Asbestos removal

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos removal, by W.K. Reilly (Science, 1990).

The study

• Author: W.K. Reilly
• Journal: Science
• Published: 1990;248(4959):1064-5
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

In this letter, William K. Reilly, Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responded to Philip H. Abelson's editorial "The asbestos removal fiasco" (2 March, p. 1017). That editorial had blamed EPA policies for large sums spent removing asbestos from buildings. Reilly stated that EPA requires removal only when demolition or renovation threatens to release significant amounts of asbestos fibers into the air. He said that many building owners were removing asbestos because of concerns about property devaluation, insurance and liability that may be unrelated to actual health risks. EPA recommended that asbestos-containing material in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed generally be contained in place, and it warned that poorly conducted removal can increase risk. On fiber type, he acknowledged evidence that chrysotile may be less likely to cause some asbestos-related diseases. However, he noted that the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations maintain that chrysotile is a human carcinogen that can cause all asbestos-related diseases. He described the data Abelson cited as important but inconclusive. He said EPA was assessing actual exposure levels in buildings through research by the Health Effects Institute. He also argued that air monitoring can supplement, but not replace, physical inspection, because it cannot predict future fiber releases. He listed ongoing EPA policy reviews, an evaluation of the asbestos-in-schools program and guidance on managing asbestos in place.

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 is not a research study. It is a letter to the editor of Science by William K. Reilly, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), replying to Philip H. Abelson's editorial "The asbestos removal fiasco." It reports no new data. The author stated that EPA only requires asbestos removal when building demolition or renovation threatens to release significant amounts of asbestos fibers into the air. The author added that EPA recommends leaving asbestos-containing material in place when it is in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed, and warns that a poorly conducted removal can increase risk. The author wrote that available evidence suggests chrysotile may be less likely to cause some asbestos-related diseases, but that the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations maintain chrysotile is a human carcinogen. According to the author, EPA was assessing actual exposure levels in buildings through research by the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Air monitoring, in the author's view, gives only a snapshot and cannot replace physical inspection. The author concluded that ongoing EPA activities would help improve its asbestos policies and better protect public health.

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 (reply to an editorial); no original research
• Exposure: asbestos-containing material in buildings; the letter discusses chrysotile (serpentine) versus the amphibole group, including crocidolite and amosite
• Main results:
  • The author stated that EPA only requires asbestos removal when building demolition or renovation threatens to release significant amounts of asbestos fibers into the air
  • The author stated that EPA recommends that asbestos-containing material in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed is generally better contained in place than removed
  • The author stated that EPA warns that an ill-conceived or poorly conducted removal can increase rather than decrease risk
  • The author wrote that available evidence suggests chrysotile exposure may be less likely to cause some asbestos-related diseases
  • The author wrote that the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations maintain that chrysotile is a human carcinogen
  • The author stated that EPA was assessing actual exposure levels in buildings through a research effort by the Health Effects Institute (HEI)
  • The author stated that air monitoring gives only a snapshot of airborne asbestos and cannot predict future fiber releases, so it cannot replace physical inspection
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that ongoing EPA activities (a policy dialogue, an evaluation of the asbestos-in-schools program, a guidance document on managing asbestos in place, and the HEI research) would help improve EPA's asbestos policies and better protect public health

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM), Chrysotile, Air Sampling, Fiber Release.

Related studies

• Unexpected complication of successful nerve block. Morphine induced respiratory depression precipitated by removal of severe pain — G.W. Hanks, R.G. Twycross, et al. (1981)
• Occupational exposure to asbestos and mortality among asbestos removal workers: a Poisson regression analysis — G. Frost, A.H. Harding, et al. (2008)
• Worker exposure to asbestos during removal of sprayed material and renovation activity in buildings containing sprayed material — N.W. Paik, R.J. Walcott, et al. (1983)
• An exposure study of bystanders and workers during the installation and removal of asbestos gaskets and packing — C. Mangold, K. Clark, et al. (2006)
• Siderophore-mediated iron removal from chrysotile: Implications for asbestos toxicity reduction and bioremediation — S.K. Mohanty, C. Gonneau, et al. (2018)
• Fiber release during the removal of asbestos-containing gaskets: a work practice simulation — W.E. Longo, W.B. Egeland, et al. (2002)

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