Asbestos abatement workers versus asbestos workers: exposure and health-effects differ

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos abatement workers versus asbestos workers: exposure and health-effects differ, by J. Lange, G. Mastrangelo, L. Cegolon (International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 2011).

The study

• Authors: J. Lange, G. Mastrangelo, L. Cegolon
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
• Published: 2011;24(4):418-9; author reply 420-1
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

In this letter to the editor, the authors commented on a paper by Szeszenia-Dąbrowska et al. on the current state of asbestos-related diseases in Poland, and suggested that its observations could be extended to other developed nations. They noted that asbestos exposure levels had changed dramatically since the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., from 8 to 0.001 f/cc) and that the type of work had also changed. Historically, asbestos workers mined, manufactured and installed asbestos-containing materials, whereas today abatement workers remove and dispose of them. The authors argued that these are distinct populations with dissimilar exposures and differing health consequences, and that most studies place them in the same category. Citing the Polish paper and other reports, they stated that exposure of asbestos abatement workers is very low (0.001 to 0.080 f/cc) and would result in negligible rates of asbestos-related diseases. They stated that only one study had evaluated health effects in abatement workers, and that using data on asbestos workers to discuss hazards for abatement workers was erroneous and misleading. They reported that smoking rates among abatement workers were high (50 to 70%). They added that these rates did not appear to have changed over the past 25 years in the United States despite required education, and that cancer risks, particularly lung cancer, would therefore remain high. The authors concluded that education and training for abatement workers should focus on smoking cessation and other personal habits and risk reduction (e.g., drug use, driving hazards). They also concluded that legislation should focus on present hazards and less on asbestos directly.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor, not a research study. It reported no new data. The authors were responding to a paper on asbestos-related diseases in Poland by Szeszenia-Dąbrowska and colleagues. They argued that two groups should be kept apart in research: asbestos workers of the past, who mined, manufactured and installed asbestos-containing materials, and today's asbestos abatement workers, who remove and dispose of those materials. In their view, most studies wrongly put both groups in one category. Citing the Polish paper and other reports, the authors described exposure for abatement workers as very low, at 0.001 to 0.080 fibers per cc. Citing earlier reports, including their own, they stated that smoking rates among abatement workers were high, at 50 to 70%, and that cancer risks, particularly lung cancer, would therefore remain high. The authors concluded that training should focus on smoking and other personal habits, and that legislation should focus on present hazards and less on asbestos directly. The authors' reply that followed the letter was not included in the text.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Letter to the editor (opinion and commentary on a published paper); no original data
• Who was studied: No group was studied. The letter discussed asbestos abatement workers (who remove and dispose of asbestos-containing materials) compared with historical asbestos workers (mining, manufacturing, installing)
• Exposure: Airborne asbestos exposure of asbestos abatement workers, described (citing the Szeszenia-Dąbrowska paper and other reports) as 0.001 to 0.080 fibers per cc
• Main results:
  • Not a finding of this letter: citing earlier reports, the authors stated that abatement workers had a high smoking rate (50 to 70%) and that cancer risks, particularly lung cancer, would remain high for them
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that abatement workers and historical asbestos workers should be distinguished, that training should focus on smoking cessation and other personal habits, and that legislation should focus on present hazards and less on asbestos directly

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Mesothelioma, Peritoneal mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Abatement, Asbestos Exposure, Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM), Lung Cancer, Habit.

Related studies

• Asbestos in Poland: occupational health problems — N. Szeszenia-Dąbrowska, B. Swiątkowska, et al. (2011)
• The Pathologic Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) Strongly Differs From the Surgical PCI in Peritoneal Metastases Arising From Various Primary Tumors — A. Bhatt, Y. Yonemura, et al. (2020)
• Infectious disease risk in asbestos abatement workers — J.H. Lange, G. Mastrangelo, et al. (2012)
• An epidemiological study of the respiratory health of workers in the European refractory ceramic fibre industry — H.A. Cowie, P. Wild, et al. (2001)
• Man-made vitreous fibers and workers' health. An overview of the epidemiologic evidence — R. Saracci, L. Simonato (1982)
• Asbestos exposure and benign asbestos diseases in 772 formerly exposed workers: dose-response relationships — G. Mastrangelo, M.N. Ballarin, et al. (2009)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.