California Vets Were Exponentially Affected by Asbestos

Cristina Johnson

March 14, 2025
Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Asael Peña.

California is among the top three states with the largest veteran population in the US. In 2023, the state was home to over 1.48 million veterans and the most military installations in the country, with the Navy having a strong presence in the coastal state. Considering the Military’s decades-long extensive use of toxic asbestos, it is not surprising that California had 27,080 asbestos-caused deaths between 1999 and 2017, which is the most in the country. Many of these people, whose lives were taken by malignant asbestos-related illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer, were veterans.

Asbestos is a heat-resistant and durable mineral fiber. All military branches have applied asbestos-containing materials, especially between the 1930s and the early 1980s. However, those working in the Navy’s shipyards and warship personnel are the most likely to have encountered this hazardous material. Consequently, many of California’s veterans were exposed to asbestos during their service and now suffer from diseases stemming from it.

Veterans should go for regular health check-ups

Asbestos crumbles over time, releasing microscopic fibers into the air, and veterans stationed in shipyards, military bases, and naval vessels come into contact with airborne asbestos dust. Inhaled asbestos particles cause permanent scarring in organs and may lead to the development of mesothelioma, a malignant disease caused exclusively by asbestos. This cancer develops in the membrane around the lungs, abdomen, heart, or reproductive organs. Its symptoms may take 20 to 50 years before they show, and usually, by then, the cancer is already at an advanced stage. Unfortunately, the long latency period is also a characteristic of other asbestos-related diseases, and advanced stages by the time of diagnosis are a common occurrence. Asbestos exposure increases the chance of lung cancer, the second most common cancer in the US. Similar to mesothelioma, its symptoms first show when the cancer is at a stage with metastases.

It is why veterans with known and unknown asbestos exposure should attend regular health check-ups and specialized screenings, such as chest X-rays or CT scans and breathing tests, even if they do not experience symptoms. Timely discovery is the only option for veterans exposed to asbestos dust, as no treatment is available for illnesses stemming from it. Today’s medical procedures can only alleviate symptoms and slow progression in hopes of prolonging veterans’ life expectancy.

The VA compensates for the harm caused by asbestos

Manufacturers were aware of the hazards posed by asbestos years before its use started to be regulated, and they exposed millions of service members to its danger by hiding the truth from the military. California used to mine and produce large amounts of asbestos applied at its military bases, including in the San Francisco Bay Area. The state is home to former Naval Air Station Moffett Field, located near San Jose, which served as an important base during WWII and became the West Coast’s largest naval air transport installation; the airfield was closed in 1994 under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). Mare Island Naval Shipyard, located northeast of San Francisco, was similarly closed under the BRAC. The shipyard was the first Navy base on the West Coast, and during WWII, it was one of the busiest naval shipyards in the world: over 500 naval vessels were constructed, and thousands were overhauled at the Mare Island yard while it operated.

Veterans who have been diagnosed with an asbestos-linked malignant condition are eligible to file claims with asbestos trust funds or apply for disability compensation and possibly free health care from the VA.  Moreover, policymakers are trying to compensate now for the harm caused by asbestos exposure. Since the passage in 2022 of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT Act), the application process has become easier, as asbestos and asbestos illnesses have been added to the list of presumptive conditions. More than 1.4 million veterans have been approved for benefits nationwide thanks to the Act.

Having a disability, especially at an older age, is an enormous burden—not only mentally and physically, but financially, too. Veterans should apply for their well-deserved compensation offered by the VA’s disability compensation program, the asbestos trust funds, and the PACT Act. More information is available at https://www.va.gov/resources/the-pact-act-and-your-va-benefits/.

Cristina Johnson is a Navy veteran advocate for Asbestos Ships Organization, a nonprofit whose primary mission is to raise awareness and educate veterans about the dangers of asbestos exposure on Navy ships and assist them in navigating the VA claims process.

Heat-loving marine bacteria can help detoxify asbestos

Peer-Reviewed Publication

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

Asbestos materials were once widely used in homes, buildings, automobile brakes and many other built materials due to their strength and resistance to heat and fire, as well as to their low electrical conductivity. Unfortunately, asbestos exposure through inhalation of small fiber particles has been shown to be highly carcinogenic. 

