Aylen, Lessons From The Quebec Asbestos Industry, 2015

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
Lessons!from!the!Quebec!Asbestos!Industry:!
!
Can!there!be!meaningful!dialogue!and!consensus!when!
facts!come!up!against!feelings?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
John!Aylen!
Concordia!University!
!
!
!
!
June%2015%
!
!
!
!
DISCLAIMER!
%
The%views%and%opinions%expressed%in%this%report%are%solely%those%of%the%
author(s)%and%are%not%necessarily%endorsed%or%shared%by%the%Luc%Beauregard%
Centre%of%Excellence%in%Communications%Research.%
!
About!the!Luc!Beauregard!Centre!of!Excellence!in!Communications!Research!
The%Centre%was%established%in%2012%to%pay%homage%to%Luc%Beauregard%(1941K2013)%who%founded%
NATIONAL%Public%Relations%in%1976%after%a%10Kyear%career%in%daily%newspapers.%The%mission%of%the%
Centre%is%to%advance%the%strategic%role%of%public%relations%at%the%highest%levels%of%organizational%
management%and%leadership%by%supporting%and%promoting%applied%and%innovative%research%and%
establishing%best%practices%that%can%assist%and%inspire%todays%and%tomorrows%senior%professionals%in%all%
types%of%organizations.%For%more%information,%please%contact%Dr.%Jordan%LeBel,%Director%of%the%Centre,%at%
(514)%848K2424%(ext.%2907)%or%by%email%at%Jordan.Lebel@concordia.ca%
%
!
!
!
!
AVERTISSEMENT!
%
!
!
Les%opinions%exprimes%dans%ce%rapport%sont%propres%aux%auteurs%et%ne%
refltent%pas%ncessairement%celles%du%Centre%d'excellence%LucKBeauregard%de%
recherche%en%communication.%
!propos!du!Centre!dexcellence!LucLBeauregard!de!recherche!communication!
Le%Centre%a%t%instaur%en%hommage%%M.%Luc%Beauregard%(1941K2013),%qui%a%fond%en%1976%le%Cabinet%
de%relations%publiques%NATIONAL,%aprs%une%carrire%de%dix%ans%dans%des%quotidiens.%La%mission%du%
Centre%dexcellence%LucKBeauregard%de%recherche%en%communication%est%de%promouvoir%le%rle%
stratgique%des%relations%publiques%aux%chelons%les%plus%levs%de%la%gestion%des%organisations%et%
dexercer%son%leadership%en%soutenant%la%recherche%applique%novatrice,%ainsi%quen%dfinissant%des%
pratiques%exemplaires%utiles%et%inspirantes%pour%les%professionnels%daujourdhui%et%de%demain,%et%ce,%
dans%tous%les%types%dentreprises.%Pour%plus%dinformation,%contactez%Jordan%LeBel,%directeur%du%Centre,%
au%(514)%848K2424%(poste%2907)%ou%par%messagerie%lectronique%:%Jordan.Lebel@concordia.ca%
Quebec%Asbestos%Industry%
2%
!
About!the!Author!
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
John%Aylen%teaches%Business%Communications%and%Integrated%Marketing%Communications%at%
the%John%Molson%School%of%Business%in%Montreal,%Canada.%He%runs%a%MontrealKbased%public%
relations%and%corporate%communications%firm.%He%has%been%on%the%Board%of%Governors%of%
Concordia%University,%President%of%the%Alumni%Association,%on%the%board%of%the%Quebec%
Writers%Federation%and%of%many%other%organizations.%He%is%currently%President%of%the%Board%of%
Directors%of%Youth%Employment%Services%and%the%McEuen%Scholarship%Foundation,%and%he%is%
on%the%board%of%the%Old%Brewery%Mission%and%a%number%of%fund%raising%boards.%He%recently%
received%the%Benot%Pelland%Distinguished%Service%Award%from%the%Concordia%University%
Alumni%Association.%
Acknowledgements!
!
I%would%like%to%acknowledge%the%gracious%and%generous%contributions%of%Mr.%Barry%Smith%(not%his%
real%name)%who%wholeheartedly%endorsed%and%supported%this%exercise%in%a%true%spirit%of%constructive%
analysis%and%forward%sightedness.%I%am%also%grateful%for%the%dedicated%assistance%of%Mr.%Guy%Versailles%
who%reviewed%the%document%and%provided%constructive%input%as%well%as%Mr.%Derrick%Kim%whose%
organization%skills%and%inquisitiveness%were%highly%important%in%completing%this%report%on%time.%Last,%but%
perhaps%most%importantly,%I%would%like%to%thank%the%Luc%Beauregard%Centre%and%its%Advisory%Board%for%
the%financial%support%and%opportunity%to%undertake%this%project.%
!!
3%
EXECUTIVE!SUMMARY!
%
Between%2010%and%2012%a%consortium%of%investors%led%by%Mr.%Barry%Smith%(not%his%real%name)%attempted%
to%purchase%and%reopen%the%Jeffrey%asbestos%mine%in%the%province%of%Quebec.%!!
!
Significant%and%highly%organized%opposition%to%the%venture%was%almost%immediate.%It%mobilized%and%
enabled%human%rights%activists,%institutes%of%public%health,%medical%associations%and%individuals%stricken%
with%asbestosrelated%diseases%or%their%families%and%otherswithout%regard%to%their%expertise%or%
specific%knowledgeto%voice%their%opposition%to%the%venture%directly%to%the%decisionKmakers%and%
indirectly%as%part%of%the%public%debate.%They%invoked%(inaccurately)%the%positions%of%the%WHO%and%the%
UN,%and%they%traded%freely%on%the%emotional%value%of%showcasing%individuals%and%families%who%were%
apparent%victims%of%asbestos%disease.%
%
The%consortium%reacted%largely%with%a%campaign%based%on%facts%and%on%debunking%the%feelings%and%
unsupported%claims%of%the%opponents.%%
%
Public%opinion%was%clearly%on%the%side%of%the%opponents.%Nevertheless%the%provincial%government%
provided%the%consortium%with%the%financing%they%needed%to%initiate%the%venture.%However,%when%the%
Parti%Qubcois%government,%which%had%opposed%the%venture%when%they%were%in%opposition,%came%to%
power%in%2012,%they%cancelled%the%agreement%knowing%that%their%decision%would%be%supported%by%public%
opinion.%
%
This%paper%clearly%shows%that%facts%cannot%trump%feelings%in%controlling%public%opinion.%Seven%key%
learnings%emerge:%
%
1. The%opponents%proactively%and%preKemptively%claiming%the%moral%high%ground%put%the%
consortium%of%investors%in%a%reactive%and%defensive%position.%
2. It%is%nearly%impossible%to%change%feelings%by%stating%facts.%Individuals%tune%out%on%the%facts%that%
do%not%support%their%feelings.%
3. It%is%very%difficult%to%build%consensus%and%coalition%if%the%potential%parties%do%not%mobilize%over%a%
common%goal,%are%not%driven%by%a%sense%of%urgency%and%are%not%empowered%by%a%sense%of%moral%
superiority.%
4. The%behaviour%of%the%opponents%would%not%be%tolerated%or%seen%as%acceptable%if%the%
proponents%had%acted%in%a%similar%fashion,%because%the%opponents%had%claimed%the%moral%high%
ground%in%the%minds%of%the%public,%so%their%means%were%justified%by%their%goal.%%
5. The%reputation%of%the%product%and%the%track%record%of%the%industry%made%it%nearly%impossible%to%
create%trust%and%confidence%that%the%consortium%would%act%ethically%and%safely.%
6. Opposition%to%the%venture%by%opposing%political%parties%was%a%safe%strategy%for%them,%given%that%
public%opinion%would%support%their%stance.%
7. Changing%the%reputation%of%a%product%or%an%industry%is%akin%to%changing%the%perception%of%a%
brand.%It%is%a%longKterm%process%that%can%only%occur%in%the%longKterm%as%one%brand%experience%
(negative)%is%replaced%by%another%(positive%one)%and%shapes%the%attitudes%and%behavioural%
dispositions%towards%the%brand.%
%
%
4%
The%paper%also%makes%six%guidelines%that%apply%to%entities%engaged%in%controversial%initiatives%that%may%
be%akin:%
%
1.!Assess$the$situation$and$anticipate$resistance!
Because%Mr.%Smith%had%operated%largely%unnoticed%for%15%years,%he%did%not%anticipate%the%risk%and%
opposition%to%the%venture.%When%that%opposition%came,%it%was%largely%too%late%to%adopt%a%preKemptive%
moral%high%ground%or%even%compete%for%it%because%the%opposition%had%taken%that%position%first.%
%
2.!Rely$on$emotional$appeals$supported$by$rational$arguments$rather$than$the$contrary!
The%proponent%strategy%was%based%on%cognitive%and%intellectual%arguments%with%emotional%correlatives%
in%a%very%secondary%role.%Proponents%might%have%looked%to%initiate%the%emotional%appeal%first:%examples%
of%increased%quality%of%life%and%prosperity%of%the%workers%in%the%town%of%Asbestos,%quality%of%life%benefits%
of%the%poorest%of%the%poor%in%Indiapersonalized%by%mobilizing%real%people%in%real%situations.%
%
3.!Enlist$moral$authorities$and$celebrity/expert$spokespersons!!
Proponents%had%a%compelling%story,%which,%if%told%effectively,%might%have%carried%greater%credibility%than%
it%did.%Opponents%of%controversial%projects%often%enlist%moral%authorities%who%have%no%credentials%other%
than%being%trusted%and%trustworthy.%Thus%Desmond%Tutu%can%voice%his%opinion%on%environmental%
considerations%without%regard%to%his%expertise.%A%respected%retired%politician%or%other%public%figure,%
even%a%beloved%celebrity%actor%or%musician,%can%bring%credibility%to%the%cause.%
%
4.!Build$more$effective$coalitions!
Build%more%effective%coalitions%with%the%workers%at%the%mine,%the%workers%in%the%plants%and%the%people%
benefiting%ultimately%from%the%product.%The%proponents%built%consensus%and%coalition%at%the%
governmental%level%but%never%mobilized%the%citizens%of%the%town,%Indian%workers%in%the%plants%and%the%
poor%living%under%the%roofs%enabled%by%the%product.%%
%
5.!Think$long$term$to$build$your$brand!
Changing%the%reputation%of%a%product%or%an%industry%is%a%longKterm%process.%You%have%to%bring%the%public%
to%a%new%perception%by%building%successive%levels%of%trust%in%the%claims%of%the%brand.%Changing%the%name%
from%the%generic%asbestos%to%the%more%specific%chrysotile%will%not%in%itself%change%the%brand%perception.%
The%proponent%position,%its%benefits%and%the%rationale%for%it%should%have%been%made%known%through%
textbooks,%learned%papers,%case%studies,%university%curriculum%and%other%means.%Funding%research%that%
proved%safe%use,%that%established%economic%benefits,%that%confirmed%safe%handling%in%the%developing%
world%and%elsewhere,%on%an%ongoing%basis,%would%have%contributed%to%the%ability%to%counter%the%
arguments%of%opponents.%
%
6.!Hold$to$the$highest$standards$of$integrity$and$transparency!
Proponents%cannot%descend%to%the%standards%of%their%opponents.%They%must%hold%themselves%to%the%
highest%standard.%When%you%cannot%afford%to%be%discredited,%you%should%not%take%any%risks.%Involve%all%
stakeholders%in%an%honest%debate%even%if%they%will%not%reciprocate.%
5%
Table!of!Contents!
!
%
%
Introduction!...................................................................................................................................!7%
Methodology!.................................................................................................................................!8!
Background!....................................................................................................................................!8%
Proponents!and!opponents!....................................................................................................!10%
Historical!overview!...................................................................................................................!11%
Timelinerecent!events!.........................................................................................................!12%
The!respective!arguments!......................................................................................................!14%
Analysis:!Strategies!and!tactics!.............................................................................................!16%
Lessons!learned!..........................................................................................................................!17%
Guidelines!.....................................................................................................................................!18%
Conclusion!....................................................................................................................................!19!
Selected!bibliography!...............................................................................................................!20!
Appendices!!.................................................................................................................................!21!
%
!
APPENDICES!
%
Appendix!A%%
Appendix!B%
Appendix!C%%
Appendix!D%%
Appendix!E%%
Appendix!F%%
Appendix!G%
Appendix!H%
Gazette%article%Asbestos%dealer%has%clear%conscience%
6%experts%claim%safe%use%
The%Lancet%editorial%
Gazette%article%The%continued%sale%of%Quebecs%asbestos%is%
indefensible%by%Kathleen%Ruff%et.%al.;%Gazette%article%Safe%practices%
with%asbestos%fill%a%need%in%the%developing%world%by%Barry%Smith%
Le%Devoir%article%India%%Asbestos%Cement%in%all%its%glory%
Proponent%timeline%and%fact%sheet%document%%
Letters%to%Pat%Martin,%MPs%and%senators%
Proponent%arguments%and%key%documentation%
6%
Introduction!
%
This%paper%looks%at%the%events%that%occurred%between%2010%and%2012%when%a%consortium%of%investors%
led%by%Mr.%Barry%Smith%(not%his%real%name)%attempted%to%purchase%and%reopen%the%Jeffrey%asbestos%mine%
in%the%province%of%Quebec.%%
%
It%examines%the%subject%of%whether%there%can%be%meaningful%dialogue%and%consensus%when%facts%come%
up%against%feelings,%by%answering%the%following%questions%relating%to%the%asbestos%debate%in%Quebec:%
%
What%happened?%
What%did%the%proponents,%do?%%
What%did%the%opponents%do?%
What%would%the%proponents%do%differently%if%they%had%to%do%it%again?%
What%can%other%proponents%of%controversial%projects%learn%from%this%experience?%
%
The%asbestos%venture%was%contingent%on%the%consortium%receiving%either%a%loan%guarantee%or%a%loan%
from%Investissement,Qubec%in%order%to%convert%the%mine%from%open%pit%to%an%underground%mining%
operation,%to%invest%in%infrastructure%and%to%initiate%sales%and%marketing%of%the%product%internationally.%
%
Opponents%of%the%venture%acted%quickly%to%create%awareness%of%the%venture%and%the%request%for%
government%support%in%key%audiences%including%the%general%public%and%the%federal,%provincial%and%local%
governments.%They%mobilized%and%enabled%human%rights%activists,%institutes%of%public%health,%medical%
associations%and%individuals%stricken%with%asbestosrelated%diseases%or%their%families%and%others
without%regard%to%their%expertise%or%specific%knowledgeto%voice%their%opposition%to%the%venture%
directly%to%the%decisionKmakers%and%indirectly%as%part%of%the%public%debate.%They%invoked%(inaccurately)%
the%positions%of%the%WHO%and%the%UN.%
%
The%debate%was%carried%on%principally%in%the%Quebec%media,%but%extended%as%well%to%the%rest%of%Canada%
and%abroad,%to%India%most%specifically.%The%objective%of%the%opponents%was%to%stop%the%venture,%have%
asbestos%added%to%the%list%of%hazardous%substances%as%part%of%the%Rotterdam%accord%(which%the%federal%
government%opposed%at%the%time)%and%get%asbestos%banned%in%Canada%as%it%is%in%some%other%countries.%%
%
The%level%of%opposition%and%the%tactics%pursued%came%as%somewhat%of%a%surprise%to%the%consortium%and%
to%Mr.%Smith%in%particular.%For%several%years,%Mr.%Smith%had%been%exporting%asbestos%to%India%for%
manufacturing%into%asbestosKreinforced%panels%for%use%as%roofing%for%Indias%impoverished.%He%had%done%
this%largely%unnoticed.%When%his%supplier%became%insolvent,%he%created%a%consortium%of%investors%to%buy%
the%mine%and%restart%operation%to%restore%his%supply%and%meet%the%demand,%specifically%in%India%and%
other%locations%in%the%developing%world.%%
%
The%consortiums%objective%was%to%purchase%the%mine%with%the%financial%support%of%the%provincial%
government,%reopen%the%mine%converted%to%underground%mining%and%restore%supply%of%the%mineral%for%
sale.%
%
The%penultimate%result%was%the%successful%acquisition%of%the%government%loan%that%would%allow%the%
mine%to%reopen.%However,%when%the%Liberal%government%was%defeated%in%September%2012,%the%Parti%
Qubcois%government%cancelled%the%deal,%the%mine%infrastructure%and%facilities%were%sold%off,%and%the%
potential%for%creating%a%financiallyKviable%operation%came%to%an%end%unrealized.%Had%the%venture%moved%
7%
ahead,%opposition%to%the%production%and%export%of%the%asbestos%product%would%very%likely%have%
continued%unabated%for%some%time.%Opponents%of%the%Jeffrey%Mine%venture%shifted%their%focus%to%the%
asbestos%issue%elsewhere.%
%
This%report%provides%background%on%the%asbestos%industry%and%identifies%the%principal%proponents%and%
opponents%of%the%venture%in%order%to%give%context%to%an%analysis%of%what%occurred,%what%was%learned,%
what%the%proponents%could%have%done%differently%and%what%others%faced%with%similar%circumstances%
might%learn%and%put%into%practice.%%
!
!
!
Methodology!
%
The%research%effort%began%with%a%review%of%existing%literature%in%public%consultation%management%and%
coalition%building%in%order%to%build%a%context%and%academic%support%for%our%analysis%and%
recommendations.%Using%major%databases%of%academic%and%scientific%articles%in%the%fields%of%health%care,%
environmental%stewardship,%business,%labour%relations,%cultural%shifts%such%as%smoking%cessation%and%
drinking%and%driving,%and%the%resource%industry,%the%effort%focused%on%key%words%such%as%coalition%
building,%dispute%resolution%and%public%consultation%management.%%%This%yielded%an%extensive%corpus%of%
some%50%articles,%which%were%organized%around%complexities%of%coalition%building,%negotiation%as%a%
coalition%building%tool%and%regional%branding.%
%
Next,%a%timeline%of%specific%and%relevant%events%was%created,%identifying%the%opponents,%proponents%and%
influencers%on%both%sides%of%the%issue.%Arguments%and%evidence%mobilized%by%each%side%was%then%
examined%in%an%effort%to%identify%and%categorize%the%messages%and%strategies%undertaken%by%both%sides.%%
%
Finally,%we%present%the%lessons%learned%and%recommendations.%These%were%arrived%at%by%reconciling%
messages%and%tactics%against%the%outcome%achieved%in%the%case%of%the%asbestos%debate%and%in%this%
process%seeking%grounded%and%reasonable%generalizations%that%could%apply%to%other%contexts.%%
%
%
%
Background!!
%
In%2010,%a%group%of%investors%wanted%to%purchase%and%reopen%the%Jeffrey%Mine%in%Asbestos,%Quebec,%in%
order%to%export%chrysotile%asbestos%for%manufacturing%into%asbestosKreinforced%cement%roofing%panels%
principally%for%the%Indian%market.%%
%
There%was%strong%demand%for%the%product%in%India,%where%it%is%used%to%manufacture%a%lowKcost,%
lightweight,%strong,%effective%roofing%material%consisting%of%cement%and%chrysotile,%destined%for%Indias%
poorest%people,%providing%a%roof%over%their%heads%that%is%superior%in%all%respects%to%cardboard,%
corrugated%metal%or%other%materials.%
%
Asbestos%mining%and%related%services%have%been%the%principal%source%of%jobs%in%the%city%of%Asbestos%
region%since%the%latter%part%of%the%19th%Century,%and%the%closing%of%the%mine%has%resulted%in%a%highly%
economically%depressed%local%economy%and%very%high%unemployment.%
8%
%
Past%unsafe%uses%and%handling%of%asbestos%has%been%proven%to%be%lethal%and%has%been%implicated%in%
asbestosis,%lung%cancer%and%mesothelioma%(cancer%of%the%pleura).%Even%secondKhand%exposure%has%been%
implicated,%at%least%empirically,%in%the%development%of%these%conditions.%
%
A%highly%profitable%litigation%industry%is%very%active,%especially%in%the%US,%and%promotes%suits%against%any%
corporation%involved%in%the%asbestos%industry%in%the%past.%Promoting%the%dangers%of%asbestos%and%
recruiting%apparent%victims%is%in%these%litigators%best%interests,%and%legal%professionals%spend%millions%in%
advertising%their%litigation%services%in%this%regard.%%
%
However,%there%is%strong%scientific%evidence%that%asbestos%can%be%handled%safely%and%the%risk%reduced%to%
acceptable%levels%if%proper%handling%techniques%are%implemented%and%enforced%and%the%product%is%used%
in%bonded%rather%than%loose%form.%%
%
With%the%support%of%the%provincial%Liberal%government%at%the%time,%as%well%as%of%the%federal%
Conservative%government,%the%local%municipality%and%the%population%of%the%Asbestos%region,%the%
investors%proceeded%to%meeting%the%requirements%of%the%provincial%government%that%would%allow%them%
to%acquire%a%governmentKsecured%loan%to%purchase%the%mine,%renovate%the%infrastructure%and%convert%
the%mine%to%an%underground%operation,%restart%mining%operations%to%export%and%market%the%raw%
material%to%manufacturers%in%India%for%poor%consumers%in%that%country.%They%further%committed%to%
ensuring%a%safe%use%protocol%throughout%the%supply%chain%and%to%audit%and%inspect%all%customer%facilities%
to%ensure%they%adhered%to%the%protocol.%
%
Strong,%highly%visible%and%very%vocal%opposition%locally,%nationally%and%internationally%was%almost%
immediate%and%resulted%in%a%highly%charged%public%debate%in%print%and%electronic%media.%Federal%and%
provincial%opposition%parties%were%mobilized%against%the%support%of%the%governments%in%power.%The%
investors%and%their%families%were%personally%targeted%and%education%and%healthKcare%organizations%they%
were%involved%in%were%pressured%to%shun%them%and%remove%them%from%their%boards.%%
%
These%intimidation%tactics%had%an%important%consequence%in%terms%of%the%proponents%being%able%to%
recruit%public%support%for%the%venture%among%thought%leaders%and%influential%public%figures.%While%many%
expressed%quiet%support%for%the%venture%and%the%proponents,%none%dared%express%that%opinion%
publically%given%the%implicit%and%real%threat%that%intimidation%tactics%would%be%brought%against%them,%
their%families,%their%associates%or%others.%
%
Proponents%of%the%project%responded%with%a%significant%public%relations%effort%based%on%the%benefits%of%
the%project%economically,%adoption%and%enforcement%of%safe%handling%practices,%and%benefits%to%the%
ultimate%consumer.%
%
Despite%strong%opposition,%the%investors%ultimately%met%all%the%requirements%for%the%loan,%and%the%
provincial%Liberal%government%approved%it,%immediately%prior%to%a%provincial%election%in%September%
2012.%At%that%time,%the%Parti%Qubcois%was%brought%into%power,%and%the%new%government%cancelled%
the%agreement.%%
%
%
9%
Proponents!and!opponents!
!
Following%are%the%principal%actors%in%the%initiative%to%reopen%the%mine:%
!
Proponents:%
%
Name!
Barry%Smith%%(Name%has%been%
changed)%
Bernard%Pigeon%(Name%has%been%
changed)%
%
Jacques%Dunnigan,%PhD%
Clment%Godbout%
%
Position!
Leader%of%the%consortium%to%purchase%the%mine.%Mr.%Smith%had%
been%exporting%chrysotile%to%India%for%several%years.%When%the%
Jeffrey%Mine%in%Asbestos,%Quebec,%became%insolvent%he%initiated%
efforts%to%buy%and%reopen%the%mine%supported%by%loans%from%the%
Quebec%government.%
President%of%Mine%Jeffrey%and%long%time%operator%of%the%Jeffrey%
Mine%
Former%ViceKDean%of%the%Faculty%of%Sciences%and%Associate%
University%ViceKPresident%for%Research%at%the%University%of%
Sherbrooke%and%Chairman%of%the%Graduate%Program%in%
Environmental%Science%until%he%became%Director%of%the%Health%&%
Environment%Division%of%the%Asbestos%Institute.%He%is%the%author%
of%some%60%research%papers,%and%runs%a%consultancy%in%
environmental%health%
President%
Chrysotile%Institute%
FederallyKfunded%institute%promoting%sale%of%chrysotile%
internationally.%The%institute%has%closed.%%
%
%
Opponents:!
,
Name!
Kathleen%Ruff%
,
Pat%Martin%
%
Dr.%Fernand%Turcotte%
%
Position!
Rightoncanada%
Rideau%Institute%
Principal%activist%opposing%the%venture.%Her%tactics%included%
unsubstantiated%opinions%masquerading%as%fact,%efforts%
discrediting%science%supporting%safe%use,%personal%attacks%by%
email%and%in%the%media%preKemptively%holding%the%moral%high%
ground%in%the%public%debate%
NDP%MP%for%Winnipeg%Centre%
Martin%was%exposed%to%high%levels%of%asbestos%while%working%in%a%
BC%mine%in%his%youth.%He%sponsored%a%private%members%bill%to%
ban%asbestos%in%Canada%which%was%defeated%in%the%house%
(Retired)%Faculty%of%Medicine%
Universit%Laval%
Dr.%Turcotte%was%a%fierce%opponent%of%the%venture%based%on%his%
contention%that%asbestos%could%not%be%handled%safely%
10%
Dr.%David%Egilman%
Stacy%Cattran%and%Leah%Nielsen%%
%
Professional%expert%witness%%
He%is%the%chief%interviewee%in%the%CBC%McKenna%piece%on%
asbestos,%despite%being%discredited%on%many%levels.%%
Stacy%Cattran%and%her%sister%Leah%Nielsen,%whose%father%died%
from%asbestosKrelated%disease,%organized%a%walk%to%take%place%in%
Sarnia,%Ontario,%on%October%1,%2011%to%remember%those%who%
had%died%from%asbestos%and%to%demand%an%end%to%Canadas%
export%of%asbestos.%Leah%Nielsen%later%lobbied%the%Red%Cross%to%
remove%Mrs.%Smith%from%that%board.%!
!
!
Historical!Overview!
!
In%1879,%chrysotile%(white%asbestos)%was%discovered%on%the%site%of%what%was%to%become%the%Jeffrey%Mine,%
the%worlds%first%large%scale%chrysotile%mine.%For%the%next%80%years,%chrysotile%was%touted%as%the%miracle%
fibre%for%its%tensile%strength,%insulating%abilities%and%capacity%to%handle%high%heat.%More%toxic%blue%and%
brown%asbestos%were%combined%with%chrysotile%and%used%in%various%loose%applications%that%were%inhaled%
by%workers%in%mines,%mills%and%construction%sites.%
%
It%was%not%till%the%1960s%that%a%conclusive%link%was%made%between%the%inhalation%of%loose%asbestos%
particles%and%lung%disease.%%
%
Since%1965,%chrysotile%fibre%is%no%longer%used%in%loose%/%friable%forms;%it%is%only%used%in%bonded%/%
encapsulated%forms%where%5%%to%8%%fibre%is%mixed%with%cement,%glues,%resins%etc.%This%is%the%case%both%
in%developed%and%developing%countries.%Chrysotile%is%also%no%longer%mixed%with%other,%more%toxic%forms%
of%the%mineral.%
%
Chrysotile%cement%sheets%and%pipes%last%up%to%50%years%and%do%not%emit%loose%fibres%in%the%air.%This%has%
