Common sense in the environment

Our plain-English summary of Common sense in the environment (Nature, 1991).

The study

• Journal: Nature
• Published: 1991;353(6347):779-80
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was an unsigned opinion editorial in Nature, not a research study, and it reported no new data. It first described a US National Research Council report on hazardous-waste sites. As quoted in the editorial, the report said that less than 1 percent of the $4,200 million spent each year on such sites had been used to evaluate health risks at listed Superfund sites. The editorial then reported that a US appeals court had overturned an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban on asbestos in products including insulators, fireproof fabric, automobile brake linings and building materials. According to the editorial, the court said the EPA had ignored costs, and that some substitutes for asbestos had known carcinogenic effects. The editorial cited EPA figures that a total ban would save 202 lives over 13 years at $76 million to $106 million per life. It accepted that inhaling asbestos fibres is harmful to the lungs. It also stated, without naming any studies, that new studies suggest asbestos in solid form is not the hazard that free-floating fibre is. The editorial concluded that environmental debate needed more scientific rigor and common sense.

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: Unsigned opinion editorial; not a research study
• Who was studied: None: the editorial discussed US environmental policy, a National Research Council report and a court decision, not a group of people
• Exposure: Asbestos in products covered by the overturned EPA ban (no fiber type named); hazardous-waste sites in general
• Main results:
  • A US appeals court overturned the EPA ban on asbestos, as reported by the editorial
  • The court, as quoted, said the EPA ignored the cost side of the Toxic Substances Control Act
  • The court, as quoted, said some substances the EPA conceded would replace asbestos have known carcinogenic effects
  • By EPA figures cited in the editorial, a total asbestos ban would save the lives of 202 people over 13 years
  • By the same EPA figures, the cost would be $76 million to $106 million per life
  • The editorial said no one disagrees that inhaling asbestos fibres is pathogenic to the lungs
  • The editorial stated, citing no specific studies, that new scientific studies suggest asbestos in solid form is not the hazard that free-floating asbestos fibre is
  • The National Research Council report, as quoted, said less than 1 percent of the $4,200 million spent each year on US hazardous-waste sites was used to evaluate health risks at listed Superfund sites
• The authors' conclusion: The editorial concluded that it was time for scientific rigor and common sense to enter the debate on protecting the environment, which it said would benefit the environment and public health in the long run

Related studies

• Carcinogens in the environment — P.N. Magee (1974)
• Pet dogs as sentinels for environmental contamination — L.C. Backer, C.B. Grindem, et al. (2001)
• The asbestos removal fiasco — P.H. Abelson (1990)
• Should asbestos in buildings be regulated on an environmental or occupational basis? — D.M. Hashimoto, T.A. Brennan, et al. (1991)
• Asbestos problems in Montana and California — C. Maynard (2004)
• Questionnaire-based exposome-wide association studies for common diseases in the Personalized Environment and Genes Study — D. Lloyd, J.S. House, et al. (2024)

Browse more research in Nature, or return to medical research.