Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on May 12, 2009
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2009 53(4):307-309; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mep031
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society
Canadian Chrysotile Report Released—At Last
40 Wilsham Road, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 5LE, UK
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +44-1332-298101; e-mail: ogden@ogs.org.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Last year this journal published an editorial about a debate on the risks of chrysotile, initiated by the Canadian federal department of health (Health Canada), and the delays in publishing the reports (Ogden, 2008). The history is that in November 2007, Health Canada called together experts who had previously expressed very different views on chrysotile asbestos, to see what degree of consensus exists on the risks from this substance. I chaired the panel. We delivered the reports to Health Canada in March 2008, expecting that they would be published more or less immediately. We do not know why this did not happen, but speculate that it is due to a perceived threat to Canadian chrysotile production. Several applications for the report were made under the Canadian Access to Information Act, and it was finally released on 9 April 2009, just before the Easter holiday. It is available on
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. Ogden Data Sharing, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and the Lions in the Undergrowth Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2009; 53(7): 651 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
