Asbestos expert comment: US agency considers repealing ban

“Asbestos has been widely utilised for more than one hundred years. Its ability to be mixed with other products and shaped into numerous different forms meant that this durable, fire-resistant material was exploited in almost every fabrication sector, from rainwater pipes to ironing boards. The fire-resisting and heat-insulating properties made this an attractive solution to prevent fires in the construction industry, with asbestos readily used in boiler installations, the sealing of fire compartments and in façade cladding panels.”

“Despite its widespread use, concerns were first raised about the health implications of asbestos in the early 20th Century with the death of factory workers involved in the production of asbestos yarn. These factory workers died from a condition known as asbestosis, which amounted to fibrosis of the lung. This condition is now recognised as being Mesothelioma, which is a form of lung cancer directly linked to asbestos inhalation. 

“However, the versatility of asbestos meant its application increased where the application of other dangerous building materials, like flammable cladding, has declined. The difference between asbestos and other failed building products is that the widespread adoption of this in a variety of different applications has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being exposed to this hazard. Despite the thousands of fatalities that have occurred, the relatively slow and unseen evolution of Mesothelioma has meant that there are still a significant number of deaths yet to happen.”

“In residential and commercial buildings where there remains an abundance of asbestos, there is a recognition that it can be managed. Where asbestos is in a good condition and is undisturbed, it can be certified that this is effectively ‘safe’ and can be subject to regular monitoring. To do this, it is first necessary to have an asbestos survey to verify its presence before placing it on a register which can be used to alert owners and occupiers of this. For commercial real estate investment, asbestos is seen as a real ‘red flag’ or potential deal breaker for buyers with significant costs apportioned to its safe removal. 

“It is unthinkable to even consider why such a product would be reintroduced into the places where we live and work. We certainly would not consider deliberately placing flammable cladding onto building facades or purposely exposing school children to substandard, structurally unsafe buildings. The retrospective realisation of poor design outcomes is a recurring theme in construction with many high-profile building failures often attributable to misguided failed innovation with building pathology that can sometimes take decades to evolve. 

“With those investing in, owning and occupying the built environment obliged to insure and protect their assets as well as occupants, it surely would be difficult to find insurers willing to do this with the known health implications of asbestos. The reintroduction of this into buildings would amount to significant commercial as well as social self-harm and go against the notion that we learn from our mistakes with proven grave consequences.”