been%proven%by%studies%in%Sweden,%Germany%and%India.%These%products%thereafter%can%be%easily%
disposed%of%in%dumps.%
%
Since%1975,%Chrysotile%mines,%mills%and%manufacturers%work%under%controlled%and%safe%working%
conditions;%today%the%town%of%Asbestos%is%pristine%green%with%no%higher%incidence%of%lung%cancer%among%
its%workers%than%other%industrial%towns%in%Canada.%
%
Since%1980,%only%chrysotile%(white%asbestos)%is%mined%in%the%world;%there%are%no%producing%mines%of%blue%
asbestos%and%brown%asbestos.%
%
%
11%
Timelinerecent!events!
Summer!2010:%Barry%Smith%is%approached%to%lead%a%consortium%to%reopen%the%mine%and%convert%the%
operation%from%open%pit%to%underground.%
%
The%town%of%Asbestos,%the%provincial%Liberal%government,%the%federal%Conservative%government%and%the%
Confrence,rgionale,des,lus,de,lEstrie%(CRE)%come%out%in%favour%of%the%initiative.%
%
November!26,!2010:!Gazette%reporter!Michelle%Lalonde%writes%article%titled%Asbestos%dealer%has%clear%
conscience.%As%the%Gazettes%environmental%reporter%at%the%time,%her%bias%is%not%favourable.%See,
Appendix,A.%
!
November!2010:%6%international%experts%claim%safe%use%of%asbestos.%See,Appendix,B.!
!
December!9,!2010:!Editorial%in%the%Lancet%entitled%Canada%accused%of%hypocrisy%over%asbestos%
exports.%The%story%recaps%the%debates.%The%opponents%present%the%article%as%a%peer%reviewed%opinion%
rather%than%the%editorial%it%is.%After%the%articles%publication,%the%Canadian%and%Quebec%medical%
associations%echo%the%criticism%of%the%federal%and%provincial%position%on%the%product.%See,Appendix,C.$
!
December!7L8,!2010:%Ban%Asbestos%Conference%Montreal%
Solidarity%delegation%from%Asia%to%Quebec%of%the%Asian%Ban%Asbestos%Network.%Welcoming%remarks%by%
Kathleen%Ruff%and%talk%by%Dr.%Fernand%Turcotte,%principal%advocates%of%an%asbestos%ban%and%opponents%
of%the%venture.%%
%
December!10,!2010:!Michelle%Lalonde%of%the%Gazette%writes%story%Asbestos%community%lobbies%Quebec%
for%loan%guarantee.!
!
December!10,!2010:%CRE%gives%favourable%advice%to%maintain%the%Chrysotile%industry%in%the%region%
%
December!14,!2010:%Prime%Minister%reiterates%his%support%of%the%asbestos%industry%reports%
Sherbrookes%La,Tribune.%%
%
January!8,!2011:!Kathleen%Ruff,%Fernand%Turcotte,%Abby%Lippman,%Edward%Keyserlingk,%Louise%Vandelac,%
Eric%Notebaert%sign%an%op.%ed%piece%in%the%Gazette%entitled%The%continued%sale%of%Quebecs%asbestos%is%
indefensible.%See,Appendix,D.!
!
January!19,!2011:%The%Gazette%publishes%Mr.%Smiths%article%in%the%business%section:%Safe%practices%with%
asbestos%fill%a%need%in%the%developing%world.%See,Appendix,D.!
%
February!7,!2011:%Le,Devoir%publishes%article%India%%Asbestos%Cement%in%all%its%glory,%written%by%Guy%
Taillefer%on%site%at%the%largest%importer%of%Quebec%asbestos%in%Delhi.%The%article%asserts%that%the%major%
plant%visited%conformed%to%standards.%Balanced%reporting%that%presents%opinions%of%both%sides.%See,
Appendix,E.%
%
The%CSN%comes%out%against%the%reopening%of%the%mine,%citing%worker%safety.%
%
12%
June!24,!2011:%The%federal%Conservative%government%sides%with%Vietnam,%Kazakhstan%and%Kyrgyzstan%at%
a%summit%in%Switzerland%to%successfully%block%the%inclusion%of%asbestos%on%a%United%Nations%list%of%
hazardous%materials%(Rotterdam%accord).%
%
July!2,!2011:!Natural%Resource%Minister%and%member%for%Megantic,%Christian%Paradis,%reiterates%his%
confidence%in%asbestos%in%Julian%Sher%and%Bill%Curry%article%in%Globe,and,Mail%of%July%2,%2011!
%
August!2011:%The%consortium%distributes%the%timeline%document%and%fact%sheet%along%with%the%February%
7%Devoir%article%%
%
September!26,!2011:%Mr.%Smith,%as%lead%member%of%the%consortium,%meets%with%NDP%MP%Pat%Martin%
and%has%a%subsequent%meeting%that%day%with%the%director%general%of%the%Rideau%Institute%along%with%
Kathleen%Ruff%by%conference%call%at%the%Rideau%Institute%offices%
%
September!26,!2011:%The%Rideau%Institute%responds%with%a%press%release%the%same%day%denouncing%the%
plan%to%reopen%the%mine.%
%
The%meeting%between%the%parties%is%covered%by%the%media,%with%English%and%French%media%picking%up%
Canadian%Press%reporter%Andy%Blatchfords%article%and%followup%articles.%
%
September!27,!2011:%Mr.%Smith%is%interviewed%at%length%by%AnneKMarie%Tremonte%of%CBCs%The,Current.%
The%interview%is%not%friendly.%Mr.%Smith%is%ambushed%and%his%rational%arguments%are%countered%with%
personal%stories%of%people%whose%family%members%are%dying%or%have%died%of%mesothelioma,%from%past%
unsafe%handling.%Mr.%Smith%is%also%interviewed%on%Montreal%CBC%local%radio.%
%
September!26,!2011:%Julian%Sher%of%the%Globe,and,Mail%writes%a%fairly%balanced%feature%article%on%the%
controversy,%outlining%both%sides.%
%
October!1,!2011:%Sarnia%walk%to%remember%asbestos%victims.%This%is%organized%by%activist%Stacey%Cattran%
and%gets%much%publicity.%
%
October!5,!2011:%Op.%Ed%in%the%Gazette%by%Mr.%Smith%%Why%I%want%to%be%in%the%Asbestos%business.%%%
%
November!2011:%John%Gray%and%Stephanie%Nolen%of%the%Globe,and,Mail%write%article%titled%Canadas%
Chronic%Asbestos%Problem.%The%article%looks%at%the%story%from%both%a%Canadian%and%Indian%perspective.%
%
January!30,!2012:%The%consortium%sends%letter%to%Pat%Martin%and%to%all%MPs%and%senators,%outlining%their%
position.%A%letter%had%been%sent%to%the%Prime%Minister%a%few%weeks%earlier.%Mr.%Smith%writes%that%
opponents%to%his%and%to%other%government%ventures%is%very%damaging.%Blind%activism,%he%says,%is%
creating%a%climate%of%intimidation%that%stifles%public%debates%and%makes%it%very%difficult%for%leaders%to%
speak%up%publicly.%See,Appendix,G.%
%
December!13,!2011:%Ottawa%Citizen%runs%Red%Cross%director%tied%to%asbestos%industry%story.%Leah%
Nielson%has%written%to%the%Red%Cross%board%asking%that%Mrs.%Smith%be%removed.%Neilsons%father%died%in%
2008%of%mesothelioma.%%She%calls%Mrs.%Smiths%involvement%a%conflict%of%interest.%
%
February!2,!2012:%CBC%National%airs%Terrence%McKennas%documentary%claiming%questionable%science%
funded%by%the%asbestos%industry.%The%documentary%claims%that%the%industry%sponsored%scientific%studies%
13%
to%try%to%whitewash%the%reputation%of%asbestos.%In%the%documentary,%retired%McGill%professor%John%
Corbett%MacDonalds%1966%research%is%called%into%question%because%he%did%research%funded%by%the%
chrysotile%industry.%The%documentary%contends%that%the%work%of%MacDonald,%a%McGill%researcher%paid%
by%the%industry,%was%biased.%The%piece%relies%heavily%on%an%interview%with%paid%advocate%David%Egilman.%
%
A%similar%story%runs%on%Enqute,%the%Radio%Canada%investigative%journalism%program%a%few%weeks%later.%%
%
January!29,!2012:%Under%pressure%from%the%opponents%to%the%consortium,%Mrs.%Smith%takes%a%leave%of%
absence%from%all%her%notKforKprofit%boards.%
%
Feb!3,!2012:%Opponents%contact%hospital%and%university%boards%that%Mrs.%Smith%sits%on,%saying%she%
should%resign%because%of%her%husbands%asbestos%venture.%She%ultimately%withdraws%from%her%board%
involvement%to%her%great%chagrin.%Her%contribution%is%much%acknowledged%and%subsequently%missed.%
%
Feb!24,!2012:%McGill,Daily%publishes%McGill%under%fire%for%corporateKfunded%asbestos%research%
regarding%a%letter%signed%by%76%international%health%experts%led%by%Fernand%Turcotte%asking%that%Mrs.%
Smith%be%removed%from%the%McGill%board%of%governors%and%cease%using%or%promoting%the%use%of%
asbestos.%Subsequently%Mrs.%Smith%takes%a%leave%of%absence%and%then%resigns%form%the%boards%of%McGill,%
St.%Marys%Hospital%and%the%Red%Cross.%
%
Spring!2012:%Investissement,Qubec%agrees%to%provide%the%loan%and%it%looks%like%the%venture%will%move%
ahead.%
%
September!20,!2012:%New!PQ%government%cancels%the%deal.%
!
October!18,!2012:%Professor%MacDonald%is%cleared%of%any%misconduct.%%
%
%
%
The!respective!arguments!
%
Juxtaposing%the%arguments%mobilized%by%each%side%offers%a%succinct%and%useful%way%to%extract%relevant%
intelligence%and%to%allow%key%lessons%for%the%success%of%future%similar%exercises%to%emerge.%
%
Opponents!
Proponents!
Chrysotile!asbestos!causes!mesothelioma!
Unsafe%handling%of%chrysotile%can%cause%
and!other!deadly!cancers!and!asbestosis.!
mesothelioma%and%other%diseases%after%decades%of%
!
exposure.%The%deaths%we%are%seeing%today%relate%to%
It!cannot!be!safely!used.!!
exposure%decades%ago.%
!
%
All!use!of!chrysotile!asbestos!must!stop!in!
Todays%handling%practices%are%safe%here%in%Canada%
order!to!prevent!more!unnecessary!deaths!
and%abroad.%We%will%ensure%safe%use%by%only%selling%to%
from!asbestos.!
plants%that%comply%with%the%safe%use%standards%and%
!
those%practices%will%be%audited%annually.%
Not!a!single!reputable!medical!or!scientific!
Opponents%cannot%provide%a%single%study%showing%
organization!supports!the!position!that!
that%exposure%to%less%than%1f/cc%is%unsafe.%
chrysotile!asbestos!can!be!safely!used!and!
%
14%
that!exposure!of!1!f/cc!causes!no!harm!to!
health.!!
!
Numerous%scientific%studies%have%been%published%in%
recent%years%that%support%the%assertion%that%exposure%
to%chrysotile%that%respects%the%current%occupational%
standard%in%Quebec%(1%fibre/cc)%is%safe;%the%risk%to%
health%at%this%level%of%exposure%is%so%low%as%to%not%be%
measurable.%
%
INSPQ!has!taken!a!position!opposing!the!
INSPQ%cannot%or%will%not%back%their%claims%with%any%
Quebec!governments!policy!of!promoting!
evidence.%When%they%do%provide%evidence,%the%vast%
asbestos!use,!stating!that!exposure!of!1!f/cc! majority%is%based%on%people%over%70%who%worked%
is!not!defensible!and!should!be!more!strict.! under%very%different%conditions%than%today.%
States!that!it!believes,!from!its!research!over! %
the!past!decades,!that!safe!use!of!
Their%reports%state%nonKcompliance%but%provide%no%
chrysotile!asbestos!is!likely!impossible,!even! detail%as%to%compliance%or%nonKcompliance%with%what%
in!Quebec.!
INSPQ%has%arbitrarily%established%safe%levels%to%be%a%
hundred%times%more%stringent%and%equivalent%to%the%
levels%observed%in%countries%where%the%product%is%
banned.%
%
The!Quebec!College!of!Physicians!
has!stated!that!anyone!dealing!with!
the!asbestos!issue!should!be!guided!
by!the!INSPQ,!since!the!INSPQ!has!
the!medical!competence!and!the!
legal!mandate!to!provide!the!
necessary!advice.!
The%College%is%basing%its%view%on%incomplete,%
vague%or%undisclosed%data.%
All!16!of!the!Quebec!governments!
Directors!of!Public!Health!have!stated!
that!soLcalled!safe!use!of!asbestos!has!
been,!and!continues!in!2011!to!be,!a!
complete!failure!in!Quebec!itself.!
Quebecs!Directors!of!Public!Health,!just!
like!the!Quebec!Medical!Association,!the!
Quebec!Cancer!Society,!the!Quebec!Public!
Health!Association,!and!so!many!other!
authoritative,!independent!organizations,!
oppose!the!project!pursued!by!Mr.!Smith!
and!his!consortium!to!reLlaunch!the!
Jeffrey!mine.!In!their!letter!to!the!Quebec!
government,!the!Directors!of!Public!
Health!state!that,!in!their!view,!Mr.!
Smiths!project!to!reLlaunch!the!Jeffery!
mine!will!create!a!significant!increase!in!
asbestosLrelated!deaths.!
None%of%these%organizations%has%provided%
one%iota%of%proof%supporting%their%positions.%
Physicians,%including%the%Canadian%Medical%
Association,%are%outside%their%area%of%
expertise%when%it%comes%to%health%and%safety.%
Their%impulse%is%to%ban%anything%that%might%
have%any%health%risk.%(boxing,%for%example)%
We%have%been%asking%two%very%simple%question%that%
no%one%seems%able%to%answer:%
What%is%the%basis%behind%the%100%000%deaths%per%year%
the%WHO%attributes%to%chrysotile?%%%
%
There%is%not%one%single%scientific%study%where%any%
impact%on%human%health%to%exposure%to%chrysotile%
only%at%the%1f/cc%level%could%have%been%
measured.%%We%keep%asking%and%no%one%answers.%%%%
15%
The!asbestos!industry!cites!studies!that!
indicate!that!exposure!to!high!levels!of!
chrysotile!asbestos!causes!no!harm!to!
health.!These!studies!are!not!persuasive.!!
Even!if!safe!practices!were!established!in!
Canada,!ensuring!safe!practices!in!the!
developing!world!is!not!possible.!
These%studies%demonstrate%that%exposure%of%less%than%
1f/cc%is%not%a%health%risk.%%
%
These%are%peer%reviewed%studies.%The%methodology%
and%results%are%open%to%scrutiny%and%in%fact%have%been%
scrutinized%by%editorial%boards%who%judged%them%to%
be%scientifically%rigorous.%%
%
To%say%that%they%are%not%persuasive%is%to%say%that%they%
arent%valid%because%they%dont%prove%what%the%
opponents%want%them%to%approve.%
We%will%only%sell%to%manufacturers%who%will%establish%
and%maintain%safe%practices.%We%will%audit%these%
manufacturers%with%independent%Quebec%
government%inspectors%and%we%will%make%surprise%
visits.%We%will%not%sell%to%mom%and%pop%operations.%
%
The%arguments%of%the%proponents%and%key%documentation%are%contained%in%Appendix%H.%
%
%
%
Analysis:!Strategies!and!tactics!
%
A%review%of%the%file%allows%us%to%summarize%the%opponent%and%proponent%strategies%as%the%following:%%
%
Opponent!strategy!and!tactics!
Proactively%claim%moral%high%ground%by%accusing%proponents%of%forwarding%profit%objectives%against%
public%health%priorities%and%human%rights.%Accuses%all%involved%in%the%consortium,%including%public%
relations%professionals%and%legal%counsel%of%immoral%behaviour%
Engage%in%a%highly%emotional%campaign%without%relying%necessary%on%the%factual%elements%
Fight%the%fight%on%emotions%not%facts,%by%ignoring%scientific%evidence%provided%by%the%proponents,%
showcasing%victims%and%their%families%and%invoking%the%caveat%that%no%risk%is%acceptable%risk%
Mobilize%effort%coming%together%over%a%cause%perceived%to%be%urgent%
Bring%advocates%from%international%ban%asbestos%movement%into%the%fray%
Obtain%endorsements%of%thought%leaders,%the%equivalent%of%celebrity%spokespeople%%%
Mobilize%opposition%from%moral%and%medical%authorities%
Make%victims%and%victims%family%visible%in%the%debate%
Attack%opponents%science%
Promote%their%position%as%scientific%without%presenting%science%
Get%WHO,%Canadian%Medical%Assoc.%etc.%to%speak%out%against%the%consortium%
Attack%the%consortium%leader,%his%family%and%his%consultants%personally%in%the%media%and%in%
correspondence%with%them%thus%making%public%support%for%the%proponents%highly%risky%for%those%
who%might%support%it%
Browbeat%and%bully%notKfor%profit%organizations%in%which%the%principal%and%his%wife%were%active,%
calling%for%their%resignations%and%intending%to%give%them%the%sense%that%they%are%community%pariahs%
Mobilize%the%political%opposition%federally%and%provincially%
16%
Proponent!strategy!and!tactics!
Caught%off%guard%and,%by%necessity,%reactive%in%approach%
Engage%in%a%highly%rational,%science%driven%approach%based%on%facts,%balancing%benefits%against%risk%
for%most%positive%outcome%for%most%people%
Build%coalition%to%include%federal,%provincial%and%local%government%in%power%including%CRE%
Work%in%collaboration%with%current%owners%of%the%mine%and%with%the%Chrysotile%Institute%
Reach%agreement%with%Investissement,Qubec%to%either%provide%a%loan%guarantee%or%an%outright%
loan%to%initiate%the%project%
Build%a%file%of%facts%on%the%safe%use%of%chrysotile%including%peer%reviewed%science%
Focus%on%the%safe%use%here%and%abroad,%jobs%created%and%benefits%to%the%people%to%become%ultimate%
users%of%the%product%
Create%broad%general%awareness%of%the%facts%through%advertising,%pr,%response%to%articles%and%op.%
ed.%by%opponents%
Cooperate%with%journalists,%specifically%business%journalists,%to%make%our%case%
Respond%to%our%critics%with%op.%ed.%pieces%and%letters%to%the%editor%
Speak%honestly%and%transparently,%often%at%great%personal%and%other%cost%to%the%proponents%%(e.g.%
The%Current%interview)%
Attempt%dialogue%with%critics%%
!
!
!
Lessons!learned!
%
Seven%key%lessons%learned%arise%out%of%our%study%of%the%file%and%what%occurred:%
%
1. The%opponents%proactively%and%preKemptively%claiming%the%moral%high%ground%put%the%
consortium%of%investors%in%a%reactive%and%defensive%position.%To%preKemptively%stake%out%the%
moral%high%ground,%the%proponents%would%have%had%to%anticipate%opposition%rather%than%wait%
for%it%to%materialize%and%then%reacting%to%it.%This%could%have%been%effected%by%showcasing%the%
safe%practices%at%the%mine%in%its%last%years%of%operation,%highlighting%the%jobs%that%would%be%
created%and%the%quality%of%life%that%would%be%enjoyed%by%the%town%residents%and%the%quality%of%
life%benefits%to%workers%in%the%developing%world,%combined%with%the%quality%of%life%benefits%of%
the%actual%users%of%the%product.%%
%
2. It%is%nearly%impossible%to%change%feelings%by%stating%facts.%Individuals%tune%out%the%facts%that%do%
not%support%their%feelings.%
%
3. It%is%very%difficult%to%build%consensus%and%coalition%if%the%potential%parties%do%not%mobilize%over%a%
common%goal,%are%not%driven%by%a%sense%of%urgency%and%are%not%empowered%by%a%sense%of%moral%
superiority.%It%is%especially%difficult%to%enlist%public%support%of%influential%thought%leaders%under%
threat%of%intimidation%for%doing%so.%
%
4. The%behaviour%of%the%opponents%would%not%be%tolerated%or%seen%as%acceptable%if%the%
proponents%had%acted%in%a%similar%fashion,%because%the%opponents%had%claimed%the%moral%high%
ground%in%the%minds%of%the%public,%so%their%means%were%justified%by%their%goal.%%
%
17%
5. The%reputation%of%the%product%and%the%track%record%of%the%industry%made%it%nearly%impossible%to%
create%trust%and%confidence%that%the%consortium%would%act%ethically%and%safely.%
%
6. Opposition%to%the%venture%by%opposing%political%parties%was%a%safe%strategy%for%them,%given%that%
public%opinion%would%support%their%stance.%
%
7. Changing%the%reputation%of%a%product%or%an%industry%is%akin%to%changing%the%perception%of%a%
brand.%It%is%a%longKterm%process%that%can%only%occur%in%the%longKterm%as%one%brand%experience%is%
replaced%by%another%(positive%one).%The%strategy%to%operate%below%the%radar%while%the%industry%
was%operating%was%effective%short%term,%but%it%left%the%asbestos%brand%vulnerable%when%it%was%
assailed.%The%brand%values%need%to%be%reinforced%and%communicated%longKterm,%even%if%there%
is%no%visible%threat%to%that%brands%integrity%in%the%short%term.%
!
!
!
Guidelines!
!
What,the,proponents,should,have,done,
What,others,should,do,
%
1.!Assess$the$situation$and$anticipate$resistance!
Because%Mr.%Smith%had%operated%largely%unKnoticed%for%15%years,%he%did%not%anticipate%the%risk%and%
opposition%to%the%venture.%When%that%opposition%came,%it%was%largely%too%late%to%adopt%a%preKemptive%
moral%high%ground%or%even%compete%for%it%because%the%opposition%had%taken%that%position%first.%
%
2.!Rely$on$emotional$appeals$supported$by$rational$arguments$rather$than$the$contrary1!
The%proponent%strategy%was%based%on%cognitive%and%intellectual%arguments%with%emotional%correlatives%
in%a%very%secondary%role.%Proponents%might%have%looked%to%initiate%the%emotional%appeal%first:%examples%
of%increased%quality%of%life%and%prosperity%of%the%workers%in%the%town%of%Asbestos,%quality%of%life%benefits%
of%the%poorest%of%the%poor%in%Indiapersonalized%by%mobilizing%real%people%in%real%situations.%
%
3.!Enlist$moral$authorities$and$celebrity/expert$spokespersons!!
Proponents%had%a%compelling%story%in%which,%if%told%effectively,%might%have%carried%credibility%greater%
credibility%than%it%did.%Opponents%of%controversial%projects%often%enlist%moral%authorities%who%have%no%
credentials%other%than%being%trusted%and%trustworthy.%Thus%Desmond%Tutu%can%voice%his%opinion%on%
environmental%considerations%without%regard%to%his%expertise.%A%respected%retired%politician%or%other%
public%figure,%even%a%beloved%celebrity%actor%or%musician,%can%bring%credibility%to%the%cause2.%But%it%is%
unrealistic%to%believe%that%public%support%will%occur%under%threat%of%intimidation%tactics%similar%to%the%
ones%experienced%by%Mr.%Smith%and%his%wife.%
%
%According%to%a%study,%the%most%frequently%cited%reason%for%coalition%formation%was%because%members%shared%
common%interests;%additionally,%coalition%leader%recognize%the%critical%need%for%coalition%members%to%build%
2
%Research%suggests,%sophisticated%and%experienced%leaders%are%necessary%for%sustaining%and%using%coalitions%as%
vehicles%and%the%seeking%attributes%or%images%include%as%being%credible,%dedicated,%proven,%trustworthy,%
articulate/persuasive,%and%expert%on%issue%(Rosenthal,%B.%B.,%2001)%
18%
4.!Build$more$effective$coalitions!
Build%more%effective%coalitions3%with%the%workers%at%the%mine,%the%workers%in%the%plants%and%the%people%
benefiting%ultimately%from%the%product.%The%proponents%built%consensus%and%coalition%at%the%
governmental%level%but%never%mobilized%the%citizens%of%the%town,%Indian%workers%in%the%plants%and%the%
poor%living%under%the%roofs%enabled%by%the%product.%%
!
5.!Think$long$term$to$build$your$brand!
Changing%the%reputation%of%a%product%or%an%industry%is%a%longKterm%process4.%You%have%to%bring%the%
public%to%a%new%perception%by%building%successive%levels%of%trust%in%the%claims%of%the%brand5.%Changing%
the%name%from%the%generic%asbestos%to%the%more%specific%chrysotile%will%not%in%itself%change%the%brand%
perception.%
%
The%proponent%position,%its%benefits%and%the%rationale%for%it%should%have%been%made%known%through%
textbooks,%learned%papers,%case%studies,%university%curriculum%and%other%means.%%
%
Funding%research%that%proved%safe%use,%that%established%economic%benefits,%that%confirmed%safe%
handling%in%the%developing%world%and%elsewhere,%on%an%ongoing%basis,%would%have%contributed%to%the%
ability%to%counter%the%arguments%of%opponents.%
%
6.!Hold$to$the$highest$standards$of$integrity$and$transparency6!
Proponents%cannot%descend%to%the%standards%of%their%opponents.%They%must%hold%themselves%to%the%
highest%standard.%When%you%cannot%afford%to%be%discredited,%you%should%not%take%any%risks.%Involve%all%
stakeholders%in%an%honest%debate%even%if%they%will%not%reciprocate.%%
%
%
%
Conclusion!
!
The%dynamic%tension%of%opposing%forces%can%help%achieve%the%best%solutions/best%outcomes%for%all%
stakeholders%from%a%societal%and%community%point%of%view,%when%and%only%when%the%objectives%and%
concerns%of%each%can%be%understood%and%respected%by%the%other.%Meaningful%dialogue%and%debate%can%
only%occur%if%biases%and%selfKserving%objectives%are%set%aside%and%the%parties%are%open%to%listening,%
understanding,%negotiating%and%resolving%issues%to%the%highest%possible%satisfaction%of%all%parties%as%a%
whole.%
In%the%case%of%the%asbestos%debate%in%Quebec,%this%was%not%possible.%Opposition%based%on%strongly%held%
feelings%can%rarely%be%swayed%by%logic%or%facts,%and%this%was%proven%in%the%Quebec%experience.%
%According%to%Dupont,%effective%coalition%depends%on%1)%size,%2)%leadership,%3)%cohesion,%and%4)%proximity.%
(Dupont,%C.,%1996)%%
4
%As%the%key%to%accruing%brand%equity,%or%brand%management,%maintaining%reputation%is%the%estimation%of%the%
consistency%over%time%of%an%attribute%of%an%entity"%(Milewicz,%J.,%1993)%%
5
%Use%of%branding%is%suggested%as%more%sustainable%approach%(Horlings%and%Marsden,%2012)%and%considered%
widely%successful%for%coalition%building%%a%case%in%point%is%Netherlands%for%their%place%branding%efforts%(Horlings,%L.%
G.,%2012)%
6
%A%coalitionKbuilding%study%reinforces%this%notion%K%developing%a%transparent%conflictKresolution%process%early%on%
will%help%mitigate%conflicts%later%on.%(Bennett,%R.,%2013)%%
19%
Selected!Bibliography!
!
Bennett,%R.%(2013)%Strength%in%Numbers:%A%Guide%to%Building%Effective%Medicare%Advocacy%Coalitions.%
Care,Management,Journals,%21K31.%
%
Dupont,%C.%(1996)%Negotiation%as%Coalition%Building.%International,Negotiation,%47K64.%
%
Horlings,%L.%G.%(2012)%Place%branding%by%building%coalitions;%lessons%from%ruralurban%regions%in%the%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Netherlands.%Place,Branding,and,Public,Diplomacy,%295K309.%
%
Horlings%,%I%.%and%Marsden%,%T%.%(2012)%Exploring%the%%new%rural%paradigm%%in%Europe:%EcoKeconomic%
strategies%as%a%counterforce%to%the%global%competitiveness%agenda%.%European,Urban,and,Regional,
Studies,%published%online%before%print.%
%
Milewicz,%J.%(1993)%The%relationship%of%reputation%and%credibility%to%brand%success.%Journal,of,Consumer,
Marketing,%18K24.%
%
Rosenthal,%B.%B.%(2001)%Complexities%of%Coalition%Building:%Leaders'%Successes,%Strategies,%Struggles,%and%
Solutions.%Social,Work,%63K78.%
%
%
%
%
%
%
20%
APPENDICES!
%
%
%
%
Appendix!A%%
Appendix!B%
Appendix!C%%
Appendix!D%%
Appendix!E%%
Appendix!F%%
Appendix!G%
Appendix!H%
Gazette%article%Asbestos%dealer%has%clear%conscience%
Six%experts%claim%safe%use%
The%Lancet%editorial%
Gazette%article%The%continued%sale%of%Quebecs%asbestos%is%
indefensible%by%Kathleen%Ruff%et.%al.;%Gazette%article%Safe%practices%
with%asbestos%fill%a%need%in%the%developing%world.%By%Barry%Smith%
Le%Devoir%article%India%%Asbestos%Cement%in%all%its%glory%
Proponent%timeline%and%fact%sheet%document%%
Letter%to%Pat%Martin,%MPs%and%senators%
Proponent%arguments%and%key%documentation%
%
21%
APPENDIX A
Gazette&article&Asbestos&dealer&has&clear&conscience&
Saturday,)July)5,)2014)at)4:37:31)PM)Pacic)Daylight)Time
Subject: Asbestos'dealer'has''clear'conscience'
Date: Friday,'November'26,'2010'at'9:40:29'AM'Pacic'Standard'Time
From:
To:
CC:
Baljit
CCI'G'JeanGMarc'Leblond
ChrysoJle'InsJtute'G'Clement'Godbout
Asbestos dealer has 'clear conscience'

