In her article on asbestos (Bulletin, November 2004) Loretta Czernis incorrectly stated that asbestos is banned in Canada. She then gave a dramatic illustration of its harmfulness, claiming the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ) found that women in the asbestos-mining region of Quebec "have the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world."

However, the eminent scientist Philip Abelson instead noted that four epidemiological studies of this region "show that lifelong exposure of women to dust from nearby mines caused no statistically significant excess disease." Similarly, Quebec researchers studying the same region "found no measurable excess risk of death due to lung cancer among women."

Neither Czernis nor CAUT's health and safety officer, to whom she directed me, could provide a source for the claim attributed to the INSPQ, only the less dramatic statistic that "Quebec citizens also show significantly higher rates of mesothelioma of the pleura than men and women in the rest of Canada and in several other countries." Czernis did not mention that there are both amphibole and chrysotile types of asbestos and that the chrysotile form mined in Quebec is less dangerous. Nor did she note that asbestos substitutes are also hazardous, and that when appropriate precautions are taken, asbestos can be used safely. We also should not forget that abandoning asbestos has resulted in economic devastation of mining communities. Further, its absence as fireproofing in the World Trade Center may have led to its premature collapse on 9/11 and thus to a significant increase in deaths.

I do not wish to take sides in this contentious debate. I point out only that there is a debate. When statistics are used to resolve it, care should be taken to ensure their accuracy.

Stephen Black
Psychology, Bishop's University

Professor Black, claiming he does not want to "take sides" in the "debate" about the hazards of asbestos, largely recycles the arguments of Canada's Asbestos Institute (recently renamed the Chrysotile Institute), one of the leading promoters of asbestos use in the world.

The Canadian asbestos industry's claim that chrysotile asbestos is a less harmful form of asbestos is simply not true. More than 30 countries have banned asbestos entirely. The federal Hazardous Product Act bans many asbestos products in Canada. Federal and provincial occupational health and safety acts, and the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), make clear that asbestos in all its forms is a carcinogenic health hazard and is strictly regulated in all Canadian jurisdictions.

The reference provided Black states that "all types of asbestos have been associated with (mesothelioma, pulmonary cancer and asbestosis)"; the rates of mesothelioma of the pleura among Quebec men and women "are respectively 9.5 and 2 times higher than rates observed among women in the rest of Canada"; and "Two regions of the province, Chaudière-Appalaches and Montérégie show significant excesses of mesothelioma of the pleura."

Black is right that asbestos miners and their families must not be forgotten. The answer is not continued exposure to asbestos but closure of the mines and decent lifetime compensation for the miners and their families.

CAUT supports a worldwide ban on asbestos. In the meantime, we are doing all we can to protect staff and students from asbestos exposure which, despite the efforts of the Chrysotile Institute, is not a matter for debate but for action. - ed.