The naturally occurring asbestos in Folsom and El Dorado Hills seems to cause quite a controversy. Some feel the risk of exposure is not worth the benefits the area has to offer. I offer a framework for analysis of the risk….and pose some general questions that need to be answered to fully evaluate the problem.
Economics assumes that people process information and make rational decisions with it. While it sounds simple, this framework is highly flawed, since it assumes 1) people have full information, and 2) that they act rationally. This flaw is especially evident when it comes to issues of risk. For instance, it is well known that after September 11, 2001, many people were afraid to fly. However by driving to their destination instead, they increased their risk exposure because flying is statistically so much safer than driving.
In general a risk should be evaluated based on the following criteria 1) how serious is the risk (fatal vs. inconvenient), 2) what are the chances it will occur. For instance catastrophic flooding in Sacramento is a very serious threat and there is roughly a 1 in 100 chance it will occur each year. Personally, I don't want to live in a flood plain around here.
Most of us take precautions to mitigate risks, such as wearing seat belts, locking our doors, and wearing sunscreen. But many of us also play sports, live in an area where the air quality is poor, have stressful jobs, don’t eat a healthy and balanced diet, and don’t exercise enough. I believe this is because we make trade-offs between risks and our quality of life. Driving in a car is very risky as far as statistics go, but I know very few Californians over 16 that don’t drive.
So how do we put the risk of asbestos exposure into perspective? And how do we make trade-offs with the increased quality of life that comes with living in Folsom and El Dorado Hills (i.e. low crime and great schools? First we can compare the asbestos exposure risk to other risks. By my calculations (I am certainly no expert). The worst exposure level in EDH, 85/1,000,000 risk of cancer, looks to be less than dying by homicide. Additionally, what these statistics also doesn't tell me is how the risk of cancer equates to survival rates.
Growing up very close to Casmalia, California, I saw unmistakable evidence that exposure to the toxins caused health related problems in the local population. So what I am wondering, has there been any evidence to show an increased incidence of asbestos related illnesses in the local area?
I have only been able to locate information that suggests the increased exposure risk is there….but no evidence to suggest that the local population shows any elevated level of symptoms related to the increased exposure (perhaps because asbestos is found in so many homes, it would be hard to create a study based solely on natural asbestos).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
This asbestos thing is a joke.Asbestos is found naturally in serpintine rock.Asbestos can be dangerous if the fibers get airborn.If you have some serpentine rock in your yard it's probably not a great idea to crush the rock and breath the dust.
This is a scare tactic from the environmentalists to prevent more development in that area.
I have been around lots of serpentine rock and no probelms.Serpintine is low in calcium thus makes cell walls less expansive thus very poor for tree growth.Look at the vegetation where serpintine occurs, very stunted.I believe it is a metamorphic rock and found in unique geologic formations.
Do not base your decsion to buy based on the scare tactic.
Thanks Forestry Guy! Appreciate the feedback. Based on everything I have read so far...I tend to agree with you on the scare tactic line of thinking.
There seems to be a lot of folks really freaked out about it (e.g. comments on the Sacbee site), which is why I tried to look into it.
What I can't figure out is if these people just panic because they hear the word asbestos? I have been hard pressed to find any scientific data and health studies behind their paranoia.
Cmyst was hoping you might weight in here.....you tend to have a much more pragmatic approach to things (and I know the asbestos issue concerns you).
UC Davis researchers recently completed the largest study to examine the question. Published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, the study found that living near asbestos-containing rock is indeed associated with an increased risk of developing mesothelioma.
"Our findings indicate that the risks from exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, while low, are real and should be taken seriously," said Marc Schenker, professor and chair of the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences and the study's senior author.
"We hope public efforts will now shift to understanding the risk and how we can protect people from this preventable malignancy."
For the residents of western El Dorado County, an area of brisk housing development at the base of the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento, the UC Davis study had special relevance.
Many area residents had been alarmed by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study conducted in October 2004 at a popular park in El Dorado Hills, the county's largest town.
EPA investigators found that everyday outdoor activities — riding a bicycle, sliding into first base, swinging on a jungle gym — stirred up high concentrations of asbestos fibers in the air. Bicycling along the park's nature path kicked up the most fibers, generating concentrations 43 times greater than background levels.
"Because mesothelioma takes 20 to 30 years to develop, what we learn today will allow us to protect Californians from this preventable cancer decades into the future," Schenker said.
Its your life, you may want to talk to some ex-ship builders about what their take is on asbestos. I guess we will know in 20 years. Me personally seeing a loved one die from that stuff only after two years exposure, I don't even stop for gas in El Dorado Hills. However, I guess you have to see someone in that situiation to know when extreme precautions are needed.
Thanks so much for the study citation PS! I have been really trying to wade through all this...and its hard to tell the hype from the science.
As I mentioned...I grew up near a community that had major environmental hazards...so I take it seriously.
Yikes, I got behind on my blogging!
The study that influenced me was the one that PS quoted, and was originally highlighted by Lander. It was very illuminating.
We humans live in some pretty risky places. San Francisco, for instance.
New Orleans.
The problem in EDH is like global warming: some people may debate the existence of a problem, but what happens if the scientists were right all along? It's too late by the time it's proven beyond all doubt that a problem exists.
It seems every time I make up my mind one way or another on this, I get new info that swings me in the other direction. I was all set to leave the area...but then found new info.
1) For instance, not sure if it was as well publicized, but there was a brief review of the study citing some of its flaws (academics love to throw stones). 2) The actual cases of the condition/cancer in EDH are still incredibly low. 3) Yesterday I spoke with my daycare center director (not too far from Blackstone, so I was a bit nervous about the dust). They had been tested negative and been assured by the county there was no risk.
All this to say...I have been having trouble getting a clear assessment of the risk. I plan to talk to our pediatrician today about it.
As for global warming....I kinda consider that differently since we aren't changing our behavior based on personal risks, but more for the overall good of the planet (future generations).
Cymst glad to see you're back...I was beginning to worry about you!
Post a Comment