Now, for the first time, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania have shown that extremophilic bacteria from high temperature marine environments can be used to reduce asbestos’ toxicity. The research is published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology. 

Much of their research has focused on use of the thermophilic bacterium Deferrisoma palaeochoriense to remove iron from asbestos minerals through anaerobic respiration of that iron. “Iron has been identified as a major component driving the toxicity of asbestos minerals and its removal from asbestos minerals has been shown to decrease their toxic properties,” said Ileana Pérez-Rodríguez, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. 

D. palaeochoriense has also been shown to mediate transfer of electrical charge within the iron contained in asbestos, without changing its mineral structure. Doing so might enhance asbestos’ electrical conductivity, said Pérez-Rodríguez.

Based on this observation, the bacterium could be used to treat asbestos’ toxicity through iron removal. Alternatively, the new properties of electrical conductivity could enable reuse of treated asbestos for that purpose.  

As with iron, the fibrous silicate structures of asbestos are also carcinogenic. Removal of silicon and magnesium from asbestos has been shown to disrupt its fibrous structure. The investigators tested the ability of the thermophilic bacterium Thermovibrio ammonificans to remove these elements from asbestos minerals by accumulating silicon in its biomass in a process known as biosilicification.  

T. ammonificans accumulated silicon in its biomass when in the presence of “serpentine” asbestos, which has curly fibers, but not while growing in the presence of “amphibole” asbestos, which has straight fibers, said Pérez-Rodríguez. This difference, along with the varying amounts and types of elements released during microbe-mineral interactions with different types of asbestos “highlights the difficulty of approaching asbestos treatments as a one-size-fits-all solution, given the unique chemical compositions and crystal structures associated with each asbestos mineral,” Pérez-Rodríguez said. 

Overall, these experiments promoted the removal of iron, silicon and/or magnesium for the detoxification of asbestos in a superior manner as compared to other biologically mediated detoxification of asbestos, such as via fungi, said Pérez-Rodríguez. However, further analysis will be required to optimize asbestos treatments to determine the most practical methods for the detoxification and/or reuse of asbestos as secondary raw materials.

### 

The American Society for Microbiology is one of the largest professional societies dedicated to the life sciences and is composed of 30,000 scientists and health practitioners. ASM's mission is to promote and advance the microbial sciences.

ASM advances the microbial sciences through conferences, publications, certifications, educational opportunities and advocacy efforts. It enhances laboratory capacity around the globe through training and resources. It provides a network for scientists in academia, industry and clinical settings. Additionally, ASM promotes a deeper understanding of the microbial sciences to diverse audiences.

---

JOURNAL

Applied and Environmental Microbiology

US asbestos sites made risky by some remediation strategies

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Research News

 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) largely remedies Superfund sites containing asbestos by capping them with soil to lock the buried toxin in place. But new research suggests that this may actually increase the likelihood of human exposure to the cancer-causing mineral.

"People have this idea that asbestos is all covered up and taken care of," said Jane Willenbring, who is an associate professor of geological sciences at Stanford University's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "But this is still a lingering legacy pollutant and might be dribbling out pollution, little by little."

Willenbring has published several studies about asbestos behavior and, most recently, turned her attention to the lack of information about how asbestos may move through the soils where it is stored. Through lab experiments with asbestos fibers, which were detailed in a paper published Jan. 27 in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters, she and colleagues determined that the soil's organic material actually enables the asbestos to move through the ground and potentially into nearby water supplies.

They found that dissolved organic matter changes the electric charge on asbestos particles and makes them less sticky, thereby enabling them to move faster through soil. The work disproves the prevailing theory that asbestos fibers cannot easily move through soil - an assumption that has been made in part because of the mineral's hair-like shape.

"It's surprising that even though these little fibers are so long, because their shortest diameter is small enough, they can wind their way through these soil pores," said Willenbring, who is senior author on the study.

Inhalation of asbestos increases the risk of developing lung disease and lung cancer, and exposure could occur through irrigation, taking showers, using humidifiers or other unfiltered sources that disperse water into the air.