'
'
By'Michelle'Lalonde,'GAZETTE'environment'reporter'November'25,'2010
'
'
'
A worker looks at a small lake formed at the

bottom of the 2.5-kilometre-wide pit at the
Jeffrey Mine, in Asbestos.
Photograph by: Dario Ayala, Gazette file photo
MONTREAL - A Westmount-based businessman who wants to help finance the expansion of the
Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos says the international outcry against the project does not bother him.
Page)1)of)3
"I am going into this with an absolutely clear conscience," Baljit Chadha, president of Balcorp Ltd.,
told The Gazette yesterday.
For the past 15 years, Chadha has been an asbestos middleman, buying chrysotile asbestos from the
Jeffrey Mine and selling it to about a dozen large cement manufacturers in India. Balcorp Ltd. is an
international trade and marketing firm with offices in Westmount, New Delhi and Mumbai.
Now that the open-pit mine in Asbestos is nearly exhausted, Chadha is part of an international
consortium ready to invest in an expanded underground operation. The underground mine could
produce enough asbestos to keep Quebec and Canada in the controversial asbestos export business for
at least two decades.
But to get the project started, the Quebec government would have to agree to guarantee a $58-million
bank loan, something the province's public health community, and activists around the world, have
been begging Premier Jean Charest not to do.
On Dec. 6, a delegation of anti-asbestos activists representing workers and asbestos victims in India,
Indonesia, Japan and South Korea, is to arrive in Montreal. The group has requested a personal meeting
with Charest.
"We believe this is an urgent matter and that you have a responsibility to hear us, as the people in our
countries are the ones who will pay the price for this decision," Sugio Furuya, coordinator of the Asian
Ban Asbestos Network, wrote in a letter sent to Charest on Tuesday.
But Chadha said the anti-asbestos activists are complaining about small, unregulated "mom and pop"
plants in the developing world, where television crews have documented horrific working conditions
and non-existent safety standards.
Chadha said he or his colleagues have visited each of the manufacturing plants to which his company
sells Quebec asbestos. He said all of them handle it safely.
"If I was guilty and didn't have a clean conscience because I was selling it to people who were using it
wrongly, then yes, (the criticism) would bother me, but that is not the case," he said.
He said asbestos-reinforced cement is in great demand in India, and he is proud to supply the fibres. He
concedes chrysotile fibres can cause deadly diseases if inhaled, but he stressed the fibres are handled
safely at the plant, and then enclosed in cement.
"It is the cheapest material for a roof that a poor man can have. It provides insulation from the extreme
heat and it does not go 'tick tick tick' during the monsoon rains, like a steel roof does," he said.
But critics say manufacturers in India and other developing countries cannot control what happens to
asbestos-reinforced cement sheets or pipes when they leave the plant. The fibres are released into the
air when the cement is cut or sawed, and construction or renovation workers in these countries are
dying of asbestos-related diseases.
Studies have repeatedly shown that asbestos, once it leaves the mine, is not handled safely in Quebec,
so there is skepticism about whether companies and governments in the developing world have the
resources to properly monitor its use.
'Copyright'(c)'The'Montreal'GazeVe
Page)2)of)3
Read'more:
hVp://www.montrealgazeVe.com/Asbestos+dealer+clear+conscience/3885311/story.html#ixzz16OvMTV58
Page)3)of)3
Appendix(B(
(
Six(Experts(Claim(Safe(Use(
November 2010
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
ON THE SAFETY IN USE OF CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
It must be recognized that past, uncontrolled use of all the commercial types of asbestos has
left a sad legacy of disease and death as a result of carelessness in handling these minerals,
especially in the workplace and sometimes in the general population.
Yet, over the last 50 years, the world production has not declined. The world production in
1960 was around 2M tonnes, and still amounted to 2M tonnes in 2009. However, while the
world production in the early 60s included all major types (chrysotile, crocidolite and
crocidolite), the production of the amphibole varieties (crocidolite and amosite) has ceased
since the 1987 and 1992 respectively. Unfortunately, because of procrastination by some
governments in implementing regulation of amphiboles, the remaining amphiboles
inventories were allowed to be used in some factories up to the mid 90s. In addition, due to
the large use in past years of amphiboles by some countries, a significant background level
of amphibole asbestos remains. Due to the characteristic long latency associated with onset
of asbestos-related cancer, especially with mesothelioma, a high incidence of this particular
cancer of the pleura may be foreseen in those industries for the next two or three decades.
The carcinogenic potency of amphibole asbestos has been established both
epidemiologically and toxicologically, leading to it being no longer used in commerce. In
1989, a group of international experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO)
in Oxford (UK) had recommended that these asbestos varieties should be prohibited
immediately, and that the use of chrysotile should be controlled and regulated at a
permissible exposure limit of 1 fiber/ml in the workplace.
Today, the remaining practical concern is whether chrysotile can be produced and used
safely, and if indeed this regulation carries a reasonable assurance that workers are
adequately protected. Based upon current science, the short answer to this question is that
in absence of amphiboles, the use of chrysotile at current Qubec permissible exposure
limits in the workplace carries no epidemiologically and clinically detectable increase in
risk. Indeed, a number of recent scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals have
come to this conclusion (see Annex). From these published studies, it can be seen that safety
in the use of chrysotile is not a simple wish, but a reality. The International Labour
Organization (ILO) has issued a Code of Practices entitled Safety in the Use of
Asbestos , which addresses all pertinent issues regarding the modern and responsible use
of asbestos.
(This Code of Practice is available by downloading it from :

http://www.ilo.org/safework/normative/codes/lang--en/docName--WCMS_107843/index.htm)
Erosion of surface deposits over millennia means that chrysotile is a ubiquitous component
of the particulate matter in the air. The WHO (1986) estimates the background exposure to
chrysotile as between 0.01 and 0.001 fiber per milliliter of air. The risk to health from this
background exposure is, for all practical purposes, non existent. Industrial and other
exposure at the high end of this range has been labelled acceptable by the Ontario Royal
Commission on Asbestos (ORCA), not significant by the WHO, and further control
not justified by the Royal Society in London (UK).
The concept of controlled use.
In the area of occupational health, and specifically with regard to the use of chrysotile
asbestos, regulatory agencies in all countries have the responsibility to set workplace
exposure limits that will reduce the risk to workers to the lowest possible level. That this
exercise should be based on the most recent scientific assessment available would seem
obvious.
CONCLUSIONS
The latest scientific evidence published strongly supports the following views:
1- Chrysotile is significantly less hazardous than the amphibole forms of
asbestos (e.g. crocidolite and amosite);
2- When properly controlled and used, chrysotile asbestos in its modern day highdensity applications does not present risks of any significance to public and/or
worker health.
Dr. John Hoskins, FRSC, C. Chem.
Independent Toxicologist.
Haslemere,
Surrey, UK.
Dr. Allen Gibbs,

Dept. Histopathology,
University College
of Medicine,
Cardiff, UK
Dr. Robert P Nolan,

International Environmental
Research Foundation,
New York,
U. S. A.
Prof. Jacques Dunnigan,

Faculty of Science
University of Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, QC
Canada
Dr. David M. Bernstein

Consultant in Toxicology
Geneva, Switzerland
Dr. Fred Pooley.

Cardiff University,
Cardiff, UK
2
Appendix
Published evidence supporting a practical threshold level of exposure to

occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos below which no adverse health
effects are observed.
Sichletidis L, Chloros D, Spyratos D, Haidich A-D, Fourkiotou I, Kakoura M, Patakas D
(2008) Mortality from occupational Exposure to Relatively Pure Chrysotile:: A 39-Year
Study. Respiration, 78 :63-68 Published Online: October 9, 2008.
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=AcceptedPapers&ProduktNr=2242
78
An investigation covering a span of almost 40 years on the mortality rate among workers exposed
to relatively pure chrysotile in an asbestos cement factory that opened in 1968 in Greece. The
factory used approximately 2,000 tonnes of chrysotile annualy until 2005. Fiber concentration
was measured regularly, and was always below permissible levels. Date and cause of death were
recorded among all active and retired workers.
No case of mesothelioma was reported. Overall mortality rate was significantly lower than that of
the Greek general population. Conclusions of the authors : Occupational exposure to
relatively pure chrysotile within permissible levels was not associated with a significant increase
in lung cancer or with mesothelioma
White N., Nelson G. and Murray J. (2008) South African experience with asbestos related
environmental mesothelioma : Is asbestos fiber type important?
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 52 : S92 S96
South Africa, like Australia, represent a very particular situation in the history of the use of
asbestos. These countries have historically been the major producers of amphiboles (crocidolite
and amosite), and South Africa also produced amosite and chrysotile. In both these countries, the
number of mesothelioma cases have been much higher than anywhere else in the world. The
authors have indicate that 23% of cases in South Africa were found in persons never employed in
mining, but were found associated with living in neighborhoods close to amphibole mining
facilities, thus associated with environmental exposure. However, there were no case of
mesothelioma associted with exposure to chrysotile.
The authors conclude : No cases were associated with South African chrysotile. Consequently,
in the vast majority of cases of mesothelioma, environmental exposure to asbestos occured in the
North Cape province, in proximity to mines, mills and dumps where crocidolite was processed.
Crocidolite appears more mesotheliomagenic than amosite, and chrysotile has not been
implicated in the disease. This is true for both occupationally and environmentally exposed
individuals.
Mangold C, Clark K, Madl A, and Paustenbach D. (2006). An exposure study of bystanders
and workers during the installation and removal of asbestos gaskets and packing.
J Occup. Environ Health 3: 87-98
In response to concerns raised in a report to the US Navy in 1977 on exposure to asbestos
associated to gasket work, a series of studies was performed from 1982 to 1991 to evaluate the
airborne concentrations of chrysotile asbestos associated with replacing gaskets and packing
3
materials. The results indicated that the 8-hour time-weighted (TWA) average concentrations
were between 0.01 to 0.03 fiber/cc.
Carel R, Olsson AC, Zaridze D, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N, Rudnai P, Lissowska J, Fabianova
E, Cassidy A, Mates D, Bencko V, Foretova L, Janout V, Fevotte J, Fletcher T, 't Mannetje
A, Brennan P, Boffetta P. (2007) International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon,
France.
Occupational exposure to asbestos and man-made vitreous fibres and risk of lung cancer: a
multicenter case-control study in Europe
Occup Environ Med. 2007 Aug;64(8):502-8. Epub 2006 Oct 19
http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/64/8/502
The multi-center case-control study was carried out in six regions of Eastern and Central Europe
and in the U.K. Comparison of odds ratios for asbestos exposure has shown that occupational
exposure to asbestos does not appear to contribute to the lung cancer burden in men in Central
and Eastern Europe while in contrast, the lung cancer risk in the UK is increased following
exposure to asbestos. The authors conclude : In this large community-based study occupational
exposure to asbestos and MMVF does not appear to contribute to the lung cancer burden in men
in Central and Eastern Europe. In contrast, in the UK the authors found an increased risk of lung
cancer following exposure to asbestos. Differences in fibre type and circumstances of exposure
may explain these results.
Yarborough C.M. (2006). Chrysotile as a Cause of Mesothelioma : An Assessment Based
on Epidemiology.
Critical Reviews in Toxicology 36: 165-187
This is an extensive review of the epidemiological cohort studies undertaken to evaluate the
extent of the evidence related to exposure to free chrysotile fibers, with particular attention to
confounding by other fiber types, job exposure concentrations, and consistency of findings. This
review of 71 asbestos exposed cohorts exposed to free asbestos fibers does not support the
hypothesis that chrysotile, uncontaminated by amphibolic substances, causes mesothelioma.
Paustenbach DJ, Finley BL, Lu ET, Brorby GP and Sheehan PJ (2004). Environmental and
occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in brake linings and
pads (1900 to present): A state-of-the-art review.
J Toxicol Environ Health, Part B 7 : 33-110
This publication is a state-of-the-art review of the risk associated with the use of asbestos in
the manufacture of friction materials and their use in the general automotive service industries.
This review, covering studies and observations published over several decades, demonstrate that
in general, exposures have been minimal and did not show any demonstrable risk when chrystile
was used, and that the relatively few instances of increased health risks were always associated
with the use of amphiboles.
Liddell FDK, McDonald JC and McDonald A
Ann. Occup. Hyg. 41:13-35 (1997)
This study is undoubtedly the largest cohort of asbestos workers ever studied and followed for the
longest period is that of the miners and millers of the chrysotile mines in Qubec. The cohort,
which was established in 1966, comprises some 11,000 workers born between 1891-1920 and has
been followed ever since. The authors have updated their study several times, with a total of
4
9,780 men traced into 1992. Results from exposures below 300 mpcf x years, roughly
equivalent to 900 fibres/ml x years - or, say, 45 fibres/ml for 20 years - lead the authors to
conclude: "Thus it is concluded from the point of view of mortality that exposure in this industry
to less than 300 mpcf.years has been essentially innocuous".
Newhouse, M.L. and Sullivan, K.R. (1989). A mortality study of workers manufacturing
friction materials: 1941-86.
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 46(3):176-179.
The study referred to in the preceding slide has been extended by seven years. The authors
confirm that there was no excess of deaths from lung cancer or other asbestos related cancers, or
from chronic respiratory disease. After 1950, hygienic control was progressively improved at
this factory, and from 1970, levels of asbestos have not exceeded 0.5-1.0 f/ml. The authors
conclude: "It is concluded that with good environmental control, chrysotile asbestos may be used
in manufacture without causing excess mortality"
Ohlson C G. and Hogstedt C (1985). Lung cancer among asbestos cement workers. A
Swedish cohort study and a review.
A cohort study of 1,176 asbestos cement workers in a Swedish plant using chrysotile asbestos
showing no excess related mortality at exposures of about 10-20 fibres/ml.years.
Gardner MJ, Winter PD, Pannett B and Powell CA (1986). Follow up study of workers
manufacturing chrysotile asbestos cement products. British Journal of Industrial Medicine
43:726-732.
A cohort study carried out on 2,167 subjects employed between 1941 and 1983. No excess of
lung cancers or other asbestos-related excess death is reported, at mean fibre concentrations
below 1 f/ml, although higher levels had probably occurred in certain areas of the asbestoscement factory.
Berry G and Newhouse ML (1983). Mortality of workers manufacturing friction materials
using asbestos.
A mortality (1942-1980) study carried out in a factory producing friction materials, using almost
exclusively chrysotile. Compared with national death rates, there were no detectable excess of
deaths due to lung cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, or other cancers. The exposure levels were
low, with only 5% of men accumulating 100 fibre-ml x years. The authors state: "The experience
at this factory over a 40-year period showed that chrysotile asbestos was processed with no
detectable excess mortality".
Thomas HF, Benjamin IT, Elwood PC and Sweetnam PM (1982). Further follow-up study
of workers from an asbestos cement factory. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 39(3):273276.
In an asbestos-cement factory using chrysotile only, 1,970 workers were traced, and their
mortality experience was examined. There was no appreciably raised standardized mortality ratio
(SMR) for the causes of death investigated, including all causes, all neoplasms, cancer of the lung
and pleura, and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. The authors indicate: "Thus the general
results of this mortality survey suggest that the population of the chrysotile asbestos-cement
5
factory studied are not at any excess risk in terms of total mortality, all cancer mortality, cancers
of the lung and bronchus, or gastrointestinal cancers".
Weill H., Hughes J. and Waggenspack C. (1979). Influence of dose and fibre type on
respiratory malignancy risk in asbestos cement manufacturing. American Review of
Respiratory Disease 120(2):345-354.
An investigation on 5,645 asbestos-cement manufacturing workers, showing no raised mortality
resulting from exposure for 20 years to chrysotile asbestos at exposure levels equal to or less
than 100 MPPCF.years (corresponding to approximately 15 fibres/ml x years).
The authors state:"...However, the demonstration that low cumulative and short-term exposures
did not produce a detectable excess risk for respiratory malignancy may be of assistance in the
development of regulatory policy, because a scientifically defensible position based on these data
is that there are low degrees of exposure not associated with a demonstrable excess risk".
APPENDIX C
The Lancet Editorial
The$text$of$the$editorial$is$below$
$
The$Lancet,$Early$Online$Publication,$9$December$
2010doi:10.1016/S0140F6736(10)62242F8Cite$or$Link$Using$DOI$
Canada$accused$of$hypocrisy$over$asbestos$exports$
$
Tony%Kirby%
%
Although$Canada$will$not$expose$its$own$citizens$to$asbestos,$its$
plans$to$continue$exporting$the$deadly$substance$to$developing$
countries$has$drawn$widespread$condemnation.$Tony$Kirby$reports.$
Asbestos$is$a$lethal$and$naturally$occurring$group$of$minerals$
that$has$brought$death$and$misery$to$people$worldwide.$Due$to$its$
good$tensile$strength$and$resistance$to$damage,$asbestos$became$
extremely$popular$throughout$the$early$20th$century,$and,$in$many$
less$wealthy$nations,$remains$so$today,$where$it$has$several$uses$
including$strengthening$cement$and$prolonging$the$life$of$road$
surfaces.$
$
Once$the$link$between$asbestos$and$lung$disease$and$cancer$was$
proven$beyond$doubt,$highFincome$countries$began$phasing$out$its$
use$and$removing$it$from$buildings.$Despite$this,$WHO$estimates$
that$about$125$million$people$worldwide$remain$exposed$to$
asbestos$in$the$workplace.$More$than$107$000$people$die$each$year$
from$asbestosFrelated$lung$cancer,$mesothelioma$(a$specific$form$
of$lung$cancer),$and$asbestosis$resulting$from$occupational$
exposures.$One$in$every$three$deaths$from$occupational$cancer$is$
estimated$to$be$caused$by$asbestos.$Mesthothelioma$is$termed$a$
timeFbomb$because$symptoms$often$occur$several$decades$after$
exposure.$Asbestos$fibres$penetrate$the$lungs,$and$can$lead$to$
cancer.$Cases$of$mesothelioma$continue$to$rise$in$many$highF
income$countries,$because$most$exposure$occurred$during$the$1960s$
and$1970s$before$the$dangers$were$evident.$In$the$UK,$the$
mesothelioma$death$toll$has$increased$from$895$in$1990$to$2249$in$
2008.$It$could$be$a$decade$before$cases$begin$to$fall$again.$In$
Canada,$deaths$rose$from$153$in$1984$to$386$in$2007,$though$the$
Canadian$Medical$Association$Journal$notes$that$the$number$of$
cases$is$likely$underestimated$owing$to$diagnostic,$coding$and$
registration$challenges$specific$to$mesothelioma.$
$
Canada$is$actively$removing$asbestos$from$its$buildings,$and$has$
a$deFfacto$ban$on$using$the$substance$in$any$form$in$all$but$
exceptional$circumstances.$But$unlike$other$rich$nations,$Canada$
has$been$a$major$exporter$of$chrysotile,$or$white$asbestos.$It$
was$the$world's$fourth$biggest$exporter$(behind$Russia,$
Kazakhstan,$and$Brazil)$shipping$about$150$000$tonnes$per$year$to$
developing$countries$such$as$India,$Indonesia,$and$the$
Philippines,$where$little$or$no$protection$exists$for$workers$or$
exposed$populations.$AsbestosFladen$products$such$as$piping,$
roofing,$and$cement$are$widely$dispersed$in$developing$countries$
and$are$cut,$sawn,$and$hammered,$with$many$workers$not$knowing$
that$they$contain$asbestos$or$even$what$asbestos$is.$Canada$has$
also$vetoed$attempts$by$WHO$and$the$international$community$to$
include$chrysotile$in$the$Rotterdam$Conventiona$UNFsponsored$
list$of$controlled$substanceswhich$officially$alerts$importing$
nations$to$risks$associated$with$that$substance.$
$
However,$with$readily$accessible$deposits$of$chrysotile$in$Quebec$
dwindling,$Canada's$exports$seemed$to$be$at$an$end.$That$was$
until$an$Indian$consortium,$led$by$MontrealFbased$financier$
Baljit$Chadha,$put$in$a$bid$to$convert$the$recently$closed$
Jeffrey$Mine$from$an$open$pit$to$an$underground$operation.$This$
would$see$production$and$exports$run$for$another$25$years,$
boosting$yearly$output$to$a$maximum$of$260$000$tonnesaround$10%$
of$global$production.$It$would$also$secure$500$jobs$for$miners$
and$others.$The$Quebec$Government,$led$by$Jean$Charest,$is$
considering$providing$a$$US57$million$loan$guarantee$to$the$
project.$A$spokesperson$for$the$Quebec$Government$confirmed$the$
matter$was$under$consideration,$and$that$the$government$required$
an$economic$partner$to$go$ahead.$She$added$that$there$must$be$a$
guarantee$both$of$profitability$and$that$the$operators$will$
follow$the$rules$of$safe$use$of$chrysotile$effective$in$Canada.$
Protests$are$taking$place$this$week$in$London,$Quebec,$and$Asian$
cities$led$by$groups$that$have$long$campaigned$for$a$global$ban$
on$all$asbestos.$On$Dec$9,$a$coalition$of$UK$antiFasbestos$groups$
will$protest$against$the$reopening$of$the$Jeffrey$Mine$outside$
Canada$House,$London,$UK.$They$will$also$hand$a$petition$to$the$
UK$Government.$The$London$protests$were$coForganised$by$Laurie$
KazanFAllen,$coordinator$of$the$International$Ban$Asbestos$
Secretariat$(IBAS).$For$over$a$decade,$we$have$been$engaged$in$a$
David$and$Goliath$battle$with$asbestos$lobbyists,$stakeholder$
governments$and$commercial$interests.$They$maintain$that$asbestos$
can$be$used$safely$under$controlled$conditions,$but$we$know$this$
is$wrong,$says$KazanFAllen,$who$also$produces$the$British$
Asbestos$Newsletter.$A$new$asbestos$mine$in$Quebec$would$be$an$
abomination.$
In$Quebec,$an$Asian$Delegation$from$affected$importing$countries$
(including$Indonesia,$India,$Korea,$and$Japan)$has$this$week$held$
a$number$of$public$events$and$press$conferences$across$the$
province.$Many$Asian$countries$have$poor$or$nonFexistent$
asbestos$regulations$in$workplaces,$and$those$that$
exist$are$poorly$enforced,$says$Sugio$Furuya,$coordinator$of$the$
Asian$Ban$Asbestos$Network$(AFBAN)$and$Secretary$General$of$the$
Japan$Occupational$Safety$and$Health$Resource$Centre.$It$is$not$
only$workers$and$the$public,$but$also$government$officials$and$
politicians$that$are$unaware$of$the$hazards$of$this$deadly$
material.$In$a$letter$to$Premier$Charest,$Furuya$says:$We$
believe$it$would$make$more$sense,$would$avoid$harming$people$
overseas$and$would$avoid$bringing$dishonour$on$Quebec's$
reputation,$for$the$Quebec$government$to$invest$the$$57$million$
in$creating$alternative$economic$development$in$the$mining$
community$and$to$assist$the$remaining$250$miners$in$the$town$of$
Asbestos.$Charest$has$declined$to$meet$the$delegation$
personally.$
$
$
FullFsize$image$(59K)$P$MadhavanDownload$to$PowerPointIt$is$
always$easier$to$do$harm$to$people$if$you$don't$have$to$look$them$
in$the$face,$says$Kathleen$Ruff,$Canadian$antiFasbestos$
campaigner,$author$of$Exporting$Harm:$How$Canada$Exports$Asbestos$
to$the$Developing$World,$and$senior$human$rights$adviser$to$the$
Rideau$Institutean$independent$research$and$advocacy$
organisation$in$Ottawa,$ON.$Asbestos$campaigners$worldwide$are$
appalled$at$the$Canadian$and$Quebec$Governments'$refusal$to$$
accept$advice$from$public$health$and$medical$organisations,$
including$the$Canadian$Medical$Association$(CMA)$and$Canadian$
Cancer$Society,$that$asbestos$in$all$forms$is$deadly$and$that$
exporting$asbestosFrelated$death$and$disease$to$developing$
countries$is$an$abhorrent$practice$that$must$end.$If$governments$
in$Canada$recognise$that$restrictions$and$regulations$are$
essential$to$protect$our$citizens$from$the$devastating$effects$of$
this$hazardous$product,$why$do$they$allow$asbestos$to$be$exported$
to$other$countries$that$may$lack$the$resources$to$protect$their$
own$citizens?$asks$CMA$president$Jeff$Turnbull.$We$have$a$
social$responsibility$to$protect$not$only$the$health$of$Canadians$
but$that$of$citizens$elsewhere$who$are$being$harmed$by$a$Canadian$
export.$Canada$should$not$be$abdicating$this$responsibility,$he$
adds.$Health,$trade$union,$and$environmental$groups$have$placed$
advertisements$in$newspapers$across$Canada$condemning$Canadian$
Prime$Minister$Stephen$Harper's$killer$legacy$of$asbestos$
exports.$Both$the$Canadian$and$Quebec$governments$have$instead$
supported$the$stance$by$the$Chrysotile$Institute$that$chrysotile$
can$be$used$safely$with$all$the$appropriate$safeguard,$says$
Ruff.$Sadly,$this$soFcalled$independent$organisation$is$part$
funded$by$the$asbestos$industry,$and$one$of$its$directorsBernard$
Coulombeis$president$of$the$Jeffrey$Mine.$The$Chrysotile$
Institute$pretends$to$be$a$nonFprofit$scientific$organisation,$
but$in$fact$lobbies$for$the$asbestos$industry$and$puts$out$false,$
deceptive,$phoney$science.$It$reminds$me$of$tobaccoFindustry$
backed$research$saying$tobacco$is$safe.$
Until$recently,$asbestos$exportation$was$the$elephant$in$the$room$
in$Canadian$politics$that$no$party$was$brave$enough$to$take$on,$
due$to$industry$opposition.$The$groundswell$of$opinion$has$now$
convinced$the$country's$Liberal$and$Social$Democrat$parties$to$
support$a$banbut$Harper's$Conservatives$remain$opposed.$Ruff$has$
also$called$on$the$Canadian$Labour$Congressthe$body$to$which$
most$trade$unions$are$affiliatedto$come$out$more$vocally$in$
support$of$a$ban.$
Canada's$stance$has$not$gone$unnoticed$by$other$developed$
nations.$In$the$UK$Parliament,$Jim$Sheridan$MP$recently$asked$
Minister$of$State$for$International$Development,$Alan$Duncan$MP,$
for$assurances$that$UK$assistance$to$improve$health$standards$in$
developing$countries$is$not$being$compromised$by$mining$in$
Quebec.$Duncan$said$that$the$UK$Government$was$totally$opposed$
to$use$[of$asbestos]$anywhere,$and$would$deplore$its$supply$to$
developing$countries,$adding$that$Canadian$exportation$of$
asbestos$is$a$cause$for$concern.$
While$refusing$to$condemn$Canada$directly,$Maria$Neira,$Director$
of$WHO's$Department$of$Public$Health$and$The$Environment$said$
that$WHO's$position$is$extremely$clear:$that$all$forms$are$
asbestos$are$carcinogenic$to$humans.$WHO$would$be$very$happy$to$
see$as$many$countries$as$possible$to$phase$out$asbestos.$It$has$
been$clearly$identified$as$a$public$health$risk.$
Canada's$health$minister$Leona$Aglukkaq$refused$to$answer$
questions$from$The$Lancet$on$why$her$government$had$ignored$
requests$from$antiFasbestos$campaigners$to$end$all$exports,$and$
failed$to$revise$federal$government$regulations$to$say$that$there$
is$no$safe$exposure$level$to$any$form$of$asbestos.$But$the$
Canadian$Natural$Resources$Minister$Christian$Paradis$confirmed$
the$government's$position$remains$unchanged,$namely$that$the$
risks$associated$with$the$use$of$chrysotile$can$be$managed$under$
controlled$conditions.$The$Government$of$Canada$does$not$provide$
direct$financial$assistance$to$the$chrysotile$industry,$says$
Paradis.$Since$1979,$the$Government$of$Canada$has$promoted$the$
controlled$use$of$chyrsotile$on$the$national$and$international$
scene.$It$continues$to$do$so$through$the$Chrysotile$Institute,$a$
notFforFprofit$organisation$established$in$1984$by$the$
Governments$of$Canada$and$Quebec,$labour$and$industry.$Paradis$
refused$to$answer$questions$on$the$morality$of$asbestos$exports$
to$developing$nations,$but$a$spokesman$for$Charest$insisted$most$
chrysotile$exports$are$used$in$cement$products$and$that$only$
foreign$companies$that$agree$to$adhere$to$safe$use$can$receive$
exports.$
It's$not$too$late$for$the$Quebec$Government$to$change$its$mind$
and$deny$the$loan$guarantee,$concludes$Ruff.$They$must$set$an$
example$to$the$other$asbestos$exporters$worldwide.$If$this$mine$
reFopens,$the$Canadian$and$Quebec$Governments$will$have$blood$on$
their$hands$for$generations$to$come.$
FF$
John$Aylen$
John$Aylen$Communications$
1445,$rue$LambertFClosse$
Bureau$302$
Montral$(Qubec)$H3H$1Z5$
Tel.$514$750$0884$
Cel.$514$622$7110$
$
$
$
!
APPENDIX D
!
Gazette&articles!
!
The&continued&sale&of&Quebecs&asbestos&is&indefensible,&&
by&Kathleen&Ruff&et&al.&
&
Safe&practices&with&asbestos&fill&a&need&in&the&developing&world,&&
by&Barry&Smith&
Home
About Us
Sign Up
Contact Us
Links
RightOnCanada.ca
Subscribe: Posts | Comments | Email
Enter search keyword
Asbestos
In the media
Petitions
RightOnCanada.ca E-Bulletins
The continued sale of Quebecs asbestos is indefensible

Thu, Jan 13, 2011
In the media
An op-ed from the January 8, 2011 edition of the Montreal Gazette.
Premier Jean Charest and the asbestos lobby have had to come up with some new arguments to defend
Quebecs export of asbestos.
Their usual arguments -that Quebecs chrysotile asbestos is less harmful than other forms of asbestos and
can be safely used -have been exposed as groundless by provincial, national and international medical
authorities, who are appalled by Charest and Prime Minister Stephen Harper denying the science and
putting politics ahead of human life.
Today, chrysotile asbestos represents all of the worlds asbestos trade. What Quebec sells is the same
asbestos that Russia and Kazakhstan sells. In the past century, 181 million tonnes of asbestos were sold. Of
this, 173 million tonnes were chrysotile asbestos. Historically, chrysotile asbestos represents 95 per cent of
all asbestos ever sold.
Not a single reputable medical association agrees with Charest and Harper that chrysotile asbestos can be
safely used. Instead, they say it should be banned.
The Charest and Harper governments and the asbestos lobby are, in fact, one and the same. Every year the
Quebec and Canadian governments fund the industrys registered lobby group, the Chrysotile Institute, to
the tune of about half a million dollars. Representatives of both governments sit on its board of directors.
What does this say about the health of our democracy, when taxpayers are funding an industry lobby group
to lobby government for industry-friendly policies and to deny independent science?

The governments new arguments to defend selling asbestos are as worthless as the old ones. Here they are,
with our response:
If Quebec stops exporting asbestos, Russia will export more. Nothing will be gained.
This argument is similar to the argument that, if we dont export landmines, another country will. Or
someone in court arguing If I hadnt robbed the bank, someone else would have. Even putting aside the
questionable ethics, it is a false argument.
The Quebec government is a key asset to global asbestos sales, using the credibility of the Quebec and
Canadian flags to assure developing countries that asbestos can be safely used. Russia lacks the
international credibility to play this role.
Documents obtained under Access to Information in 2006 by the Globe and Mail reveal an agreement
whereby other asbestos-exporting countries like Russia keep their prices artificially high so as to protect the
Quebec asbestos industry, on condition that Canada act as global propagandist for asbestos.
Without Quebecs help, Russia would have a harder time selling asbestos.
As long as countries havent banned asbestos, it is legitimate to export it.
When industrialized countries began banning chrysotile asbestos 20 years ago, the industry decided to target
developing countries. The Chrysotile Institute was created for this purpose. All its activities promote
asbestos in the developing world.
Whenever professionals and governments in developing countries try to ban asbestos, the industry
intervenes to defeat their efforts. On behalf of the asbestos industry, Canada filed a complaint at the World
Trade Organization, arguing that it would violate WTO trade rules for a country to ban asbestos.
In one of its rare rulings putting health ahead of trade rights, the WTO rejected Canadas case twice.
At the UN and in Chile, South Africa, Japan, Brazil, Thailand, South Korea, Mexico and elsewhere, the
Quebec asbestos lobby has intervened to block efforts to control or ban asbestos. A recent investigative
report by the BBC noted that, but for the quick actions of the Canadian-led lobby, Peru would have
banned asbestos.
Quebec is recognized by the world health community as a major obstacle to progress in banning asbestos in
developing countries.
Quebec will carry out an annual audit to ensure 100-per-cent rigorous standards.
A two-year study by Quebec health authorities reported a zero success rate in following safe use
standards in the handful of Quebec industries still using asbestos. The Chrysotile Institute says overseas a
99.8-per-cent safe use success rate has been achieved and an annual audit will ensure a 100-per-cent
success rate.
Even if one believed this amazing claim, the audit would cover only 0.1 per cent of the life of Quebecs
asbestos overseas. Once asbestos-cement products leave the factory, they are dispersed to thousands of
villages and cities, hammered and cut by hundreds of thousands of workers and damaged in storms; broken
pieces are reused for decades, exposing large numbers of people to inhaling deadly asbestos fibres.
The Quebec and Canadian governments stand naked before the court of world opinion on the asbestos
issue. Every justification they have given is false.
If Charest this month gives the consortium of foreign investors $58-million financing to restart Quebecs
asbestos trade, he will be contributing to an epidemic of asbestos deaths in the developing world for decades
to come, to the everlasting shame of Quebec and Canada.
Kathleen Ruff, senior human-rights adviser, Rideau Institute
Fernand Turcotte, professor emeritus of public health, Universite Laval
Abby Lippman, professor in the department of epidemiology, biostatistics and occupational health,
McGill University
Edward W. Keyserlingk, former director of the biomedical ethics unit, McGill faculty of medicine
Louise Vandelac, director of lInstitut des sciences de lenvironnement, Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Eric Notebaert, professor in the faculty of medicine, Universite de Montreal
John Keyserlingk, Montreal surgeon
Asbestos, Jean Charest, Stephen Harper
Leave a Reply
Name
Mail (will not be published)
Website
Submit Comment
The electronic Version:!
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Safe+practices+with+asbestos+fill+need+developing+world
/4130800/story.html!
Safe practices with asbestos fill a need in the

developing world
BY BALJIT S. CHADHA, FREELANCE JANUARY 19, 2011 10:03 AM
Your Jan. 8 Opinion article "The continued sale of Quebec's asbestos is indefensible" condemned
the export of chrysotile (asbestos) from Quebec to developing countries.
The article raised two questions: Can chrysotile be used safely anywhere in the world? And if so,
can it be used safely in developing countries? The article answered no to both, but provided no
evidence, basically saying, "This is wrong because everyone says it's wrong."
The World Health Organization says otherwise. Its position, adopted as recently as 2007, quite
clearly calls for regulating the various forms of asbestos, and nowhere talks of banning it:
"WHO will work with member states to strengthen the capacities of the ministries of health to provide
leadership for activities to workers' health, to formulate and implement policies and action plans, and
to stimulate intersectoral collaboration. Its activities will include global campaigns for elimination of
asbestos-related diseases; bearing in mind a differentiated approach to regulating its various forms;
in line with relevant international legal instruments and the latest evidence for effective
interventions."
As to the latest evidence for effective intervention, a November 2010 open letter from six experts
with very strong credentials (John Hoskins, independent toxicologist, Britain; Allen Gibbs,
Department of Histopathology, University College of Medicine, Cardiff; Robert P. Nolan, International
Environmental Research Foundation, New York; Professor Jacques Dunnigan, Faculty of Science,
Universite de Sherbrooke; David M. Bernstein, consultant in toxicology, Geneva; Fred Pooley,
Cardiff University) who have reviewed many scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals
concluded that:
"Based upon current science ... the use of chrysotile at current Quebec permissible exposure limits
in the workplace carries no epidemiologically and clinically detectable increase in risk. Indeed, a
number of recent scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals have come to this conclusion
... From these published studies, it can be seen that safety in the use of chrysotile is not a simple
wish, but a reality ...
"The latest scientific evidence published strongly supports the following views:
"Chrysotile is significantly less hazardous than the amphibole forms of asbestos (e. g. crocidolite and
amosite);
"When properly controlled and used, chrysotile asbestos in its modern-day high-density applications
does not present risks of any significance to public and/or worker health."
I take pride in being a responsible, socially conscious businessman who has been selling chrysotile
to a developing country for the past 15 years. I have pursued this business because I am convinced
that chrysotile can be used in an entirely safe manner and because this fibre is of great value to
answer the pressing needs of poor people in developing countries. I am convinced that chrysotile
can be used safely, anywhere in the world.
I question whether the other authors have direct personal knowledge of the safe use of chrysotile in
developing countries. I travel to those countries regularly and I know who my clients are; I visit their
factories. I have systematically encouraged the implementation of safe-use practices and I have met
with considerable success. My associates and I have banned unsafe practices and we have refused
to sell to customers who cannot demonstrate that they use the product in a safe manner.
Developing countries such as India, where I come from and where I conduct business, have modern,
state-of-the-art plants with safety standards equivalent to, if not more stringent than, ours. There are
unsafe plants in those countries, but refusing to do business with businesses that are mindful of the
health of their employees will do nothing to eliminate the unsafe use of chrysotile.
Should the Canadian suppliers go out of business, those from Russia, Kazakhstan, Brazil and
Zimbabwe, who already produce much more than we do, will simply fill the void. The idea that these
producers are somehow being nice to us because we give the product a good name is quite simply
false. We hold our own on the world market because the quality and dependability of our product
allows us to sell at a profitable price. We add value, among other ways by exporting our knowledge
of safe use along with the product.
By exporting our knowledge and by rigorously inspecting the plants we export to, we will contribute
to solving the problem of unsafe use. I have also committed, once the inspection program in the
factories is in place, to extend the information effort to end-users, in co-operation with local
authorities.
It should also be pointed out that to my knowledge, there are no studies comparing the health effects
of substitute products such as the kuralon synthetic fibre being promoted by Japanese interests, or
the cellulosic products being promoted by the European Union countries that have banned asbestos.
Why do the opponents of chrysotile never mention this? The people who would ban chrysotile leave
users with no practical alternative.
In India alone, there are 600 million people living on less than $2 a day. These people have very
basic needs, such as putting a roof over their heads and gaining access to clean drinking water.
Chrysotile cement is an ideal material for answering those needs, in the form of cement sheets and
pipes identical to those being sold and used in Quebec today.
Developing countries are as concerned as Canada is about the health of their people. As a person
who was born and raised in India, let me assure you that the Indian people, institutions and
government are quite capable of sharing modern knowledge and determining what is preferable for
them. To suggest that the use of chrysotile is allowed only because of incompetence, corruption or
some secretive lobbies is the result of either ignorance or prejudice.
Baljit S. Chadha leads the consortium of investors intending to purchase the Jeffrey Mine in
Asbestos.
Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
!
APPENDIX(E(
Le(Devoir(Article((
Note: Guy Taillefer has written several articles against asbestos; but his visit to a
plant in India seems to have given him a different perspective; which is in line with
Mine Jeffreys perspective. This is an English translation of the original article in
French.
Le Devoir, Monday, February 7, 20111
India Asbestos cement in all its glory

