1. Jacques Dunnigan presented on risk management of chrysotile asbestos to the Supreme Court of Justice in Brazil, debunking four myths about asbestos. 2. He argued that chrysotile asbestos poses much lower risks than amphibole fibers like amosite and crocidolite based on scientific evidence. Exposure to low levels of chrysotile is not associated with measurable excess cancer risk. 3. While past irresponsible use of asbestos caused disease, risk management of chrysotile should now be based on current science showing differentiation between fiber types and the feasibility of safe, low-level exposure.

1. Supreme Court of Justice
Public Hearings
Brasilia
August 31, 2012
Presentation by
Jacques Dunnigan, Ph. D.
Canada
1

2. Risk Management of Chrysotile
Asbestos
Jacques Dunnigan, Ph. D.
Decisions should be based on current
assessment of of science, on factual
information.
Decisions should not be based on
myths and perceptions.
2

3. Risk Management of Chrysotile Asbestos
There is a vast international consensus regarding the
difference in pathogenic potential between chysotile and
the amphiboles (crocidolite and amosite).
Specific risk according to fiber type:
chrysotile amosite crocidolite
For lung cancer 1 10 50
For mesothelioma 1 100 500
________________________________________________________
____
Hodgson JT and Darnton A (2000) The Quantitative Risk of Mesothelioma and Lung
Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Ann. Occup, Health 44(8) 565-601
3

4. Risk Management of Chrysotile Asbestos
Four persistent myths debunked:
1/ « 100,000 deaths/year due to
exposure to asbestos »
2/ « Because asbestos is classified as a « Group 1 »
carcinogen by the IARC:
therefore it should be banned. »
3/ « Safe use » of chrysotile is an illusion… »
« One fiber can kill »
4/ « The WHO and ILO call for a ban of all types
of asbestos »
4

5. Myth #1
“100,000 deaths/year due to asbestos”
This number, often used by the anti-asbestos lobby, is not
real. It has been extrapolated to the whole world from the
experience in Finland.
In fact, the author (Dr. Takala) admits:
« These figures are not recorded cases but
estimates. »
Takala J, Asbestos European Conference, Dresden (2003)*
______________________________________________________________________
________
5
* This document will be available to the Supreme Court

6. Myth #2
“Asbestos is classified by the IARC as a
”Group 1” carcinogen;
therefore, it should be banned”
6

7. The real significance of
IARC classification
7

8. I IARC
A CLASSIFICATION OF
R HUMAN CARCINOGENS
C
SIGNIFICANCE
International
Agency and
For Research
on INTERPRETATION
Cancer
8

9. CRITERIA AND EVALUATION
FOR CARCINOGENIC HAZARD
A TWO STEP PROCESS:
The quality of evidence is assessed;
Then the hazard evaluation and
classification is made.
9

10. In the « GROUP 1 » (CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS),
AMONG THE 108 SUBSTANCES (LAST UPDATE June, 2012)
ARE LISTED THE FOLLOWING, QUOTED EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR
ON THE IARC WEB SITE
Agents and groups of agents :
Asbestos
Benzine
Cadmium
Oestrogen therapy, post-menauposal
Oestrogens, both steroidal and non-steroidal
Oral contraceptives, sequential
Silica (crystalline, inhaled in the form of cristobalite)
Vinyl chloride
X-radiation and gamma radiation
(continued on the next slide) 10

11. Mixtures :
- Alcoholic beverages
- Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin
- Salted fish (Chinese-style)
Tobacco smoke. Wood dust, etc
- (Very recently: diesel exhaust emissions)
Exposure circumstances :
- Aluminium production
- Boot and shoe manufacture
- Furniture and cabinet making
- Iron and steel foundry
- Painter (occupational exposure)
- Rubber industry
- Solar irradiation
11

12. Question:
Does the presence on the IARC list of « Group 1 »
of substances, mixtures and activities imply that
these must be banned?
Answer: NO.
Because the IARC classification covers only the
identification and characterization (hazard) of
these substances, mixtures and activities.
It does not include the assessment of risk,
i.e.: the probability of toxic manifestation
under actual conditions of use
12

13. IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
« HAZARD » is not « RISK »
IARC classification is about
hazard, not risk
13

14. AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Characterizing a hazardous substance is not equal to
assessing the true risk.
HAZARD is an essential, but insufficient component
of risk assessment, which also comprises exposure
data over time and estimation of the likely RISK
under actual conditions of use.
14

15. On this theme,
A recent publication on
the difference between
« hazard »
and
« risk »
and
on the correct
signification and
interpretation of the
IARC classification
Indoor & Built Environment
Bernstein D, Gibbs A, Pooley F, Langer A,
Donaldson K, Hoskins J, Dunnigan J.
(2007) 16:2:94-98
This documment will be available
to the Supreme Court
15

16. Myth #3
“Safe use of chrysotile is an illusion “
“One fiber can kill”
There is plenty of published scientific evidence
that compliance with low levels of exposure
(~1f/ml) to chrysotile does not result in
measurable excess risk.
(References to these studies will be available to the Supreme Court)
16

17. « One fiber can kill…! Really ?
Consider this:
Everyday, the lungs handle an average of 15 liters of air/per minute,
or 15 liters x 60 min x 24 hours = 21,600 liters of air/day.
If the concentration of asbestos fibers in the ambiant environmental
air contains 0,001 f/ml (*), or 1 fiber/liter…
… it follows that everyday, the lungs handle some
21,600 asbestos fibers.
___________________________________________________________
*Risk associated with 0,001 f/ml has been labelled:
« not significant » Ontario Royal Commision on Asbestos
« further control not justified » Royal Society, London, UK.
« not measurable » Académie nationale de médecine, France.
17

18. Thousands of water reservoirs (« tanques ») made of chrysotile cement
have been used in Latin America and Africa for decades.
No health risk has ever been reported resulting from their use. 18

19. Myth #4
« TheWHO and the ILO call for a ban of all
types
of asbestos »
… but the present official stance of the WHO,
which has been adopted in 2007 by the highest
decision body:
the World Health Assembly (WHA)
is the following :
19

20. 20

21. The same remark applies also to a « resolution »
passed at a ILO « conference » in 2010, where it was
proposed that the exploitation of all asbestos fiber types,
including chrysotile should be banned.
The ILO Convention 162 on Safety in the Use of Asbestos
was adopted in 1986, and has been ratified by some 36
countries, including Brazil.
This Convention does not call for a ban of chrysotile.
This international Convention binds all 36 countries to
abide by the objectives of the Convention.
A “resolution” from a “conference” cannot overrule
the Convention 162, which is adopted by the highest
decision body of the ILO.
21

22. Safety in the Use…
The very concept of safe use is reflected in
Convention 162 of the ILO. This Convention
recommends a strict framework for the use of
chrysotile . . .
. . . but it does not include prohibitions other than for
crocidolite and for loose, friable asbestos in
fireproofing applications.
This Convention remains the international legal
instrument for the controlled-use of chrysotile
asbestos.
22

23. On substitution with alternative fibers . . .
Article 10 of the ILO Convention 162
« replacement of asbestos by other materials . . .
scientifically evaluated by the competent
authority as harmless or less harmful, whenever
this is possible.. »
23

24. ..."Asbestos, unlike any number of other potentially dangerous
minerals or chemicals, will never be entirely eliminated from the
environment. Therefore, developing improved procedures for
managing its proper use, containment, and disposal offer the only
realistic prospects for the prevention of asbestos-related injury and
disease.
In other words, it is better that society use its limited financial
resources in learning how to live safely with this valuable material
than in attempting to remove it totally from the environment.
Physicians and others in medicine and biology, on the other hand,
must continue to drive home to the public the far greater causes of
morbidity and mortality, such as smoking, drug and alcohol abuse,
improper diet, and inadequate exercise".
Report by the
Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association,
J. Amer. Med. Assoc. Vol. 266, pp. 296-297 (1991)
24

25. CONCLUSIONS
We should not deny that the past, irresponsible use of
all types of asbestos at high exposures and for long
periods has indeed resulted in a sad legacy of diseases.
We must learn from the experience of the past.
But today, risk management of chrysotile must be based on
current scientific assessment,
- which recognizes and differentiates between chrysotile
and the amphiboles;
- which demonstrates that low (~ 1f/ml) levels of exposure
to chrysotile is feasible,
and is not associated with any measurable risk.
25