Chaffee Crossing is a small town in Arkansas that is the site of an old U.S. army base recently swept by fire.  The destruction ranged over one hundred acres and destroyed 150 buildings.  There were no human casualties in the fire, but the buildings destroyed were almost certainly sites where asbestos insulation, plumbing fittings and other asbestos-laden materials were used for construction.

The Federal Emergency Management Administration has denied Chafee Crossing federal disaster area status, regardless of the asbestos concerns.  With this development, the area has been denied access to federal funds that would largely finance the cleanup operations, including those of asbestos abatement, which have been estimated at $4.6 million. Local officials say that if the town were forced to foot the bill it would handcuff the local economy for several years.

Part of what is blocking the funding are EPA test performed after the fire which indicated that the asbestos levels were low enough that the site did not qualify for the EPA’s Superfund, which levies fees upon polluters that are redirected back into environmental quality improvements. However, tests performed by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality found asbestos contamination in some areas to be much higher than EPA estimates, potentially endangering citizens in the surrounding area.

Also thwarting the area’s access to federal funds are the target goals of the cleanup. Most of the FEMA funds are reserved for cleanup in addition to rebuilding efforts. Rebuilding is not part of the town’s intentions, as nearly all the buildings destroyed were abandoned several years ago. However, due to their age, nearly all of these structures contained at least some asbestos in their building compounds or other materials.  Another example of some remarkably convoluted circular reasoning from FEMA.

Asbestos is the only known catalyst for the lethal cancer mesothelioma.  Asbestos and asbestos products have largely disappeared from the market, but it has not disappeared from millions of American homes.  The EPA treats asbestos products as an ongoing problem because removing many of them can cause exposure to deadly asbestos fibers as older asbestos products break and crumble.

The agency notes that homes built up to 1977 may have asbestos products in them.  Their list of potential sites:

• Some roofing and siding shingles are made of asbestos cement.
• Houses built between 1930 and 1950 may have asbestos as insulation.
• Asbestos may be present in textured paint and in patching compounds used on wall and ceiling joints. Their use was banned in 1977.
• Artificial ashes and embers sold for use in gas-fired fireplaces may contain asbestos.
• Older products such as stove-top pads may have some asbestos compounds.
• Walls and floors around wood burning stoves may be protected with asbestos paper, millboard, or cement sheets.
• Asbestos is found in some vinyl floor tiles and the backing on vinyl sheet flooring and adhesives.
• Hot water and steam pipes in older houses may be coated with an asbestos material or covered with an asbestos blanket or tape.
• Oil and coal furnaces and door gaskets may have asbestos insulation.

Ironically, the EPA feels that asbestos removal from the home may be the most dangerous option, simply because disturbing it may cause dust carrying asbestos fibers.  To see the full list of their recommendations on checking and treating your home for asbestos, visit;

http://www.epa.gov/

A case now underway in Britain’s High Court may change fundamental liability rules with regard to asbestos exposure.  The question before the court is whether liability for asbestos-related diseases commences from the time the victim is exposed to asbestos, or when an asbestos-related disease manifests itself.

The lethal asbestos-caused cancer mesothelioma may not be diagnosed for up to forty years after asbestos exposure.  It is an unusual disease with an extraordinary period of latency.  Once a patient is diagnosed, the survival period is usually twelve to eighteen months.

Companies who mined asbestos or manufactured asbestos products have been paying disease-related liability claims for years.  In February of 2006 however, they suspended payments while noting an appeals court ruling which had held that the point of liability was when malignancy manifested itself.  Medical research has set that point at some ten years prior to the appearance of symptoms.

In one of the test cases, the family of Charles O’Farrell, who died from mesothelioma in 2003, won a court judgment for £152,000 in compensation. But insurer Excess, which insured his now-defunct employer, Humphreys & Glasgow, when he was employed there as a steelworker in the 1960s, has refused to pay up.

The insurers say his injury occurred not when he was exposed to asbestos in the 60s, but when the cells in the lining of the lung began to turn malignant. Medical evidence is that this happens roughly 10 years before symptoms appear. At that point the company was no longer trading and was not covered by insurance.  While the insurance company is alive and well today, it is refusing to recognize liability.

