It does make sense, and I get frustrated by the blanket reactions below. In my line of work redeveloping historic buildings, asbestos is just another item to deal with. Some of the asbestos we encounter is friable, where we have to seal off a room with plastic, have all workers in hazmat suits, keep the material wet at all times, double bag it, and send it off to a special landfill in a sealed-top dumpster. Non-friables are much easier to safely remediate. Furthermore, asbestos that is encapsulated is safe to be left in place undisturbed.
It stands to reason that if there is a non-friable, encapsulated use where asbestos' natural properties make a significant impact, them we should at least consider their potential benefits as well.
Asbestos is a cheap and natural product with dangerous side effects. Much like oil. Allowing ways to use it safely is a worthwhile consideration.
EDIT: thinking back, the real pain in the ass with asbestos in my buildings is when it is glued down or otherwise affixed, and cannot be lifted away cleanly. Even in friable asbestos applications, if it can be removed or replaced relatively cleanly, then its not a big deal.
EDIT 2: to put numbers to the abatement discussion, we typically spend 1.5% of our construction budget on abatement. $30mm construction budget will cost $450k to remove it all properly, and in these buildings, asbestos and lead is everywhere. The bigger hit to us is on schedule, where we have to set aside an additional month or 2 to let the abatement guys have a whole floor at time, sometimes having to make 2 passes to abate the surface finishes like floor and ceiling tile, then come back through after general demo to remove pipe insulation, mastics, etc. The schedule hurts.