It had to happen.Since they seem to be running out of steam locomotives and other vintage steam things to fret about, the the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry is now figuring out that asbestos is a naturally-occurring substance, and that there are lots of quarries and natural areas that need to be monitored.http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.asbestos31jul31,1,199112.story?page=1&coll=bal-home-headlinesLead story in today's Baltimore Sun.I kid you not.

This is recycled news. About 20 years ago our local government in Montgomery County, MD "discovered" asbestos in the blue stone (forgot scientific name) that is used on locally on roads and as ballast, etc. The solution chosen by the County was to spray down gravel surfaces with tar to keep the dust down. This went so far as to have the locals consider what should be done to mitigate the impact from the stone in our ballast. Then someone realized that the tar spray solution was in itself harmful to the environment because of run off concerns.Wesley

A couple years ago, I had an opportunity to ride a special trip over the Quebec Central. Part of this line runs through a big asbestos mining area. To quote the car host:"Yes, they do mine it, and no it isn't dangerous unless you snort it every day."

scrmcurator said, "I had an opportunity to ride a trip over the Quebec Central. Part of this line runs through a big asbestos mining area. To quote the car host: 'Yes, they do mine it, and no it isn't dangerous unless you snort it every day.'"Hi,I'm not sure if this thread has a theme, but if it has anything to do with the results of long term exposure to asbestos, the QC car host was giving out incorrect and dangerous information.His statement would be a hard sell in Libby, MT, and other asbestos mining areas.Roger

Well, gee, I think "snorting it every day" for years constitutes long-term exposure, no?Working with the stuff every day in a shipyard/loco shop/mine is vastly different from riding behind an asbestos-wearing steamer or living a mile from a quarry that's occasionally downwind. It's the same reason the dentist runs away to another room while x-raying your teeth--he does it many times a day while you get it once or twice a year. And, yes, I would worry a bit if I were dusting off my car and steps on a daily basis from all the mining trucks rolling past my front door, but much of the caution regarding asbestos is basically full-blown hysteria from asbestos becoming a bogeyman in the press and courts, and the monies being expended on correctional measures most likely far exceeds the tangible benefits.

Geez-did anyone realize that petroleum based oils sometimes bubble up from underneath the ground versus the occasional spill ???What are the hazmat folks to do in that circumstance ???

This is a no win debate. I personally know two souls that passed away from asbestos cancer. I would certainly not call it "hysteria" to thier families. Everyone's tolerance to the exposure is different. One of these folks had rather extensive exposure, and the other one only occasional exposure. It's a sad way to go...Steve

Were either of these people cigarette smokers when they were exposed to asbestos?

I certainly can't speak for the specific cases alluded to by Steve C., but I can say that when I was handling case files for the Johns-Manville settlement many years ago, the percentage of claimants that weren't smokers (the case files gave estimated cigarette consumption per claimant) was very, very small--on the order of 5% or less, maybe even 2%. More typical was a pack-a-day habit.

__________________________________________________________I'm looking for anecdotal evidence to support or refute a study cited on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page about 12 years ago, finding that the incidence of asbestos-related cancer among nonsmokers who had been exposed to asbestos was statistically about the same as incidence of asbestios-related cancer among people who had never been exposed to asbestos at all.If the finding that risk of cancer related to asbestos exposure is limited to cigarette smokers is valid, then the asbestos scare is fraud.On the other hand, bureaucracies are permanent, even if the World Trade Center buildings failed on 9/11 because asbestos was not applied to critical steel in the upper floors.