A European drug company named MolMed has had good initial success with a medication called Arenegyr which is designed to attack malignant tumors brought on by mesothelioma.  As a result, European medical authorities have granted the drug “orphan status” in order to speed its development.  European Orphan Drug designation is granted to therapeutics intended for treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating diseases affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people. The Orphan Drug designation confers several benefits to drug development, including the possibility to reduce time to reach the market.

According to MolMed’s CEO, “The analysis of preliminary study results …conducted on 41 patients, already gave evidence of substantial clinical benefits in terms of long-lasting disease control and promising survivals in chemo-pretreated mesothelioma patients. In particular, it shows improved overall survival, and nearly doubled progression-free survival with respect to best supportive care data reported in literature.”

The drug itself is not just being tested with mesothelioma patients; it is also in Phase II trials with small-cell lung cancer and colo-rectal cancer.   Arenrgyr acts to restrict the flow of blood to the tumor.  It also carries a “cytokine” agent designed to disrupt the interaction of tumor cells and thus restrict growth.

MolMed is in development with two other products that feature novel approaches to fighting cancer.  One is designed to work in conjunction with a bone marrow transplant for leukemia patients.  The other is an anti-tumor product focused on melanoma.  The company is based in Milan, Italy.

A group of doctors based in London have released the results of a study conducted to analyze the value of chemotherapy for patients with mesothelioma.  Specifically Richard Stephens and Professor Mahesh Parmar, Medical Research Council, Clinical Trials Unit, London, United Kingdom conducted the Cancer Research UK-funded, randomized trial involving 409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma from 76 medical centers in the United Kingdom and 2 in Australia.

The patients were divided into three groups: one group received “active symptom control” and no other treatment.  The other two groups underwent two forms of chemotherapy plus the active symptom control.  At the end of one year, 29% of the patients receiving no chemotherapy were alive.  One of the chemotherapy groups had 32% of its members still surviving, while the other had 37% of its members still alive.

Analysis of the quality of life in each of the groups, including physical functioning, pain, shortness of breath, and overall health status, were similar.  The physicians concluded that there was little statistical evidence of improved survival rates when comparing patients who had no chemotherapy to those who had received the two particular types of chemotherapy applied in the study.

When the analysis was completed sometime after the one-year mark, When the analysis was performed, 393 (96%) of the patients had died. 132 of these came from the ASC only group, 132 came from one chemotherapy  group, and 129 came from the other.

Construction workers and next of kin of deceased workers filed a lawsuit in Tokyo, Japan seeking damages of approximately 6.6 billion yen (about US $444 million) from the government and manufacturers related to illnesses stemming from exposure to asbestos. 178 plaintiffs including construction workers and family members filed the suit against 46 building manufacturers and the Government of Japan.

According to the Mainichi Daily News, the class action suit is the first that has been filed in Japan related to health damages caused by asbestos exposure at construction sites.

The government and manufacturers knew of the dangers of asbestos inhalation but failed to take proper precautions, according to the plaintiffs. Negligence included failing to cease promoting asbestos as a cheap fire retardant and failure to ban production of the material.

Plaintiffs have also scattered responsibility among a number of government agencies, including the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for sanctioning the use of asbestos under Japanese Industrial Standards, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for approving the use of materials comprised of asbestos and other substances under Japan’s Building Standards Law.

As evidence the filing states that after inhaling asbestos in the workplace, 172 people have developed lung cancer or mesothelioma, and that almost half of those afflicted are now dead. The argument continues stating that the government and health ministry did not act quickly enough after international organizations issued warnings in 1972 that asbestos could be a carcinogen.

Another lawsuit is expected in Yokohama shortly, to be filed by 40 construction workers.  It will be interesting to watch this process unfold; the Japanese government and large Japanese corporations are interlinked in ways that make the relationship between Congress and the Washington DC lobbyists look like a casual acquaintance.