Guided tour of the largest importer of Quebec asbestos
Guy Taillefer
Quebec Economic Development Minister Clment Gignac said on Friday in New
Delhi that he would like to know more about the use of asbestos in India before
giving the green light on relaunching the Jeffrey asbestos mine. The next day, Le
Devoir was able to visit on of the plants of the most important producer of Indian
asbestos cement, Hyderabad Industries.
New Delhi Dr. Vivek Roa politically refuses the protective mask that he is offered at the start of
the site visit of an asbestos plantHyderabad Cement Industries near Delhi. I know there is no
danger, says the smiling man who has more than 30 years experience and is vice president of
his companys health and safety department.
The Indian fiber-cement industry is a large consumer of imported asbestos and is fiercely
criticized by anti-asbestos groups and a significant number of medical experts who believe the
company is guilty of perpetuating the ravages of asbestos in countries where the economy
remains largely informal and where, they believe, the laws on worker safety, though
comprehensive on paper, are not generally applied in practice. During an economic trade mission
in India that ended on Friday, Economic Development Minister Clment Gignac said he still had
questions to ask the Indian authorities before announcing his approval in the form of a $58
million loan guarantee to relaunch the Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos.
The Hyderabad Industries (HI) plant where Le Devoir was permitted to take a guided tour on
Saturday is situated some 40 kilometres south of Delhi in one of the oldest and largest industrial
areas in the country. Hyderabad Industries, which belongs to the extensive Indian Biria family
built a plant in 1964 with the Tatas. Everything has been automated since 1980. No horror scenes
to be witnessed, no workers enveloped in carcinogenic dust opening bags of asbestos by hand.
The site is impeccable, although the equipment is showing signs of age and corrosion.
Hyderabad Industries, who operate seven plants in the country, is the largest producer of cement
fibre (25% of the market.) And the largest consumer of Quebec chrysotile asbestos.
Automated
Dozens of LAB Chrysotile bags from Thetford Mines have been placed at the foot of a conveyor.
Further along, palettes of Mine Jeffrey sacks are lined up. The plant uses 450 50-kg bags a day.
On the bags is a written warning in French and English (Is it Spanish? Kamal Kumar director of
1
http://www.ledevoir.com/international/actualites5internationales/316275/inde5l5amiante5
ciment5sous5ses5plus5beaux5traits
operations asks.) on the dangers presented by the mineral. Nothing in Hindi. The plant employs
400 workers who make between $350 and $400 dollars a month.
The bags of asbestos slide mechanically one by one into a hermetically sealed case. Two electric
saws open the plastic container that goes through another machine that shreds it and integrates it
into the cement fabrication. The asbestos falls into a closed circular case, a sort of large mortar
where it is piled. It is next mixed with water (preventing the asbestos from raising dust) and
cement. The result is a wet paste from which is made large panels that are let to dry on undulated
sheet molds. About 8% asbestos is used in the production of fibro-cement. This renders it very
resistant. Asbestos cement is essentially used to make roofs. Its the poor mans construction
material, the industry likes to say. A family can put a roof over their head for $50 or so. The
plants huge yard is covered in palettes of undulated cement.
The quality of air is verified daily, Mr. Roa assures. The allowable norm is one asbestos fibre by
cubic centimeter. The air in the plant contains less than a tenth of that. Annual
reportssee
areback-side
Please
submitted to the Ministry of Labour and the Office of Pollution Control. Employees undergo
medical exams every three years and are monitored for 20 years after they retire. He swears that
Hyderabad Industries has never had a single case of asbestosis or cancer induced by asbestos
dust. Neve, sir. Never. WHO says that 8,000 Indians die from asbestos-related disease every
year. Thats totally absurd, he says. WHO has been taken hostage by the anti-asbestos lobby.
He agrees with the conclusions of an international report published in 1998, that stated that
asbestos exposure to workers and to the public prior to 1975 are responsible for the illnesses
related to the mineral and they will continue to ravage victims around the world till 2025. But he
insists that the Indian fibro-cement industry, that uses 98% of the asbestos imported, is absolutely
not responsible for the after-effects of non-controlled chrysotile use.
An industry that is absolutely safe?

HI reflects the asbestos cement industry in all its glory. Is it an exception? Dr. Rao contends that
95% of the industry is organized like this. In an article published at the end of 2009, Jennifer
Wells of the Toronto Star visited the HI plant in Hyderabad, where the companys head office is
located. Everything was automated in the same way. In the same city she also visited the Visaka
industries plant, the third largest Indian manufacturer of fibro-cement. A plant that looked its age
and where everything was not automated. The bag of asbestos was sealed in a closed case, but
the worker put his arms into long gloves attached to openings in the case and opened the bag
manually. In Ahmedabad, capital of Gujarat, she passed workers from Gujarat Composite who
affirmed that the bags continued to be opened by hand when the equipment broke down or
needed to be maintained. In June of the same year, a CBC team filmed the interior of the Eagle
Asbestos plant in Ahmedabad in a documentary entitled Canadas Ugly Secret, where employees
manipulated asbestos without taking precautions.
These fragments of information show that it is false to claim the fibro-cement industry is
absolutely safe, says Mohit Gupta from an NGO that is looking for a total ban to asbestos use.
He has never entered an asbestos cement plant. Hard to know whats really going on. You only
saw what they wanted you to see. Moreover, he emphasizes, the industry hires temporary
workers who disappear into the background and we dont know what happens to them. He
affirms that Gujarat Composite is seriously delinquent and we arent able to obtain the medical
records of sick workers. In an extremely rare case in the annals of India, 97 Indian victims of
asbestos obtained a global sum of $700,000 in indemnities from the British-based Turner and
Newall.
That does not include the fact that in the downstream of the production chain there are no
controls on the way the asbestos cement panels are used, Mr Gupta says. Every time we put a
panel in place, we are sowing the seeds of a potential future problem, says Dr. Arthur Frank, a
US specialist in asbestosis, in the Lancet medical journal, reminding that in the World Trade
Centre collapse in 2001, analysts found important concentrations of asbestos dust.
APPENDIX F
Proponent time line and fact sheet document
The$Chrysotile$Story$&$Time$Line$$
(Synopsis$of$130$years)$
"
1879:"Chrysotile"discovered"at"Mine"Jeffrey"in"the"town"of"Asbestos,"this"was"the"worlds"first"
large"scale"chrysotile"mine."
"
For$80$years:""Chrysotile"was"considered"the"Miracle"Fibre"because"of"extraordinary"high"
performance"physciscoCchemcial"properties."
"
For$80$years:"Chrysotile"and"Blue"asbestos"from"South"Africa"was"used"in"various"loose,"
friable"applications,"which"would"not"be"acceptable"today.""Most"buildings"constructed"or"
renovated""in"Canada"during"this"period"have"some"form"of"chrysotile"insulation"on"the"
structural"steel";"examples:"the"Parliament"buildings"in"Ottawa,"Place"Ville"Marie"in"Montreal"etc.""
"
For$80$years:"Chrysotile"was"mined,"milled"and"used"in"a"manner,"which"would"not"be"
acceptable"today;"examples:""workers"in"the"mine,"mill"and"at"construction"sites"did"not"take"any"
precautions"and"did"not"follow"industrial"hygiene.""In"the"town"of"Asbestos,"there"was"a"
perpetual"white"cloud"of"chrysotile"dust."""
"
For$$80$years:""different"forms"of"Asbestos";"Chrysotile"(also"called"White"Asbestos","Serpentine)"
was"mixed"with"the"deadly""Amphiboles"(also"called"Blue"Asbestos).""
"
1960s:"It"was"discovered"that"asbestos"could"be""a"hazardous"material"if"there"was"heavy"
exposure"to"asbestos"dust"for"long"periods.""
"
Since$1975:"Chrysotile"fibre"is"no"longer"used"in"loose,"friable"forms,"it"is"only"used"in"
bonded"encapsulated"forms"where"5%"to"8%"fibre"is"mixed"with"cement,"glues,"resins"etc."
This"is"the"case"both"in"developed"and"developing"countries."
"
Since$1975:"Chrysotile"mine"and"mills"and"manufacturers"work"under"controlled"and"safe"
working"conditions;"today"town"of"Asbestos"is"pristine"green"with"no"higher"incident"of"lung"
cancer"than"anywhere"else"in"Canada."
"
Since$1980:"Only"Chrysotile"is"mined"in"the"world;"there"are"no"producing"mines"of"Blue"
Asbestos"(Amphiboles)."
"
"
1"
"
Fact$1:$You$inhale$Chrysotile$everyday:""Every"human"being"inhales"5,000"to"10,000"chrysotile"
fibres"every"day,"without"any"measurable"ill"effect."This"is"because"Chrysotile"is"a"natural"mineral"
fibre"from"the"serpentine"rock"outcrops"found"everywhere"in"the"world."The"earths"atmosphere"
contains"up"to"one"microfiber"of"Chrysotile"per"litre"of"air.""
"
Fact$2:"Most"cases"of"lung"cancer"due"to"asbestos"in"Canada"are"from"the"80"years"of"heavy"
exposure$before$1960s,"especially"if"one"is"a"heavy"smoker.""""
"
Fact$3:$Health$of$workers:""Prior to 1965 old workers who were exposed to very heavy
concentrations of Chrysotile fibre and were heavy smokers had a synergy effect for lung cancer,
which was about 6% of the total work force. Since 1975 there have been no claims for
occupational health effects by new workers working in the mine and the mill at Mine Jeffrey."
This is confirmed by Mine Jeffrey's historical statistics of occupational diseases with the CSST
(Workers Compensation Board) in Quebec and also the CSSS des Sources report on the effects
of the mine on the community's health.
Fact$4:$Health$of$the$public$in$the$town$of$Asbestos:$There has never been any negative impact

on the health of people living in the town of Asbestos since 1900. This has been confirmed by
independent studies by Pampelon, Siemiatycki, Blanchet done in 1982; the Medical Union of
Canada report No :111 (5): 475 489; by McDonald J.C. (1985) report on Health implications of
environmental exposure to asbestos, Environmental Health Perspectives 62: 319 328.
Fact$5:$Health$of$construction$workers: In Canada only workers doing renovation work in old

buildings which have loose asbestos are at risk, workers at new construction sites are not at risk
at all. Just like in the renovations of the Parliament buildings the removal work should be done
with safety equipment and respirators so that the workers do not breathe dust above established
safe standard of 1 fibre per cubic centimetre of air.
"
Fact$6:"The$World$Health$Organisation$(WHO)$classifies$asbestos"in"the"same"category"of"
hazardous"materials"as"Zinc,"Mercury,"Lead,"Chromium,"Saw"dust,"Alcoholic"Beverages,"Arsenic,"
Benzene,"Coal"Tars,"Mineral"Oils,"Solar"radiation"and"XCray"radiation."
"
Fact$7:"The$International$Agency$for$Research$on$Cancer$(IARC)"classifies"asbestos"as"a"risk,"and"
risk$is$a$function$of$doses$and$duration."""
"
Fact$8:"Scientific$researches$and$responsible$industry$practices"in"the"last"30"years"has"
corroborated"that"Chrysotile,"though"a"hazardous"material,"can"and"is"being"mined,"transformed"
and"used"in"applications"which"observe"the"highest"safety"and"health"standards"and"have"no"
adverse"effects"on"workers"who"handle"Chrysotile"for"10""20""30"years"at"low"levels"of"dust"
exposure"i.e."1"fibre"per"cc,"which"is"the"Canadian"norm."
"
Fact$9:$Quebec$has$developed$safe$and$responsible$practices$and$technologies;"these"have"
been"transferred"and"continue"to"be"transferred"to"developing"countries"all"around"the"world."
"
2"
"
Fact$10:"The"Chrysotile"cement"manufacturing$industry$in$developing$countries$consists"of"two"
kinds"of"manufacturers.""
1."Big$corporate$units$with$safe$and$responsible$practices"which"adhere"to"WHO"regulations.""
2.""Unfortunately,"there"are"also"Mom"and"pop,"cottage"and"small"scale"industrial"units,"
which"lack"the"knowChow"and"knowledge"of"handling"Chrysotile.""All"the"media"coverage"is"of"
this"sector.""
We"have"been"and"will"only"sell$to$manufacturers$who$maintain$safe$and$responsible$use$
practices,$same$as$in$Canada."
We"intend"to"be"flag"bearers"to"raise"the"level"of"awareness"overall;"thus"providing"another"
socioCeconomic"benefit."
Fact$11:"Government"of"Quebec"along"with"an"independent"monitoring"agency"will"audit$every$
Mine$Jeffrey$customer$for$safe$and$responsible$use$practices.$
"
SocioYeconomic$benefit$1:"Do"people"get"a"roof"or"do"they"stay"under"the"rain?"Chrysotile"
corrugated"sheets"provide"an"important"socioCeconomic"benefit"of"putting"a"roof"on"a"poor"
mans"head"for"less"than"$"50."In"developing"countries"like"India"where"30"%"of"the"population"
live"on"less"than"$"2"a"day"that"is"a"very"important"factor."
"
SocioYeconomic$benefit$2:"Chrysotile"cement"roofing"sheets"apart"from"being"cheaper"than"
substitute"products"like"Tin,"Galvanised"Steel"and"PVC"sheets"offer"several"functional"advantages"
like"being"the"best"thermal"and"sound"insulators"in"the"category,"requiring"zero"maintenance"
and"having"a"highest"lifeCspan"of"50"years.""
"
SocioYeconomic$benefit$3:$Chrysotile"cement"roofing"sheets"are"extensively"used"as"roofing"
materials"in"farm"buildings"for"pigs,"chickens,"and"cows."The"interior"temperature"of"these"
buildings"is"a"couple"of"degrees"cooler"as"compared"to"using"other"sheets"for"roofing";"this"
results"in"a"10%"to"15%"gain"in"production,"which"helps"to"lower"food"costs"to"feed"people"in"
developing"countries.$
$
In$Conclusion,$asbestos of the past was mined unsafely; loose products were manufactured
unsafely and used unsafely.
There is proof that todays asbestos is in fact mined safely, bonded products are manufactured
safely and used safely here and around the world.
$
"
3"
"
Fact sheet #1
Health Canada states that bound asbestos poses no significant health risk
Here is what Health Canada says about chrysotile1:
How much asbestos is in a product does not indicate its health risk. If the
asbestos fibres are enclosed or tightly bound in a compound, there is no
significant health risk. One of the main problems with asbestos came from
sprayed or friable (easily broken up) amphibole asbestos used in buildings
until the 1970s. People working in construction, maintenance or in the
renovation of older buildings should be particularly careful when handling
this asbestos.
The risks are greatest for workers in industries which produce and use
asbestos, such as mining and milling. In the past, workers in these
environments were exposed to 100-1,000 times more asbestos than todays
workers. Todays strict standards limit workers exposure and the ban of
most uses of amphibole asbestos have reduced the risks.
During renovations and repairs to older buildings, construction workers,
tradespeople and other building maintenance workers may be exposed to
very high concentrations of asbestos fibres. The environment and work
methods of these occupations are more difficult to control than fixed
workplaces
Modern products where chrysotile is tightly bound, such as in chrysotile cement pipes similar to
those that made up 19 % of drinking-water distribution networks in Canada in 20032 and those
that are being installed in Canada today, or to the cement roofing sheets that are present
throughout both the developed and the developing worlds, present no significant health risk. On
the other hand, very strict precautions must be taken when handling the sprayed or other
friable applications that were prevalent up to the 1970s; the renovations of the Parliament
buildings fall under this category.
Summing up, despite intense scientific scrutiny, there is no proven scientific evidence that
chrysotile presents a measurable increase of risk to human health when used in modern,
controlled conditions. Modern high-density non-friable chrysotile products are entirely different
from the friable asbestos products of the past. Levels of exposure to chrysotile have been cut by
several orders of magnitude all along the life-cycle of chrysotile and chrysotile products. It has
often been stated that there is no proven level of safe exposure to chrysotile. But the people
1
2
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/alt_formats/pacrb-dgapcr/pdf/iyh-vsv/environ/asbestos-amiante-eng.pdf
Asbestos in drinking water: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/asbestos.pdf, page 1
1
supportive of chrysotile have been asking for studies that would demonstrate a measurable
impact on human health of exposure at 1f/c.c. or less. No such study has been produced so far.
Fact sheet #2
It is impossible to eliminate asbestos fibres in the atmosphere

By even the most conservative estimates, every human being on earth breathes in several
hundred fibres of chrysotile every day. Realistic estimates put this figure at several thousand
fibres per day for inhabitants of our cities. Part of this exposure results from man-made
products, but as any well-informed health authority will confirm, asbestos fibres abound in
the environment, as they are present in the earths crust and released into the atmosphere by
natural erosion.
Following are direct quotes from reliable sources:
Institut national de la sant publique du
Qubec
Original French3
La fibre damiante chrysotile est ubiquitaire
dans lenvironnement et les niveaux sont
peu prs constants depuis les dix milles
dernires annes. On a mesur des
concentrations significatives de fibres
damiante chrysotile dans lAntarctique et au
Groenland. Les niveaux dans lair sont en
gnral, moins de sources particulires, plus
leves en milieu urbain quen milieu rural. En
milieu rural, en labsence de sources
ponctuelles, les concentrations de fibres dans
lair ne dpassent gnralement pas 1ng/m/
ou 0,00001f/ml.
Quebec national institute of Public health

