Chrysotile asbestos and mesothelioma

Our plain-English summary of Chrysotile asbestos and mesothelioma, by R.A. Lemen (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2010).

The study

• Author: R.A. Lemen
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2010;118(7):A282
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The author objected to an Editor's Summary in Environmental Health Perspectives for a 2010 article by Tse and colleagues on mesothelioma in Hong Kong. That summary had described chrysotile asbestos as "implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma." The author called this inconsistent with current scientific opinion. As support, the author cited a 2009 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluation, which concluded that all forms of asbestos are "carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1). The author also cited the 1977 IARC monograph, which the author drafted and which noted pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas after occupational exposure to crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile. The author stated that such opinions come only from scientists with pro-chrysotile industry bias. The author also said that Tse and colleagues had not said chrysotile is not a cause, and supported their call for an immediate global ban on asbestos use. The author disclosed testifying in asbestos litigation on behalf of plaintiffs. In an attached note, the editors called the statement incorrect and said they had corrected it online.

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 (correspondence) with an attached editor's note; no original research
• Who was studied: No people were studied. The letter responds to the Editor's Summary of a 2010 study by Tse et al. on mesothelioma in Hong Kong.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos, discussed alongside other forms of asbestos (crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, anthophyllite), as a cause of mesothelioma
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the Editor's Summary description of chrysotile as "implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma" was inconsistent with current scientific opinion.
  • The author cited the 2009 IARC evaluation (Straif et al.), which concluded that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
  • The author cited the 1977 IARC Monograph Volume 14, which the author drafted, stating that pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas had been observed after occupational exposure to crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile.
  • The author asserted that opinions like the one in the Editor's Summary are advanced only by scientists with pro-chrysotile industry bias.
  • The author pointed out that Tse et al. themselves did not say chrysotile is not a cause of mesothelioma.
  • In an attached note, the editors called the statement incorrect, regretted the error, corrected the Editor's Summary online and published an erratum in the June 2010 issue.
• The authors' conclusion: The author hoped future Editor's Summaries would reflect the conclusions of the articles they describe, and supported Tse et al.'s call for an immediate and global ban on asbestos use.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos and cancer risk: a review of the amphibole hypothesis — L.T. Stayner, D.A. Dankovic, et al. (1996)
• How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases — X. Baur, C.L. Soskolne, et al. (2015)
• Statement in response to asbestos industry efforts to prevent a ban on asbestos in Pakistan: chrysotile asbestos use is not safe and must be banned — G. Aguilar Madrid, M. Beaudry, et al. (2013)
• Nonoccupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos and the risk of lung cancer — M. Camus, J. Siemiatycki, et al. (1998)
• Health risk of chrysotile revisited — D. Bernstein, J. Dunnigan, et al. (2013)
• Follow-up study of chrysotile asbestos textile workers: cohort mortality and case-control analyses — J.M. Dement, D.P. Brown, et al. (1994)

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