Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy, by M. Greenberg (British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1993).

The study

• Author: M. Greenberg
• Journal: British Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1993;50(1):95
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This item was a letter to the editor, not a research study. The author, from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in London, replied to an earlier letter by Kelso. Kelso's letter had supported Murray's account of the history of awareness of asbestos health hazards and had criticised Weller. The author argued that Selikoff, writing in 1974, would not have known information that was later uncovered through litigation. The author noted that Enterline had also given economic reasons for the delay in accepting a link between asbestos and cancer. The author stated that confidential unpublished reports of the Saranac Laboratory support Enterline's hypothesis of conspiracy. On Wittenoom, the author wrote that conditions were appalling by the standards of the time and there had been a substantial health hazard, but there was little commercial gain, so Weller was wrong in that instance. The author also wrote that some industrialists came to regard asbestos as hazardous despite their experts' doubts and periodically stepped up controls in their plants. The author closed by noting that attorneys in asbestos litigation systematically retrieve publications on this history.

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 (correspondence); no new data were reported
• Exposure: No exposure was measured. The letter concerns the history of awareness of the health hazards of asbestos exposure.
• Main results:
  • The author argued that Selikoff, writing in 1974, would have been unaware of information discovered later as a result of litigation.
  • The author wrote that Enterline had given economic reasons for the delay in accepting a relation between asbestos and cancer. The author stated that confidential unpublished Saranac Laboratory reports support Enterline's hypothesis of conspiracy.
  • The author wrote that at Wittenoom conditions were appalling by the standards of the time and there had been a substantial health hazard.
  • The author wrote that Weller was wrong about Wittenoom, because there was little commercial gain there despite the loss of life.
  • The author wrote that some industrialists were persuaded that asbestos was hazardous despite their experts' doubts, and periodically stepped up environmental controls in their plants.
  • The author wrote that publications on this history are systematically retrieved by attorneys working in asbestos litigation.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that renewed interest in the history of awareness of asbestos hazard is of more than academic interest.

Related studies

• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — M.P. Weller (1993)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — J.C. Kelso (1992)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — B.I. Castleman (1991)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — W.K. Morgan (1992)
• Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy — M.P. Weller (1992)
• Asbestos as a public health risk: disease and policy — H. Weill, J.M. Hughes (1986)

Browse more research in British Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.