Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC

May 28, 2004

Jeff,

Your comment about crysotile not being connected with mesothelioma was

only recognized (or admitted to be the truth) by the Fed EPA in march of

this year.

The US has asbestos phoebia that does not reflect that actual risk.

Glad the UK is more realistic and based on science not fear mongering.

BOB

May 28, 2004

Jeff,

Here is more one hand does not know what the other is doing from the Fed

EPA.

Last march the FED EPA (Contract #68C98148) Report on the Peer

Consultation Workshop to Discuss a Proposed Protocol to Assess

Asbestos-Related Risk

stated " cancer risk for mesothelioma is most closely associated with

exposure to fibers between 5 and 10 microns long. " P4-3 (These are the

long fibers that you don't need TEM to see. ). "

and on p3-13 it says

" individual-level exposure response data and broader epidemiology

literature both provide no evidence of mesotheliome risk due to

chrysotile exposure. "

YET

on May 3, 2004, the EPA NIEHS says "

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/wtcnews.htm AT THE BOTTOM

" Previous studies have shown the short (<5microns) chrysotile fibers

found in the WTC dust to be the predominant fiber in lung mesothelioma

tissue. "

Reporters may contact Dr. Landrigan at . "

STUPID SAYS AS STUPID DOES!

BOB

May 28, 2004

Bob,

The " EPA NIEHS says " ? EPA and NIEHS are not related government

organizations. Therefore, it is to be expected that some documents may

express opposing viewpoints, particularly when produced at different

points in time. To expect that all parts of the Federal Government will

be in complete agreement in every document across time is unrealistic.

Ken

**** These comments are my own and don't reflect Agency policy****

H Hudnell, PhD

Neurotoxicologist

US Environmental Protection Agency

MD-B105-05

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Ph.: ; Fx.:

*** The absence of evidence of harm is not the same thing as evidence of

the absence of harm, and vice versa - Do the research! ***

|---------+---------------------------->

| | Bob s |

| | <BobBsafety-epa (DOT) |

| | com> |

| | |

| | 05/28/04 09:30 AM|

| | Please respond to|

| | iequality |

| | |

|---------+---------------------------->

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

-----------------------------------------------|

|

| To: iequality

|

| cc:

|

| Subject: Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC

|

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

-----------------------------------------------|

Jeff,

Here is more one hand does not know what the other is doing from the Fed

EPA.

Last march the FED EPA (Contract #68C98148) Report on the Peer

Consultation Workshop to Discuss a Proposed Protocol to Assess

Asbestos-Related Risk

stated " cancer risk for mesothelioma is most closely associated with

exposure to fibers between 5 and 10 microns long. " P4-3 (These are the

long fibers that you don't need TEM to see. ). "

and on p3-13 it says

" individual-level exposure response data and broader epidemiology

literature both provide no evidence of mesotheliome risk due to

chrysotile exposure. "

YET

on May 3, 2004, the EPA NIEHS says "

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/news/wtcnews.htm AT THE BOTTOM

" Previous studies have shown the short (<5microns) chrysotile fibers

found in the WTC dust to be the predominant fiber in lung mesothelioma

tissue. "

Reporters may contact Dr. Landrigan at . "

STUPID SAYS AS STUPID DOES!

BOB

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,

and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'

of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the

US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have

expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

May 28, 2004

Not trying to be an expert opinion but here's the information. Chrysotile is

not as chemically resistant as other asbestos and may be dissolved in the

lung to some extent. Chrysotile is known a Serpentine because it is S or

serpent shape. The Amphibole brown and blue is extremely chemically

resistant will not dissolve. These fibers continulllay split end to end and

have oblique ends like a hypo syringe. I was recently told that if you

exposed every fiber from a 1 inch cube of asbestos it's fibers would stretch

end to end 12 million miles. Yes I know but I'm only repeating.The

amphibole is the most dangerouse although in the UK, the HSE (EPA) see all

types as dangerouse.

Regards

Jeff Charlton

in London

Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC

Jeff,

Your comment about crysotile not being connected with mesothelioma was

only recognized (or admitted to be the truth) by the Fed EPA in march of

this year.

The US has asbestos phoebia that does not reflect that actual risk.

Glad the UK is more realistic and based on science not fear mongering.

