Hi Paul,

The purpose of the post was not political per se (I think my personal opinions of a certain person are consistent with the majority) - more a concern about what has become of the US EPA which we often referred to and was once a trusted voice.  To now have an organisation who are prepared to make this type of statement about asbestos (and looking to actually endorse its use) is concerning. 

“He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos ‘100% safe after application,'” it said, according to a translation from the Environmental Working Group.

Pruitt stepped down from the federal regulatory agency last week following a rash of scandals, but not before the EPA decided not to ban “new uses” of asbestos products.    (New York Post, July 11 2018)

These extracts from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with the recently former administrator of the EPA are interesting watching:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4712771/pruitt-asbestos

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4713043/rep-frank-pallone-questions-epa-administrator-scott-pruitt-asbestos

The statement by POTUS of asbestos being 100% safe was apparently within a book he 'wrote' in 1997, but has carried through other conversations.

Considering the many 'interests' which are creeping through the US administration - I personally have reservations of trust in data and documents being currently presented from the US.  From discussions with many friends working in the States, they are equally concerned with the potential for issues to be pushed and possibly manipulated to forward the interests of the current administration/lobbyists ?  Granted, not much new research (to my knowledge) has come out of the EPA recently.   I think the phrase which includes Sherlock come to mind.

The reason for forwarding this was more an eye opener to test if we can rely on organisations who were once considered a trusted voice for scientific integrity.  The big question also is, this issue is obvious (the only thing missing was a further endorsement from the Chrysotile Institute/Association), but what is being put forward which is not so obvious?  I appreciate that the US EPA were the 4th point of call for authority, and the UK, Europe... should be looked to initially, however, many sectors of the organisation (i.e. IRIS) were go to documents. Maybe paranoia is sneaking in, but more a point of note.

I also noted on the International Chrysotile Association web page (in their objection to Canada banning asbestos products) state "However, it could be enlightened by the numerous analysis and scientific studies that are being made public by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as it moves towards its final risk evaluation (for asbestos), that will be completed by the end of 2019."  It would be interesting to see what is proposed.  I presume that the ICA are confident the finding will be in their favour.

Before Steve remarks - reading the ICA website is like reading the websites by Creationists on geology!!

Nik