Document vB5Bam7Eb0nO2d0MwKK7rp16Y

gazette-telegraph COLOMBO OPklNM, CO DAILY 70,*02 TUESDAY JUL 11 1989 *7 -- FT -EDITORIALS ' ST0706309 The asbestos balancing act Balancing riskiii'reward, safety and from death by cancer. That's a high price cost -- we do it everyday. We weigh the risk of a raft ride on the Arkansas against the thrill of shooting the rapids. We compare the risk of driving with the benefits of mobility. We measure the risk of being shot with the cost and inconven ience of wearing a bulletproof vest Government regulators attempt the same act. Sometimes they find a proper balance. Other times they falter. Considerjubeatoa. For decades, it was looked upon as something of a miracle substance. Lightweight, strong and fireresistant, asbestos was used by the mil lions of tons in construction and indus try. Only in the last two decades have tests revealed its darker side -- an abil ity to cause lung cancer. In response to this health risk, the fed eral government has moved to effec tively ban it from the marketplace by the turn of the century. Last week, the En vironmental Protection Agency an nounced a plan to gradually phase out the use of asbestos. During the final phaae of the ban, the EPA plans to pro hibit 94 percent of asbestos use. Cancer has become one of the most frightening words in our language, and with good cause, but the EPA's sweeping and costly program to ban a widely used product from the marketplace appears out of proportion to the actual risk. According to the EPA's own estimates, the cost to consumers of shifting to as bestos substitutes during the next 13 years will be $460 million. In that same time, the shift will save about 200 people to pay to save relatively few lives, In moral terms, it is true that a dollar value cannot be assigned to a human life. But we nonetheless assign just such a price in our daily economic life. For ex ample, we could tack on an extra $ 10,000 to the cost of every new car sold In America to make them safer than they are now. The $10,000 per car would un doubtedly save some Uves, but at what cost? Banning asbestos would cost more than Just an abstract number. It will have a severe financial impact on many private enterprises and on taxpayers. The very aurvival of some non-profit operations -- parochial schools, for ex ample -- could be in jeopardy because of the high cost of asbestos removal. Then there is the more-difficult-tomeasure cost of reduced performance from asbestos substitutes. We wonder if anyone at EPA has calculated how many people might die in the next 13 years be cause of fires that would have been checked had asbestos been present in the walls of a building. This Is not to say some change In as bestos use isn't needed. Perhaps there is another substance out there that can match its performance at an economical cost without the health risk. The sooner industry develops it, the better. But until that day, we should seek a common-sense balance that will protea health without imposing costa out of proportion to the risk.