BOB

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material

available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,

political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice

issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your

own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

May 28, 2004

Ken,

I agree one can not always expect the government to have concurrent

opinions. My problem with the NIEHS is that is it not supported by the

scientific research.

That statement is just fear mongering by someone who does not know the

literature. I really think that governmental employees should not give

statements about which they are not experts and ARE UP TO DATE ON THE

LATEST RESEARCH.

Don't forget just 3 years ago, the EPA website said " one fiber of

asbestos can kill you. " Fortunately, this has since been removed. ,

It is just a shame that the rest of the world has realistic evaluations

of the true hazards of asbestos for at least 10 years. (England, Honk

Kong, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, etc. ) Sweden has the best safety,

health and environmental regulations and we still ignore what they say.

(eg. Ergonomics. )

I have been in this field since 1968. In virtually every regulatory

area, the US has been " blind " to the current research and literature

review by other countries. The attitude has been, for so many years,

that if the research was not done in the US, it does not count. This

is like saying the experts in these other countries are either stupid or

liars. They are neither. They are experts and the US should treat

their opinions and laws as such.

The US has no mold exposure standard - but 12 other countries do.

The US has only 600 chemical exposure standards from 1968, while other

industrialized countries (20 at least) have standard from 2002 or later.

The total chemical exposure standards set by other countries exceeds

3,000 (I'm still counting!)

At least 6 countries codify the current ACGIH TLVs, while the US

manufactures SUE THE ACGIH to stop issuing " standards. "

Incompentence is no excuse.

BOB

May 28, 2004

ahhh, this helps explain how mold consultants can take you to the cleaners by using their own standards. As long as its not "you" that is being screwed, I guess it is ok for now.

what a shame

Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC

Ken,I agree one can not always expect the government to have concurrent opinions. My problem with the NIEHS is that is it not supported by the scientific research.That statement is just fear mongering by someone who does not know the literature. I really think that governmental employees should not give statements about which they are not experts and ARE UP TO DATE ON THE LATEST RESEARCH.Don't forget just 3 years ago, the EPA website said "one fiber of asbestos can kill you." Fortunately, this has since been removed. ,It is just a shame that the rest of the world has realistic evaluations of the true hazards of asbestos for at least 10 years. (England, Honk Kong, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, etc. ) Sweden has the best safety, health and environmental regulations and we still ignore what they say. (eg. Ergonomics. )I have been in this field since 1968. In virtually every regulatory area, the US has been "blind" to the current research and literature review by other countries. The attitude has been, for so many years, that if the research was not done in the US, it does not count. This is like saying the experts in these other countries are either stupid or liars. They are neither. They are experts and the US should treat their opinions and laws as such.The US has no mold exposure standard - but 12 other countries do.The US has only 600 chemical exposure standards from 1968, while other industrialized countries (20 at least) have standard from 2002 or later. The total chemical exposure standards set by other countries exceeds 3,000 (I'm still counting!)At least 6 countries codify the current ACGIH TLVs, while the US manufactures SUE THE ACGIH to stop issuing "standards."Incompentence is no excuse.BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

May 28, 2004

I have to throw one spanner into the works. We in the Uk have a landmark court case last year. Glenhavebn/Fox/Mathews V Glenhaven.

The court case originated when Mr Fairchild was diagnosed suffering with Mesothelioma. The defendant Glenhaven his employer said he could have breathed in the asbestos at any time during his working career. This was agreed, but the prosecution said that in all probability he had been exposed during his work at a crematorium where he had stripped Amositer asbestos lining. The defence said but how dangerous is amosite, very said the prosecution witness, infact one fibre can kill. How do you know the one fibre from the crematorium killed him ? Case dismissed. The appeal court (highest Court) listened to the evidence and said where a person has been exposed to one fibre that employer will be responsible for the compensation but that the employer may investigate other employers to share the award where asbestos may have been a risk.

While I agree other countries may have better laws or research than the USA, one point that you must not ignore is that the US workers and techs possibly take it more seriously due to litigation, which drives all.

Please tell me which 12 countries have mold standards.

PS Another spanner, the USA was the only country in the World to refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement on pollution reduction. This was said by the President to have meant that third world countries would have an unfair advantage? Don't wish to get political, but the USA then tried to buy up the permitted exhaust quota of those third world countries.

Jeff in London

Sheltering from the expected barrage.

