Asbestos fibres and the environment

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos fibres and the environment, by D. Gloag (British Medical Journal, 1981).

The study

• Author: D. Gloag
• Journal: British Medical Journal
• Published: 1981;282(6264):623-6
• Cited by: 5 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004750).

Summary of the article

This article in a British Medical Journal series on pollution reviewed what was known about asbestos fibres and the risk to the general public. The author first discussed why cancer risk differed between groups of asbestos workers. She cited evidence that crocidolite and amosite were more hazardous than chrysotile for mesothelioma, and that fibre size and shape, supported by animal and cell culture studies, might matter more than chemical composition. She then reviewed exposure outside industry. For drinking water and beverages, she described studies in Connecticut, Duluth (Minnesota), Quebec and the San Francisco Bay area. She concluded that the balance of evidence did not point to a risk from ingested asbestos in the general population, and noted that the San Francisco findings would need a case-control study. Airborne concentrations in the general environment were described as probably about 1000 times lower than in industry under current standards. Higher levels had been found in some buildings with unsealed sprayed asbestos. In a preliminary British survey, the highest airborne crocidolite reading was under 0.2% of the occupational standard. The author argued that banning all asbestos was neither practicable nor desirable at present. She said that asbestos already in buildings required inspection, sealing or removal, and vigilance, and that generous safety margins should apply to the general population. She judged that spreading alarm about a cancer risk for council tenants was unjustified.

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 article was a narrative review by a British Medical Journal staff editor in the series 'Pollution and People'. It reported no new study. The author reviewed evidence on how fibre type, size and shape may affect cancer risk, and on asbestos in drinking water, food and drink, outdoor air and buildings. Among the studies described, a Connecticut study found no correlation between gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos cement water pipes. In Duluth, Minnesota, gastrointestinal cancer rates showed no striking trend compared with two control cities. A San Francisco Bay study reported raised rates of certain cancers in areas with more chrysotile in drinking water, but the author wrote that those findings did not permit definite conclusions. In a preliminary British survey of several buildings, the highest airborne crocidolite reading was under 0.2% of the occupational standard. The author concluded that the balance of evidence did not point to a risk from ingested asbestos in the general population. The author also argued that plentiful safety margins must be allowed for the general public.

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: narrative review article by a journal staff editor, part of a series; no original study
• Who was studied: no population was studied directly; the article reviewed evidence on exposure of the general public, as distinct from asbestos workers
• Exposure: environmental asbestos (crocidolite, amosite, chrysotile, and also tremolite and a fibrous zeolite in Turkey) in ambient air, water, beverages, food and buildings
• Main results:
  • The article described a Connecticut study that found no correlation between gastrointestinal cancer and asbestos cement pipes in the public water supply
  • The article described a comparison of gastrointestinal cancer rates in Duluth, Minnesota, whose water was contaminated with amphibole asbestos, against two control cities; it showed no striking trend
  • The article described a San Francisco Bay region study that reported significantly raised incidences of certain tumours in areas with higher chrysotile concentrations in drinking water. The author stated that without data on smoking and drinking habits the findings did not permit definite conclusions
  • The article described Quebec towns with more contaminated drinking water that had excesses of some cancers. Because these were asbestos mining towns, occupational exposure could have been responsible
  • The article described a preliminary survey by the Health and Safety Executive and Department of the Environment of several buildings, using electron microscopy. The highest airborne crocidolite reading was under 0.2% of the occupational standard (printed as '0-2%//')
  • The author stated that general atmospheric fibre concentrations seemed to be of the order of 1000 times less than in industry
  • The article described a North American mesothelioma series in which tumours were associated with high fibre counts of amosite and crocidolite, while equal amounts of chrysotile were found in cases and controls
  • The author argued that plentiful safety margins must be allowed for the general population
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the balance of evidence did not point to a risk from ingested asbestos in the general population. The author also wrote that spreading alarm about a 'cancer risk' for council tenants seemed totally unjustified.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author noted that any small effect in the United States county correlation study could be masked by many factors, and that more specific studies were more likely to be informative
  • The author noted that animal experiments are not complete replicas of human exposure
  • The author noted that the importance of the small fibres found in ambient air is questionable

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Crocidolite, Amosite, Chrysotile, Mesothelioma, Case-Control Study.

Related studies

• Asbestos fibres and the environment — (1981)
• Pleading for the use of biodegradable polymers in favor of marine environments and to avoid an asbestos-like problem for the future — M. Kubota, K. Takayama, et al. (2005)
• Common sense in the environment — (1991)
• The chemical environment of iron in mineral fibres. A combined X-ray absorption and Mössbauer spectroscopic study — S. Pollastri, F. D'Acapito, et al. (2015)
• Comparative hazards of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes: A European perspective — P.T. Harrison, L.S. Levy, et al. (1999)
• Minimising health hazards associated with derogated products and in-situ materials containing chrysotile contaminated with amphibole asbestos fibres — R.M. Howie (1999)

Browse more research in British Medical Journal, or return to medical research.