In thei r work on human cancer ,the Internat ionaAl gency for Researcho n Cancerh ave run a programme of <<monographs>> that evaluate carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man.The data collected provide considerable information on the risk from substances identified as carcinogens.
However, this is largely unused in the IARC classification scheme in spite of the use of the term 'risk' in the title and text of the monographs. Consequently, some governments and pressure groups use hazard identification to advance the cause for banning agents without conducting

a risk assessment .Confusion and indiscriminate u se of 'hazard' and 'risk' mean that the hazard data are commonly misrepresented as risk data. A common political response is to push regulatory action to extremes, citing the Precautionary Principle. Unfortunately, eliminating substances on the grounds of inherent hazard can deny major benefits to societies and undermine the sustainable developments. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the case of the minerals known collectively as asbestos. 

Evidence available clearly differentiates the hazards of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos,yet the current IARC classification does not make this distinction.This is in spite of the fact that amphibole asbestos produces orders of magnitude more diseases than chrysotile when used in the same way. The overwhelming weight of evidence available indicates that chrysotile can be used safely with low risk. Cement products such as water pipes and boards for housing provide are versatile products made at affordable cost for the developing countries which if not available would cost rather than save lives.