Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?, by W.K. Morgan (CMAJ, 1987).

The study

• Author: W.K. Morgan
• Journal: CMAJ
• Published: 1987;136(6):569
• Type of article: Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

In plain English

This item was a letter to the editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It was not a research study and reported no new data. The author, from the Chest Diseases Unit, University Hospital, London, Ontario, responded to Dr. David V. Bates's review of the hazards and benefits of asbestos. The author objected to one statement Bates quoted from Saracci: that if asbestos workers smoked and were not exposed to asbestos, 82% of the excess of lung cancer would be eliminated. The author called this nonsense, since an asbestos worker is bound to be exposed to asbestos. The author stated that nearly all people who have lived for any time in North America or Europe have asbestos fibres in their lungs, but that there is no evidence this low exposure from ambient air presents a risk. Citing other work, the author argued that at the low occupational exposures then mandated in the United States, Ontario and other Canadian provinces, the risk of asbestosis and asbestos-induced lung cancer is so low as to be undetectable. The author concluded that Saracci's statement may have applied to millers and shipyard workers years ago but is irrelevant to modern working conditions in North America and most of Europe.

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 published review; no original data
• Exposure: asbestos in general (no fiber type named): low-level exposure from ambient air, and low occupational exposures as then mandated in the United States, Ontario and other Canadian provinces
• The authors' conclusion: The author argued that the Saracci statement quoted by Bates was erroneous and misleading. In the author's view it may have been pertinent to millers and shipyard workers years ago but is irrelevant to modern working conditions in North America and most of Europe. Citing other work, the author said the risk of asbestosis and asbestos-induced lung cancer at low occupational exposures is so low as to be undetectable.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Asbestos: promotion or prohibition? — D.V. Bates (1987)
• Asbestos: promotion or prohibition? — C.E. Forget (1987)
• Asbestos: promotion or prohibition? — D.V. Bates (1988)
• The aftermath of asbestos prohibition in industry and its association with malignant mesothelioma in the south of Iran: An enduring predicament yet to be resolved — A. Rezvani, R. Shahriarirad, et al. (2024)
• Initiation-promotion versus complete skin carcinogenesis in mice: importance of dark basal keratinocytes (stem cells) — T.J. Slaga, A.J. Klein-Szanto (1983)
• Promotion of morphological transformation by Di-n-butyltin dichloride in C3H/10T1/2 cells: prediction by prior expression of tumour promoter-responsive genes — C.L. Parfett, T. Marquardt, et al. (2000)

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