The current administration in Washington DC has proposed removing recent bans on this deadly carcinogen.

The EPA spent over thirty years trying to ban asbestos. Trump 2.0 may take less than thirty months to undo that work.

The agency announced the possible rollback in ongoing litigation with the Texas Chemistry Council over the March 2024 chrysotile asbestos ban. EPA lawyers said the agency “has reviewed the Asbestos Rule and now intends to reconsider the rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking,” a process that could take up to thirty months. 

Days later, in a clarifying statement, bureaucrats said “the EPA will consider all reasonably available information and assess, consistent with the best available science and its risk management authority, what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures, such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures, would eliminate the unreasonable risk.”

One industry insider echoed the EPA’s sentiment. “Chrysotile asbestos does not pose the magnitude of risk as the amphibole asbestos. Indeed, most scientists believe there is no reason why it can’t be handled safely, as we handle hundreds of different hazardous chemicals. So, a ban is not necessary,” remarked TRC Companies risk exposure specialist and chief toxicologist Dennis Paustenbach.

“Functionally, asbestos has not been used for decades in the U.S. due, largely, to the risk of litigation. If the government reverses the ban, that means asbestos could still be used in those few situations where it is needed. The primary impact will be on the litigation because it takes away the sensationalism of lawyers claiming ‘it was so toxic that it needed to be banned.’”

The Asbestos Balancing Act

Donald Trump has long been a strong supporter of asbestos use. “A lot of people could say that if the World Trade Center had asbestos it wouldn’t have burned down. It wouldn’t have melted,” he told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2005. Comparing other materials to it, he argued, is “like a heavyweight champion against a lightweight from high school.”

Trump’s assertion may have been a bit overstated. However, when considering the industrial asbestos use, it’s important not to recklessly throw the baby out with the bathwater. If he was right and asbestos would have protected the Twin Towers, is that protection worth poisoning the workers who handled asbestos-laced materials, not to mention the indirect exposure victims?

Basically, it’s the Ford Pinto all over again. In the mid 1970s, Ford executives wanted a small, cheap car to compete with other small, cheap cars that were selling like hotcakes at the time. So, engineers designed the Pinto.

To reduce weight and costs, engineers placed the Pinto’s unprotected gas tank behind the rear axle. As a result, the gas tank often ruptured and exploded, even in relatively low-speed rear-end collisions.

Auto executives knew about the deadly design flaw. But they chose to do nothing, because the cost of upgrading the Pinto’s safety features exceeded the cost of liability lawsuit settlements.

Many people lambasted Ford executives, but in their defense, they had to make a tough call. Full safety upgrades to the Pinto would have transformed it into a compact armored car, as opposed to a compact car, with little or no commercial appeal. Should several thousand workers lose their jobs to prevent several hundred fatal crashes? It’s a question worth asking.

We should end this discussion by pointing out that Ford chose to ignore the danger and sell defective Pintos. Crash victims didn’t have a choice.

Asbestos Use

Industrial asbestos use has tapered off significantly since the 1970s. The aforementioned Twin Towers are a good example. The lower floors, which were built in the mid 70s, were laced with asbestos. The upper floors, which were built in the late 70s, contained almost no asbestos. 

New industrial use isn’t much of a problem, but legacy asbestos is a serious problem, particularly in schools and other public buildings, such as churches and libraries. Even a trace amount of asbestos could cause:

  • Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Most people believe that asbestos only causes lung diseases. That’s not true. Swallowed asbestos fibers often cause this rare and aggressive form of abdominal cancer, as well as related kinds of digestive tract cancer. Like its cousin, that we discuss below, PtM is difficult to diagnose and treat.
  • Asbestosis: One factor we didn’t mention in the balancing act section is the long-term coverup of asbestosis and other serious lung diseases. Anna Pirskowski filed the first asbestosis lawsuit, against Johns-Manville Corporation, way back in 1929. But JMC and its ilk continued mining and selling asbestos. At least Ford accounted for the Pinto’s danger. Asbestos companies just blew it off.
  • Pleural Mesothelioma: This rare and aggressive form of lung cancer starts with a tumor in the meso layer between the heart and lungs. Since occupational cancer victims usually have no lifestyle or genetic markers, when pain and early cancer symptoms appear, many doctors dismiss them as non-cancerous. By the time doctors properly diagnose the victim’s condition, treatment options are limited.

Because of these risks, public and private property owners should seriously consider remediating asbestos, ban or no ban. The asbestos remediation industry has grown significantly since the 1980s, and a log of fly-by-night contractors have hitched a ride on the bandwagon. 

We cannot over-emphasize the need for a reputable asbestos remediation company. Fly-by-night contractors with their disregard for worker and public safety usually make bad situations worse.

Asbestos balancing may be important for industrial use, but it’s irrelevant in ambient (environmental) exposure matters. Usually, when asbestos seeps into the environment, everybody loses.

9/11 is a good example. We’re just beginning to see the effects of toxic smoke that blanketed much of New York City for several weeks after September 11. PlM, asbestosis, and the other diseases mentioned above usually have at least a fifty-year latency period. By mid-century, the full effects should be coming into view.

Talc-asbestos is another example. Much like Johns-Mansville and other asbestos companies, Johnson & Johnson knew it was selling asbestos-laced talcum powder to women all across America. Tens of thousands of victims have come forward in what most observers believe is the first wave of talc-asbestos litigation.

As an asbestos exposure law firm, we would be totally remiss if we didn’t address the “lawyer sensationalism” jab in the ban-lifting story.

No matter how you do the math, the defective Ford Pinto killed people. Likewise, regardless of your stance on the asbestos balancing act question, toxic exposure kills people. 

Government action usually does nothing to compensate these victims and survivors. An asbestos exposure lawyer walks victims and survivors through all their legal options, which usually include:

  • Government Disability: These programs include VA disability for service-related exposure, usually in the Navy prior to 1980, workers’ compensation for job-related exposure, and Social Security Disability for ambient or occupational exposure. Available benefits usually include a monthly cash stipend and medical bill payment.
  • Bankruptcy VCF: If an asbestos or other company took the easy way out and filed bankruptcy, money is usually available from a victim compensation fund. As a general rule, these matters are rather easy to prepare and very difficult to resolve.
  • Civil Action: As mentioned, instead of stepping up to the plate and accepting responsibility, asbestos companies hid the risk and negligently failed to warn customers about the risks of asbestos. Now, those chickens are coming home to roost.

Compensation in a civil claim usually includes money for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Additional punitive damages are usually available in these matters as well.