financial support for roughly 700 miners who would be affected by an industry shutdown.

Canada’s only two asbestos mines are located in Quebec. The province has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma, a cancer connected with asbestos exposure, in the world. While asbestos has been banned in nearly every developed country and several developing nations, Canada still produces and exports asbestos to countries such as India, Indonesia and Pakistan for use in construction material.

A recent study in British Columbia showed a rise in mesothelioma cases among former construction workers who used asbestos for insulation and also showed the disease beginning to spike in the province.  Apparently Canada has protected its populace from new asbestos products but is currently allowing shipment of the material to countries with less protection for their workers.