Our translation
Asbestos fibers are ubiquitous in the
environment and levels have been constant
for the past 10,000 years. Significant levels of
chrysotile asbestos have been measured in
Antarctica and Greenland. Levels are generally
greater in urban areas than in rural ones. In
rural areas, absent a specific source,
concentrations of fibers in the air usually do
not exceed 0,00001f/ml.
This measure of 0,00001f/ml amounts to 0,01f per litre of air. Since the average human being
breathes in between 8,000 and 10,000 litres per day, it is not an exaggeration to say that even
people living in the most remote parts of the world will breathe fibres of chrysotile every day.
Most experts agree that most of us breathe in several thousand chrysotile fibres daily.
In 2004, Quebecs Ministre du dveloppement durable, de lenvironnement et des parcs (the
Quebec governments Department for Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks)
measured the concentration of chrysotile in the air of Thetford Mines at concentrations varying
between 0,002f/c.c. and 0,007 f/c.c. These figures were quoted by the Agence de la sant et des
services sociaux de Chaudire-Appalaches in 2009, when it had to react to scare tactics used by
anti-chrysotile activists according to whom the population of Thetford was in danger.
3
SOURCE: Institut national de sant publique du Qubec: Fibres damiante dans lair intrieur et
extrieur tat de situation au Qubec, published in September 2003 (p. 57)
3
Considering both the exposure in open air and inside houses, the Agency calculated that the
average lifetime exposure to chrysotile of the population of Thetford is 0,0031 f/ml 4 (which
amounts to 31,000 fibres per day for someone breathing in 10,000 litres of air daily).
The Agencys response is very instructive.5 It starts by stating that All types of asbestos,
including chrysotile, can cause cancer It then adds: However, most studies indicate that
chrysotile is less dangerous than amphiboles (other types of asbestos). The following two
paragraphs merit to be fully quoted. Here is the original French version, side-by-side with our
translation:
Original French letter
NOTE : the bold emphasis is in the original
letter
Selon lanalyse de risque ralise par lINSPQ
(Institut national de sant publique du
Qubec), il serait possible quun certain
nombre de ces types de cancer surviennent
dans la population de la ville de Thetford
Mines, mme avec une si faible exposition.
Toutefois, la probabilit que cela arrive est
trs faible. En effet, le rapport de lINSPQ
estime la probabilit de dcs par cancer d
la prsence de fibres dAmiante dans lair
Thetford Mines , en moyenne, 1 dcs par 35
ans. Cette estimation est faite selon le
modle le plus vraisemblable, soit celui bas
sur la prsence damiante chrysotile
uniquement.
Our translation
NOTE : the bold emphasis is in the original
letter
According to the analysis by the INSPQ
(National Institute of Public Health of
Quebec), it is possible that a certain number
of these types of cancers would develop in the
population of the city of Thetford Mines, even
with such a small exposure level. However,
the probability of this occurrence is very small.
The INSPQ report estimates the probability of
death by a cancer induced by the presence of
asbestos fibers in the air of Thetford Mines to
an average of 1 death over 35 years. This
estimate is based on the most likely model,
which is the one where only chrysotile
asbestos is present.
Pour apprcier la gravit dun tel risque, on

peut le comparer dautres risques mieux
connus. Ainsi, selon les connaissances
actuelles, sur une priode de 35 ans, parmi
lapopulation de Thetford Mines, il y aurait
plus de 1000 dcs par cancer du poumon
relis au tabagisme, prs de 100 dcs relis
la conduite automobile et 1 dcs en raison
de lamiante dans lair.
To fully appreciate the seriousness of such a

risk, it can be compared to other, betterknown risks. Thus, according to current
knowledge, over a period of 35 years, there
would be in the population of Thetford Mines
1000 deaths by lung cancer caused by
tobacco, almost 100 deaths caused by
automobiles, and 1 death caused by the
presence of asbestos in the air.
Prsence de fibres damiante dans lair intrieur et extrieur de la ville de Thetford Mines : estimation
des risques de cancer du poumon et de msothliome. Institut national de sant publique du Qubec,
2009, page 1.
5
All the following quotes are from a letter signed on December 10, 2009 by Dr. Philippe Lessard, Director
of Public Health for the Chaudire-Appalaches region, and the information document attached to the
letter.
4
The Quebec Public health authorities say that chrysotile can cause cancer. But in the industrial
town of Thetford Mines, which is at the very core of the chrysotile industry and where
concentrations in the air are much higher than elsewhere, this risk would result in ONE death
over a 35 year period in the population. Should we strive to reduce this risk even further?
Absolutely. But we should also note that this level of risk is no greater than and often times
inferior to that of a great number of activities that we choose to carry on despite the risk
because of their overall benefits for individuals and society.
These facts, put forward by Quebec Public Health authorities, also contradict your statement
that some studies attributed up to 85 % of all deaths in Thetford Mines to chrysotile-related
diseases. You attributed this study to Dr Irving Selikoff. I have found no such study by Dr.
Selikoff, or by any other doctor or scientist. If you have a specific reference, please communicate
it to me.
Fact sheet #3
Scientific evidence says that ingesting chrysotile in drinking water poses

no threat to health
Here is a quote from the Health Canada website: Due to natural erosion, high concentrations
of chrysotile asbestos fibres may be found in some raw water supplies. Conventional water
treatment methods can substantially reduce asbestos levels and there is no evidence that
swallowed chrysotile fibres are a health hazard.6
Because chrysotile is so prevalent in the earths crust, it is present in the waters everywhere in
the world. In 1984, the Ontario Commission on Matters of Health and Safety arising from the
use of Asbestos (ORCA) published the results of measurements of asbestos fibre concentrations
found in various beverages and water. Here is a direct quote from the ORCA briefing notes:
Consumers may also be exposed to asbestos in drinking water, beverages,
and food. Concentrations of up to four million fibres per litre of drinking water
have been found in southern Ontario municipalities such as Toronto and
Sarnia, while up to twenty-two million fibres have been found in northern
Ontario municipalities, such as Thunder Bay. Concentrations exceeding one
million fibres per litre are found in wine, beer and other beverages. After
reviewing all the available medical evidence, the Commission concludes that
eating or drinking asbestos in the concentrations currently found in drinking
water, beverages, or food in North America is not associated with any
significant increase in disease. Many studies have looked for a relationship
between oral ingestion and disease, but so far the results are negative. The
Commission concludes that regulation of asbestos in drinking water,
beverages, and food is unnecessary and unproductive. Special filtering of
drinking water to remove asbestos is not required. The Liquor Control Board of
Ontario has imposed a ban on the use of asbestos filters in the production of
beer, wine and liquor. The Commission recommends that this ban be lifted,
noting that it is unnecessary, and was never effectively enforced on imported
beverages. 7
As noted earlier, this situation is not unique to Canada. A study published in 2003 by the World
Health Organization 8 explores the situation in Canada and the United States. It states that
most of the population of the USA consumes drinking water containing asbestos in
concentrations below 1 million fibres per litre. This study concludes thus: Although asbestos
is a known human carcinogen by the inhalation route, available epidemiological studies do not
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/alt_formats/pacrb-dgapcr/pdf/iyh-vsv/environ/asbestos-amiante-eng.pdf
http://www.asbestos-institute.ca/reviews/orca/notes5.html#notes5
8
Asbestos in drinking water: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/asbestos.pdf
7
support the hypothesis that an increased cancer risk is associated with the ingestion of asbestos
in drinking water.
Australia, which can hardly be suspected of harbouring any sympathy towards chrysotile, comes
to the same conclusion: there is very little evidence to show that asbestos fibres will cause
any harm when they are wet and swallowed (their emphasis)asbestos when swallowed is
considered to pose very little, if any, carcinogenic risk to human health. 9
Asbestos in drinking water:

http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/3333/2/Asbestos%20in%20Drinking%20Water.pdf
7
Fact sheet #4
Tremolite is only found in minute traces at the Jeffrey Mine and poses no
health risk
Many published scientific research papers conclude that when it is present, tremolite is found
only in minute quantities that do not pose a health problem at current low exposure levels.
Further, tests conducted at the Jeffrey Mine in 1999 detected the presence of amphibole
minerals to be less than one thousandth of one per cent; further tests conducted in 2004 using
another method revealed no traces of tremolite in chrysotile produced at Mine Jeffrey.
Because the geological composition of amphiboles is very different than that of chrysotile, the
only type of amphibole that might be found in chrysotile ore deposits is tremolite. However, it
must be emphasized that contrary to some perceptions, not all chrysotile sources are
contaminated with traces of tremolite. Second, if and when contaminated, the presence of
tremolite never amounted to more than minute traces - 0,24% (less than one quarter of one per
cent) in one of 8 chrysotile samples analysed, with a range of below detection to 0,004% for the
other 7 samples. (Addison and Davies, 1990) 10
The possibility regarding the risk of mesothelioma as a result of the possible contamination of
chrysotile with tremolite has been examined (Churg, A., 1988). In his paper, Churg concludes
that the presence of tremolite does not pose a problem. Another scientific study published in
1997 (McDonald JC and McDonald AD) comes to the same conclusion.
Both studies go beyond their conclusion on tremolite to say that current exposure levels to
chrysotile do not pose a significant risk of contracting mesothelioma. The Churg study
concludes:
Extremely high exposures, such as encountered by chrysotile miners and
millers in the past, are required to produce an appreciable incidence of
tumours . As a practical matter, the data indicate that chrysotile will not
produce mesotheliomas in those exposed to any current or recent regulated
number of fibres, and certainly not in those exposed at environmental
levels .11
The McDonald and McDonald study 12 says as much:
10
Addison J and Davies LST (1990) Analysis of amphibole asbestos in chrysotile and other materials. Ann.
Occup. Hyg. 34 :159-175
11
Churg A (1988). Chrysotile, Tremolite and Malignant Mesothelioma. Chest 93 : 621-628
12
McDonald JC, McDonald AD (1997) Chrysotile, Tremolite and carcinogenicity

http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/6/699.full.pdf
8
At present-day levels of exposure to commercial chrysotile, whether or not

contaminated with tremolite, the risk must be vanishingly small.
Ultimately, the question we must ask is specific to Jeffrey mine: what about the presence of
tremolite in THIS mine? To answer this question, Jeffrey mine conducted two series of tests. In
1999, as requested by Natural Resources Canada, Minerals Division, it subjected to an analysis
by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), conducted by the Institute of Occupational Medicine of
Scotland, more than one thousand two hundred (1200) 50 kg bags of chrysotile, collected
independently by Roche ltd. of Qubec, from different grades (to ensure optimum distribution
throughout the mine ore body). The SEM analysis detected the presence of amphiboles to be
less than 0,001 % (one thousandth of one per cent). Other tests were conducted in 2004, also by
the IOM of Scotland, using the polarized light and dispersion staining method; these tests
revealed no trace of tremolite.
Fact sheet #5
India has no intention of banning asbestos

There is no reason why India would proceed in this direction. The Indian chrysotile market is
booming, with a 9 % increase last year alone, for a very good reason: chrysotile cement
products respond to some important basic socio-economic needs of the population. As for the
production facilities, the consortium that I represent is fully committed to setting up to
annual audits (including surprise, unannounced checks) of all the plants (about two dozen
worldwide) where chrysotile will be exported to.
On February 1, 2011, the anti-chrysotile movement in India was dealt a very severe blow by the
Supreme Court of India, one of the most respected and revered institutions of the country. The
petitioners were asking the Court to use special powers granted by Article 32 of the Constitution
of India to immediately ban all uses of asbestos. The Court refused to do so, saying that this
decision is not within its normal jurisdiction and that it saw no reason to use Article 32. It said
that the petitioners lacked specific data and could not support their arguments with facts. It
supported the view that what is required is better supervision and regulatory control rather
than banning of the activity. (par. 12). The judgment describes how rival business interests
disguised themselves as a public interest NGO: The present petition lacks bona fide, is an abuse
of the process of the Court and has been filed as a proxy litigation for the purpose of achieving
private interest. (par.27). Subsequently, the Court condemned the petitioner for Contempt of
Court.
The chrysotile market in India has increased by 9 % last year alone. Chrysotile cement sheets are
the cheapest, longest-lasting products available for a poor man who wants to put a roof over his
family. The choice for these people is to have waterproof roof or leaking tarp on their huts.
They have further benefits that other products do not provide. Notably, they insulate against
the suns heat and the noise generated by intense falling rain; these are major benefits in
tropical or sub-tropical countries. Chrysotile cement pipes are also the most durable and
suitable for drinking water pipes in harsh climates and acidic soils. Small farmers have taken to
chrysotile-cement roofs for their poultry, having seen an increase in production due to less heat
in the chicken coops.
As for the production facilities, the consortium that is buying Jeffrey Mine is fully committed to
conducting annual audits (including surprise, unannounced checks) of the plants where
chrysotile will be exported to (about two dozen worldwide). The auditor/surveyor will be an
independent person or company appointed by the Quebec Government. Also all bags will have
large pictorial labels and shipping containers will have instructions in local language of the
destination.
The existence of unsafe practices in some plants that escape government supervision, most of
which fall into the mom and pop category, is an unfortunate reality. But nothing will have
10
been accomplished towards solving this problem by refusing to sell chrysotile fibre to
responsible industries that use it safely. Quite to the contrary, by exporting safe-use conditions
along with our fibre, we can play a leadership role by setting a new world standard that
importing countries can refer to.
It is easy to pretend we are protecting the poor people of India from the comfort of our
Canadian homes by depriving them of a product that, for tens (if not hundreds) of millions of
people, makes the difference between being able to provide a strong and durable roof over
their heads or having to make do with makeshift ramshackle lean-tos constructed with whatever
debris they can salvage. It is easy to pretend to the moral upper ground by saying we will not
dirty our hands and let the developing countries tackle the pervasive problems of inadequate
industrial practices. We must refuse this moralizing attitude. It is much more constructive and
much more helpful for the poor population to tackle the problems head-on with our best
products and our best expertise.
11
Fact sheet #6
Official World Health Organization (WHO) policy does not call for an
asbestos ban
The World Health Organizations most senior authority, the World Health Assembly (WHA)
decided AGAINST banning asbestos during a debate held in May 2007 in the context of
discussions surrounding the Global Action Plan for Workers Health (2008-2017).
A global ban on all uses of asbestos was suggested during this debate. However, asbestosproducing countries, notably the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Canada, argued that there
is a lack of scientific evidence proving the unsafe qualities of chrysotile. Hence, it was decided to
apply a differentiated approach to regulating its various forms (of asbestos), in line with
relevant international legal instruments13. No mention of an asbestos ban remains in the final
conference document.
To this day, this document remains the official standing policy of the WHA, therefore of the
WHO, notwithstanding the efforts of some WHO employees, notably within its Department of
Public Health and Environment, to systematically pursue what can only be described as a
parallel policy by passing off their working documents14 as if they were policy.
The 100,000 deaths attributed to chrysotile cannot be substantiated
In a June 2006 discussion at the ILO (see fact sheet # 7), the United States representative asked
if the figure of 100,000 deaths a year could be justified15 Despite promises that all necessary
references would be provided, we are still waiting. The request to justify this figure was
renewed last June at the Rotterdam Convention meeting in Geneva. Pressed to answer before
the international community, the WHO representative agreed to do so. On June 24 of this year,
Caroline Vickers, team leader for Chemical Safety of the WHO answered by providing links to
two WHO websites, with no additional indication.16 These are in fact portals giving access to
hundreds, if not thousands, of documents. This is like saying the answer is in the library.
Try as we can, we could not find scientific studies to back up the 100,000-per-year-death figure.
As far as we know, this figure is based on assumptions, approximations, estimates,
13
Objective 1, paragraph 10, of the Global Plan of Action on Workers Health (2008-2017). This plan was
rd
adopted by the WHA resolution WHA60.26, May 23 , 2007.
14
See notably the Outline for the Development of National Programs for Elimination of Asbestos-Related
Diseases which aims to completely ban the use of all types of asbestos. This document, whose origins are
unclear but that can in no way pretend to be official WHO policy, appeared of the WHO website three
months after the WHA decided against the ban of asbestos and it has ever since been quoted by antichrysotile activists as official WHO policy.
15
The Government member of the United States asked if the figure of 100,000 deaths a year could be
justified. http://ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/drafrep-css.pdf - see paragraph 332.
16
The two websites are the following : http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/
and http://www.ehjournal.net/content/10/1/9
12
extrapolations that can be found in various studies, but not on hard scientific data. We question
it; perhaps the numbers are valid, perhaps they are not. And if they are, then we must know to
what type of asbestos these people were exposed to, in what concentrations, for how long and
when. These are legitimate questions. Good scientific knowledge will allow us to act
constructively. Figures brandished without proper scientific analysis serve no other purpose
than to scare people.
To imply that current usage of chrysotile will result in such an important number of deaths in
the future makes no sense, given modern knowledge:
!
First, given the 20 to 40 year latency period before asbestos-related diseases develop, it is
evident that todays victims are the people who were exposed many decades ago to very
high exposure levels that are many orders of magnitude greater than todays standards and
that quite often involved mixtures of amphiboles and chrysotile.
Second, as demonstrated in many studies, chrysotile poses much less risk to human health
than the amphibole-types of asbestos that have been completely banned world-wide
(except for very exceptional purposes). To quote one specific very credible WHO source on
this, in relation to lung cancer, the 2004 Concha-Barrientos Report17 quotes a standardized
mortality rate (SMR) of 1.04 for chrysotile workers and a SMR of 4.97 for amosite (a form of
amphibole asbestos) workers18; it concludes, regarding chrysotile, that little excess lung
cancer is expected from low exposure levels. In other words, the Concha-Barrientos
document, while quoting the WHO figure of 100,000, also recognizes that chrysotile is much
less likely to cause lung cancer than other types of asbestos.
On this matter, clearly, the WHO should provide a full, complete, detailed and scientifically
rigorous explanation of the figure that is so often quoted.
17
Comparative Quantification of Health Risks - Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to
Selected Major Risk Factors, Volume 2, chapter 21, page 1687.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241580348_eng_Volume2.pdf
18
Explained in other words, chrysotile workers stand 4 % more chance of developing lung cancers than a
comparable population not exposed to chrysotile and amosite workers stand 497 % more chance of
developing lung cancer than a comparable population not exposed to amosite.
13
Fact sheet #7
ILO policy includes several options other than a ban

The relevant international legal instrument mentioned in the WHA resolution 60.26 (see fact
sheet #6) would be the International Labour Organizations asbestos convention 162 19. This is
an international treaty, legally binding for signatory countries. This is what it says:
Article 3 mandates national governments to prescribe, through laws or
regulations, measures to be taken for the prevention and control of, and
protection of workers against, health hazards due to occupational exposure to
asbestos.
Article 9 describes the general nature of the measures that must be provided
for in these laws or regulations: exposure to asbestos shall be prevented or
controlled by one or more of the following measures:
a) Making work in which exposure to asbestos may occur subject to regulations
prescribing adequate engineering controls and work practices, including
workplace hygiene;
b) Prescribing special rules and procedures, including authorization, for the use
of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos or
for certain work processes.
Article 10 states that when necessary to protect the health of workers and
technically practicable, national laws and regulations shall provide for the
replacement of asbestos or certain types of asbestos or products containing
asbestos by other products or materials that have been evaluated as harmless
of less harmful, or total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos or of
certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos in certain work
processes., which is already happening today where by chrysotile is used only
in bonded products.
Quite clearly, the total banning of all types of asbestos is far from being the only option on the
table; it is one policy option coming at the end of a list of other possibilities for controlled and
responsible use set out clearly in articles 9 and 10.
However, activists have been undermining the official ILO policy just as they have with the WHO
policy. In June 2006, at the 95th International Labour Conference, a resolution was tabled,
without prior notification to member states, calling for a worldwide asbestos ban. It was
adopted then and there, despite the opposition of Canada, Switzerland, United Arad Emirates,
United States of America, Uganda, New Zealand, Suriname (speaking on behalf of the CARICOM
19
http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C162
14
group), China, Australia, Mexico, Gabon, Russian federation. These countries did not want to
debate a resolution presented with no possible prior discussion or analysis.
Nevertheless, this resolution has been quoted ever since by anti-chrysotile activist as the official
ILO policy regarding asbestos. Yet, by the ILOs own admission, this is clearly not the case. The
chrysotile industry challenged this flawed resolution on legal grounds and got two letters signed
by an ILO legal counsel stating that a resolution of this nature cannot override a Convention
such as Convention 162.
15
Fact sheet # 8
Perfectly safe chrysotile products are sold and installed in Canada

Chrysotile products are sold and installed safely in Canada today. To name a few examples:
Chrysotile cement pipes are installed in Montreals new La Maison Symphonique de
Montral - the concert hall for the Montreal Symphony Orchestra which was inaugurated in
September of 2011, the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) Hospital under construction
in Montreal and the National Library of Quebec (Grande Bibliothque). Such pipes have also
been installed in a great number of privately owned industrial, commercial and residential
buildings in Canada in the past decade.
Anti-chrysotile activists have been using the high-profile removal of sprayed asbestos (an unsafe
usage banned many decades ago) from the walls of the Parliament of Canada as an example of
the dangers posed by modern high-density chrysotile products. This is totally misleading and
only serves to confuse the media and scare the public.
Everybody agrees that sprayed asbestos, or other types of loose or friable asbestos products,
require very strict precautions, for two reasons: first, in many of these products, amphibole
asbestos was mixed with chrysotile and second; the removal of loose or friable asbestos is
bound to release unacceptably high concentrations in the air. All such products were phased out
of production decades ago. The high-density modern products of today do not pose such
problems: First, they contain no amphiboles and second; the chrysotile is effectively bonded and
encapsulated into the binding substance (tar, resins or cement) and cannot be released in the
air.20
The Quebec public health authorities have published documents21 where they analyse statistics
that strongly suggest that up to about the turn of the century, the most severe impacts of
asbestos-related diseases were borne by the asbestos miners and their families, as well as other
workers in specific settings, for example shipyards that made extensive use of asbestos. In later
years, the burden seems be shifting mostly to construction and building maintenance workers.
This portrait is entirely compatible with what we know: The conditions have changed for the
better in the mines and the mills, but the problem remains in the construction and building
maintenance industry, where workers have to deal with sprayed asbestos or other looseasbestos products that will often be mixed with amphiboles and where quantities of fibres
released into the air will far exceed todays maximum allowable level. Again, in such situations,
very strict precautions must be taken.
20
Except when high speed power tools are used to saw or drill holes into the products. But the
appropriate methods and tools in such situations are well known and available everywhere. The use of a
hand saw or other low-speed manual tool will not generate abundant dust.
21
For a summary, see: Amiante: connaissances acquises sur lexposition et les maladies des travailleurs
et de la population gnrale au Qubec de 2003 2009, Institut national; de sant publique du Qubec,
2011
16
We fail to see, however, how banning products that can be safely used today will contribute to
solving the problem posed by the unsafe products that were installed decades ago.
Modern chrysotile products are sold and installed in Canada today in residential, industrial,
commercial and institutional buildings.
By and large, the main products sold in Canada are chrysotile-cement pipes because their
properties make them an ideal material for storm-drains and water mains. They will also last
much longer than iron pipes in acidic soils which explains why, as previously mentioned, in 2003
chrysotile pipes were used for 19 % of Canadas drinking water distribution networks. We should
also remember that chrysotile-cement cladding and shingles quite similar to the sheeting sold
today in the developing world, installed decades ago, can still be found on a great number of
buildings throughout some regions of Quebec. Chrysotile can also be found in some roofing
products, mixed with tar.
Chrysotile can also be found in asphalt. In 2008, there were at least 145 road segments in
Quebec paved with asphalt containing some 2 % of chrysotile22. The addition of chrysotile
greatly increases the life span of the asphalt. We learn from a document published in 200923
that there have never been epidemiological studies to determine the risk to health of exposure
to chrysotile-asphalt. A study having observed a total of 429 057 person-years of observation in
seven European countries found a very slight increase (labelled statistically non-significant) in
the incidence of lung cancer, but no increase in cancer of the larynx, neither of the peritoneum,
nor of asbestosis. Furthermore, the authors of that study could not rule out that the workers
might have been exposed to other carcinogens. Here in Quebec, measurements taken along
road paved with chrysotile asphalt indicate the presence in the air of concentrations lower than
0,001 f/cc and 0,004 f/cc (sic24). However, some of the measurement taken during asphalt
removal operations indicated concentrations superior to the 1f/cc standard, where precautions
should be taken. Having considered these facts, the Quebec public health authorities refuse to
conclude on whether there is a link between chrysotile asphalt and asbestos-related diseases.
Chrysotile in industry
The 1f/cc or less25 presence of chrysotile in the air which has been the standard in Quebec for
the past 20 years has been observed in all Quebec chrysotile mines and mills, save for very
specific work environments and situations where the required precautions are taken. Indeed, to
our knowledge, no new case of chrysotile-related sickness has been recognized in workers hired
22
Amiante: connaissances acquises sur lexposition et les maladies des travailleurs et de la population
gnrale au Qubec de 2003 2009, Institut national; de sant publique du Qubec, 2011, page 22.
23
Revue des tudes pidmiologiques sur les maladies relies lexposition lamiante ajout aux
enrobs bitumineux, Institut national de sant publique du Qubec, 2009.
24
Op. cit. Note 24, page 22.
25
This standard was suggested by a group of experts commissioned by the International Labour
organization in 1989. The ILO decided to adopt no standard and to let all countries adopt their own.
17
in Asbestos and Thetford Mines since 1975. The same standard, to our knowledge, is applied in
all industries that use chrysotile in some form of industrial process or another.
The Agence de la sant et des services sociaux de Montral (Montral area health and social
services agency, attached to the Government of Quebecs ministry for health and social services)
conducted a thorough investigation of the presence of chrysotile asbestos in Quebec
industries26. It visited 968 industries in 8 industrial sectors and found that 8 of them utilized
chrysotile. In none of these industries did the presence of chrysotile in the air exceed 1f/cc
which is the standard in Quebec27. The Agency reported on the same study two years later28; it
had now found an additional plant using chrysotile where two workers were exposed above the
1f/cc limit; we believe this situation must be corrected.
Nonetheless, the Agency has concluded that none of these industries use chrysotile in a safe
way. It arrives at this result by setting its own criteria of 0,1f/cc limit (ten times lower than
1f/cc) and on this scale, it found all 9 industries to be deficient. Is such a level (0,1f/cc) relevant?
First, we have found no peer-reviewed scientific studies that would demonstrate an

effect on health from exposure to chrysotile at the 1f/cc level; there seem to be none.
Second, the argument that no threshold has been identified for carcinogenic risk does
not mean there is none; it means that if there is one, it has not been identified using the
data and the analytical methodology available to epidemiologists; this might require
data from hundreds of thousands of people and the need to weed out several complex
confounding factors, a formidable task under the best of circumstances.
There are, however, a fairly large number of human studies in various setting, whose
results have been peer-reviewed and published, that support the view that there is no
statistically significant increase of incidence of asbestos-related disease in chrysotile
workers exposed to 1f/cc or less.
26
Projet provincial amiante, Secteurs industriels, Direction de la sant publique, Agence de la sant et
des services sociaux de Montral, dcembre 2007
27
When the presence of chrysotile exceeds 1f/cc, special precautions must be taken; no precautions are
required when it does not.
28
Amiante: connaissances acquises sur lexposition et les maladies des travailleurs et de la population
gnrale au Qubec de 2003 2009, Institut national; de sant publique du Qubec, 2011
18
Fact sheet # 9
Other Group one carcinogens produced in Canada

