Chemicals: friends and foes

Our plain-English summary of Chemicals: friends and foes, by K. Singh (Reviews on Environmental Health, 2014).

The study

• Author: K. Singh
• Journal: Reviews on Environmental Health
• Published: 2014;29(1-2):43-4
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

There are many chemicals used in and around homes and workplaces that can result in accidents. Can it be said that the insecticides, drugs, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, asbestos, cleansers, cosmetics, and other chemicals are worth the price paid in terms of accidental poisonings? That is for the consumer to decide. Generally, it is the misuse of these chemicals that often leads to tragedy. Chemicals can be dangerous, but they can be advantageous when used with care.

In plain English

This two-page article was a general commentary, not a research study. The author, described as a former professor of chemistry, wrote about the benefits and dangers of chemicals used in homes, workplaces and the environment. The author collected no original data and reported no asbestos-specific measurements, cases or risk estimates. Asbestos appeared only in the abstract, in a list alongside insecticides, drugs, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, cleansers and cosmetics, and among the keywords. The main text did not discuss asbestos, any asbestos fiber type, or any asbestos-related disease. The article mentioned many other substances and pollutants in general terms and argued that misuse of chemicals often leads to tragedy. The author asked whether such chemicals are worth the price paid in accidental poisonings and stated that this is for the consumer to decide. The author concluded that chemicals need responsible storage, use and disposal, and that education is central to understanding them. The author said the paper was meant to increase public awareness about taking adequate measures against excessive use of chemicals.

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 / opinion essay; no original data
• Exposure: Chemicals in general. Asbestos is named only in the abstract's list of chemicals and in the keywords, with no further discussion.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that whether chemicals are worth the price paid in accidental poisonings is for the consumer to decide, and that chemicals require responsible storage, use and disposal.

Related studies

• Low-level toxicity of chemicals: No acceptable levels? — B.P. Lanphear (2017)
• Difficulties in establishing a causal link between chemical exposures and cancer cannot be overcome by court assessments — T.A. Dragani (2020)
• Environmental exposure to asbestos and other inorganic fibres using animal lung model — E. Fornero, E. Belluso, et al. (2009)
• Structured expert judgement approach of the health impact of various chemicals and classes of chemicals — D. Marti, D. Hanrahan, et al. (2024)
• Chemical agents and the immune response — M.I. Luster, G.J. Rosenthal (1993)
• War on Carcinogens: industry disputes human relevance of chemicals causing cancer in laboratory animals based on unproven hypotheses, using kidney tumors as an example — R.L. Melnick, J.M. Ward, et al. (2013)

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