Everyone, including the EPA, knows that dust from asbestos based products is going to contain asbestos fibers.  The procedures that the EPA has laid out for brake jobs in this asbestos-averse era are remarkable.   If you work or have worked in a brake shop you should check them out at the link below.

Briefly, the EPA says that asbestos control measures for brake repair are mandatory and that one of two methods should be used.  The first is similar to those lab photos you’ve seen of technicians handling sensitive material that is enclosed in a container and has gloves mounted so hands on the exterior can reach in and manipulate what’s inside.  Part of the EPA description:

[A] Negative Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method

(1) The brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations shall be enclosed to cover and contain the clutch or brake assembly and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the worker’s breathing zone.

(2) The enclosure shall be sealed tightly and thoroughly inspected for leaks before work begins on brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly.

(3) The enclosure shall be such that the worker can clearly see the operation and shall provide impermeable sleeves through which the worker can handle the brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair and assembly. The integrity of the sleeves and ports shall be examined before work begins.

The other method utilizes a liquid bath on the brake assembly so that no dust is released.
Once again, part of the EPA’s standard:

[B] Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method

(1) A catch basin shall be placed under the brake assembly, positioned to avoid splashes and spills.

(2) The reservoir shall contain water containing an organic solvent or wetting agent. The flow of liquid shall be controlled such that the brake assembly is gently flooded to prevent the asbestos-containing brake dust from becoming airborne.

(3) The aqueous solution shall be allowed to flow between the brake drum and brake support before the drum is removed.

(4) After removing the brake drum, the wheel hub and back of the brake assembly shall be thoroughly wetted to suppress dust.

(5) The brake support plate, brake shoes and brake components used to attach the brake shoes shall be thoroughly washed before removing the old shoes.

When the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy released its first Trial Lawyers, Inc. report, in 2003, we called asbestos litigation the longest-running mass tort in U.S. history and arguably the most unjust. Even as the incidence of new cases of the serious lung cancers caused by asbestos remained constant for mesothelioma, at 2,000 to 4,000 per year new asbestos claims exploded, nearing 100,000 in 2001.

Trial Lawyers Inc. Asbestos: A Report on the Asbestos Litigation Industry, 2008

Source: Docuticker

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.

Original Article

The Firefighting Authority is putting into place new safety measures for handling asbestos fires, which may pose firefighters their greatest health risk. Yesterday’s fire in Keshet gave firefighters their first opportunity to try out new regulations. The firefighters used protective equipment and washed themselves afterward to minimize their exposure to asbestos.

Firefighters around the world have a life expectancy that is 10 years shorter than average, probably due to exposure to smoke, toxins and asbestos, Israel Fire Commissioner Shimon Romach said yesterday. The new regulations were drafted by Yitzhak Shalev, whom the Firefighting Authority appointed national asbestos officer two years ago.

There have been more than 100 asbestos fires this year, more than a third of them at illegal garbage dumps, said Shalev. Even more may have gone unreported. Furthermore, there are millions of square meters of asbestos in buildings and garbage dumps around the country, he said. Asbestos is a carcinogen, and exposure, even to only a few fibers, can cause several kinds of cancer and a fatal lung disease. The exposure is sometimes only discovered decades later.

Fires make asbestos slabs crumble and release their dust into the air, from where it enters the respiratory system. Special gear can protect against this. Until recently, there had been no regulations on handling asbestos fires, and firefighters were frequently unaware that a danger even existed.

Shalev said he was appointed to tackle the issue after warning Romach of the problem two years ago. He drafted a method to deal with asbestos fires, including using protective gear and coordinating with various bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Ministry, to remove the asbestos once the fire is out.

Five years ago, a Labor and Welfare Ministry study on firefighters found higher-than-average rates of breathing and hearing problems. “We didn’t check life expectancy nor exposure to specific substances,” said Dr. Yehudit Shaham, who conducted the study. Dr. Avi Wiener, director of the Institute of Preventive Occupational Medicine at the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, also cited studies showing that firefighters’ life expectancy is shorter than average. “One of the assumptions is that this is due to exposure to toxins…”