The fact that chrysotile is categorized by the IARC as a group 1 carcinogen is seen by the antichrysotile activists as a reason to ban the substance. As it turns out, many other Canadian
mineral products are also categorized as group 1 carcinogens by the IARC. Many of these
substances, such as lead, chromium, baryum are included in the mountains of electronic
products discarded every year that wind up being dismantled in dangerous conditions in the
same countries that are heavy chrysotile users. Should they also be banned?
Furthermore, most of these substances have been linked to a standardized mortality rate (SMR)
by lung cancer that is significantly higher than chrysotiles. The Standardized mortality rate
(SMR) is the ratio of observed deaths to expected deaths (O/E), where expected deaths are
calculated from a control population. An SMR of 1.00 means that the number of observed
deaths equals that of expected cases. An SMR of 1.04 as is the case for chrysotile means that
few deaths in excess of the statistically expected deaths can be attributed to the substance. The
higher the SMR, the higher the substance can be said to be risky for its users. On this scale,
chrysotile appears much safer than many other minerals mined in Canada.
IARC classification and Standardized mortality rate for lung cancer,

Selected mineral production in Canada, 2010 29
Mineral
Quantity
produced
Chrysotile
(IARC group 1 carcinogen)
Arsenic
Cadmium
125 000 tons
Nickel
(IARC group 1 carcinogens;
nickel compounds)
Silica
149 030 tons
250 tons
(in 2007)
262 tons
1 171 000 tons
Producing provinces
Quebec
Standardized
mortality
rate
(Concha-Barrientos
et al. 2004)30
1.04
3,69
Newfoundland
and
Labrador,
New
Brunswick, Quebec
Newfoundland
and
Labrador,
Quebec,
Ontario, Manitoba
Alberta,
Ontario,
1,49
1,56
1.33
29
http://mmsd.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/stat-stat/prodprod/PDF/2010P%20Mineral%20Production%20%28rev.%20June%202011%29.pdf
30
Lung cancer relative risk, substance specific, and weighted average, for the AMR-A subregion in
Comparative Quantification of Health Risks - Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to
Selected Major Risk Factors, Volume 2, chapter 21, page 1690
19

Coal
(IARC Group 1 carcinogen)
Chromium
(IARC group 1 carcinogen for
chromium compounds)
Lead
(IARC group 2B)
Uranium
(not listed IARC)
5 5340 415
tons
Quebec
BC
Not available
2.78
55 620 tons
10 152 tons
New
Brunswick,
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Not available
Not available
20
Fact sheet # 10
The Rotterdam Convention

The Rotterdam Convention was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in 2004. Its fundamental
function is to create a Prior and Informed Consent procedure (PIC) whereby participating
countries that export chemicals and substances designated in Annex III of the Convention have
the obligation to provide information on these chemicals and substances to importing countries.
This convention was clearly designed for substances that are so dangerous that they require
very stringent precautions; Article two of the Convention states quite clearly that it is designed
for banned or severely restricted chemicals and severely hazardous pesticide formulations.
Silica, nickel, uranium, chromium, lead, arsenic, cadmium (all mined in Canada) are NOT listed in
Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention, despite the obvious dangers they pose to human health
when used improperly. We could also add to this list zinc and mercury that are incorporated into
products we use daily such as cell phones and computers.
To single out chrysotile for a ban in the face of all the facts we have discussed amounts to a
double standard. We have learned to use all of those substances safely, including chrysotile.
Chrysotile is not a man-made chemical. It is a mineral quite similar to any other Canadian
minerals, such as those listed above, that are mined and exported regularly, that would kill us if
ingested in our bodies but that we nonetheless have learned to use safely and incorporate into
products we use daily such as cell phones and computers. The inclusion of chrysotile in the
Rotterdam convention logically leads to the inclusion of all those other minerals.
The Rotterdam Convention was clearly designed for substances that require extremely rigorous
monitoring and control. It regulates the trade of these dangerous substances by creating
obligations for exporting and importing countries. It is our understanding that:
All parties (i.e. all signatory countries) are required to decide whether or not they will
allow future import of each chemical.
Exporting countries are required to notify importing countries before the first shipment
and then annually thereafter. This creates the obligation for exporting countries to enter
into a bureaucratic process every year with each importing country.
Exporting countries must wait for importing countries to approve before allowing
exports to proceed. This involves multiple communications between exporting and
importing countries and between exporting and importing companies and their
respective governments, documentation, requests for clarification, etc. Most importing
countries are in the developing stage; many have notoriously slow and cumbersome
bureaucracies that are also vulnerable to undue influence
The consequences are entirely foreseeable: As virtually every shipment is subjected to

additional procedures in both exporting and importing countries, inclusion of chrysotile on the
21
Prior informed consent list creates numerous possibilities for snags, delays, undue influence,
etc. Due to the specific and very complicated requirements for transportation, insurance and
logistic expenses will increase, which by itself will discourage importers, which is the implicit
objective of the Convention. These mounting bureaucratic and financial difficulties will
eventually bring customers to switch to substitute products that are not subject to the same
difficulties.
Such stringent conditions amount to trade barriers when imposed unnecessarily on products, as
would be the case for chrysotile. We do not understand the logic whereby chrysotile would be
listed in Annex III but not the substitute products that have been much less studied than
chrysotile if at all as to their impact on human health. The International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) was mandated by the World Health Organization to evaluate the health effects
of substitute products for chrysotile. In total, IARC identified studies available for 14 products.
Three dimensions were evaluated:
Epidemiology: there are only data for one of the 14 substitute products synthetic
vitreous fibre. And even here, the data was deemed insufficient to classify the product;
Toxicology: IARC found no data on 7 of the 14 products; of the 7 others, IRAC
determined (based on limited studies) that only one is not carcinogenic;
Biopersistence: no data exists for 6 of the 14 substances. Of the 8 others, there are 5
with high biopersistence and 3 with low to medium biopersistence, but in all cases
higher than that of chrysotile.
We do not see the logic where chrysotile, a substance that has been thoroughly studied and
that we know how to handle safely, will be subjected to severe trade restrictions when other
substances whose effects on human health have not been studied would be exempted from
such restrictions.
The Rotterdam Convention website provides the status of all chemicals listed in Annex III on a
country by country basis.[1] The overall portrait fully supports our affirmation that listing a
substance in Annex III is to set it up for a worldwide ban. The majority of the substances on the
list have been banned by some 90 % of the countries that are party to the Rotterdam
Convention. At least 75 % of the few countries that allow importation do so under very specific
conditions.
[1]
http://www.pic.int/TheConvention/Chemicals/AnnexIIIChemicals/tabid/1132/language/enUS/Default.aspx
22
Annexe G
Lettre%%Pat%Martin,%dputs%et%snateurs
APPENDIX H
Proponent arguments and key documentation
What is chrysotile - Asbestos?

Every human being inhales 5,000 to 10,000 chrysotile fibres every day, without
any measurable ill- effect.
That is because Chrysotile is a natural mineral fibre from the serpentine rock outcrops found everywhere
in the world. The earths atmosphere contains up to one microfibre of chrysotile per litre of air.
The World Health Organization says we must REGULATE the use of chrysotile, NOT ban it
Official WHO resolution of 2007:
WHO will work with Member States to strengthen the capacities of the ministries
of health to provide leadership for activities to workers health, to formulate and
implement policies and action plans, and to stimulate intersectoral collaboration.
Its activities will include global campaigns for elimination of asbestos-related
diseases; bearing in mind a differentiated approach to regulating its various
forms; in line with relevant international legal instruments and the latest evidence
for effective interventions.
90,000 Victims?
The chrysotile (mining, manufacturing) industries do not believe there are

125,000,000 workers exposed to chrysotile in the world. The maximum count
could be 2,000,000 workers. The infamous statement 90,000 people die each
year from asbestos-related lung cancer comes from global estimates (ConchaBarrientos, 2004) on an estimate of 125,000,000 workers. However, the same
study states that Nevertheless, little excess lung cancer is expected from
low exposure levels to chrysotile.
Chrysotile is a valuable and misunderstood mineral that is being

safely mined and manufactured into finished products today. safely
mined and manufactured into finished products today.
These asbestos products are authorized and used safely in USA:
t$PSSVHBUFEBTCFTUPTDFNFOUTIFFU
t'FMUBTCFTUPTDFNFOUTIFFU
t7JOZMBTCFTUPTnPPSUJMF
t"TCFTUPTDFNFOUQJQFT
t"TCFTUPTDFNFOUTIJOHMFT
t'SJDUJPONBUFSJBMT
t#SBLFMJOJOHT
t$MVUDIGBDJOH
t%JTDCSBLFQBET
International Agency for

Research on Cancer
(IARC WHO)
Classification as category 1 carcinogens and proven carcinogenic

agents: Asbestos, oral contraceptives, chromium, nickel compounds,
silica, suns rays, vinyl chloride,
alcoholic
beverages,
tobacco
smoke, saw dust, the manufacture
and repair of shoes, the manufacture
of furniture and cabinets, iron and steel
foundries, the rubber industry, the
aluminium production.
Notes: IARC classification identifies a substances
hazard, not the risk; consequently, a substance
classified in category 1 does not mean that it should be
prohibited, only that it should be properly controlled.
t"TCFTUPTDMPUIJOH
t"VUPNBUJDUSBOTNJTTJPODPNQPOFOUT
t3PPmOHGFMU
t3PPGDPBUJOHT
t1JQFMJOFXSBQ
t"DFUZMFOFDZMJOEFSmMMFS
t"TCFTUPTEJBQISBNT
t)JHIHSBEFFMFDUSJDBMQBQFS
t1BDLJOH
Who wants to have Asbestos

banned?
The International Ban Asbestos

Secretariat (IBAS) is headed by
Laurie Kazan-Allen in London, UK and
Kathleen Ruff in Canada.
Laurie Kazan-Allens brother, Steven
Kazan who is the Founder and Senior
Managing Principal , a partner with
the law firm, Kazan, McClain, Lyons,
Greenwood and Harley, PLL., which
has made hundreds of millions of
dollars in asbestos law suits in the
USA.
The evidence is clear: Science

has proven that chrysotile can
be handled safely
There is no epidemiological study

that demonstrates that chrysotile
alone, free from amphiboles
and when controlled at current
permissible limits and in absence
of smoking can induce lung cancer
and mesothelioma. Numerous scientific studies on many thousands of
chrysotile workers exposed to one
fibre per centimetre (1 F/cc) of air for
10, 20 and 30 years do not show any
measurable level of risk for health.
As recently as November 2010, a group
of reputable international experts took
stock of the state of scientific research.
Here is their conclusion:
Based upon current science ()
the use of chrysotile at current
Qubec
permissible
exposure
limits in the workplace carries no
epidemiologically and clinically
t4FBMBOUUBQF
t#SBLFCMPDLT
t.JTTJMFMJOFST
t"SDDIVUFT
t#BUUFSZTFQBSBUPST
t3FJOGPSDFEQMBTUJD
t(BTLFUT
detectable increase in risk. Indeed,

a number of recent scientific studies
published in peer-reviewed journals
have come to this conclusion: From
these published studies, it can
be seen that safety in the use of
chrysotile is not a simple wish, but
a reality.
They further conclude that when
properly
controlled
and
used,
chrysotile asbestos in its modern day
high-density applications does not
present risks of any significance to
public and/or worker health.
Mine Jeffrey has been in operation
since 1879. We sell exclusively
to manufacturers of hard bound
chrysotile products under modern
industrial hygiene practices of safe
and controlled uses at less than 1 F/cc
in the work place, which is the norm
in Qubec. Jeffrey Mine = 0.1 0.2
F/cc and produces 600 800 T/D of
chrysotile.
G. Bernard Coulombe, P. Eng.

(42 years at the mine)
President & CEO, Mine Jeffrey,
Asbestos
The four (4) major enemies

of chrysotile are:
1. The plaintiff lawyers in USA; powerful
compensation machines
2. The petrochemical man made fibers
and their associated Labour Unions
in Europe and Japan and the galvanized
iron sheets manufacturers.
3. The asbestos removal big businesses.
4. The bureaucrats of some medical
associations surfing on the public
asbestos phobia and ignoring
the last 25 years independent scientific
studies on the safe and controlled use
of chrysotile.
Published evidence supporting

a practical threshold level
of exposure to occupational
exposure to chrysotile asbestos
below which no adverse health
effects are observed.
Weill H., Hughes J. and Waggenspack C. (1979).

Influence of dose and fibre type on respiratory
malignancy risk in asbestos cement manufacturing.
American Review of Respiratory Disease 120(2):345-354,
approximately 15 fibres/ml x years).
Thomas HF, Benjamin IT, Elwood PC and Sweetnam
PM (1982). Further follow-up study of workers from an
asbestos cement factory. British Journal of Industrial
Medicine 39(3):273-276.
Gardner MJ, Winter PD, Pannett B and Powell CA (1986).
Follow up study of workers manufacturing chrysotile
asbestos cement products. British Journal of Industrial
Medicine 43:726-732.
Ohlson C G. and Hogstedt C (1985). Lung cancer
among asbestos cement workers. A Swedish cohort
study and a review.
Liddell FDK, McDonald JC and McDonald A
Ann. Occup. Hyg. 41:13-35 (1997)
Paustenbach DJ, Finley BL, Lu ET, Brorby GP and
Sheehan PJ (2004). Environmental and occupational
health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos
in brake linings and pads (1900 to present):
A state-of-the-art review.
J Toxicol Environ Health, Part B 7 : 33-110
Yarborough C.M. (2006). Chrysotile as a Cause of
Mesothelioma : An Assessment Based on Epidemiology.
Critical Reviews in Toxicology 36: 165-187
Carel R, Olsson AC, Zaridze D, Szeszenia-Dabrowska N,
Rudnai P, Lissowska J, Fabianova E, Cassidy A, Mates
D, Bencko V, Foretova L, Janout V, Fevotte J, Fletcher T,
t Mannetje A, Brennan P, Boffetta P. (2007) International
Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Occupational exposure to asbestos and man-made
vitreous fibres and risk of lung cancer: a multicenter
case-control study in Europe
Occup Environ Med. 2007 Aug;64(8):502-8. Epub 2006
Oct 19 http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/64/8/502
White N., Nelson G. and Murray J. (2008) South African
experience with asbestos related environmental
mesothelioma : Is asbestos fiber type important?
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 52 : S92 S96
Sichletidis L, Chloros D, Spyratos D, Haidich A-D,
Fourkiotou I, Kakoura M, Patakas D (2008)
Mortality from occupational Exposure to Relatively
Pure Chrysotile: A 39-Year Study. Respiration, 78 :63-68
Published Online: October 9, 2008. http://content.karger.
com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=AcceptedPapers&
ProduktNr=224278
For
responsible
use
of
chrysotile
For
responsible
use
of
chrysotile
1
2
3
4
PAGE 4
There are a number of recognized and published scientific studies

supporting the assertion that exposure to chrysotile that respects the
current occupational standard in Quebec (1 fibre/cc) is safe; the risk to
health at this level of exposure is so low as to not be measurable.
PAGE 7
It is irresponsible of anti-chrysotile militants to refuse to

read and have an honest discussion about scientific studies
that support the possibility of safely using chrysotile.
PAGE 8
Mining or industrial facilities that use chrysotile in Quebec respect the

provinces industrial exposure standard of 1 fibre/cc. As for the construction
industry, the precautions to be taken when removing sprayed asbestos (a
practice from the past that has long since been banned) are well known.
Modern, high-density materials containing chrysotile are easily handled and do
not present a health risk, provided that the necessary precautions are taken.
PAGE 11
Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the

International Labour Organization (ILO), in their official
positions approved by Member States, call for responsible
and controlled use of chrysotile, and not a ban.
PAGE 2
5
6
7
8
9
PAGE 12
It is irrational to treat chrysotile differently

from other products, fibres or substances
that also carry some risk to health.
PAGE 14
Emerging and developing countries have full knowledge of the

facts, and they continue to import chrysotile because it meets
their populations essential needs.
PAGE 15
The health impacts of most of the products used as alternatives to

chrysotile are much less well documented in terms of scientific research
than those of chrysotile (and their potential risk is often unknown).
And yet, their use is far less controlled than that of chrysotile.
PAGE 16
Closing Quebecs chrysotile mines wont help anyone, anywhere in the world.
On the other hand, exporting Quebecs expertise in controlled use of chrysotile,
along with the fibre itself, can contribute significantly to improving conditions for
the use of products containing chrysotile throughout the world.
PAGE 18
What should be considered is the potential for development

of the chrysotile industry, not its current state.
PAGE 3
Numerous scientific studies have been

published in recent years that support
the assertion that exposure to chrysotile
that respects the current occupational
standard in Quebec (1 fibre/cc)1 is
safe; the risk to health at this level
of exposure is so low as to not be
measurable.
Up until the 1970s, the levels of exposure to different types

of asbestos were hundreds, if not thousands, of times higher
than today, both in mines and mills and in the industries where
these fibres were used.
From the early 20th century to the late 1960s, in areas of the
world experiencing rapid economic growth, asbestos was
used in hundreds of thousands of buildings and ships through
spraying, a process that leaves the asbestos in a very brittle
form that can easily be released into the air. For at least the
last thirty years, there has been a ban on all such processes; in
contemporary applications, chrysotile is always encapsulated
in another substance (cement or asphalt, for example) that
prevents it being released into the air we breathe.
Also, at that time, research did not differentiate between forms
of amphibole asbestos (amosite, crocidolite, tremolite) and
chrysotile, whose molecular structure and risk are different.
Today, this difference has been recognized throughout the
world. It has been scientifically demonstrated that chrysotile is
much less harmful to human health than amphiboles.
A retrospective review of several studies published in
scientific journals suggests that there is no increased risk for
lung cancer associated with chrysotile if the current standard
in Quebec (1 fibre/cc) is respected. In other words, to our
knowledge, no study has successfully measured an increased
risk below this standard.
For many decades throughout Canada, the

roofs of thousands of homes were covered
with chrysotile-cement shingles similar in
composition to those being manufactured
and sold in developing countries today.
PAGE 4
1 Some documents also mention the standard 1 fibre/ml. In reality, whether

expressed in cc or ml, these two formulations refer to a single measure of
volume. Ml is more often used when dealing with liquids, but the volume
measured is identical, whether expressed in cc or ml.
February 2007 letter addressed to

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO
numerous scientific studies have been published
which show that chrysotile is much less potent than
amphibole asbestos inhalation toxicology studies
on commercial chrysotile asbestos show that it is not
toxic at concentrations much higher than the current
workplace limit levels these results are supported by
more than 60 peer-reviewed scientific publications that
have been published (between 1996 and 2007).
November 2010 declaration

in absence of amphiboles, the use of chrysotile
at current Qubec permissible exposure limits in the
workplace carries no epidemiologically and clinically
detectable increase in risk. Indeed, a number of recent
scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals
(see following list) have come to this conclusion. From
these published studies, it can be seen that safety in the
use of chrysotile is not a simple wish, but a reality.
List of peer-reviewed scientific journals quoted in the

November 2010 letter:
British Journal of Industrial Medicine
Environmental Health Perspectives
Inhalation Toxicology
American Review of Respiratory Diseases
Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health
Critical Reviews in Toxicology
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Respiration
(1): signatories of the 2007 letter

(2): signatories of the 2010 declaration
Dr. David M. Bernstein, Consultant in Toxicology, Geneva,
Switzerland (1 and 2)
Robert C. Brown, Ph.D., Toxicology Services, Stretton, Rutland,
UK (1)
Professor Ken Donaldson, MCR/University of Edinburgh Centre
for Inflammation Research, Queens Medical Research Institute,
Edinburgh, Scotland (1)
Prof. J. Dunnigan, Faculty of Science, University of Sherbrooke,
QC, Canada (2)
Dr. Allen Gibbs, Dept. Histopathology, University College of
Medicine, Cardiff, UK (1 and 2)
Dr. John Hoskins, FRSC, C. Chem., Independent Toxicologist,
Haslemere, Surrey, UK (1 and 2)
Professor Corbett McDonald, MD, MSc, FRCP, Department of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Imperial College,
London, UK, AND Dept. Epidemiology, McGill University,
Montral, Canada (1)
Dr. Robert P. Nolan, International Environmental Research
Foundation, New York, USA (2)
Dennis J. Paustenbach, Ph.D., ChemRisk, San Francisco, CA,
USA
Dr. Fred Pooley, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK (1 and 2)
Professor Maria Teresa Espinosa Restrepo, Director of
Occupational Health Postgraduate Programs, El Bosque
University, Bogota, Colombia
PAGE 5
The questionable science behind the claim

of 100 000 deaths
Anti-asbestos lobbyists often claim that asbestos causes 100 000 deaths per year.
This number is not supported by any scientific study. It was first proposed during the
1980s as a hypothesis, based on fragmentary data extrapolated to the entire planet.
The original articles it comes from specifically acknowledge that the number is an
estimate, and does not reflect actual cases. None of the people quoting this figure has
bothered to establish its credibility, which is questionable.
Prior to 2000, the vast majority of scientific studies used to condemn all types of
asbestos made no distinction between exposure to chrysotile and exposure to the
different forms of amphiboles. However, some recent scientific studies re-examined
the data of earlier studies where it was possible to distinguish between exposure to
chrysotile alone and exposure to mixed fibres (chrysotile and amphiboles). These new
studies all point in the same direction: amphiboles are much more dangerous to health
than chrysotile.
Based on approximately twenty different studies of cohorts totalling more than