We're getting pretty far off-topic here, but..........I believe the research has already been done regarding your hypothesis; you'd just have to find it. The problem with the general idea, based strictly on my non-scientific eyeballing of files in the Johns-Manville cases, is that smoking was so common in the work environments and time periods covered that it would be hard to find an asbestosis sufferer who didn't smoke or suffer extensive secondhand exposure. Add to this the work environments these people were in--steel mills, shipyards, locomotive shops, and the like--and it becomes virtually impossible to segregate smoke inhalation out of the picture. But, once again, I was handling case files for people suing Manville in a class-action suit. I'm not going to end up reading a case history on someone that still strong as a horse at 95 in his rocking chair that worked with the stuff and didn't get asbestosis, whether or not he smoked. Once again, it was extremely difficult, albeit not impossible, to find files on men who suffered and were non-smokers.About the only realistic "control" that might be available would be some cases I saw where wives of asbestos workers inhaled the dust from washing their husbands' dusty clothing on a very regular basis--and in the blue-collar areas and the era we're talking about, the odds are perhaps 50-50 she was a smoker. If your exposure to dirty air of any type is high enough for long enough, something's going to get you--see "black lung disease" or "card room fever" (a.k.a. "white lung", a cotton-dust-caused respiratory disease). But, once again, even in these cases one has to factor in "lifestyle" issues such as smoking.

Sandy's note about off-topic is right on. Folks, I will say it one more time: this is not a tort reform discussion board. Unless the topic relates directly to railway preseervation (i.e., mediation of a specific locomotive or structure of general cost and engineering strategies for mediating a railroad locomotive or structure) please discuss it somewhere else.

With all due respect, we're not discussing tort reform.We're discussing asbestos as a "bogey-man". And that discussion does/did have valid applications to rail preservation, unfortunately.The publicity asbestos received in the 1970s and 1980s as an "agent of death" firmly cemented asbestos as an evil toxin in the public's mind, right up there with anthrax, dioxin, or nuclear waste. We have seen proposals to scrap steam locomotives and even bury one in a pit because the jackets contained asbestos; we can also find asbestos in passenger cars and streetcars if we look in the right places. The reality is that, unless you are working with the stuff daily for years (and probably smoking at the same time), it's extremely unlikely to be a hazard--and similar hazards also are present with substitutes such as silica block or fiberglass. We've seen similar scares presented over saccharine, Audi 5000's (I have personal experience with the Audi scenario, having had the so-called "unintended acceleration" demonstrated to be by a race car driver who owned one--it was human error, not a mechanical issue), alar, etc., and many of them in retrospect were blown way out of proportion by lawyers, the media, and activists.Although asbestos isn't completely safe, neither does it deserve anywhere near the "bogey-man" reputation it has earned with the public. As long as there is any chance of uncovering asbestos in a rail preservation project, we need to continue the process of re-educating the public about the proper perspective for examining asbestos, lest we get demands to incinerate an entire wooden business car in a special incinerator at major expense just because one heat pipe was found to be wrapped with asbestos cloth decades ago.In regards to this issue, I ask: ARE there any "un-abated" display or operating steamers still covered with asbestos? Or has my suggested campaign been rendered moot by every display steamer having undergone expensive "decontamination" in the 1980s and 1990s?

I know of at least one engine that still has some asbestos on it -- the cylinders and backhead were not included in its "abatement" although the main boiler jacket and lagging were removed. The junker ACL Consol we've got in the quarry had asbestos literally dangling from it until a year or so ago. So yes, there are still asbestos-bearing locos out there.

I could be wrong, but I think the engine in the park in Port Arthur, Texas still has asbestos under it's cladding. I am sure there are others as well.It should also be pointed out that abestos makes preserving anything in former steam facilities (including the faclities themselves) difficult at best. That would include boilerhouses, power plants, and pumphouses at former RR facilities.It great complicates saving the last of the steamships as well. One of the big questions in regards to saving the S.S. Rotterdam is who is going to pay to clean of the asbestos in her machinery spaces.It is very much a preservation issue; although I don't know what the answer is. I can't see the government or anyone else back-pedelling on the asbestos scare. A lot of organizations spent a ton of money on asbestos removal in the past few decades; to then come back and say "never mind, it wasn't that bad" won't make very many people very happy. Nor would it please very many lawyers.-James Hefner Hebrews 10:20a Surviving World Steam Project