Comments on: Mining Industry Sues MSHA over Asbsestos Rule http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/mining-industry-sues-msha-over-asbsestos-rule/ A water cooler for the public health crowd Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:36:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Celeste Monforton http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/mining-industry-sues-msha-over-asbsestos-rule/#comment-38203 Celeste Monforton Sun, 04 May 2008 21:03:27 +0000 http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/?p=889#comment-38203 Dear A.M. Langer, Thanks for the heads-up about the upcoming issue of Reg Tox Pharm. Are you involved as an author or guest editor? Might you enlighten me about the "proposed bill" you mention? Dear A.M. Langer,
Thanks for the heads-up about the upcoming issue of Reg Tox Pharm. Are you involved as an author or guest editor?

Might you enlighten me about the “proposed bill” you mention?

]]> By: A M Langer http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/mining-industry-sues-msha-over-asbsestos-rule/#comment-38197 A M Langer Sat, 03 May 2008 16:51:23 +0000 http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/?p=889#comment-38197 Read the forthcoming symposium that will appear in the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (June issue?). Everyone wants asbestos control in the mining and milling environments with the attendant benefits of decreased asbestos disease risk. Focus on asbestos is justified; focus on minerals with morphological similarities produced by crushing is not. Epidemiological and experimental studies support this conclusion. The issue is really about what the proposed bill calls asbestos. Using the current asbestos definition in the bill promotes ambiguity and extreme over interpretation. Employment of the general definition will lead to the presence of "asbestos" in every crushed rock and stone where it did not exist before. We all favor protection of the American workforce but we should also be aware of the unintended consequences associated with extremes. While it is true that venal motives pervade some vested interest groups, an entire tarbrushing of an industry seems inappropriate. To me it smatters of economic racism. Calm, thoughtful evaluation is needed. Knowledge of the field would help too. Read the forthcoming symposium that will appear in the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (June issue?). Everyone wants asbestos control in the mining and milling environments with the attendant benefits of decreased asbestos disease risk. Focus on asbestos is justified; focus on minerals with morphological similarities produced by crushing is not. Epidemiological and experimental studies support this conclusion.

The issue is really about what the proposed bill calls asbestos. Using the current asbestos definition in the bill promotes ambiguity and extreme over interpretation. Employment of the general definition will lead to the presence of “asbestos” in every crushed rock and stone where it did not exist before. We all favor protection of the American workforce but we should also be aware of the unintended consequences associated with extremes.

While it is true that venal motives pervade some vested interest groups, an entire tarbrushing of an industry seems inappropriate. To me it smatters of economic racism.

Calm, thoughtful evaluation is needed. Knowledge of the field would help too.

]]>