Asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma, but not this asbestos exposure: an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma, but not this asbestos exposure: an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court, by L.S. Welch (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2007).

The study

• Author: L.S. Welch
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2007;13(3):318-27
• Cited by: 34 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Manufacturers of asbestos brakes, supported by many manufacturing and insurance industry amicus curie, requested the Michigan Supreme Court to dismiss testimony of an expert regarding the ability of asbestos dust from brakes to cause mesothelioma as "junk science". Scientists are concerned with the sweeping and unequivocal claims that any conclusion that asbestos from brakes caused a signature asbestos-related disease in a particular person must be "junk science". The manufacturers' sweeping pronouncements are what veer from accepted, reliable mainstream scientific methods and conclusions. This article outlines the evidence supporting the conclusion that asbestos from brakes can and does cause mesothelioma, and describes the defendants' attempts to fabricate doubt about this conclusion.

In plain English

This article reported no new research data. It was an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court by the author and 51 other signers. It responded to asbestos brake manufacturers who asked the court to dismiss, as "junk science," expert testimony that brake asbestos can cause mesothelioma. Citing agency reviews, the authors argued that asbestos, including chrysotile, causes mesothelioma and that there is no safe exposure level. They argued that the epidemiologic studies the manufacturers relied on, which did not detect a statistically significant increased risk, were at best inconclusive. They argued that hundreds of reported mesothelioma cases in mechanics must be considered. They stated that Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler admitted in litigation paying over $30,000,000 since 2000 to experts who produced papers the manufacturers rely on. The authors concluded that the evidence allows a conclusion, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that mesothelioma in a mechanic who worked with asbestos-containing brakes was caused by that exposure. They did not claim to know the correct answer on causation in the case before the court.

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: Amicus brief (position paper/commentary) to a court; argues from previously published evidence and reports no original study data
• Who was studied: No study population. The brief was written by the author and joined by 51 other signers, in connection with Chapin v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation et al., Case No. 133178, Supreme Court of Michigan
• Exposure: Asbestos (including chrysotile) from brakes, particularly mechanics grinding, filing, or sanding new asbestos brakes and using compressed air or dry brushing to clean wear dust from old brakes
• Main results:
  • The authors argued, citing health agency reviews, that chrysotile asbestos causes cancer, including mesothelioma
  • The authors argued that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure
  • The authors argued that the epidemiologic studies relied on by the brake manufacturers, which did not detect a statistically significant increased risk of mesothelioma, are at best inconclusive rather than proof that brake asbestos cannot cause disease
  • The authors stated that hundreds of cases of mesothelioma in mechanics have been reported in the medical literature, and argued these must be considered
  • The authors stated that Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler admitted in litigation to paying over $30,000,000 since 2000 to the consultants who generated papers the manufacturers rely on
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the available evidence is more than sufficient to allow someone to conclude, within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that a mesothelioma in a mechanic who worked with asbestos-containing brakes was caused by that asbestos exposure
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that they make no claim to know the correct answer to disease causation in the specific case before the court

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure, Mesothelioma, Brake Lining, Defendant.

Related studies

• Exposing the "myth" of ABC, "anything but chrysotile": a critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies — D. Egilman, C. Fehnel, et al. (2003)
• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)
• Corporate corruption of medical literature: asbestos studies concealed by W.R. Grace & Co — D. Egilman, W. Wallace, et al. (1998)
• UN Scientific Agency collaborating with scientists involved in sabotaging UN Rotterdam Convention — K. Ruff (2013)
• Chrysotile asbestos is the main cause of pleural mesothelioma — A.H. Smith, C.C. Wright (1996)
• Cancer incidence of 2,4-D production workers — C. Burns, K. Bodner, et al. (2011)

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