Quebec has been the final outpost of the asbestos industry’s resistance to modern legislation since the late 1980′s, housing North America’s final active asbestos mine at the aptly named town of Asbestos, Quebec. That may be about to change. Increasing pressure from Quebec’s own professional, medical, academic and scientific communities, as well as the ever present admonishing of the World Health Organization may finally be finding a foothold among Quebec’s notoriously decided political circles.

Some one hundred medical and political professionals recently held an anti-asbestos rally on parliament hill in Ottawa, an occurrence which in itself heralds a substantial change in position of influential persons involved in the debate.

The few medical professionals and politicians of Quebec who have chosen to speak out against asbestos products are far from alone. The international community stands in the background, egging on an industrial reformation with nonstop confirmations of the danger of asbestos from just about every point of view including medical, economical and political.

The asbestos industry’s spokespersons in Asbestos, Quebec, have been standing behind unfounded evidence and shoddy excuses for decades. They claim that the specific type of asbestos mined in Quebec, chrysotile, is less dangerous than other forms and with care can be used safely.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has been pleading for a world wide ban on every type of the substance, claiming just last week that “all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs).”

The former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States agrees, saying in a report published last year that “the chrysotile lobby relies on misinterpretations, false claims, and undocumented statements to advance its global propaganda campaign for the continued use of chrysotile asbestos. . . . Blow away their smoke . . . and truth emerges for all to see: asbestos is deadly . . . and the continued use of chrysotile is unconscionable.”

The timing of all of these developments couldn’t be more dramatic. The asbestos industry officials in Quebec have just requested another loan from the government. If the loan is approved another underground asbestos mine will be dug potentially uncovering thirty years worth of exports, a quantity of asbestos that will seal Quebec’s position as the developed world’s number one exporter.

The loan is venomously opposed by many, and a letter has been sent to the government outlining as much with fifty signatures of well known doctors, scientists, and other notable personages living in and around Quebec.

While this particular decision may not be the one to decide the fate of the asbestos industry in North America, it’s fairly clear that officials in Asbestos, Quebec are fighting an uphill battle.

Saverio Todaro, the owner of SAF Environmental Corp. and a New York City safety inspector, has made some astonishing admissions regarding fraudulent asbestos and lead testing. On March 26 Saverio, or “Sam”, plead guilty to eleven counts of felony related to the submission of false toxic substances reports. The crimes included mail fraud, violating the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, and making false statements, among others.

Investigators believe that Saverio was falsifying toxic substance documents for at least a decade and that hundreds of buildings were issued incorrect reports. While he’s currently free on bail, Todaro could face more than five years of prison for his crimes.

Toxic substance reports are a necessary procedure during the renovation and demolition of certain buildings built in the years before substances like lead and asbestos were more heavily controlled. If a building tests positive for one of many toxic substances, it’s the owners responsibility to have the substances professionally removed and disposed of before proceeding with the project for the benefit of public health and welfare.

Yesteryear’s toxic construction materials can be incredibly hazardous. Asbestos, for example, which was used frequently as insulation, roofing, flooring and more in years past, can cause a variety of respiratory complications as well as mesothelioma, an aggressive and fatal cancer.

Asbestos exposure can occur very easily during renovation or demolition of buildings that made use of the dangerous substance. The crumbly, dusty mineral easily releases microscopic particles into the air when disturbed, which can then be breathed by passersby quite unknowingly. Diseases like mesothelioma can take decades to develop from initial exposure, making the danger that they pose subtle and difficult to trace.

Officials investigating Saverio’s case are concerned that he may have been motivated to falsify the reports by bribes or other less direct compensation. Hiring properly licensed professionals to remove asbestos, lead and other toxic substances can be very expensive, often representing the largest portion of a total renovation bill. Avoiding or drastically reducing these costs could certainly constitute a motivation to participate in falsifying documents on the part of a building’s owner.

The Manhattan U.S. attorney said of the case: “Todaro’s guilty plea is not the end of the story, this investigation is very much ongoing.”

Investigators hope to uncover whether Todaro acted completely alone in his crimes or worked with other individuals or agencies.

Todaro presented fraudulent documents to all of the agencies involved in ensuring safe practices are observed during renovation, demolition and construction projects. The ease with which he deceived New York’s Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Buildings, and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development has caused some concern regarding the relaxed state of toxic substance control.

