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

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

The study

• Author: P. Kotin
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1979;330:211-3
• 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. It was a short statement given on a conference panel. In it, the author, from the Health, Safety and Environment Department of Johns-Manville Corporation, answered "yes" to the question of whether available data allow an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos to be set. The statement presented no new data. The author recounted that a workplace limit of five fibers per cubic centimeter had been set, with the proviso that it fall to two fibers per cubic centimeter on July 1, 1976, and that OSHA had proposed lowering it to one half fiber per cubic centimeter. The author acknowledged that the link between excessive asbestos exposure and bronchogenic carcinoma and mesothelioma was known in 1971. The author argued, however, that the references in OSHA's proposal did not supply new information to justify the change. The author said they were convinced that no-effect levels exist, and pointed to papers at the meeting describing less disease where exposure had been reduced. The author concluded that a body of data suggested continued use without adverse effect was "a demonstrable reality."

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: Opinion statement given on a conference panel; no original study or data presented
• Who was studied: No study population; a statement by a single author affiliated with the Health, Safety and Environment Department, Johns-Manville Corporation, Denver, Colorado
• Exposure: Industrial asbestos exposure in general (no fiber type named), discussed in terms of US workplace limits: 5 fibers per cubic centimeter, to be reduced to 2 fibers per cubic centimeter on July 1, 1976, and an OSHA proposal to reduce it to one half fiber per cubic centimeter
• Main results:
  • The author argued that the 2 fibers per cubic centimeter standard was aimed at asbestosis as the primary concern
  • The author acknowledged that the relationship between excessive asbestos exposure and increased risk of bronchogenic carcinoma and mesothelioma was known in 1971
  • The author argued that the references in OSHA's proposal did not provide new information justifying the proposed reduction
  • The author stated a conviction that no-effect levels for carcinogens exist
  • The author pointed to papers at the meeting describing less disease where exposure concentration or time had been reduced
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that an acceptable standard is possible and that a body of data suggests continued asbestos use without adverse effect is a demonstrable reality

Related studies

• Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Perhaps — S. Samuels (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.