A legacy pollutant

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that mainly forms in the subsurface, at the boundary of Earth's oceanic and continental crusts. For much of the 20th century, it was revered as a miracle building material for its high heat capacity and insulation properties, and mining and production boomed worldwide. Following widespread evidence of its link to cancer, including a rare and aggressive form called mesothelioma, production of asbestos in the U.S. declined dramatically starting in the 1970s.

In addition to thinking that the shape of the fibers would inhibit transport, the scientific community has been influenced by a 1977 EPA report that minimized the threat of asbestos moving through soil. Since then, new findings about the role of colloids - microscopic particles that remain dispersed within solutions rather than settling to the bottom - have led researchers to challenge the assumption that asbestos stays fixed in soil.

"Now we can show that exactly the thing that they do, which is add manure or other organic sludge to the asbestos piles that creates the production of dissolved organic matter, is exactly what causes the liberation of asbestos," Willenbring said. "It's actually facilitating the transport of asbestos fibers."

In some ways, the team's breakthrough about asbestos is not surprising because it aligns so closely with recent findings about the transport of colloids in soil, Willenbring said. But she was stunned by the scale of the problem: Millions of people in the U.S. are living near thousands of sites contaminated with asbestos.

At least 16 Superfund sites contain asbestos and areas where the mineral naturally occurs can also pose a risk.

Improving remediation

As part of the lab experiments, Willenbring and her team sampled soil from the BoRit Superfund Site in Ambler, Pennsylvania before it was capped in 2008. The waste dump is located next to a reservoir, as well as a stream that feeds water to the city of Philadelphia.

However, there is a silver lining to the team's discovery.

"Not all types of dissolved organic matter have the same effect on asbestos mobility," said lead study author Sanjay Mohanty, an assistant professor at UCLA's Civil and Environmental Engineering who collaborated with Willenbring on the experiments. "Thus, by identifying the types that have the worst effect, the remediation design could exclude those organic amendments."

As part of the remediation strategy, some sites include vegetation planted on top of the soil to prevent erosion. Willenbring's ongoing research involves figuring out how fungal-vegetation associations may be able to extract iron and make the asbestos fibers less toxic to people.

"It's not just inflammation in the lungs that's a problem - there's a process by which iron contained in the asbestos fiber is actually responsible for causing DNA damage, which can lead to cancer or mesothelioma," Willenbring said.

###

The study was co-authored by a researcher from Midwestern University.

The research was supported by the University of Pennsylvania's SRP Center Grant (P42 ES027320), "Asbestos fate, exposure, remediation, and adverse health effects" from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

HubMP2012

The long fight for justice for asbestos victims

 November 1, 2025

Mike Phipps reviews Bad dust: a history of the asbestos disaster, by Tom White, published by Repeater.

Tom White’s grandfather, a carpenter-builder, died in 1995 at the age of 64 in excruciating pain from malignant mesothelioma, the only known cause of which is exposure to asbestos. His grandmother received compensation from the Department of the Environment totalling £4, 710. Four years later, asbestos was banned in the UK.

In 2021, the Health & Safety Executive recorded that asbestos had killed around 5,000 people in Britain, although many researchers believe that this is a serious underestimate, and that the real total was closer to 20,000. Around seven million tonnes were imported and used between the 1870s and the late 1990s and we are still living with the consequences — Britain has the highest per capita rate of mesothelioma in the world.

Despite the ban, asbestos remains in place in thousands of buildings across the UK – there has been no coordinated removal programme. Meanwhile, over a million tonnes are still mined every years and only 71 countries have banned the material.

Racial capitalism

Bad Dust traces a history of the asbestos disaster. The first half of the book examines the highly profitable mining of the mineral in apartheid South Africa, where the price of asbestos trebled in the decade to 1960. By the mid-1950s, young mineworkers were being diagnosed with asbestosis after only a few months of employment and were often sacked without compensation, when they became too sick to work. Many were drawn from a wide hinterland across southern Africa and returned home to die in poverty.