100 000 workers, a review of a large number of scientific articles conducted on
behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) and published in 2004 (ConchaBarrientos document) concluded that there is a great difference between the
standardized mortality rate resulting from exposure to amphiboles and chrysotile, in
the order of 4.97 for 1.04, with the lower number applying to chrysotile;
The same study concluded that at low levels of exposure, we can expect to observe
few cancers attributable to asbestos;
Other studies produce even more remarkable results in favour of chrysotile. For
example, Hodgson & Darnton establish the risks of contracting mesothelioma
following exposure to various forms of asbestos in the following proportions:
crocidolite 500; amosite 100; and chrysotile 1. They establish the risk of contracting
lung cancer in the following proportions: crocidolite 50; amosite 10; chrysotile 1.
Finally, almost all studies of exposure to chrysotile alone from before 1995 used a
methodology that reflected an extremely high level of exposure, thousands of times
higher than the exposure standard in effect in Quebec since 1990 (1 fibre per cubic
centimetre of air). With such massive concentrations, the lungs will obviously be
overwhelmed, and the natural mechanisms for eliminating fibres will not be up to the
task. More recent scientific studies, conducted using much lower concentrations, but
still several times higher than the Quebec standard, conclude that chrysotile is quickly
eliminated from the lungs, where it does not cause an inflammatory reaction, and
that it does not migrate to the pleural cavity. In contrast, these same studies indicate
that even short-term exposure to forms of amphibole asbestos can lead to interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis, and that the amphibole fibres do migrate to the pleural cavity,
where they cause inflammation; these two conditions can degenerate into a form of
cancer in the decades that follow.
PAGE 6
It is irresponsible of anti-chrysotile
militants to refuse to read and have
an honest discussion about scientific
studies that support the possibility of
safely using chrysotile.
Opponents of chrysotile, including some physicians and
spokespersons for associations and pressure groups, refuse
to consider studies that support the notion that chrysotile
can be used safely on the grounds that these studies were
conducted by experts paid by the industry. This argument
is unworthy of responsible scientists.
These studies were published in reputable peer-reviewed
scientific journals (see the partial list of these journals, brief
#1); are these people suggesting that the industry bought off
peer-review committees and journals?
The generally observed practice in Quebec is that
proponents are responsible for studies related to the impacts
of their projects. This is true of projects submitted to the
Bureau daudiences publiques en environnement (BAPE environmental public hearings office) or to municipalities. It
is therefore appropriate that the chrysotile industry, like all
other industries, finance certain studies.
By refusing to read these studies, anti-asbestos militants
place themselves in a position of ignorance as to advances
in scientific knowledge. This odd attitude is contrary to the
spirit and letter of the ILOs Convention 162, which confirms
the necessity, in paragraph 2 of article 3, of reviewing
technical progress and advances in scientific knowledge.
This refusal on the part of opponents is all the more

inexplicable in view of the fact that these people are
incapable of producing a single study published in
a peer-reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates
that chrysotile carries an unacceptable risk to health
when present in the air below the current Quebec
standard of 1 f/cc.
PAGE 7
Mining or industrial facilities that

use chrysotile in Quebec respect the
provinces industrial exposure standard
of 1 fibre/cc. As for the construction
industry, the precautions to be taken
when removing sprayed asbestos
(a practice from the past that has
long since been banned) are well
known. Modern, high-density materials
containing chrysotile are easily
handled and do not present a health
risk, provided that the necessary
precautions are taken.
Everyone agrees that today, Quebecs chrysotile mines and
mills are safe. The fibre is extracted, processed and bagged
without workers being exposed beyond the standard
prescribed in the Regulation respecting occupational health
and safety (RSST).
In tropical countries with very acidic soil and very

high temperatures, chrysotile-cement pipes are
an excellent choice for constructing aqueducts
and sewers.
PAGE 8
With regard to industries that use chrysotile:
With regard to renovation/demolition industries:
The RSST establishes the conditions that must be respected

by businesses that use chrysotile.
Where there is asbestos (of any type) that was installed several
decades ago and it is necessary to remove the sprayed
asbestos or other low-density (friable) material containing
asbestos, there is general agreement on the need to observe
the strictest prevention measures. These include negative
pressure zones, hermetic clothing, protective respiratory
equipment, and prescribed disposal methods. Fibres can be
expected to be released in large quantities during such work,
which is why these extraordinary precautions are required.
The presence of fibres in the air breathed by workers is

clearly the most important measure because if there are no
fibres, the remaining protective measures are pointless. In
Quebec, the standard established by the RSST is 1 f/cc. This
standard was recommended by a committee of experts that
met under the aegis of the World Health Organization (WHO)
in 1989. This recommendation has never been changed.
WHO has always left it to each country to set the level of
exposure it deems appropriate. Industrial facilities where
measurements have been taken by Public Health officials
respect this standard.
Some Public Health representatives are promoting the
adoption of another standard, which would be ten times
more restrictive (0.1 f/cc). They apply this standard rather
than the one currently in place in Quebec, which is why
they conclude that these businesses are not respecting the
standard. Would it be reasonable to amend the regulation
to tighten the current standard? We dont believe so,
because no one has yet been able to produce a single study
published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal demonstrating
a measurable impact on health from exposure to chrysotile
that is in compliance with the Quebec standard of 1 f/cc.
With regard to construction:

These days, chrysotile fibre is only used in high-density
products in which it is encased in another substance such
as cement or asphalt. These products can be handled, cut,
sawed or nailed, taking well-known precautions similar to
those recommended for nearly all construction materials,
notably mineral wools and other materials that release
potentially dangerous fibres or dust.
Chrysotile-cement sheets and pipes containing approximately
8% chrysotile are particularly easy to handle safely. It is
sufficient to saw them using a low-speed manual tool that
does not generate abundant dust, or a power saw with a
water jet to control dust. The appropriate methods and tools
for doing this are well known and available everywhere.
The RSST also establishes other conditions that must be

respected by businesses using chrysotile; for example, the
presence of double changing rooms, the use of protective
suits, ventilation, and regular measuring of the presence
of fibres in the air. Public Health claims that some of these
conditions are not respected, but its reports do not provide
any details allowing for verification of that claim.
PAGE 9
For the past several decades the siding on this village church in
Quebec has contained chrysotile-cement tiles.
PAGE 10
Both the World Health Organization

(WHO) and the International Labour
Organization (ILO), in their official
positions approved by Member States,
call for responsible and controlled use
of chrysotile, and not a ban.
The official position of the WHO is to eliminate asbestosrelated diseases, not to ban chrysotile. Opponents of
chrysotile promote confusion by quoting the comments
of some people associated with WHO whose opinions
are contrary to those decided upon by the organizations
Member States.
In 2007, WHOs supreme body, the World Health

Assembly, adopted the following text among its final
resolutions:
WHO will work with Member States to strengthen
the capacities of the ministries of health to provide
leadership for activities related to workers health, to
formulate and implement policies and action plans, and
to stimulate intersectoral collaboration. Its activities will
include global campaigns for elimination of asbestosrelated diseases; bearing in mind a differentiated
approach to regulating its various forms; in line with
relevant international legal instruments and the latest
evidence for effective interventions.
As for the ILO, two legal opinions rendered by the organization

itself in December 2006 and January 2007 confirm that no
resolution can modify, amend or alter a treaty. Consequently,
Convention 162, which was adopted in 1986 a treaty in
due form is still fully in force, despite the resolution used
by anti-asbestos militants and adopted in 2006 following a
debate held without notice where studies were referenced
that had not been distributed to the participants (and that
were not distributed after the fact).
The ILOs Convention 162 is a treaty, and therefore a

legal instrument signed by the Member States that takes
precedence over all resolutions. Excerpts:
Article 3, par. 1: National laws or regulations shall
prescribe the measures to be taken for the prevention
and control of, and protection of workers against, health
hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos.
Article 11, par. 1: The use of crocidolite and products
containing this fibre shall be prohibited.
Nowhere does Convention 162 call for a ban on
chrysotile asbestos.
PAGE 11
It is irrational to treat chrysotile

differently from other products,
fibres and substances that carry
a potential risk.
The concept of safe, or controlled, use is well known
internationally; it is accepted and applied for a multitude
of other dangerous and carcinogenic substances such as
silica, lead, mercury, but also pesticides, herbicides, poisons
of all sorts how can anyone claim that it is impossible to
apply it in the case of chrysotile?
On a daily basis, in all industrial environments and even in
offices and residences, we use numerous substances that
are potentially deadly or carcinogenic. Rather than ban these
products, we have learned to use them safely. Why should it
be otherwise with chrysotile?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
prepared a list of human carcinogens that includes more
than 100 substances, compounds and activities. Asbestos
is included (without distinguishing among the different types
of fibre), as well as silica, oral contraceptives, chromium,
nickel compounds, X-Rays, vinyl chloride, alcoholic beverages,
tobacco smoke, wood dust, products used in shoe
manufacturing and furniture making, emanations from steel
founding, the rubber manufacturing industry, aluminum
production, etc.
This IARC classification does not mean that these substances
should be prohibited, but that they should be used safely
and in a controlled manner.
The IARC classification is limited to identifying and
characterizing potential. It does not evaluate risk, i.e., the
probability that this potential will manifest itself in actual
situations.
The exterior walls and the roof of this

building are covered with modern
chrysotile-cement materials.
PAGE 12
The paradox
Why treat silica differently than chrysotile?
In chrysotile mines, regulatory provisions are guided

by the concentration of chrysotile in the ambient air.
The occupational exposure standard in effect is 1 f/cc.
Workers may therefore move about without respiratory
equipment as long as the concentration of chrysotile in
the ambient air does not exceed the standard.
Silica causes silicosis, an occupational disease that

claimed many victims in the past. IARC classifies
silica in the same group of carcinogenic substances
as asbestos. The sand on our beaches and that used
to make cement is composed approximately of 90%
silica. Cement contains approximately 25% sand, so
a proportion of about 22.5% silica. Sawing cement or
concrete, a very common practice, generates large
quantities of dust. Logically, Public Health and the
Quebec workplace health and safety commission
(CSST) should also impose the precautionary principle
to cement (and beaches!) as strictly as it does to
chrysotile. Not necessary, however, a simple solution
has been found to prevent the dispersal of cement dust:
watering. This example demonstrates that by taking
simple precautions, it can be easy to use materials with
potential health risks in a controlled, responsible and
safe manner.
In the construction industry, regulatory provisions are

guided by the proportion of chrysotile contained in
materials; suits with breathing apparatus are required
whenever materials contain more than 0.1% chrysotile.
These provisions are logical when dealing with removing
friable materials containing chrysotile, or sprayed
asbestos, particularly when these operations take place
in a closed environment.
It is paradoxical that highway work is subjected to the
same provisions, even though the situation is completely
different. Because while asphalt may today contain
between 1% and 2% chrysotile, the fibre is encased
in the asphalt and can therefore not be released into
the ambient air. This was proven in studies conducted
in 2001 by Sodexen and in 2004 by Teknika, which
indicated that workers directly involved in paving roads
with asphalt containing chrysotile are exposed to
concentrations much lower than the standard of 1 f/cc.
But because laying or removing pre-mix asphalt
containing chrysotile is subject to the Safety Code for
the Construction Industry, workers are obligated to wear
suits equipped with breathing apparatus, etc. These
regulations, which defy logic and common sense, mean
that it costs three to four times more to lay or remove
pre-mix asphalt containing chrysotile. Is that necessary?
PAGE 13
Emerging and developing countries

have full knowledge of the facts, and
they continue to import chrysotile
because it meets their populations
essential needs.
Numerous developing and emerging countries, including
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and generally speaking, the EuroAsian zone, and most Latin American and Central American
countries, continue to produce or import large quantities of
chrysotile, and use it on behalf of their own people. We are
talking about two thirds of humanity!
According to the United Nations, there are approximately
1.2 billion people on the planet without access to drinking
water, and 2.6 billion without access to infrastructure to
provide acceptable sanitary conditions. Each year, 2 million
children die from lack of drinking water. These people live in
countries where basic infrastructure (drinking water, sewers,
roads and even housing) is under-developed and where
governments lack the means to address the situation. These
countries are very aware of the potential risks of chrysotile,
if only because they are subject to intense lobbying on the
part of industries offering them alternative products, as well
as groups opposed to chrysotile for a variety of reasons.
These countries therefore have full knowledge of the facts
when they choose to continue using chrysotile to meet the
needs of their people.
In 2004, a NGO opposed to chrysotile submitted a petition

to the Supreme Court of India requesting that the court
order a ban on all forms of asbestos. In its decision, which
was rendered public on January 21, 2011, Indias Supreme
Court rejected this NGOs application to ban asbestos and
instead called for adequate regulation of its use. The Court
also observed that the NGO had failed to demonstrate the
validity of its claims with regard to the dangers posed by
chrysotile. Finally, the Court criticized this organization for
having disguised as a petition in the public interest what
was actually the commercial maneuvrings of a competing
industry. On May 12, 2011, the Supreme Court slapped a
fine on the NGO representative plus one days simple
imprisonment and directed the Delhi government to take
action against the NGO.
In February 2011, the Congress of Peru adopted a law
providing for a ban on all forms of amphibole asbestos and
the regulated use of chrysotile asbestos. This, despite a
ferocious campaign that had been waged for several years
by anti-asbestos militants.
In developing countries, which represent two-thirds of the worlds

population, chrysotile-cement sheets are used to roof the houses of
very-low income people. They are also used for industrial, commercial
and institutional buildings.
PAGE 14
The health impacts of most of

the products used as alternatives
to chrysotile are much less well
documented in terms of scientific
research than those of chrysotile. The
potential risk has not been evaluated
in all cases. And yet, their use is far
less controlled than that of chrysotile.
The impacts of chrysotile on human health are far better
known than those of replacement products. The safety of
replacement products has not been demonstrated, and the
little that is known on this subject suggests that we should
question the wisdom of using them instead of a product
whose properties and effects are well known, chrysotile.
Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the
International Labour Organization (ILO) feel that it is important
to evaluate the impact on human health of products
proposed as replacements for chrysotile. Thus, article 10 of
the ILOs Convention 162 states that materials, products or
technologies to be used as alternatives to asbestos should
be scientifically evaluated by the competent authority
as harmless, or less harmful. This is far from being the
case.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
was mandated by the WHO to evaluate the health effects
of substitute products for chrysotile. In total, IARC identified
studies available for 14 products: aramid and para-aramid
fibres; carbon fibres; cellulose fibres; graphite whiskers;
magnesium sulphate whiskers; polyethylene fibres;
polypropylene fibres; polyvinyl alcohol fibres; polyvinyl
chloride fibres, potassium octatitanate fibres; synthetic
vitreous fibres, Wollastonite, and Xonotlite. The results were
published in October 2008.
Three dimensions were evaluated: epidemiology, toxicology,

and biopersistence.
Epidemiology: There are only data for one of the
14 substitute products synthetic vitreous fibre. And even
here, these data were deemed insufficient to classify this
product.
Toxicology: IARC didnt find any data for 7 of the
14 products. Of the 7 other products, IARC determined
(based on limited studies) that only one is not carcinogenic,
i.e., Wollastonite.
Biopersistence: no data for 6 of the 14 substances. Of
the 8 others, there are 5 with high biopersistence and 3
with low to medium biopersistence, but in all cases, higher
than that of chrysotile.
BIOPERSISTENCE, i.e., the period of time required for the
organism to eliminate a foreign body, is increasingly being
considered a key factor in identifying truly carcinogenic
substances. Several recent studies conducted in laboratories
in the United States and Germany, using chrysotile fibre from
Brazil, the United States and Quebec, suggest that the halflife of chrysotile fibre (i.e., the period of time required for the
organism to eliminate half the fibres inhaled) is 15 days or less.
That of amosite (a variety of amphibole asbestos) is about
466 days. And the biopersistence of all chrysotile substitute
products measured is longer than that of chrysotile: about
60 days for ceramic fibres; about 90 days for aramid fibres;
more than 1 000 days for some types of cellulose fibres.2
It is surprising to note that use of these fibres is much less
strictly regulated than that of chrysotile. Given the lack of
available information to evaluate their impacts on health,
these fibres should be subjected to regulation as strict as
that for chrysotile.
2 Undeniable facts about chrysotile, page 6.
PAGE 15
Closing Quebec chrysotile mines

wont help anyone, anywhere in the
world. On the other hand, exporting
Quebecs expertise in the controlled
use of chrysotile, along with the fibre
itself, can contribute significantly
to improving conditions for the use
of products containing chrysotile
throughout the world.
It is misleading to suggest to the population that closing the
chrysotile mines in Quebec will have any impact whatsoever
on world consumption of chrysotile. For the past several
decades, the global market for chrysotile has remained at
about 2 million tons per year. In 1960, North America, Europe
and Japan were the main consumers of this fibre that is very
useful in periods of massive infrastructure construction.
Over the years, consumption has moved towards emerging
economies as they in turn experience a great need for
infrastructure.
The worlds leading producer until the 1990s, today Quebec
represents approximately 8% of the global production of
chrysotile, far behind China, Russia and Brazil; these other
countries could quickly fill the gap left by the withdrawal of
our producers.
However, Canada and Quebec are the worlds leading expert
on safe use. The expertise developed here has helped to
improve the workplace health and safety parameters in
chrysotile mines and in industries that use the fibre in many
regions of the world.
This old train station converted into a cultural

centre preserved its traditional charm.
PAGE 16
It is also misleading to suggest that the mines are solely

responsible for the safe use of chrysotile, from the mine to
the final user of products containing chrysotile. As for any
product that presents a degree of risk, safe use is a shared
responsibility of governments of exporting and importing,
industries, workers and their unions.
Opponents claim that it is impossible to guarantee the safe
use of chrysotile abroad because we cant even manage to
do that in Quebec. As for safe use in Quebec, we already
explained that safe use is a reality. (Brief #3)
As for safe use abroad, we invite opponents to take another
look at their outdated concept of developing countries.
There are industries in these countries that are just as
modern as here, industries that apply comparable safety
standards. Quebec chrysotile exporters only do business
with these industries. It is true that there are in these
countries clandestine operations that operate outside of
State control. But not exporting to modern businesses that
are concerned about the safety and security of their workers
does not resolve the problem of the underground economy;
this is another problem altogether, and it is global.
World Production Trends

(millions of metric tonnes)
Principal Countries Producers of Chrysotile

(2008: thousands of metric tonnes)
2,0
2,5
2,25
2,1
2000
1996
1000
2,4
2003
1998
1072
1,8
800
600
400
380
270
2,1
200
1960
Colombia
2005
1200
Zimbabwe
2,2
Canada
2007
Kazakhstan
1,5
Brazil
1,0
China
0,5
The fact is that exporters do not sell to small businesses

where it is difficult to exercise control or monitor processes.
There have also been instances where a company has
stopped exporting to a business that was reselling the
chrysotile to small local producers that do not respect the
safe-use standards.
Russia
In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into in

1997 with the Government of Canada, the largest chrysotile
producers established a precise framework to ensure the
safe use of chrysotile throughout the world. Under this
protocol:
The parties agree to support, through appropriate means,
the efforts of foreign governments, international and
foreign associations related to chrysotile, businesses that
use chrysotile, as well as unions, to provide information,
education and training in pursuit of the objectives of the
policy on responsible use.
The exporters may only supply chrysotile to businesses
that respect national regulations governing the safe use
of chrysotile or that have presented action plans and
commitments to render their activities compliant with
these regulations.
2,2
175
149
11
10
PAGE 17
What should be considered is

the potential for development
of the chrysotile industry, not its
current state.
Chrysotile production represents in Quebec about 700
direct jobs and 2 000 indirect jobs. The direct jobs represent
(salaries and benefits) approximately 35 million dollars per
year. The projected increase in production at the Jeffrey
Mine will mean an increase of about 500 direct jobs and
total payroll (including benefits) of approximately 25 million
dollars, plus a large number of indirect jobs.
Despite the fears generated by the opponents of chrysotile
asbestos, and a constant tightening of standards, this
product is still being used every year in Quebec, mainly in
the form of chrysotile-cement pipes and enclosed in some
materials, notably asphalt.
There is far greater potential for safely using chrysotile than
is currently the case. This includes, for example, asphalt and
chrysotile-cement used for civil engineering. Experience
shows that a small proportion of chrysotile in these products
considerably increases their lifespan. The initial additional
cost will be compensated for several times over through
savings in maintenance and replacement costs.
If the government has calculated its savings in potential
costs, it should make these data public. If it hasnt already
performed these calculations, it should do so.
Chrysotile-cement pipes are installed every year in

Canada in new residential, commercial, industrial and
institutional construction projects.
PAGE 18
Chrysotile is naturally present in the environment, and

every human being naturally breathes in several thousand
fibres per day. In the entire world, few natural or synthetic
substances have been the subject of as much debate as
chrysotile. Very few products containing natural or synthetic
fibres have been as closely studied as chrysotile fibres.
Today, there is an impressive amount of knowledge available
with regard to fibres, the result of thousands of studies and
public reports. Over the last two decades in particular, leadingedge technology has provided for a better understanding of
which respirable fibres can affect the human body, how, and
in what dosage they become a health risk.
Too often, well intentioned militants will follow their emotions
rather than look at the facts. Its time the debate about
chrysotile focused on scientific facts.
The exterior siding made from

chrysotile-cement sheets was
installed on this factory in 1958.
PAGE 19
The Chrysotile Institute

1200, McGill College
Suite 1640
Montreal (Quebec)
Canada H3B 4G7
Telephone: (514) 877-9797
Fax: (514) 877-9717
info@chrysotile.com
www.chrysotile.com
is a non profit organization established in 1984

by the industries producing chrysotile, union
labor organizations and the Canadian and Quebec
governments. The Institute is dedicated to
promoting the safe use of chrysotile in Canada
and throughout the world.

Aylen, Lessons From The Quebec Asbestos Industry, 2015

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Aylen, Lessons From The Quebec Asbestos Industry, 2015

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

!

Asbestos dealer has 'clear conscience'

A worker looks at a small lake formed at the

(This Code of Practice is available by downloading it from :

Dr. Allen Gibbs,

Dr. Robert P Nolan,

Prof. Jacques Dunnigan,

Dr. David M. Bernstein

Dr. Fred Pooley.

Published evidence supporting a practical threshold level of exposure to

Subscribe: Posts | Comments | Email

Enter search keyword

The continued sale of Quebecs asbestos is indefensible

to lobby government for industry-friendly policies and to deny independent science?

Asbestos, Jean Charest, Stephen Harper

The electronic Version:!

Safe practices with asbestos fill a need in the

India Asbestos cement in all its glory

An industry that is absolutely safe?

Fact$4:$Health$of$the$public$in$the$town$of$Asbestos:$There has never been any negative impact

Fact$5:$Health$of$construction$workers: In Canada only workers doing renovation work in old

It is impossible to eliminate asbestos fibres in the atmosphere

Quebec national institute of Public health

Pour apprcier la gravit dun tel risque, on

To fully appreciate the seriousness of such a

Scientific evidence says that ingesting chrysotile in drinking water poses

Asbestos in drinking water:

Churg A (1988). Chrysotile, Tremolite and Malignant Mesothelioma. Chest 93 : 621-628

McDonald JC, McDonald AD (1997) Chrysotile, Tremolite and carcinogenicity

At present-day levels of exposure to commercial chrysotile, whether or not

India has no intention of banning asbestos

ILO policy includes several options other than a ban

Perfectly safe chrysotile products are sold and installed in Canada

First, we have found no peer-reviewed scientific studies that would demonstrate an

Other Group one carcinogens produced in Canada

IARC classification and Standardized mortality rate for lung cancer,

125 000 tons

149 030 tons

1 171 000 tons

(IARC group 1 carcinogen)

The Rotterdam Convention

The consequences are entirely foreseeable: As virtually every shipment is subjected to

What is chrysotile - Asbestos?

The chrysotile (mining, manufacturing) industries do not believe there are

Chrysotile is a valuable and misunderstood mineral that is being

International Agency for

Classification as category 1 carcinogens and proven carcinogenic

Who wants to have Asbestos

The International Ban Asbestos

The evidence is clear: Science

There is no epidemiological study

detectable increase in risk. Indeed,

G. Bernard Coulombe, P. Eng.

The four (4) major enemies

Published evidence supporting

Weill H., Hughes J. and Waggenspack C. (1979).

There are a number of recognized and published scientific studies

It is irresponsible of anti-chrysotile militants to refuse to

Mining or industrial facilities that use chrysotile in Quebec respect the

Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the

It is irrational to treat chrysotile differently

Emerging and developing countries have full knowledge of the

The health impacts of most of the products used as alternatives to