Tobacco Documents Online

0 • • / Though Risk Falls, Removing Asbestos Doesn't Guarantee Substance Is Gone By DAVID STIPP Staff Reporter of Txe W nLe STREET JOURNAL A lot of money goes toward removing asbestos -an estimated f3 billion last year in the U.S.-but at least it is saving lives. Or is it? The levels of airborne asbestos fibers in buildings after removal of materials con- taining the substance don't necessarily drop - in many cases they rise, suggest recent studies. Moreover, the type of as- bestos mostly present in U.S. buildings poses little cancer risk in the first place, say many scientists. Indeed, scientific thinking about as- bestos has undergone a dramatic reversal from the view that a tiny whiff can cause cancer. The shift was underscored by an article, published in the journal Science in early 1990, that concluded asbestos risks have been exaggerated. After it appeared, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly acknowl- edged that many asbestos-removal proj- ects were unnecessary. In 1991, the Ameri- can Medical Association recommended worrying less about asbestos and more about "far greater causes" of prema- ture death, such as smoking. Some 95%of the asbestos in U.S. build- ings is a form called "chrysotile," which many scientists now say is relatively harmless. Its curly strands are readily dissolved in the lungs by immune cens. By contrast, rarer "amphibole" types of as- bestos - which can occur in small amounts along with chrysotile - form long, thin strands that can penetrate and remain deep in the lungs. Studies indicate the amphibole forms have been the culprits in most asbestos-cancer cases. Lower Levels It takes long, heavy exposure to as- bestos-probably coupled with smoking- to cause significant risk of lung cancer, say scientists. Airborne asbestos levels in buildings containing the material, on average, are about 50,000 times lower than the levels that asbestos workers who got cancer were exposed to in the past, accord- ing to a 1991 report by the Health Effects Institute in Cambridge, Mass. Even after "quite heavy" asbestos ex- posure, lung cancer among nonsmokers is so rare that the added risk from asbestos can't be precisely estimated, the report stated. In the largest study of chrysotile exposure, scientists found that 11,000 Que- bec asbestos miners and others with "high" exposures for as long as 20 years actually had less risk of lung cancer than the general population. Heavy asbestos exposure also can cause mesothelioma, a cancer that rarely occurs without such exposure. But mesoth- eiioma rates among people under age 55 have dropped since the 1970s, suggesting that low, "nonoccupational" exposure to asbestos in buildings poses little, if any, risk of the cancer. Even if the entire U.S. population worked for 20 years in buildings containing the most dangerous forms of asbestos, the mesothelloma rate would rise to, at most, about 410 cases annually from . 400 cases, says the Health Effects Insti- tute's report. Currently, asbestos in buildings often is "managed in place" without removal. But many building owners still opt for removal, largely to avoid the risk of lawsuits. Some asbestos experts assert that such removals are needed to prevent cancer among main- tenance workers, who often come into contact with the substance. But removal workers probably face a greater risk of exposures high enough to cause cancer. In any case, removals often don't seem to do much good. In one high school, airborne asbestos levels rose tenfold after a removal that "was as well run and controlled as is feasible," according to a preliminary report on the project compiled by Gerard Ryan, an official with the Occupational Safety and Health Adrnlnis- tration in Denver. ii "We spend an awful lot of taxpayer money [on asbestos removais] without decreasing risk," says Mr. Ryan. Escaping Removal His preliminary data show that the school's asbestos levels rose 1,160% after a 5250,000 removal of insulation, ceiling tiles and other materials. More than a year after removal, levels had risen turther. The higher levels probably reflect partlcu- larly short asbestos fibers that escaped '~ during abatement, says Mr. Ryan. He won't name the school pending a complete report on the case. , Other studies have found similar re- sults. The EPA reported last year that average asbestos levels had risen two years after abatement projects at nine of 17 New Jersey schools, with statistically higher levels at two sites. There was a statistically significant decrease in levels at only six of the schools. Steve Hays, president of the Envhnn- mental Information Association, a trade group representing the abatement indus- try, calls such findings "amazing," and says that "there is a large body of data" showing removals generally cut levels to "background" levels found outdoors. But the continuing New Jersey study suggests much industry data are inaccu- rate - half of 20 school-abatement projects that monitoring firms had rated as reduc- ing fibers to federally required levels flunked more stringent testinQ. Problems within the asbestos-abate- ment industry aren't limited to dubious practices by small-time operators. The EPA has charged in an administrative action that the industry's largest consult- ant, Hall-Eimbrell Environmental Serv- ices Inc., a unit of Professional Service Industries Inc. of Lombard, Bl., conducted faulty inspections at more than 100 schools nationwide. An attorney for the company declined to comment. Though spending on asbestos abate- ments in the U.S. has dropped - largely because the recession has slowed renova- tions - industry consultant Olin Jennings estimates some $80 billion will be spent over the next 20 years or so. I ra,. ~/~~.~1'3