A study mandated by Congress appears to validate what many people thought all along - the amount of fuss and money expended on addressing asbestos in school buildings (and other public buildings) is one of the biggest rip-offs of all time.
Based on seven years of study, a report titled "The Health Effects of Institute-Asbestos Research" was released in September. The study's bottom line, based on seven years of data collection, was that low-level exposure to asbestos in buildings is not a health risk to building occupants.The sadness is that Utah's schoolchildren have been - and continue to be -deprived of millions of dollars in money that has been allocated to asbestos abatement that could have gone into other educational priorities.
The burden has fallen on the individual school districts to foot the asbestos bills. After a $4 million appropriation by the Utah Legislature in 1990, the state did not come up with any more money specifically for asbestos removal and encapsulation, even though legislators had made a commitment to the project.
The costs to some districts, particularly those with many older buildings, has been significant. For instance, Granite District, the state's largest, budgeted $300,000 per year for the first three years of the effort; $550,000 for last year and $300,000 again for the current year - approaching $2 million to date. Salt Lake District, fifth largest, didn't have an immediate running total, but spent $241,000 in the current year, a district spokeswoman said.
When the Environmental Protection Agency issued its asbestos cleanup edict, State Office of Education officials estimated it could cost Utah school districts up to $30 million or more to meet the federal requirements.
Each district has assessed its schools and developed a plan to identify, remove or encapsulate asbestos. Some of the plans anticipate work into the year 2004 to get the job done, according to a State Environmental Health Department employee who is responsible for monitoring abatement progress.
The most significant problems were addressed at the outset of the effort. Friable (loose) asbestos - the kind that poses the only worrisome risk - was targeted by most districts for immediate attention. It is likely that the abatement projects that remain go far beyond any reasonable necessity to protect children, teachers and others who occupy schools.
If the current asbestos study were the only one that concluded the asbestos threat is miniscule, there might be reason to proceed slowly. In fact, several research projects by credible organizations have come to the same conclusion, according to information supplied by the Safe Buildings Alliance.
The Harvard University Energy and Environmental Policy Center declared in 1989 that asbestos removal may actually constitute a more cogent risk to building occupants than leaving the materials in place. Asbestos is a hazard when tiny fibers get into the air and are breathed into the lungs.
A January 1990 report by Science, another respected source of information, agreed that the risk from asbestos in buildings is negligible.
The American Medical Association strongly recommended leaving asbestos in place, encapsulating it as necessary, as a healthier alternative to removing it.
I don't suppose the EPA might reconsider its mandate on asbestos. Imposing edicts, not removing them, appears to be the business of government agencies.
But it's a simple shame that millions of dollars are being spent to protect schoolchildren from a non-hazard when they could be spent to help those children avoid real health threats such as smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, dietary ignorance, early pregnancy and violence.
Those dollars could be spent on reducing class sizes, enriching the curriculum, adding to library/media center collections, enhancing music programs, extending bus service to children who walk hazardous routes, providing more individual attention for handicapped youngsters - a hundred items that are more important in the educational picture than shagging dubious health will-o-the-wisps.