-----Original Message-----From: Shane M Sent: 28 May 2004 19:59To: iequality Subject: Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC

ahhh, this helps explain how mold consultants can take you to the cleaners by using their own standards. As long as its not "you" that is being screwed, I guess it is ok for now.

what a shame

Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC

Ken,I agree one can not always expect the government to have concurrent opinions. My problem with the NIEHS is that is it not supported by the scientific research.That statement is just fear mongering by someone who does not know the literature. I really think that governmental employees should not give statements about which they are not experts and ARE UP TO DATE ON THE LATEST RESEARCH.Don't forget just 3 years ago, the EPA website said "one fiber of asbestos can kill you." Fortunately, this has since been removed. ,It is just a shame that the rest of the world has realistic evaluations of the true hazards of asbestos for at least 10 years. (England, Honk Kong, New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, etc. ) Sweden has the best safety, health and environmental regulations and we still ignore what they say. (eg. Ergonomics. )I have been in this field since 1968. In virtually every regulatory area, the US has been "blind" to the current research and literature review by other countries. The attitude has been, for so many years, that if the research was not done in the US, it does not count. This is like saying the experts in these other countries are either stupid or liars. They are neither. They are experts and the US should treat their opinions and laws as such.The US has no mold exposure standard - but 12 other countries do.The US has only 600 chemical exposure standards from 1968, while other industrialized countries (20 at least) have standard from 2002 or later. The total chemical exposure standards set by other countries exceeds 3,000 (I'm still counting!)At least 6 countries codify the current ACGIH TLVs, while the US manufactures SUE THE ACGIH to stop issuing "standards."Incompentence is no excuse.BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

May 28, 2004

Jeff,

Interesting litigation. There is also one fact that plays heavily in

why there is so much litigation in the US. It is the lack of national

AND COMPREHENSIVE health care. All litigation must be based in

financial loss. In a country with national health care, there is no

financial loss to support litigation damages.

The US has such a perverted system of health care it forces people to sue.

Even worker's compensation (the US was the last country to enact such a

system) which is support to cover the cost of work related injuries and

not need lawyers is back again using lawyers because the insurance

companies refuse to pay the bills. Overall the workers still loose.

Here's the 13 governmental bodies with standards

Brazil

Canada

Czech republic

Finland

Russia

Netherlands

Nordic Council

World Health Organization

Commission of European Communities

Texas (internal)

US FDA Pharmacopoeia

EU Clean Room Standards

OSHA (Proposed)

BOB

May 28, 2004

Jeff,

As for the Kyoto treaty, the US is the biggest polluter in the world.

We generate more greenhouse gases than most other nations combined.

The US government is now controlled by the Oil Barrons, that is why we

did not sign the treaty - a conflict of interest.- and never will until

it is too late.

European people generate 1/2 the greenhouse gases as the average american.

However, most americans have no choice in the matter.

I can't buy electricity generated from breeder reactors like people in

France can do and generate no greenhouse gases.

I can't buy a small more efficient car, because US car maker make

KILLING SUVs that kill people in small cars. Driving is the riskiest

thing we do.

I can't travel by train (Which is more efficient than flying) because

the US has abandon a national rail system.

I can't buy consumer products that last and last and don't need

replacing. Companies want products to fail so you will by a new one.

Make money of consumption of natural resources.

The people of the US would do the right thing, if they were given the

chance. Using energy makes money. That's was really is driving this

problem

BOB

May 28, 2004

Bob,

I agree and accept we are at the mercy of industry through every aspect of

our life.I recently heard a doctor speak on the treatment of patients with

drugs. He said drugs were developed to control the disease not cure it,

what's the benefit for a drug company to cure you! The hydrogen engine that

burns water, bought by the oil companies and hidden away. I recently spoke

at a venue where the safety of the subway was discussed. I said the subway

hadn't been safe for 50 years or more due to the brake dust from thousands

of train worn out asbestos brake shoes. The interesting point is that the

public is totally unaware of the significance of that train smell as the

incoming subway train pushes accumulated dust over the platform and sucks

some more onto the rushing passenger as the run to miss the departing train.

The older I get the more cynical, I just started smoking again after 25

years because I remembered how good it was, feel like a part of the film

Soyant Green. Gave it up after 6 weeks it made me sick.

regards

Jeff Charlton

in London

From:

Bob s

Sent: 28 May 2004 23:17

To: iequality

Subject: Re: NIEHS Exposure Report on WTC