An extremely interesting detail here is the development of an analysis by South African Marxists that the modern apartheid state, far from being an aberrant hangover from the Boer frontier, was something more fundamental. They argued that the formalisation of the state’s racism and authoritarianism was traceable to “the ‘mineral revolution’ of the late nineteenth century, the penetration of Southern Africa by British capital and imperialism, and the accompanying growth of the migrant labour system.”

Far from being an archaic anachronism that the economic development of the country would sweep away, modern apartheid was essentially an economic system – racial capitalism. White traces how the radicalisation of anti-apartheid forces in South Africa – particularly through the development of the Azanian Peoples’ Organization – led to calls for a complete ban on the asbestos industry. “We’d rather starve than sell our lives,” Building Allied Mining and Construction Workers Union General Secretary Pandelani Nefolovidwe said at the launch of the campaign in 1985.  

Belated action

In the asbestos processing factories of northern England too, workers suffered from asbestos poisoning and died young, yet the owners refused for decades to pay a penny of compensation, despite the medical evidence. The 1982 broadcast of an ITV documentary, however, watched by six million viewers, brought home the human impact of the disease and led to demonstrations in several cities. It forced the government to take belated, limited action – while the asbestos companies hired private investigators to compile a dossier on the programme makers.

White believes that the failure to develop a full Occupation Health Service in the post-war years was central to the issue not being acted on years earlier. In the absence of state legislation, he evaluates the action taken by trade unions to protect their members against the health hazards associated with the material – by dockers, shipyard and building workers, sometimes in the face of opposition from their own union leaders. The TUC in particular comes in for some trenchant criticism for putting jobs before health.

The second half of the book explores the development of the anti-asbestos movement, often in the form of local community initiatives, but soon coming up against powerful national and international corporate interests. The struggle to ban chrysotile – white asbestos – seemed on the verge of victory in 1998, until the Health and Safety Commission pulled back from publishing draft regulations, apparently on the direct orders of Tony Blair’s office. The French government’s decision to ban chrysotile was being challenged by Canada, where the substance was manufactured, through the World Trade Organisation. Demonstrations at the Canadian embassies in London, Copenhagen, and Sydney followed. It was the EU, over a year later, that took the decision to ban asbestos, with the UK falling into line.

But there was no attempt to address the issue of removal, increase funding for research into asbestos-related diseases or tackle the increasingly adversarial treatment of victims. “The New Labour government,” argues White, “had a historic opportunity to fold the challenge of asbestos removal into a broader renewal of the public realm and, at the same time, to reassert social security as a right, not a favour. It did neither.”

Litigation

The limitations of what the government had done were underlined by a High Court judgment in 2001. The Court ruled in the case of a carpenter who had worked for a number of companies that because it was impossible to identify which company had exposed him to the “guilty fibre,” or indeed whether his illness was caused by environmental exposure, neither could be held liable for his death. The decision was a shock: “The proliferation of asbestos in the built environment, a situation that had been pursued relentlessly by the industry and from which it had profited enormously, could apparently now be marshalled in service of their exoneration, rather than their guilt.” After much campaigning, the ruling was overturned by the Law Lords. But the line of argument that no single company could be held responsible was championed ruthlessly by the asbestos firms in other cases.

Meanwhile, after lengthy litigation, South African asbestos mining companies reached settlements worth millions of pounds with miners whose health had been destroyed by the industry.  In one case, despite the company repeatedly saying it had nothing to hide, the settlement stipulated that payment would not be made unless the plaintiffs’ lawyers agreed to destroy all the evidence they had received during the hearings. “The money from the settlements soon disappeared, much of it spent on doctors’ bills, but across the country, the asbestos remains.”

Long after the ban on asbestos, its victims continued to suffer, thanks to benefit cuts in the years of austerity. Cuts to the Health and Safety Executive budget meant successful awareness campaigns were abandoned. In 2012, it emerged that a planned year-long audit of the condition of England’s 23,000 schools would exclude asbestos. The government agreed a new compensation scheme with the industry behind closed doors where the compensation rate was set lower than the average payment recoverable in civil claims. The scheme’s narrow focus on mesothelioma meant that those suffering from other asbestos-related illnesses were excluded. Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum chair Tony Whitson described it as a “gift” to the insurance industry.

