Fourth, the concern about chrysotile asbestos being a mesothelioma hazard was based on populations in two facilities where mixed exposure to chrysotile and commercial amphibole asbestos (amosite and crocidolite) occurred. All 8 cases of pleural cancer and mesothelioma in the examined populations arose in facilities where amphiboles were present. It was therefore inappropriate to rely on these cohorts to predict the health risks of exposure to short fiber chrysotile, especially of those fibers filled with phenolic resins. Fifth, the suggested inhalation unit risk (IUR) for chrysotile asbestos was far too high since it was not markedly different than for amosite, despite the fact that the amphiboles are a far more potent carcinogen. Sixth, the approach to low dose modeling was not the most appropriate one in several respects, but, without question, it should have accounted for the background rate of mesothelioma in the general population. Just one month after this assessment was published, the National Academies of Science notified the EPA that the Agency’s systematic review process was flawed. The result of the EPA’s chrysotile asbestos risk evaluation is that society can expect dozens of years of scientifically unwarranted litigation. Due to an aging population and because some fraction of the population is naturally predisposed to mesothelioma given the presence of various genetic mutations in DNA repair mechanisms (e.g. BAP1 and others), the vast majority of mesotheliomas in the post-2035 era are expected to be spontaneous and unrelated in any way to exposure to asbestos. Due to the EPA’s analysis, it is our belief that those who handled brakes and gaskets in the post-1985 era may now believe that those exposures were the cause of their mesothelioma, when a risk assessment based on the scientific weight of evidence would indicate otherwise.