Thread from occ-med chatboard, well worth sharing w/IAQ interested parties.

[Guest guest]

" Many subscribers to this list have been involved in a multiplicity of

efforts to prohibit the use of asbestos in the US.

We have failed to stop the needless death caused by exposure to this

mineral after decades of working with friendly politicians who for whatever

reasons fail to deliver at the last minute. " Dr. Harbut.

NEWS from CPSC

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Office of Information and Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 29, 2009

Release # 10-094

CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772

CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

RC2 Corp. to Pay $1.25 Million Civil Penalty

& Friends Wooden Railway Toys Recalled Due to Violation of Lead

Paint Ban

WASHINGTON, D.C. - As part of its commitment to protecting the safety of

children, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today

that RC2 Corp., of Oak Brook, Ill. has agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil

penalty for allegedly violating the federal lead paint ban.

The penalty settlement, which has been provisionally accepted by the

Commission, resolves CPSC staff allegations that RC2 Corp. and one of its

wholly-owned subsidiaries Learning Curve Brands Inc., knowingly (as defined by

the Consumer Product Safety Act) imported and sold various &

Friends Wooden Railway toys with paints or other surface coatings that

contained

lead levels above legal limits. In 1978, a federal ban was put in place

which prohibited toys and other children's articles from having more than

0.06 percent lead (by weight) in paints or surface coatings. As a result of the

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, the regulatory limit was

reduced to 0.009 percent on August 14, 2009.

CPSC staff alleged that RC2 failed to take adequate action to ensure that

the toys would comply with the lead paint ban. This failure created a risk

of lead poisoning and adverse health effects to children.

In May 2007, RC2 reported that more than two dozen styles of vehicles,

buildings and other train set components from the & Friends Wooden

Railway product line were determined to have paints with lead levels that

exceeded the then-applicable regulatory limit of 0.06 percent. Later, in

August and September 2007, RC2 further reported that five additional toys from

this product line were determined to have exceeded this limit.

This civil penalty settles the following allegations:

* RC2 imported up to 1.5 million units of non-compliant &

Friends Wooden Railway toys between January 2005 and June 2007, and

distributed

them to its retail customers for sale to U.S. consumers. These toys were

recalled in June 2007.

* RC2 imported up to 200,000 units of five additional non-compliant toys

from this product line between March 2003 and April 2007, and distributed

them to its retail customers for sale to U.S. consumers. In September 2007,

the original June 2007 recall was expanded to include these additional units.

" The highly publicized recall of & Friends Wooden Railway toys

was a catalyst for Congressional action aimed at strengthening CPSC and

making the lead-in-paint limits under federal law even stricter, " said CPSC

Chairman Inez Tenenbaum.

This settlement also resolves other potential matters. In agreeing to the

settlement, RC2 denies that it knowingly violated federal law, as alleged

by CPSC staff.

To see this release on CPSC's web site, please go to:

_http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10094.html_

(http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10094.html)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Asbestos Ban

From: " Brophy " <jimbrophy@...>

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:23:09 -0500

X-Message-Number: 2

I fully endorsed Harbut's frustration and anger over the continuing

asbestos debacle both in Canada and in the United States, We have

continuing asbestos disease in every region of Canada but absolute silence

about its impact from any government agency.

Attached are links to two recent stories in the Toronto Star on Canadian

asbestos in India and on the possible expansion of asbestos mining in

Quebec.

Also attached is the link to the Toronto Star's subsequent editorial which

calls for a ban.

As I said to , the road to the global ban of asbestos goes through

Ottawa. A US ban would make a substantial impact on this most important

international public health imperative by demonstrating that Canada has

gone

rogue on asbestos as it has on climate change.

Canada's booming asbestos market:

The cancer-causing mineral is prized in India, even as it is reviled here.

Wells investigates the demand for a product we shun - but still

mine

_http://www.thestar.com/news/world/india/article/741085--canada-s-booming-as

b_

(http://www.thestar.com/news/world/india/article/741085--canada-s-booming-asb)

estos-market

Meet Quebec's 'Mr. Asbestos'

Bernard Coulombe has big plans for a mineral shunned here but valued in the

developing world

_http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/742991--meet-quebec-s-mr-asbesto

s_

(http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/742991--meet-quebec-s-mr-asbestos)

Canada's lethal export

_http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/742677--canada-s-lethal-e

x_

(http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/742677--canada-s-lethal-ex)

port

Jim Brophy, PhD

Toxic Free Canada

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: On banning asbestos

From: " Dr Henry " <henryb@...>

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 08:49:50 -0500

X-Message-Number: 3

Good points.

