Assessment of studies on cancer risks from asbestos in Connecticut drinking water

Our plain-English summary of Assessment of studies on cancer risks from asbestos in Connecticut drinking water, by J.W. Meigs (Environmental Health Perspectives, 1983).

The study

• Author: J.W. Meigs
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 1983;53:107-8
• Cited by: 4 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. 000628).

In plain English

This commentary, not a new primary investigation, assessed two earlier Connecticut studies, which the author helped conduct, of cancer risks from asbestos in drinking water. Eleven of the state's 169 towns had source waters with less than 500,000 asbestos fibers/L as delivered, and in 82 towns some residents received water through asbestos cement (AC) pipe. About 600,000 people, approximately 20% of the state's population, were potentially exposed. The studies were correlational and lacked information on residential mobility or occupational exposures of newly diagnosed cancer patients. For peritoneal mesothelioma cases listed in a U.S. EPA report, occupational exposures were explored through city directories. Neither study used interviews. No consistent evidence of a cancer risk from asbestos in water was suggested in the Connecticut work. A review of peritoneal mesothelioma gave no indication of a relationship with asbestos in water. Connecticut exposures were quite low compared with 50 million or more fibers per liter in San Francisco and Everett, Washington. The collaborators agreed this asbestos could never be assumed or proven absolutely safe, but saw no reason to change water distribution policies because of AC pipe use.

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: Commentary assessing two earlier correlational studies in Connecticut (by the author and collaborators), also citing a mesothelioma study still in progress; no new primary investigation presented
• Who was studied: Residents of Connecticut towns in the earlier studies, with cancers reported to the Connecticut Tumor Registry. About 600,000 people were potentially exposed, approximately 20% of the state's population. They lived in 11 towns with asbestos in source water and 82 towns with some asbestos cement pipe.
• Exposure: Asbestos in public drinking water, from source waters with less than 500,000 fibers/L as delivered to users and from water delivered through asbestos cement (AC) pipe. Average possible exposure duration was about 20 years (range under 5 to over 30 years).
• Main results:
  • No consistent evidence of a cancer risk from asbestos in water was suggested in any of the Connecticut work
  • The review of peritoneal mesothelioma cases showed no indication of a relationship with asbestos in water
  • Connecticut exposures were generally only a few hundred thousand fibers per liter, compared with 50 million or more in the water supplies of San Francisco and Everett, Washington
  • According to the author, the second Connecticut study should have been able to detect a 50% increase in total cancer rates in towns with the highest versus the lowest reported asbestos levels
  • The author described a separate study in progress of all mesotheliomas reported to the Connecticut Tumor Registry from 1955 to 1977. In that study, occupational exposure was suggested in 85% of all cases among men.
• The authors' conclusion: The collaborators generally agreed that asbestos as found in Connecticut drinking water could never be assumed or proven absolutely safe, but that there was no reason to change Connecticut water distribution policies because of AC pipe use. The author suggested a comprehensive case-control study covering trihalomethanes and other materials as well as asbestos.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • There was no information on residential mobility or possible occupational exposures of people reported to the Connecticut Tumor Registry with newly diagnosed cancers
  • For the individual peritoneal mesothelioma cases listed in the U.S. EPA report, possible occupational exposures were explored only by searching city directories. No interviews were conducted for either study.
  • Because Connecticut exposures were so low, measurable numbers of cancers would have been extremely unlikely to be detected even if a risk from asbestos in drinking water exists

Related studies

• A case-control study of asbestos in drinking water and cancer risk — L. Polissar, R.K. Severson, et al. (1984)
• Cancer risk from asbestos in drinking water: summary of a case-control study in western Washington — L. Polissar, R.K. Severson, et al. (1983)
• Additional notes on the case-control study in western Washington on the cancer risk from asbestos in drinking water — L. Polissar, R.K. Severson, et al. (1983)
• An investigation of the use of asbestos cement pipe for public water supply and the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer in Connecticut, 1935-1973 — J.M. Harrington, G.F. Craun, et al. (1978)
• Cancer incidence in relation to asbestos in drinking water in the Puget Sound region — L. Polissar, R.K. Severson, et al. (1982)
• Epidemiology study of the use of asbestos-cement pipe for the distribution of drinking water in Escambia County, Florida — J.R. Millette, G.F. Craun, et al. (1983)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.