Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Perhaps

Our plain-English summary of Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Perhaps, by S. Samuels (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1979).

The study

• Author: S. Samuels
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1979;330:215-8
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy.

In plain English

This was not a research study but a commentary by the author, of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department, on whether an acceptable standard for industrial asbestos exposure could be set. It reported no new data. The author argued that no threshold had been demonstrated, that feasibility controlled standards, and that no standard had ever been based solely on biological data. The author called the five fiber standard of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists unacceptable. The author said the British two fiber standard was not meant to protect workers against cancer, and described OSHA's proposed 0.5 fiber standard as based only on feasibility. The author's union aimed at the 0.1 value proposed by NIOSH. Citing an ambient level of 0.01 fibers/cc measured by William Nicholson, the author proposed mesothelioma as a surrogate measure of asbestos effects. The author argued that for most work populations a limit justified by feasibility was 0.01 fibers/cc, the background value. The author concluded that workplace and community standards should be set the same way, rejecting what the author called a caste system that accepts greater risk for workers.

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 (position paper) by a labor union representative; no original data were collected or analyzed
• Who was studied: No people or animals were studied; the paper discusses asbestos exposure standards for workers, mainly in the United States
• Exposure: Asbestos in industrial workplaces, discussed in terms of airborne fiber limits: the five fiber standard (OSHA temporary standard, still the ACGIH value), the two fiber standard, OSHA's proposed 0.5 fiber standard, NIOSH's proposed 0.1, and an ambient level of 0.01 fibers/cc; no fiber types are named
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the ACGIH five fiber asbestos standard was not acceptable to government or labor in the United States
  • The author read the British rationale for the two fiber standard as showing it was not intended to protect workers against cancer
  • The author argued that feasibility is the controlling parameter for environmental standards and that no standard has ever been based solely on biological data
  • The author argued that OSHA's proposed 0.5 fiber standard was based only on feasibility and was feasible with best available technology
  • The author's organization favored aiming at the NIOSH-proposed value of 0.1, and would not be permanently satisfied even at that level
  • The author argued that a threshold for asbestos effects had not been demonstrated
  • The author proposed mesothelioma as a surrogate measure of asbestos-related effects
  • The author argued that the background value of 0.01 fibers/cc could not feasibly be reduced in most work situations, and that for most work populations a limit justified by feasibility was 0.01 fibers (per cc)
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the proposed approach aims to end what the author called a caste system, in which workers are held to different standards than the community, and to apply the same approach to workplace and community standards
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the short format did not allow a substantive discussion of what 'feasible' or 'necessary' mean

Related studies

• Based upon available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Yes — P. Kotin (1979)
• Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? No — A. Englund (1979)
• Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Absolutely — K. Robock (1979)
• Industrial hygiene perspectives in control of asbestos exposure — W. Reitze (1979)
• An industrial hygienist's perspective on generic standards — J.S. Lee (1989)
• How Malignant Mesothelioma Was Coded in Mortality Data in Taiwan During Years When the Specific ICD Code Was Not Available? — S.Y. Tai, J. Wu, et al. (2021)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.