Until the NESHAPs regulations are enforced, worrying about banning

asbestos is

just like charging at windmills. The effort of AIHA and CIHs in the USA

should be

enforcement of the current regulations to limit exposures. A simple

regulation that all

renovation/demolition permits must have a signed letter from a licensed

inspector

would be the place to start, but only if there is enforcement. Heck, some

locals

still give demo permits after the demo has taken place. Been seeing the

problems

as an inspector for over 20 years and as a whole, there is no enforcement

except in

isolated places.

Dr.Henry A. Boyter Jr.

Director of Research

Institute of Textile Technology

NC State University College of Textiles

Box 8301

2401 Research Drive

Raleigh, NC 27695-8301

919-513-7704

_http://www.itt.edu_ (http://www.itt.edu/)

" Ride, boldly ride, "

The shade replied,--

" If you seek for Eldorado! "

----- Original Message -----

From: Dale W. Walsh

Occ-Env-Med-L

Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 8:36 PM

Subject: RE: [occ-env-med-l] On banning asbestos

Dr. Harbut and Listserv,

I agree with you and would like to help in any way I can. I hope you can

attend the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exhibition in May,

2010 in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Cohen, I and others have put together

a high end (Dr. Trevor Ogden, Dr. Steve Levin, etc.) roundtable on the

subject of asbestos titled " Asbestos Update: Still A Hazard After All These

Years " . It is scheduled for Wednesday, May 26, 2010 from 1 PM to 3:30 PM. Go

to www.aiha.org/aihce10 for more information.

As a CIH and asbestos consultant for over 20 years my take on banning

asbestos is a little different than yours. Because asbestos is ubiquitous in

our environment (I understand that people in urban environments breathe

between 10,000 and 15,000 asbestos fibers per day as a background level and

there can be millions of fibers per liter in our drinking water - EPA allows 7

million) it would be decades if not centuries before a ban would actually

impact human background exposure to asbestos. As far as occupational

exposure is concerned, there are regulations already in place to control that.

They just need to be enforced better and perhaps altered to be more

protective. One of the big issues EPA is trying to address is naturally

occurring

asbestos, which can not be banned - it must be managed. This is where my

take on a ban comes into play. A ban on use in the U.S. would assist with

asbestos management by establishing a date after which a building no longer

has to be managed for asbestos content. Today new buildings are supposed

to be evaluated for asbestos before any demolition or renovation work can

occur (EPA NESHAPS and OSHA regulations) which can waste precious resources.

One of my efforts in trying to get asbestos out of new buildings is my

participation in the creation of the International Green Construction Code

(IgCC) which is currently being developed for a 2012 release by the

International Code Council. Go to www.iccsafe.org for more information.

Chapter 8

of the code relates to Indoor Environmental Quality. I wrote Section 804 of

this Chapter (included below for reference) in a way that I hoped would

prevent asbestos use in " Green " building construction in the future. In mid

December, 2009 a general meeting for the IgCC occurred in Ft. Meyers, FL to

discuss and edit what the working groups had created (I am participating

on the Chapter 8 working group). The cross outs below are what they did to

what I wrote. As you can see they basically took out the valuable

requirements and left what is mostly already done which is often not effective

at

preventing asbestos use in new buildings. If participants on this Listserv

were to start participating in processes such as the IgCC (this will be

going out for first public comment soon) it could make a small difference in

trying to stop asbestos use in buildings (at least new " Green " buildings).

The U.S. Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org) is another place where

participation could have a potential impact. The USGBC Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design (LEED) system for new buildings also does not

adequately address prevention of asbestos use in new " Green " buildings. I

would

think asbestos would NOT be considered " Green " . Given that the " Green "

movement is most likely not a fad, is here to stay, and is in its infancy and

looking to learn, this area may be a good place to try to make buildings

healthier places in which to live and work. It is people like those that

participate on this Listserv that need to have their voices heard regarding

occupant health to help overcome energy conservation as being the current

overriding aspect of " Green " .

A very prosperous New Year to all.

Dale Walsh, MS, CIH, CSP, LEED-AP

Walsh Certified Consultants, Inc.

Las Vegas, Nevada

www.walshcih.com

dwalsh@...

702-468-4782-cell

SECTION 804

ASBESTOS USE PREVENTION

804.1 Scope. The use of and installation of asbestos in building

construction shall be prevented by building design and construction control

measures in accordance with Sections 804.1.1 and 804.1.2.

804.1.1 Project specifications. Project specifications shall prohibit the

use of and installation of asbestos-containing products in the building.

The building design team shall be familiar with products in the market place

that are known to or might contain asbestos. The building air quality

manager shall be the resource regarding current issues pertaining to asbestos.

