For environmental
occupational health safe
and responsible use

Newsletter archives

Volume 10, Number 1, November 2011 
Editorial - The current who policy on Asbestos, No response from the WHO, A review on the WHO's document on the adverse health effects of exposure to Asbestos, New perspective on the Rotterdam convention, Rotterdam convention, Expertise and testimony in American courts, etc

Volume 9, Number 2, November 2010 
Scientific Study, An open letter, published in Laval University’s Journal de la communauté universitaire Laval, Asbestos and chrysotile: mixing apples and bananas clarifications in the asbestos debate, The americas are far away from having banned chrysotile, Some court decisions of interest, Mining residue and the environment, etc

Volume 9, Number 1, May 2010 
A new group in favour of the safe, responsible and (...), The "any exposure theory", A reply to the often mentioned saying: (...), A successful meeting for the international (...), About mesothelioma cases in mexico, etc

Volume 8, Number 2, November 2009 
Letter to the editor of a canadian newspaper (...), When will we have a real comparative study?, Serious support for safe use, End to a publicity campaign (...), The danger of not relying strictly (...), etc

Volume 8, Number 1, June 2009 
the asbestos file: a goldmine for the litigation industry!, International conferences on chrysotile, the european commission reviewed derogations on asbestos, large demonstration in favour of the safe use (...), etc

Volume 7, Number 2, December 2008 
Chrysotile will not be included in the Rotterdam Convention

Volume 7, Number 1, February 2008 
Latest developments regarding the European Union’s asbestos policy

Volume 6, Number 2, June 2007 
EDITORIAL - Anti-asbestos Group Excessively Alarmist

Volume 6, Number 1, February 2007 
EDITORIAL - Message to the World Health Organization (WHO)

Number 12, Mai 2006 
EDITORIAL - Chrysotile : (perspectives)

Number 11, November 2005 
May 2006: Chrysotile and Science
The time has come to make the point

Number 10, June 2005 
Incidence of mesothelioma : Previsions revisited

Number 9, March 2005 
Chrysotile better than PVA

Number 8, November 2004 
Chrysotile not included in the Rotterdam convention:
Common sense triumphs over demagoguery

Number 7, August 2004 (.pdf 567kb) 
Rotterdam Convention All countries have the right to vote in September 2004

Number 6, April 2004 (.pdf 821kb) 
A New Study confirms the difference between chrysotile and amphiboles

Number 5, October 2003 (.pdf 561kb) 
Chrysotile in the United States

Number 4, April 2003 (.pdf 666kb) 
CSTEE Opinion on Chrysotile and Substitute Fibres: Don’t Confuse Us With Facts, Our Mind Is Made Up

Number 3, November 2002 (.pdf 1.91Mb) 
Chrysotile and the catastrophe of the World Trade Center: Myths, reality and a lesson to be learned

Number 2, August 2002 (.pdf 477kb) 
Trade unions vision in regard to chrysotile

Number 1, April 2002 (.pdf 1.45Mb) 
Great Britain, France, U.S.A.: People are waking up

International Chrysotile Association © All rights reserved | Contact us