In the United States, asbestos became popular in the early 1900s and its use peaked during WWII into the 1970s. While use of asbestos is not banned by legislation, it is not commonly used by American manufacturers anymore due to health concerns and liability issues. However, there is a strong international market, so imported materials may contain asbestos.
During the late 1960s, evidence emerged indicating that asbestos fibers were a dangerous health risk and by the 1970’s, the federal government began to take action. During the 1980’s, the concern regarding asbestos resulted in the new industry of asbestos abatement (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2006, 2007).
Esteemed US medical journals such as JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine published studies detailing disease rates among asbestos workers begin- ning in the 1930s (Lerman 1992). A recent search for articles on MEDLINE and other health databases revealed thousands of published reports using only the two key term “asbestos” and “mesothelioma,” which limited the search significantly.
It is likely that thousands of other asbestos-related health articles were published in the past 70 years. Clearly there is a time lag between medical evidence of asbestos- related health risk and government acknowledgement of it. The above statement from the DNR suggests that the regulations passed in the 1970s represented a timely reaction to new findings.
asbestos mine founded in 1894 in Sall Mountain, Georgia. The last operational chrysotile asbestos mine in eastern United States, the Lowell quarry in Vermont, closed in 1993 (Van Gosen 2005).
Some miners of fibrous talc are also exposed to asbestos or asbestos-like dust, leading to lung ailments similar to those seen in asbestos miners. Officials from companies that produce products from talc argued that the mineral fibers found in talc have different properties and thus should not be labeled as asbes- tos. The first fibrous talc mine in the US was opened in 1878 in upstate New York and by the end of World War II, several talc mines and mills were in operation in that area. Industry records indicated that the mine and mill owners were aware that talc contained asbestos, yet withheld the information from workers. Miners were not provided information about health risks associated with talc mining or asbestos mining more directly (Schneider 2001b; Schneider
& McCumber 2004). Recently the fibrous talc industry has been the subject of litigation regarding workers’ health or product toxicity (e.g., putty for wall patching). As recently as May 2007, however, industry officials denied that the mined talc contained asbestos, saying the tremolite mineral in the talc is nonasbestiform.
This has been disputed, however, by environmental scientists (Webber et al. 2006;
Webber et al. 2004).
Amphibole asbestos has also been found in some vermiculite mines (Meeker et al. 2003). Vermiculite is an ore similar to mica used in products such as housing insulation, fertilizers, and cement mix. Major commercial mines for vermiculite are in Australia, Brazil, China, Kenya, South Africa, USA and Zimbabwe. In the US, Libby, Montana, was the site of the world’s largest vermiculite mine; it shipped vermiculite for processing to over 60 plants in the US and Canada, and the mine supplied over 80% of the world’s demand during the middle of the twentieth cen- tury (Vollers & Barnett 2000; Schneider & McCumber 2004). The vermiculite at this particular site was laced with deadly amphibole fibers. The Libby mine, which was in operation from 1924 through 1990, now is designated as an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site. Estimates ranging from 18% to 25% of Libby residents showed signs of lung scarring related to asbestos exposure. This is in comparison to 50% of Libby’s mineworkers who reportedly had lung scarring or more advanced asbestosis. Once environmental contamination was identified, Libby qualified for the site designation. Libby currently is on the final national priorities list in the “active” stage of cleanup (Environmental Protection Agency 2008).
Similarly, Virginia Vermiculite operated a mine in Louisa, Virginia. The Mine Safety and Health Administration tested the site and found both tremolite and acti- nolite asbestos fibers. As a result, the company offered free health screenings for workers to test for asbestos-related diseases (Schneider 2000). The mine is still in operation but has safety standards for asbestos handling in place.
It is surprising that in the latter part of the twentieth century, that mines such as W.R. Grace & Co. could operate without effective risk management practices, given the history of asbestosis disease noted above. Mining operations of talc and vermiculite continue to exist in the US and elsewhere, although generally with
stronger worker safety guidelines and better site management to prevent environ- mental contamination and protect employees (more thorough discussion of the US government’s response to asbestos is in a later section of this report).