804.1.2 Construction site receiving inspection. For building materials

other than bare metal, glass, wood and fiberglass, documentation shall be

provided that indicates the asbestos content.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

From: bounce-26126243-11889342@... on behalf of m1har@...

Sent: Sun 1/3/2010 11:17 AM

Dale W. Walsh

Subject: [occ-env-med-l] On banning asbestos

Many subscribers to this list have been involved in a multiplicity of

efforts to prohibit the use of asbestos in the US.

We have failed to stop the needless death caused by exposure to this

mineral after decades of working with friendly politicians who for whatever

reasons fail to deliver at the last minute. We have submitted resolutions to

professional associations, written letters, participated in ill-advised and

ill-fated " backroom deals " and sung " Kumbaya " as we limp away again and

again.

What do we have to show for it? An expression of the impotency of the

Office of Surgeon General via it's well-intentioned, but weak statements and

efforts in the Spring of 2009. (remember something along the lines of " you

should try real hard to not breathe asbestos - a lot of smart people say

it's real bad for you. " )

A Senate " Ban " Bill which was more a monument to the irrepressible

influence of those who participate in the murder of my patients than it's

intended

public health defense. It was promised to aquire " balance " in the House

by the informed good work of well-intentioned staff. All this effort was

lost with the changing of staff and the addition of new, and agreeably,

important priorities.

We were told to be patient and wait, and that the new President and his

21st Century Camelot would make it all happen. My phone stilll hasn't rung

and I spend every Saturday night cradling it. And we're entering a new

election cycle.

I'm fed up.

In keeping with the known science and latency periods, I started more

people on O2 last year than ever before. I diagnosed more cancer than ever

before. I lost more patients than ever before.

So what's the point?

My plan is to approach the institution of a " Ban " through the

consideration and use of pathways which might promise greater chances of

success.

I have some thoughts, but in respect for colleagues who don't care to be

involved in this effort, have decided to ask those on this list who would

like to contribute ideas and/or otherwise be involved, to forward their names

and fax numbers to me, and I'll set up a separate mechanism to share ideas

and information.

It's really time for this fight to end.

R. Harbut, MD, MPH, FCCP

Chief, Center for Occ/Env Medicine

CoDirector, Nat'l Ctr for Vermiulite & Asbestos-Related Cancers

Director, Environment Associated Cancers Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute

Clinical Professor, Internal Medicine, Wayne State University

Detroit, Michigan

248.547.9100

Please remove this footer before replying to the forum.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Work RVU

From: " Bishop, Dr Marilyn " <BishopMA@...>

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:14:34 -0500

X-Message-Number: 4

Dear List,

My organization is transitioning to using WRVU's to provide bonus for

physician providers. Has anyone had experience with how this may apply to

occupational medicine?

Marilyn A Bishop MD MPH

Medical Director

Medworks, Your Health Advantage

office: 423-915-5033

cell: 423-202-2685

mainmailgate01.msha-inc.com made the following annotations

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is from Mountain States Health Alliance. The contents

contained herein may contain confidential information. If you are not the

intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,

distribution, printing or action taken on the contents is strictly prohibited.

If

you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately

and delete this message.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: online Grand Rounds Strong Jan 7

From: " Auerbach, Karl " <Karl_Auerbach@...>

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:19:07 -0500

X-Message-Number: 5

Please join us for Grand Rounds on line from Strong

Thursday 7:30 AM Eastern Time 1 hour

Speaker : Karl Auerbach MD

Topic: MRO- More Responsibility Ordered? MROs in the new decade

If you signed up for our previous grand rounds, I will send you the link

in a separate mailing.

If you want to sign up, please e mail me and I will sign you up

You can claim 1 hour AMA Cat 1 CME if you attend in person and fill out

the paperwork which will be sent by e mail

You can watch and listen at any time after the Grand Rounds if you can't

join us live but CME credit is not available.

Karl

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: asbestos screening

From: " Ian Connell " <ianconnell@...>

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:15:05 -0800

X-Message-Number: 6

ATS Guidelines recommend that after a sufficient delay for the latency

period that it is reasonable for screening to take place every 3-5 years to

detect the onset of asbestos related lung disease. There is no

recommendation as to ongoing testing after the detection of asbestos

related

changes, such as pleural plaque, or when one detects changes in PFS that

may

be asbestos related (significant decrease in FVC from baseline or changes

in

airflow unexplained by smoking history). I am wondering if anyone on the

list serve can comment on this or is aware of recommendations for the

frequency of ongoing testing in these situations.

Ian Connell MD FCBOM

Sharon Noonan Kramer