No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Inconsistencies and delays in asbestos evaluations

Our plain-English summary of Inconsistencies and delays in asbestos evaluations, by J. Ribak (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1994).

You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a review

The study

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reported no new data. The author commented on a 1991 paper by Phillip E. Enterline that analyzed how opinions about asbestos and cancer changed in the scientific literature between 1934 and 1965. The author argued that early warnings of lung cancer and mesothelioma, reported since the 1920s, were ignored, which delayed diagnosis, treatment, and compensation. The author added that case reports can signal a problem that should be investigated. The author also discussed latency and competing risk, meaning that many workers exposed to very high doses died first of asbestosis. Looking at the tables in Enterline's paper, the author noted that papers by Lynch, Heuper and Bohlig were classified inconsistently across years. Lynch's work, for example, was listed in some years as indicating a possible lung cancer link only where asbestosis existed, and in other years as unproven. The author said these inconsistencies raise moral questions. The author hoped the lessons would be applied to asbestos replacement materials such as man-made mineral fibers, which early reports suggested might prove dangerous.

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 commenting on a published literature analysis (Enterline 1991); no original data
  • Who was studied: No study population. The letter discusses Enterline's 1991 analysis of the scientific literature on asbestos and cancer from 1934 to 1965.
  • Exposure: Asbestos in general (no fiber types named), in relation to lung cancer and mesothelioma. Man-made mineral fibers are mentioned as asbestos replacement materials.
  • Main results:
    • The author argued that early warnings of lung cancer and mesothelioma reported since the 1920s were ignored, delaying diagnosis, treatment, and compensation.
    • The author noted that Enterline's review showed competing risk: many workers exposed to very high doses of asbestos died first of asbestosis.
    • In the author's reading of Enterline's tables, Lynch's work was listed in some years as indicating a possible link between lung cancer and asbestos only where asbestosis existed, and in other years (1939, 1957) as unproven.
    • The author said papers by Heuper showed the same inconsistent tendency in how they were listed.
    • The author said the same held for Bohlig's papers from 1956, 1958, and 1959.
  • The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the classification inconsistencies raise moral questions. The author hoped the lessons of asbestos would be applied to replacement materials such as man-made mineral fibers, which might prove dangerous.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer.

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.

Cited on this site

How to cite it

Cite the study

J. Ribak. Inconsistencies and delays in asbestos evaluations. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 1994;25(3):455-6. doi:10.1002/ajim.4700250313. PMID: 8160663.

Cite our summary

“Inconsistencies and delays in asbestos evaluations.” AsbestosClaims.Law Library. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/research/inconsistencies-and-delays-in-asbestos-evaluations.

ACL Doc numbers and their short links never change. See how to cite the Library.

Talk with an asbestos lawyer

Start with what you remember, and we'll take it from there.

This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.