Asbestos in Non-mining Workplaces
Workers who process asbestos from mines, work directly with products containing asbestos, or manufacture products made from asbestos are at risk for serious health problems similar to those experienced by asbestos miners. Each year, over a million Americans are employed either in shipyards, construction (renovation, asbestos abatement, construction), general manufacturing (textiles, friction and insulation products), or the automotive industry (brake or clutch repair), and are consequently at elevated risk for asbestos exposure (White 2004). These are the employment categories currently protected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, under the US Department of Labor) and the EPA in regard to asbestos.2 Firefighters, electricians, and plumbers also are at risk of asbestos exposure.
Additionally, small appliance repair workers who accept older models of coffee pots, popcorn poppers, hair dryers, crock-pots, and portable heaters, for example, also are at risk of asbestos exposure. Factory workers who produced cigarette filters using crocidolite form of asbestos in various plants in the US, including Kentucky and Massachusetts, were exposed to high levels of asbestos, as well (Talcott et al.
1989). Overall, an estimated 27 to 100 million Americans have been exposed to asbestos (White 2004).
Because vermiculite was not previously considered asbestiform, vermiculite mines and manufacturers continued to process it without regulations. Some ver- miculite mines and processing plants in the US, however, had conducted their own testing, which revealed high concentrations of amphibole fibers. Plant officials were aware of asbestos’ deleterious effects on health, well documented since the 1930s, yet they did not warn employees about the asbestos test results related to vermiculite. Because of the lag in mines and manufacturers revealing information about unsafe levels of asbestos exposure, it is believed that millions of American workers may have been unknowingly exposed to asbestos through a variety of processes, e.g., factories where vermiculite was processed, gardens/lawns where vermiculite was applied, and attics where vermiculite was used for insulation.
For these reasons, asbestos litigation has become the longest-running mass tort litigation in the US (White 2004). In 1978 the EPA and OSHA began to regulate asbestos, and strict guidelines were created to protect workers from inhaling asbes- tos fibers, yet vermiculite processors did not enact these protections, as they did not reveal their internal asbestos test results.
2 See: Occupational Safety and Health Administration website: http://www.osha.gov/
In a 1991 report published in the American Journal of Public Health, Lilienfeld argued a more conspiratorial plan was in place: “This industry (asbestos), in concert with many of its insurers, systematically developed and then suppressed informa- tion on the carcinogenicity of asbestos. As a result, millions of workers were exposed to the carcinogen and hundreds of thousands died” (Lilienfeld 1991, p.
791). Lilienfeld presents evidence showing that as early as 1933, physicians warned that American workers should be made aware of the serious health consequences of asbestos exposure. Industry officials believed that economics and production factors should be weighed equally with medical information, so workers were not warned (Lilienfeld 1991, p. 792).
W.R. Grace & Company, which operated the Libby, Montana, vermiculite mine from 1963 until it closed in 1990, also had a processing mill in the same town and vermiculite processing plants throughout North America. Government records indi- cate that the Grace Company sent its vermiculite to over 200 processing and pack- aging plants throughout North America from Seattle to New Jersey. The types of products produced at these plants primarily were lawn and garden products and insulation. In 2005, the US government estimated that up to 35 million homes or businesses contained these products and the workers and residents could be at high risk for contracting asbestos-related illnesses (Bowker 2003). More were affected due to Grace & Company’s community relations activities. The company encour- aged employees to take mill waste home to use in their gardens. Some of the pro- cessed vermiculite or mill waste was donated to schools for construction use or for playground soil, for example (Bowker 2003, p.195). Because of the widespread distribution of Grace’s products, it is not known how many people were exposed to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.
The Libby, Montana, mine town serves as an exemplar case; studies indicate that even residents who were not directly exposed to asbestos through work or indirectly exposed through contact with workers, had unusually high rates of asbestos-related illnesses and disease compared to overall population rates.
Asbestos fibers were found in Libby residents’ homes, even if a mineworker did not live there (Bowker 2003).
Inadvertently Encountered Asbestos
As a naturally occurring mineral in many parts of the US, asbestos exposures can be created when veins are disrupted by man-made or natural activities (Van Gosen 2005). Recently, construction projects that have disturbed such bedrock, e.g., north- ern California and suburban Virginia, have concerned public health officials regard- ing the safety of construction workers and residents.
