Asbestos pollution

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos pollution, by J.T. Hack (Science, 1977).

The study

• Author: J.T. Hack
• Journal: Science
• Published: 1977;197(4305):716
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The author responded to a report in Science by Rohl, Langer, and Selikoff, "Environmental asbestos pollution related to use of quarried serpentine rock," which concerned a quarry site near Rockville, Maryland. The author called that report "an example of sensational writing" and wrote that it drew attention to an environmental danger without backing it with relevant facts. The author argued that little information was available about actual danger from airborne dust containing such minerals in that kind of environment, and noted that the report's authors spoke only of a possibility of danger. The author wrote that the hazard could only be judged with medical data relating illnesses or deaths to degree of exposure, and that calling the quarry a hazard without such data was irresponsible. The author added that an Environmental Protection Agency ban on the quarried material based on that evidence would be a disgrace. The page also printed a reply, which is cut off and whose authors are not shown.

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 commenting on a previously published report; no original data
• Who was studied: No people were studied. The letter discusses a Science report by Rohl, Langer, and Selikoff about quarried serpentine rock from a quarry site near Rockville, Maryland.
• Exposure: Airborne dust containing fibrous silicate minerals from quarried serpentine rock. The letter itself does not name a fiber type.
• Main results:
  • The author's argument, not a study finding: the Rohl, Langer, and Selikoff report called attention to an environmental danger without backing it with relevant facts.
  • The author's argument: the report's own authors said only that there was a possibility of danger.
  • The author's argument: the quarry's mineralogy is irrelevant unless it is related to medical data linking illnesses or deaths to degree of exposure.
  • The author's argument: if the Environmental Protection Agency had forbidden use of the quarried material on the evidence in the Science report, that would be a disgrace.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that calling the quarry a hazard without medical data was irresponsible.

Related studies

• Urban air pollution and lung cancer in Stockholm — F. Nyberg, P. Gustavsson, et al. (2000)
• Indoor air pollution: a public health perspective — J.D. Spengler, K. Sexton (1983)
• Relationship of mortality to measures of environmental asbestos pollution in an asbestos textile factory — J. Peto, R. Doll, et al. (1985)
• The protective role of antioxidants in the defence against ROS/RNS-mediated environmental pollution — B. Poljšak, R. Fink (2014)
• Occupational exposure to particulate air pollution and mortality due to ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease — K. Torén, I.A. Bergdahl, et al. (2007)
• Asbestos air pollution — I.J. Selikoff, W.J. Nicholson, et al. (1972)

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