Asbestos disease in Australia: looking forward and looking back

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos disease in Australia: looking forward and looking back, by A.D. LaMontagne, C.E. Hunter, D. Vallance, et al (New Solutions, 2008).

The study

• Authors: A.D. LaMontagne, C.E. Hunter, D. Vallance, A.J. Holloway
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2008;18(3):361-73
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

This article provides an overview and analysis of recent developments in policy and practice in relation to asbestos disease in Australia. It complements three other concurrent publications in this issue representing important contributions of people and organizations toward addressing the health and social impacts of Australia's asbestos disease epidemic. The campaign to "Make James Hardie Pay" as well as the efforts of workers and advocates are profiled in this article as well as in this issue's Documents and Voices sections. Discussion of recent developments in asbestos-related disease research and mesothelioma surveillance is followed by articulation of the comprehensive public and social health response that is needed to fully engage and address the asbestos disease legacy and to apply lessons learned to help revive the currently waning societal commitment to occupational health and safety in Australia and elsewhere.

In plain English

This article was a policy commentary, not an original research study. The authors gave an overview of recent asbestos policy and practice in Australia and introduced related pieces in the same journal issue. They described the trade union campaign to "Make James Hardie Pay", which ended when James Hardie shareholders approved a compensation fund in February 2007. James Hardie had been Australia's largest maker of asbestos building materials until 1987. Citing other sources, the authors wrote that mesothelioma incidence in Australia was not expected to peak until about 2017. They also reported that the NSW Dust Diseases Board compensated 117 asbestos-related lung cancer deaths versus 1,931 mesothelioma deaths from 1968-2004, which they saw as lung cancer being under-recognized. They objected to a proposed downgrading of the national mesothelioma register. They also profiled affected communities, including Melbourne waterside workers and the Latrobe Valley power industry. The authors concluded that a comprehensive public and social health response was needed, covering prevention, treatment, compensation and social healing, with strong participation by affected communities. The article presented no new data of its own.

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: Policy commentary and overview (not an original research study); no new data collected
• Who was studied: No defined study group. The article discusses Australia's asbestos disease epidemic and affected communities, including Melbourne waterside workers and Latrobe Valley power industry workers and their families
• Exposure: Asbestos building materials made by James Hardie (asbestos cement sheeting, pipes, insulation, brake linings); imported asbestos handled in hessian bags on the Melbourne docks; asbestos in coal-fired power stations
• Main results:
  • The final amended James Hardie funding agreement for asbestos disease compensation was signed in November 2006 and approved by shareholders in February 2007
  • According to the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry (Jackson Inquiry), James Hardie had under-funded its compensation foundation (MRCF) by about $2 billion
  • Citing other studies, the authors stated that mesothelioma incidence in Australia was not expected to peak until about 2017
  • Citing 2007 projections, future mesothelioma estimates were revised upwards to 21,700. From this, the authors reasoned that 2001 estimates of future asbestos-related lung cancers could be revised to 40,000-plus
  • Citing the NSW Dust Diseases Board annual report, 117 asbestos-related lung cancer deaths were compensated versus 1,931 mesothelioma deaths from 1968-2004. The authors presented this as under-recognition of asbestos-related lung cancer
  • The authors reported a move to further downgrade Australia's national mesothelioma register (surveillance program), and they opposed it
  • Australia banned the import of chrysotile in 2003
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Australia and elsewhere need a comprehensive public and social health response to the asbestos disease legacy. In their view this should include primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, prompt compensation, and social healing, with strong participation by affected communities

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• International jurisprudence on trade and environmental health: one step forward, two steps back? — K. Timmermans (2008)
• WTO upholds French ban on chrysotile — L.K. Allen (2001)
• Asbestos-related disease in South Africa: the social production of an invisible epidemic — L. Braun, S. Kisting (2006)
• Asbestos-associated diseases. Science, public policy, and litigation — H. Weill (1983)
• Scientific controversy and asbestos: making disease invisible — L. Braun, A. Greene, et al. (2003)
• The phase-out of asbestos in the Australian manufacturing environment — D.A. Vallance (2004)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.