THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF SO-CALLED "NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS": WHY WE MUST ONLY DEAL WITH THE SCIENCE

As a professional mineralogist I am annoyed every time I hear the phrase “naturally occurring asbestos.” In an attempt to try and get others to understand the importance of using correct mineralogical nomenclature, I wrote the first editorial of my life in a recent issue of Elements (http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/5/3/141). But I wonder why the phrase “naturally occurring asbestos” has become accepted? I believe that, unfortunately, in dealing with controversial issues such as asbestos-related issues competent scientists often find it difficult to focus in an unbiased manner on the science. Or on a more cynical side, I think we may be driven a bit too much in our concern for funding our research. After all, if there are no significant health problems associated with low-level exposure to asbestos occurring in it natural settings, then who would want to fund it?

To me this argument is not merely an academic one, say as it might be to debate if we call the highest symmetry crystal system isometric or cubic or to debate weather the mineral group of a feldspar should be termed framework silicate or tectosilicate. How we use, or chose to misuse, scientific nomenclature and information in our professional writings is of great concern, as laws and regulations are, hopefully, based on our research. For instance, issues surrounding the now-closed vermiculite mine near Libby, Montana have been in the news for a decade, with the concern being asbestos exposure from trace amounts of asbestiform amphibole that occurred in the vermiculite ore. One of the concerns is asbestos soil “contamination” in the Libby valley, while no doubt some occurs, some areas also are “contaminated” by so-called “naturally occurring asbestos,” which in the case of Libby comes in two forms: 1) amphibole “asbestos” in soils from the deposit that would predate mining and 2) amphibole “asbestos” in soils that did not originate from the vermiculite deposit. (For more details see: http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/94/5-6/837)

Finally, the current administration is promoting science over politics in issues such as occurs in Libby. It is our jobs to provide the unbiased science to help meet this goal, and not to allow ourselves to be driven by the politics.