Is there a public health function?

Our plain-English summary of Is there a public health function?, by A. Wolman (Annual Review of Public Health, 1986).

The study

• Author: A. Wolman
• Journal: Annual Review of Public Health
• Published: 1986;7:1-12
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This article is an opinion essay published in the Annual Review of Public Health in 1986. It reports no new research data. The author argued that public health work had drifted toward medical care and toward issues driven by public fear rather than by scientific evidence of priority, and that health departments had largely given up their role in prevention and environmental health. Asbestos was one of several examples, alongside hazardous waste dumps, Love Canal, dioxin and PCB. The author questioned the public health justification for tearing up schools, houses and other buildings to remove asbestos. The essay quoted a US Geological Survey mineralogist, Malcolm Ross, who held that chrysotile posed minimal hazard compared with crocidolite, and noted that other practitioners did not accept that view. The essay stated that wholesale stripping was creating a threat that did not exist before, at a cost estimated probably to exceed 3.0 billion dollars. It also stated that chrysotile occurred above one million fibers per liter in more than 80 of 426 selected US water supplies, and that its significance was unresolved. The author concluded that public health was unlikely to revive without far better public understanding.

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: Opinion essay (commentary); no original study or data
• Exposure: Asbestos in buildings and in drinking water (chrysotile and crocidolite discussed), among other chemical hazards such as hazardous waste sites, dioxin and PCB
• Main results:
  • The author described prevention of in-plant industrial hazards, including asbestos, as an example of public pressure often winning over scientific justification
  • The essay quoted mineralogist Malcolm Ross reporting that some hold chrysotile to pose minimal hazard compared with crocidolite; this is Ross's view, not a finding of this article
  • The author noted that other practitioners rejected Ross's view on chrysotile
  • The author stated that wholesale asbestos stripping was creating a new threat, at an estimated cost probably exceeding 3.0 billion dollars
  • The essay stated that chrysotile occurred above one million fibers per liter in more than 80 of 426 selected US water supplies, with its significance still unresolved
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that no real revival of public health was likely without far better public understanding than existed

Related studies

• Adverse health effects of fluoro-edenitic fibers: epidemiological evidence and public health priorities — C. Bruno, P. Comba, et al. (2006)
• Public health impact of the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest — C.A. Evans (1993)
• The third wave of asbestos disease: exposure to asbestos in place. Public health control. Introduction — P.J. Landrigan (1991)
• The Public Health Value of Opioid Litigation — R.L. Haffajee (2020)
• Asbestos in the air of public buildings: a public health risk? — J. Whysner, V.T. Covello, et al. (1994)
• The art of perpetuating a public health hazard — M. Greenberg (2005)

Browse more research in Annual Review of Public Health, or return to medical research.