New York’s Department of Environmental Protection has stated that it hopes to increase lead and asbestos testing audits as a result of Todaro’s case and others like it. With only a handful of staff inspectors, the department has traditionally only been able to follow up on a tiny fraction of the roughly twenty five or thirty thousand toxic substance reports filed each year.

Rhoda Evans was awarded an incredible $208.8 million late last week by the Central District Los Angeles Superior Court jury in a lawsuit regarding negligent asbestos exposure and the subsequent development of an asbestos related disease. The prosecution demonstrated that the defendant supplied asbestos products to Rhoda Evan’s husband’s employer in full knowledge that the products were hazardous to human health and could in fact cause fatal disease. Bobby Evans, Rhoda Evan’s husband, unknowingly brought large amounts of toxic dust home in his clothes which Rhoda was then accidentally exposed to.

Bobby Evans worked for the state for almost twenty five years. A portion of his duties included cutting cement water pipes to the appropriate sizes using a powerful abrasion saw. Bobby was unaware that the cement pipes he worked with contained asbestos fibers used as a strengthening agent, because CertainTeed, the supplier of the pipes, failed to warn their consumers of that fact. The prosecution demonstrated that while CertainTeed was well aware of the dangers of asbestos as early as the 1960′s, they failed to mark their products and warn their customers accordingly until some twenty five years later in 1985.

Mesothelioma, the disease that Rhoda later developed, is an aggressive and terminal cancer linked directly with exposure to asbestos dust. When microscopic asbestos fibers are released into the air they can become unintentionally inhaled or even ingested. The fibers’ unique, thread like shape make them incredibly difficult for the body to properly collect and dispose of using mucus membranes and other normal methods. Asbestos fibers are so tiny that they pass directly through lung or intestinal walls and become caught up in a protective lining in the chest and abdominal cavity known as the mesothelium. The mesothelium responds to the fibers by scarring, which, after years or even decades can eventually develop into malignant tumors.

Asbestos companies have been aware of the dangers of the substance since as early as the 1920′s. The importance of asbestos to a variety of industries as well as its profitability motivated many companies to downplay its inherent health hazards. It was more than half a century later in the 1980′s when many nations including the United States began recognizing asbestos as a toxic substance.

The Central District Los Angeles Superior Court jury revealed their record setting decision last week. In addition to awarding Rhoda $8.8 million in compensatory damages, they required CertainTeed to pay an additional $200 million in punitive damages.

CertainTeed claims that the punitive damages are unconstitutional, and that they will fight the verdict and the award.

Early last month Troy Loften was awarded more than $15 million after his former employer was found to have negligently exposed him to dangerous asbestos dust.

Troy Loften suffers from asbestosis, a crippling disease caused by asbestos exposure which attacks the lungs and causes severe respiratory difficulty as well as general pains and weakness. In addition to being reliant on a 24 hour supply of oxygen, he also suffers from a severely diminished quality of life and a much greater risk of developing mesothelioma or another fatal cancer triggered by asbestos.

The lawsuit against CP Chem showed that Troy was required to handle large amounts of materials that contained dangerous amounts of asbestos. One product in particular, a material known as Flosal, was often shipped to Troy and his co-workers in 50 lb bags; they were then required to dump the dusty contents into other equipment by hand. Flosal, as was shown in the lawsuit, contains asbestos dust, and this dumping process thoroughly contaminated the air with microscopic asbestos fibers which are incredibly dangerous when inhaled.

While regulations for enforcing the safe handling of asbestos were not in place until the late 1980′s, the health concerns associated with the substance have been around for nearly one hundred years. Medical studies published as early as the 1920′s and 1930′s noted scarring of the lungs in asbestos factory workers, and by the middle of the century the substance could be directly linked to various serious and even fatal diseases.

Asbestos companies worked to suppress information about the substance’s health hazards, owing to its importance in various industries and its growing profitability. These efforts effectively postponed the formation of state and federal restrictions throughout much of the twentieth century, allowing hundreds of thousands of individuals to develop serious asbestos related illnesses as a direct consequence.

Today, state and federal regulations severely limit the use of asbestos in the United States, and oversee its safe handling and proper disposal. While the laws have only been around since the late 1980′s, companies that acted wrongfully while possessing knowledge that asbestos fibers can cause disease and death can be held liable in a court of law.

Troy Loften’s successful lawsuit of a division of Conoco Phillips could very well open the floodgates for similar cases. Already, more than 700 additional lawsuits involving former employees of the oil company are pending.