Time after time, I have been amazed by those who rush to the defence of the chrysotile industry. A CMAJ editorial supported the suggestion that a panel of experts review the public health implications of asbestos and the efficacy and the hazards of alternative materials.1
In 1998 a panel of 17 experts from 10 countries, which drew on the resources of 140 collaborating centres, institutions and individuals in developed and developing countries, concluded that “exposure to chrysotile asbestos poses increased risks for asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma in a dose-dependent manner. No threshold has been identified for carcinogenic risks. Where safer substitute materials for chrysotile are available, they should be considered for use. Some asbestos-containing products pose particular concern and chrysotile use in these circumstances is not recommended.”2
Is this World Health Organization panel of experts not expert enough? The evidence is clear. Chrysotile has caused and is continuing to cause disease and death worldwide. It is hypocritical for Canada to continue to produce chrysotile when it is not prepared to use it domestically. If chrysotile is unsuitable for Canadian lungs, how does it become suitable for Korean, Indian and Japanese lungs?
Signature
Laurie Kazan-Allen
Coordinator International Ban Asbestos Secretariat Stanmore, England
References
- 1.A ban on asbestos: Is now the time? [editorial]. CMAJ 2001;164(4):453. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Chrysotile asbestos. no 203 of Environmental health criteria series. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.