The total cost of removing asbestos from all schools and hospitals is high – around £15.6 billion. Yet an estimated 1,400 school staff and 12,600 former pupils died from mesothelioma between 1980 and 2021. Asbestos is a recyclable substance, but, as the author notes, recycling it, “like the notion of a global energy transition, raises nothing less than the question of democratic planning of the global economy.”

Will Labour tackle the crisis? If this meticulously researched book helps raise awareness and encourage more grassroots campaigning, the government might yet be forced to acknowledge the ongoing scale of the disaster and do something about it.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

U.S. government experts, industry spar over asbestos testing in talc
SILVER SPRING, Md. (Reuters) - For the first time in nearly 50 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration examined asbestos testing for talc powders and cosmetics at a hearing on Tuesday, after traces of the known carcinogen were found in several such products, including Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder.

Citing those FDA findings, some U.S. lawmakers and consumer advocates have called for stricter safety regulations to protect public health.

J&J, the market leader in talc powders, has defended the safety of its talc. The company said tests by labs it hired found no asbestos in samples from the same bottle the FDA examined - except for some the company attributed to contamination from a laboratory air conditioner.

In a statement on Tuesday, the company said it looks forward to the FDA’s “thorough review of the most effective and reliable ways to test for asbestos in cosmetic talc.”

The hearing on asbestos testing in talc, the FDA’s first since 1971, focused on testing standards recommended by a panel of government experts. The recommendations, published last month, embrace positions held by public health authorities and experts for plaintiffs who in lawsuits allege that contaminated talc products caused their cancers.

An industry trade group criticized the recommendations, saying they would not improve product safety.

For decades, the cosmetic talc industry has largely been allowed to police itself with little FDA oversight. Although talc and asbestos are similar minerals often found together in the ground, the FDA has never required manufacturers to test for the carcinogen.

One of the most significant recommendations from the expert panel is that mineral particles found in talc products small enough to be drawn into the lungs, even those the industry would not technically categorize as asbestos, should be counted as potentially harmful.

In its report, the panel said both asbestos and look-alike minerals are suspected of causing “similar pathological outcomes,” so the “distinction is irrelevant.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, a government toxicologist said a wide range of spear-shaped mineral particles - including but not limited to asbestos - can trigger the development of cancer and should be part of any new testing regime.

‘THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE’

Christopher Weis, a senior advisor with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said research has shown that conventional testing methods have failed to detect the full range of hazardous fibers, known as elongated mineral particles, or EMPs.

The process of milling talc for powders and cosmetics is known to break down any contaminants into small EMPs.

“All EMPs have the ability to trigger” development of cancer and other diseases, Weis said at the FDA hearing. “Short EMPs are not conventionally counted or included in lab reports. As a toxicologist, this is unacceptable.”

Mark Pollak, chief operating officer for the Personal Care Products Council, said the recommendation for counting more mineral particles as potentially harmful is not supported by science. The cosmetics trade group represents about 600 companies.

“Counting all (elongated mineral particles) would provide misleading reports, suggesting the presence of asbestos when none exists,” Pollak said at the hearing. “The key to effective testing is identification of asbestos, not harmless minerals.”

Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, urged the FDA to endorse the more rigorous testing methods and said the agency should add a warning label to talc products so consumers are aware they may contain asbestos.

“It’s time to end the honor system which has failed consumers for so long,” Faber said at the hearing. “Let’s not wait another 50 years to finally protect consumers.”



The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have limited exposure to asbestos on the job and in the air to reduce cancers since the 1970s, when the hazard was well established. A Reuters report in December (here) showed that, during the same period, the FDA downplayed health concerns, including possible asbestos contamination, in talc powders and cosmetics and repeatedly deferred manufacturers.

Dr. Linda Katz, director of FDA’s office of cosmetics and colors, said the panel of government experts from FDA and other agencies will continue studying these issues and plans to publish a white paper at some point. The FDA has not announced a timetable for deciding whether it will pursue new rules on testing.

