Exposure science will not increase protection of workers from asbestos-caused diseases: NIOSH fails to provide needed public health action and leadership

Our plain-English summary of Exposure science will not increase protection of workers from asbestos-caused diseases: NIOSH fails to provide needed public health action and leadership, by R.A. Lemen, H. Anderson, J.C. Bailar, et al (Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 2011).

The study

• Authors: R.A. Lemen, H. Anderson, J.C. Bailar, E. Bingham, B. Castleman, A.L. Frank, J. Huff, J. Ladou, J. Melius, C. Monforton, A. Robbins, D.T. Teitelbaum, L.S. Welch
• Journal: Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
• Published: 2011;21(1):114-5; author reply 116
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The authors responded to a 2010 article by Howard and Middendorf and to a NIOSH draft roadmap on asbestos and other elongate mineral particles. They recalled that in 1976 NIOSH became the first US government agency to call for an industry-wide ban on asbestos. They quoted the International Agency for Research on Cancer's conclusion that evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos with increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. The letter stated that at least 125 million people worldwide are still exposed to asbestos at work. It cited another source estimating that the pandemic may take as many as 10 million lives before asbestos is banned worldwide and all exposure ends. The authors argued that the Howard and Middendorf article omitted public health action, that the evidence for a complete ban has long been conclusive, and that delays for further research are misplaced. They called for an international ban on the mining, manufacture and use of asbestos.

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 (opinion and commentary; no original data)
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter comments on an article by Howard and Middendorf (2010) and on a NIOSH draft roadmap (draft 4, January 2010).
• Exposure: Asbestos in general. The letter quotes the International Agency for Research on Cancer's statement covering all forms: chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite.
• Main results:
  • The letter stated that in 1976 NIOSH was the first US government agency to call for an industry-wide ban on asbestos and asbestos products.
  • The letter quoted the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Straif et al., 2009): epidemiological evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos with increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. This is a cited conclusion, not this letter's finding.
  • The letter stated that at least 125 million people in the world are still exposed to asbestos at work.
  • Citing Haynes (2010), the letter stated that the asbestos cancer pandemic may take as many as 10 million lives before asbestos is banned worldwide and all exposure is brought to an end.
  • The authors argued that the Howard and Middendorf article made no mention of the public health actions needed to prevent further deaths from asbestos.
  • The authors argued that the evidence for a complete ban has been conclusive for many years and that delays for further research are misplaced.
  • The letter stated that 52 countries have banned all forms of asbestos.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that an international ban on the mining, manufacture and use of asbestos is urgently needed. They encouraged Howard and Middendorf to correct what they called a misstep in the NIOSH roadmap and in their 2010 article.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: NIOSH.

Related studies

• NIOSH's Respiratory Health Division: 50 years of science and service — K.J. Cummings, D.O. Johns, et al. (2019)
• Exposure science can increase protection of workers and their families from exposure to asbestos and inform on the effects of other elongate mineral particles — J. Howard, P. Middendorf (2010)
• Comparison of NIOSH and AIA methods for evaluating asbestos fibres: effects of asbestos type, mounting medium, graticule type and counting rules — E. Gonzalez-Fernandez, F.R. Martín (1986)
• Comparison of AIA and NIOSH methods on asbestos fibre measurements in the workplace — E. Gonzalez-Fernandez, P.D. de la Osa, et al. (1987)
• Geologic occurrences of erionite in the United States: an emerging national public health concern for respiratory disease — B.S. Van Gosen, T.A. Blitz, et al. (2013)
• From Awareness to Action: The Community of Sarnia Mobilizes to Protect its Workers from Occupational Disease — D. Kramer, K. McMillan, et al. (2015)

Browse more research in Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, or return to medical research.