By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
Posted: Friday, October 1, 1993

ARTICLES
Publication Date: October 1, 1993

The New York City public schools are finally open. The asbestos panic of 1993 seems to have run its course. So, perhaps it is time to add a footnote for the history books: There was no scientific or medical justification whatsoever for delaying the opening of schools; the health risk to children from asbestos was negligible, remote, hypothetical — and probably nonexistent.

Two facts support that conclusion: First, the type of asbestos found in City schools and other public buildings — the so called chrysotile or "white" asbestos — is relatively harmless compared to other types of asbestos that were found years ago in occupational settings. Second, the levels of asbestos "detected" in the schools was extraordinarily low.

It should be no surprise that today's super-sensitive testing techniques were able to identify traces of asbestos given that these fibers have long been incorporated into building materials including tiles, insulation and plaster. In fact, asbestos was required by code as a fire retardant until the mid-1970s. However, the mere presence of minuscule amounts of a potentially hazardous substance does not itself connote a hazard. Occupational exposures which increased the risk of lung cancer (particularly among cigarette smokers), mesothelioma and asbestosis in the first decades of this century were in the range of 50 to l00 fibers per cubic centimeter. The levels "found" in the schools were about 0.0005 fibers per cc — ten thousand to one hundred thousand times less than the amounts known to cause disease. (Why didn't some enterprising journalist have the air in the school playgrounds — or in midtown Manhattan — tested for asbestos and compared to the level in schools? It would probably be the same).

Millions of children and their parents had their lives disrupted for weeks because of a perceived health risk that did not exist. At least one can hope that we have learned some lessons from this experience namely: If a health hazard is suspected by city officials, drastic decisions like closing major institutions should be postponed until local medical experts are consulted. If City officials had asked physicians and scientists from the major environmental medicine departments in the tri-state area if there was sufficient risk to warrant closing schools, the professional consensus would have been "no." Indeed, if the Mayor's advisors had consulted a recent issue of Science, they would have read that, "Available data do not support the concept of low-level exposure to asbestos as a health hazard in buildings and schools." Similarly, if they had asked the American Medical Association for an assessment, they would have been told (based on an AMA publication) that, "It would be wiser for American society to use its resources to learn to live with asbestos safely than to try to remove it totally from the environment." Consulting the proceedings of a recent Harvard University study would have revealed data indicating that the risk of being struck by lightening is greater than the risk from asbestos in schools.

As the major toxicological premise states, "Only the dose that makes the poison." Just because something poses a health risk in very high doses, does not mean that minuscule levels also carry risk.

Moving phantom risks — like asbestos in schools — to center stage is counterproductive and may itself be harmful. Do we really want our children to believe they are at risk from hazardous, invisible agents lurking in our environment waiting to accost them and cause disease?

Exactly the opposite is the reality, of course. Other lifestyle factors — cigarette smoking, drug use, alcohol abuse, violence and failure to use lifesaving technologies such as seat belts, bike helmets and fire detectors — are the real causes of premature preventable disease and death. How delighted the folks at the Tobacco Institute must be to see school kids traumatized by asbestos, instead of cigarettes. Children may conclude understandably that since no one ever made any similar fuss about smoking, it must not be as dangerous.

The next time the "carcinogen of the week" makes the headlines, we should all be more skeptical and should demand that society's decision makers distinguish between real and hypothetical risk. Any actions taken should be based on scientific facts, not fear and political expediency.

Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., is President of the American Council on Science and Health.

A 1992 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the city Health Department found that 20 percent of New York City students carry a weapon to school. Homicide is the leading cause of death among those 15 to 19 years old in New York City and the second leading cause of death in that age group nationally.

(From Priorities, Vol 5, No. 4)