The increased scrutiny on this issue follows a 2018 Reuters report (here) which showed that although J&J knew for decades its raw talc and powders sometimes tested positive for asbestos, the company did not report those findings to the FDA.

OPINION

Why the EU asbestos directive revision ... needs revising

• 
  

  In 2019, it was estimated that at least 70,000 people in the EU died from asbestos-related reasons — more than three times the number of people killed in traffic accidents

By NIKOLAJ VILLUMSEN

BRUSSELS, TODAY, 

The recent news that asbestos is two-to-three times as deadly as previously thought, reported here on EUobserver, has brought new — and needed — attention to an old and lingering problem: that of the silent killer, which continues to haunt us.

It comes after the European Commission in the autumn, finally, published its proposal for a revision of the directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work.

New rules are very much needed, as every year tens of thousands of Europeans die from asbestos-related illnesses and conditions, many without it even being recognised as a work-related death.

In 2019, it is estimated that at least 70,000 inhabitants in the EU dies from asbestos-related reasons. To put it into context, that figure is more than three times higher than the number of people killed in traffic that year.

The seriousness of the asbestos situation and the risk that the coming renovation and energy-efficiency wave will increase potential exposure, is the reason why we, in the European Parliament, already in 2021 demanded firm action.

It happened when a very large majority in the parliament, with support from left, right, and centre, adopted our report with recommendations to the commission on protecting workers from asbestos. This report laid out a string of requirements for what would constitute an adequate revision of the directive. It is a report that aimed for, and achieved, broad political backing, precisely so that we could use it to move forward.

As the rapporteur, I was proud of the consensus we ensured, and of how it was endorsed by so many of those that actually encounter asbestos as part of their work.

Revision needs revising

Therefore I was also surprised, disappointed, and frustrated when I read the proposed revision form the commission. Because, very clearly, the proposal for revision is itself in urgent need of a thorough revision. Something that the new figures of asbestos being even deadlier than previously thought, should underline.

All of this is not to say that there are not also good things in the revision, because there are. Several of them with a clear line to the work of the European Parliament. These include:

In addition to the actual revision of the directive, a "communication" has also been presented, with further measures and legislation that we can expect during 2022 and 2023.

These include:

A legislative proposal on mandatory screening and registration of asbestos in buildings, for example in connection with sales and rentals.

Proposals for a common digitised format for registration of all building-related data, including the results of the asbestos screening — a so-called 'EU building logbook'.

Steps to possibly update the commission list of occupational diseases.

Such initiatives are part of what we need and it is something the EU Parliament has already vouched for. They were all part of our 'recommendations to the commission on the protection of workers against asbestos' form 2021.

My disappointment and frustration comes from the parts that either contradicts or directly omits what has already been called for. This means that, especially, the following five points will have to be changed:

1. There must be a clear tightening of the directive, including removing any derogations from the directive's protective measures. If not, it will still in far too many cases be possible to deviate from the parts which are otherwise supposed to ensure the protection and supervision of employees' health.

2. There must be stricter requirements for sampling in connection with risk assessments. This includes certification of the personnel collecting the samples.

3. There must be a requirement for feasibility studies/screenings before energy renovations begin.

4. Introduction of an authorisation-scheme for companies working with asbestos and certified training of colleagues who work with asbestos.

Last but certainly not least:

5. We have to lower the limit value for asbestos set by the directive from the proposed 10,000 fibres per cubic meter, to 1,000 fibres per cubic meter, in line with what has already been decided by the EU Parliament.

So where do we stand now?

With all of the above in mind, I am both frustrated and hopeful. It would have been great to have the proposed directive already living up to our requirements from the beginning.

We are not there, but we are in a place from which we can reach our desired goal. It is my hope and belief that we, in the European Parliament, can revise the proposed revision to such an extent, that it will provide much needed better protection for those, whose work exposes them to asbestos. That makes me hopeful.

AUTHOR BIO

Nikolaj Villumsen is a Danish MEP with the Left, and rapporteur of the European Parliament's 2021 report on protecting workers from asbestos, and shadow rapporteur on the upcoming revision.