About 20 years ago as a volunteer for BLM, I reviewed their data
on asbestos concentrations in the air over the Clear Creek area and
a large area downwind, including Coalinga and Five Points. I was
surprised to note that normal ambient asbestos concentrations were
much the same over the whole area. (Asbestos concentrations were
indeed higher in the are immediately behind moving vehicles and
other actively disturbed areas.)
By John Blake
About 20 years ago as a volunteer for BLM, I reviewed their data on asbestos concentrations in the air over the Clear Creek area and a large area downwind, including Coalinga and Five Points. I was surprised to note that normal ambient asbestos concentrations were much the same over the whole area. (Asbestos concentrations were indeed higher in the are immediately behind moving vehicles and other actively disturbed areas.)
I pointed out these facts to the local BLM people and in at least two meetings with EPA representatives. In both cases we suggested that study of the incidence of asbestos caused cancer in the downwind population would be informative and probably an urgent matter. The EPA people rejected the idea out of hand, as if they had orders not to discuss it. After all, they were heavily engaged with enforcement litigation right then.
We should point out that there were two distinct kinds of asbestos-chrysotile and amphibole. The latter was much used in insulation and is known to be highly toxic. Chrysotile is far less toxic and some even claim it to be harmless. And most or all of the asbestos in the Clear Creek area is chrysotile. However, EPA cites only the generic term “asbestos” in their regulations to control the material. I wonder whether this lack of distinction might not have caused needless controversy and expense in the effort to control asbestos caused cancers.
And certainly we should commission a study to establish the hazard, if any, of lifelong exposure to asbestos particles in the air downwind of the Clear Creek area.
John Blake is from San Benito County.
