Asbestos. Conflicts ahead on UK rules

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos. Conflicts ahead on UK rules, by T. Beardsley (Nature, 1983).

The study

• Author: T. Beardsley
• Journal: Nature
• Published: 1983;304(5926):479
• Type of article: News
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a short news article in Nature, not a research study, and it reported no new data. It described asbestos proposals due before the British Health and Safety Commission at its meeting on 23 August 1983. A working group report chaired by Steven Grant argued that the commission's guidance, which set "control limits" for the three main fibre types, was inconsistent with the 1969 Asbestos Regulations. The Grant report proposed an "action limit" and pointed to apparently serious deficiencies in how protective clothing and equipment were used. A second report, by Donald Acheson and Martin Gardner, updated the evidence on health effects. According to the article, it reached no startling new conclusions. It strengthened the case that amosite was more dangerous than chrysotile and supported a linear relation between chrysotile exposure and lung cancer mortality. Acheson and Gardner recommended a formal ban on making and importing amosite or crocidolite products. The article also covered new EEC directives, including a formal ban on crocidolite, and proposals to license asbestos stripping after work was halted twice at a disused Fulham power station when airborne fibres were detected.

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: News article (journalism), not a research study; it reports on regulatory reports and proposals
• Who was studied: No study population; the article concerns UK asbestos regulation and reports to be considered by the British Health and Safety Commission at its 23 August meeting (1983)
• Exposure: Airborne asbestos dust; control limits for the three main fibre types (the article names amosite, chrysotile and crocidolite)
• Main results:
  • The Grant working group report argued that the commission's guidance was inconsistent with the 1969 Asbestos Regulations
  • The Grant report proposed an "action limit" for protective measures
  • The Grant report highlighted apparently serious deficiencies in how protective clothing and equipment were used in practice
  • Grant threatened to resign after correspondence with the commission's chairman; the commission said the report would be published unchanged after the 23 August meeting
  • The Acheson and Gardner update on health effects reached no startling new conclusions on medical effects
  • According to the article, the Acheson and Gardner report strengthened the case that amosite (brown asbestos) is more dangerous than chrysotile (white asbestos) and supported a linear relation between chrysotile exposure and lung cancer mortality
  • Acheson and Gardner recommended a formal ban on the manufacture and importation of products made of amosite or crocidolite (blue asbestos)
  • New EEC directives included a formal ban on crocidolite
  • Work was halted twice during stripping of a disused power station at Fulham, London, after airborne fibres were detected
  • The Central Electricity Generating Board decided to take responsibility for stripping operations itself. About 40 power stations were expected to be decommissioned, at a cost of about £1 million per power station
• The authors' conclusion: The article does not state a research conclusion. Its writer observed that asbestos had loomed large in the public consciousness and seemed likely to stay that way.

Related studies

• Expression of concern: false claim to be free of conflicts in asbestos biopersistence debate — S.R. Bohme (2012)
• Biomonitoring of genotoxic effects for human exposure to nanomaterials: The challenge ahead — L. Gonzalez, M. Kirsch-Volders (2016)
• Stability and inoculation of risk comparisons' effects under conflict: replicating and extending the "asbestos jury" study by Slovic et al — B.B. Johnson (2002)
• Counting rules for estimating concentrations of long asbestos fibers — K.S. Crump, D.W. Berman (2011)
• Asbestos ban in India: challenges ahead — T.K. Joshi, U.B. Bhuva, et al. (2006)
• Reprint of "Biomonitoring of genotoxic effects for human exposure to nanomaterials: The challenge ahead" — L. Gonzalez, M. Kirsch-Volders (2016)

Browse more research in Nature, or return to medical research.