Document nkmX6mdrYvRKDkD17jLGgbxMG

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Radon: A Rerun of Asbestos? The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is holding hearings on fourdifferent bills that would vastly increase spending for the re duction ofradon in homes and in schools. The eventual cost has been estimated from $20 billion up to $1 trillion. Such regulatory mania it star tlingly reminiscent ofthe asbestos fiasco. The 1987 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Reduc tion Act torcedscbo6la ail over the country to no out asbestos insulation at a cost of$2 billion or more a year. But last year the Environmental Pro tection Agency (EPA), under quiet pressure from scientists andothers, had to confess that removing the asbestos in homes, schools and other buildings might be more dangerous than leaving it in place. A growingbodyofresearch, much of it pub lished in theprestigious Sciena magazine, showed that the dangers ofairborne asbestos were infinite ly lower than EPA had assumed. Now Science's se nior editor, Philip Abelson, has taken on the issue ofradon. There is a fast-growing body ofepidemio logical research that shows no evidence ofany raised lung cancerdangers from this source, either. On the opposite page, we offer excerpts from a recent speech by Mr. Abelson to the Science Writ ers Workshop in which he denounces the "radon flimflam* and accuses the EPA of fomenting "needless anxiety for millions ofpeople'by issuing risk numbers "that are not supported byepidemio logical studies.* Indeed, observes Mr. Abelson, virtually all ofthe evidence suggests that an elevated level of radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas thatcan seep into basements, coincides with a lower hmg cancer death rate. Whfle that may not prove radon is good for you, it suggests thateven at residential levels well above those which EPA contends are `danger ous,* there is no danger.'Mr. Abelson accuses the EPA oftrying to "brainwash the public' for its own purposes. Lestyou think these are harsh charges, right across tl river in Canada, authorities have set a "danger level' for radon of20 picocuries per liter of air, which is five timet as high as the EPA. Canadi an officials, no shrinkingviolets when it comesto tbs environment, do not even recommend costly remediation for anything less than 50 picocuries, or 10 times the U.S. "danger IcveL' . At those levels, fewer than 10,000 U.S. homes would need remediation. At the EPA level, some 10 million would have to be "fixed* at a cost of$2,000 each,or $20 billion. Hiepurpose ofthe congressio nal hearings now under way is to tighten the U.S. standards even further. Environmental hard-liners want 70 million booms fixed at an average cost of $14,000 each, a total of$1 trillion. as ^ Incidentally the Canadians are well into a major epidemiological study oftheir own to determine if radon levels have any influence on cancer. Their first preliminary "finding* assures a negative re sult 96 percent ofthe lung cancercases they have identified arealsosmokers. As Rosalynn YaJow, a Nobel Laureate in nuclear medicine, told thescience writers in Washington, beforepeople began to smoke, hmg cancer was vir tually unheardat There were fewer than three cancer deaths per 100,000compandwith nearly 50 today. Yet radon wasjust as ubiquitous then as it is today. She concluded that residential radon is sim ply not a public health problem. Some in Congress seem eager to push the EPA to repeat the asbestos mistake. We hope their col leagues show more sense. g S ta Celotex Loses Attempt to Avoid Punitive Damages in Asbestos Case WASHINGTON (API--The Supreme Court yes terday regard an atmral hv a huildinx supply company ordered to pay S1.SS million in punitive damages to employees In lexas who sunerea tsoasos-ttSSi injur- Tbe justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that Celotex Corp. fairly was being forced to pay damages in a series of lawsuits stemming from the same conduct The justices on March 4 refused to place limits on punitive Hanmps as it upheld a $ I minion jury award to an Alabama woman victimized by insurance fraud. The court said the award was not so disproportionate to the damage suffered by the woman that it violated constitutional guarantee of fundamental fairness. The March ruling did not address so-called mass tort cue like the one at issue yesterday. Asbestos industry lawsuits are example of such cases, in which hazardous products can cause disease and death to thousands of people. Celotex, headquartered in Tampa, Fla., said it he been foroed to pay same S250 million in damage in asbestos lawsuits nationwide. In the Texas case, the company was ordered to pay $1.9 million in compensatory damage and $1.53 in punitive damaps for several employee who were exposed to asbestos dust. Celotex said the punitive award is unfair, particu- lariy since the asbestos products were made by Philip Carey Corp., a oorapany acquired by Celotex Cekrta ibo argued rt has been punished thousands offi,w* for the sunt cfWHi<tp1 But the 5th US. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Celotex last July. The appeals court said, "Even though Celotex has paid punitive damages to other plaintiffs in other cases, the punitive damages awarded in those caaes have reflected the harm inflicted upon only the plaintiffs in those suits." Theaward to the Texas workers, was based on the ham they suffered due tp Celotex's conduct, the appeals court added. m " Sc fcbt 25 " S ^ ^ CO O --J O cn CJ ro *v