An EPA study was conducted in 2004 in El Dorado County, California, in a densely populated area east of Sacramento. The EPA found that typical activi- ties such as bike riding, playing baseball, and using playground equipment, disturbed the soil and caused high levels of asbestos fibers to be released in the air.
The Sacramento Bee published a series of articles beginning in October 2004 concerning the asbestos levels, and since then residents have expressed concern about the safety of their community.
Of even greater concern to residents was a recently published epidemiology report. A study by University of California-Davis researchers (Pan et al. 2005) examined the California Cancer Registry and found unusually high rates of meso- thelioma cancer, a rare form of cancer associated with asbestos exposure, among those who lived near ultramafic bedrock (which contained the asbestos), compared to normal population rates. The probability of having the disease dropped by over 6% for every 10 km people lived away from the asbestos source.
Industry professionals, however, have criticized such studies. Public health pro- fessionals have difficulty making a case for regulating construction on such sites or announcing risk management programs, due to four factors (Berg 2004): (a) diffi- culty in determining the inhalational exposure levels; (b) no universally agreed upon testing and sampling protocols for gauging this exposure; (c) no known threshold for exposure that leads to mesothelioma cancer; and (d) epidemiology reports today may not accurately predict asbestos-related disease, since the disease can take over 20 years to develop (there may be higher rates found later, or perhaps lower). For these reasons, scientists and public health professionals may be unable to make credible arguments that lead to regulation regarding activities around natu- rally occurring asbestos sites.
Asbestos in the Home and Businesses
No absolute ban of asbestos products has been established in the US; consequently, many products containing asbestos may be commonly found in homes today. Due to the well-documented association between asbestos and serious diseases such as mesothelioma and asbestosis, new uses of asbestos were banned in 1989. At one point, over 500 products containing asbestos were commonly sold for household use, from personal appliances such as hair dryers and coffee pots, to home con- struction materials like insulation and paint, to gardening supplies like potting soil and fertilizer. As mentioned above, only products containing less than one percent of friable asbestos can be produced and distributed in America today. Because this excludes existing products, however, Americans may have many products in their homes that put them at risk for asbestos exposure.
The 2005 ABC Nightline report, “A Killer in Town,” highlighted the Libby, Montana case and emphasized the magnitude of the asbestos problem in America.
The news report presented alarming statistics of asbestos exposure in private homes, estimating that between 15 and 35 million homes in America likely contain asbestos insulation. With the average family size at four, the report predicted that
“significant numbers of people (will be) coming down with asbestos disease for the next several decades” (ABC News Productions 2005). The two-part program stressed not only the health dangers to homeowners, but also the enormous expense
of widespread abatement efforts to eradicate it from existing structures and the mounting health care costs associated with asbestos exposure.
Concerned consumers, including those frightened by the Nightline report, may turn to government agencies for guidance in regard to asbestos products.
The US Consumer Product and Safety Commission (CPSC) provides consumer information regarding what kinds of products may contain asbestos and how people should respond when they detect asbestos in the home. According to its website, the CPSC protects the public “from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction.”3 Asbestos-containing products commonly found today include roofing and siding shingles containing asbestos cement, insulation in homes built prior to 1950, paint and wall patching compounds applied before they were banned in 1977, artificial ashes used for aesthetics purposes for gas fireplaces, older home products such as pads for stoves or coatings for hot water and steam pipes, vinyl products such as floor tiles or sheet floorings and their correspond- ing adhesives, and protective structures built around wood stoves. Old small appliances that may contain asbestos and are still in circulation are not men- tioned on the CPSC consumer information site.
The potential health threat from asbestos is also true for schools, businesses, and any older structures containing these products. It is expensive to renovate schools, as asbestos abatement is labor-intensive and costly. Because asbestos removal in buildings is highly regulated, necessary renovations often are ignored due to the expense, which disproportionately affects the poor. This is not dissimilar to the lead abatement situation: lead commonly found in paints was banned, as it was toxic when ingested. Small children who found paint chips were at greatest risk of poi- soning. Lead paint still exists in older buildings and public housing, where dwellers can ill afford renovation.