Scientists appeal to Quebec premier Charest to stop asbestos exports to the developing world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We note that your government and the asbestos industry have successfully lobbied the Canadian government to block the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance under a U.N. environmental convention (the Rotterdam Convention), thus preventing the recommendation of the Convention’s expert scientific body from being implemented and thus also jeopardizing the mandate of the Convention. The Rotterdam Convention was created specifically to protect people in developing countries and countries in economic transition from being harmed by hazardous substances. It provides the basic human right of prior informed consent, requiring that countries be informed that a substance they may import is hazardous. It is extremely troubling to see Quebec instigate sabotage of a U.N. environmental convention and thus deny a basic human right that is taken for granted in Quebec itself. This obstruction helps the industry’s sales. But it brings Quebec into international disrepute. Under Canadian law, chrysotile asbestos is classified as a hazardous substance, but the Quebec government has successfully lobbied to prevent it being recognized as such under international environmental law, thus creating a double standard of protection as if some lives were less deserving of protection than others. We note that at the December 2009 Copenhagen Conference you called on Canada to show stronger commitment to implementing the UN Climate Change Convention. We ask you to show similar commitment to implementing the UN Rotterdam Convention. In light of the above disturbing facts, we appeal to you, as you are about to leave on a trade mission to India, to show the integrity and honour that the world expects of Quebec. We ask that you listen to the overwhelming evidence put forward by independent health experts, including your own Quebec health experts, and not succumb to the political lobbying of the asbestos industry. We call on you, as well as the leaders of the other Quebec political parties, to end Quebec’s export of asbestos, to stop funding the Chrysotile Institute, to support the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the UN Rotterdam Convention, to assist the last 340 asbestos miners and their community with economic diversification and to address the asbestos disease epidemic in Quebec.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".