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

The facts speaks quiet contrary.  

• ASBESTOS IN WATER AGAIN AFFIRMED BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION AS NOT BE A HEALTH HAZARD. 
  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 inhaled, 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) 
   
• US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SAYS  " ASBESTOS IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS CARCINOGEN IN THE REGULATIONS BECAUSE EPA HAS DETERMINED IT IS CARCINOGENIC ONLY WHEN INHALED, NOT INGESTED." (EPA News released dtd: January 7th. 1991 on drinking water contaminants rule.)

            "EPA does not believe that installed A.C. pressure pipes should be  replaced or its used should be discontinued." (US federal register July 22nd. 1989 page  29497). 

• State health department says :

California -   
" The Following chemical present no significant risk of cancer by the root of ingestion : 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 fibers"  
(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” 
 

• A/C Pipe Makes a Resurgence in the U.S.

• In addition,the Bureau of Reclamation,a long-time user of A/C pipe and a U.S.Government agency has revoked its moratorium on its material specifications list. The Bureau explained that changes in technology and controlling regulations have made it possible to work safely with A/C pipe and have minimized the environmental concerns once thought to be presented by its use.  Prior to the EPA’s ban,A/C pipe’s technical and cost advantages resulted in more 500,000 km’s being installed throughout the U.S.. Although the process of rebuilding the A/C/ pipe market will be a lengthy one , these latest developments are an encouraging sign for the industry.  
    
• U.S.COURT OF APPEALS STRIKES DOWN ASBESTOS BAN
  

  PANEL OF JUDGES REJECTS THE EPA’S PHASE OUT OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS  

  October 21,1991 - In a landmark ruling, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over tuned 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.  

  The EPA failed “to explore in more than a cursory way the less burdensome alternatives to total ban.” More specially it virtually ignored the feasibility of a controlled use approach.  

  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.”  
   

  Speaking on behalf of Quebec workers,Clement Good bout , Secretary of the Quebec Federation of Labour,called the ruling a step in the right direction. “We have always maintained that banning is not a solution to the problem of hazardous substances . Any product can pose a danger if it is not properly controlled.”  

  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.  
   

• SPECIAL REPORTS     ASBESTOS IN BUILDINGS

• HEI-AR Report “There does not appear to be sufficient justification on grounds of risk to the health of general occupants for arbitrarily removing intact asbestos-containing material (ACM)from well maintained buildings,”concluded a report released this September 25 in Washington by the Health Effects .Institute’s Literature Review Panel.According to the study,asbestos containing material within buildings in good repair is unlikely to expose office workers and other general building occupants to airborne asbestos fiber concentrations above the levels found in air outside such buildings.
  The report found that the added life-time risk of cancer from asbestos exposure was substantially lower than that from other substances, which are regularly encountered in buildings, such as radon or environmental tobacco smoke (see Comparative Risk Estimates Table). Only those whose work involves regularly handling asbestos materials need to take precautionary measures. The panel goes on to say that removing ACM can cause generalized increases in airborne fiber levels and thus increased health risks.