Mesothelioma Book – Most expensive books discussing asbestos laws and mesothelioma treatments out there basically introduce the reader to the decision announced in 1979 and enacted in 1989 by the EPA to ban asbestos has been challenged before a Court of Appeal by an American and Canadian coalition including:
- Corrosion Proof Fittings (American company) and others
- Asbestos Information Association
- Asbestos Cement Association
- Institute of Scrap Recycling Ind., Inc
- Caterpillar Tractor Co (Anglo-American company)
- The Canadian federal government
- The Province of Quebec, Canada
- The Asbestos Institute (Montreal)
- The company Cassiar Min. Corp. (Canadian Asbestos Mining Company)
The Court rejects Canadian interventions and references to international trade agreements. The Court accepts the dangerousness of asbestos and the fact that the use of asbestos poses an “unreasonable risk” as defined in the Toxic Substance Control Act.
The Court considers, however, that the EPA does not prove that the prohibition is the least expensive and least burdensome reasonable solution. In addition, it imposes on the EPA rules that could be described as absurd to calculate the benefits “costs/lives” attributable to the recommended measures. Thus, it requires the EPA to distinguish the human lives immediately saved and the human lives saved in the future.
An interesting parallel to consider concerning the best Mesothelioma Book is Canada’s complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1998 against France and the European Community. Canada wanted to cancel the ban on asbestos in France.
- The parallel is all the more relevant given that the Canadian government explicitly lied to the WTO by referring to the judgment of the US Court of Appeals and that, moreover, the US government intervened against Canada in the proceedings before the Court. WTO; in his Asbestos and Mesothelioma Book and other writings, the American government sums up as follows:
- Mesothelioma Book refers to “Contrary to Canada’s claims that the EPA was unable to scientifically justify its ban and the risks posed by asbestos were not supported by scientific evidence, the Court specifically admitted the scientific opinion of the ‘EPA acknowledging that’ [the] asbestos is a toxic material, and occupational exposure to asbestos dust can lead to mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer ‘.
- In fact, in the minutes of the decision, the EPA presented, among other things, a number of scientific studies and reports on the health risks posed by asbestos, including reports and studies Tracks follow: Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update, Report to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos, Asbestiform Fibers: Non-Occupational Health Risks and “Short-term asbestos work exposure and long-term observation”
- The Court based its decision on the procedural flaws of the EPA’s decision-making process and on its own interpretation of the applicable mandatory US risk and benefit weighting standards for promulgating such rules, and not on any disagreement with the EPA’s conclusions regarding the health hazards of asbestos. After the referral, the EPA imposed a more limited ban on products containing asbestos, including a ban on new uses of asbestos.
This prohibition remains in effect. “
- With this judgment, the industrialists won the right to import 350,000 tons of additional asbestos from 1989 to 2010.