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

CMAJ

Our medical research library holds 31 studies published in CMAJ (1986–2015). Each entry links to the study's record on PubMed and, where there is one, to the publisher's page and a free full text. 2 have an abstract, the authors' own summary as PubMed records it: open "Abstract" to read it. For 6 studies PubMed has no abstract for, we give the abstract printed in the article or, where there is none, a summary we wrote from it, each labeled as such.

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

About the journal

2010s

2000s

  • Asbestos panel chair mystified by secrecy surrounding report. R. Collier. 2009;180(11):1100-1. News PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  • Asbestos mortality: a Canadian export. A. Attaran, D.R. Boyd, M.B. Stanbrook. 2008;179(9):871-4. In English, French. Editorial PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

    Summary

    This editorial, written ahead of the 4th Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention in Rome, criticized the Government of Canada's position on the international trade in chrysotile asbestos. The authors stated that Canada was the only Western democracy to have consistently opposed international efforts to regulate the global asbestos trade. It had led opposition to listing chrysotile under the convention, which requires exporting governments to notify importing governments before shipping a dangerous substance so that they can give informed consent. Citing the convention's review committee and the World Health Organization (WHO), the authors described chrysotile as a human carcinogen. They argued that a claim that chrysotile is safer than amphibole asbestos does not mean it is safe. They noted that occupational exposure to chrysotile with trace amphibole contamination (0.002%–0.310%) is sufficient for amphibole to accumulate in the lungs over a lifetime, and that Canada did not regularly monitor exported asbestos for such contamination. They reported that Canada was the world's second largest asbestos exporter and that 96% of Canadian asbestos was exported, mainly to developing countries such as India, Indonesia and Thailand. They also reported that Ottawa had given more than $19 million to the Chrysotile Institute, and that a Health Canada expert committee report on chrysotile had remained unpublished for over half a year. The authors concluded that Canada should drop its opposition to listing chrysotile, stop funding the Chrysotile Institute, and end the mining and export of chrysotile, as WHO recommends.

    PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

  • Asbestos panelists accuse government of misusing science. L. Eggertson. 2008;179(9):886-7. News PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  • Canadian cancer statistics at a glance: mesothelioma. L.D. Marrett, L.F. Ellison, D. Dryer. 2008;178(6):677-8. PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

    Summary

    This short statistics feature, part of the Canadian Cancer Statistics at a Glance series, summarized the burden of mesothelioma in Canada and its link with asbestos. Using data from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (1984–1991) and the Canadian Cancer Registry (1992–2003), the authors reported that the number of Canadian men diagnosed with mesothelioma each year rose steadily from 153 in 1984 to 344 in 2003. Over the same period the annual incidence rate rose from 1.4 to 2.1 per 100 000. They noted that these numbers were likely underestimated because of diagnostic, coding and registration challenges. In 2003, 78 women were diagnosed, 18% of all new cases. The authors stated that more than 80% of men with mesothelioma were likely exposed to asbestos at work, and that current cases largely reflected exposure in the 1950s to 1970s. Because construction workers could still be exposed during maintenance, renovation and demolition, it was unclear when cases would begin to decline. They also noted about 2 asbestos-related lung cancers for every mesothelioma, and that Canada continued to export asbestos. Only about one-third of people diagnosed with mesothelioma received workers' compensation, probably because most did not file a claim. The authors recommended that physicians take a workplace-exposure history from all patients with mesothelioma or lung cancer, encourage exposed patients to investigate compensation, and counsel exposed workers to stop smoking.

    PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

  • Health advocates assail Canada's asbestos stance. R. Collier. 2008;179(12):1257. News PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

  • A ban on asbestos must be based on a comparative risk assessment. M. Camus. 2001;164(4):491-4. Comment · Review PubMed · Free full text

    Summary

    This commentary responded to a call by the Collegium Ramazzini for an immediate and total ban on asbestos products. The author, of Health Canada, argued that the Collegium exaggerated the risks of chrysotile by relying on a single cohort of chrysotile textile workers that may be an unrepresentative outlier. He also argued that the Collegium's statements on controlled use and substitutes were supported neither by evidence nor by references. Citing risk assessments covering 47 cohorts of asbestos workers, he reported that, for an equal number of expected cases, excess lung cancers occurred 3 times, pleural mesothelioma 12 times and peritoneal mesotheliomas 30 times more frequently in mainly amphibole than in chrysotile industries. He also reported that chrysotile workers were 4–24 times less at risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer than amphibole workers at equal exposure. He estimated that lifetime risks of asbestos-related death in today's chrysotile-exposed workers, whose controlled exposures were about 1000 times lower than in the past, should be less than 1–5 per 100 000 lives. He reviewed evidence that substitutes, including glass and ceramic fibres, rock and slag wools, p-aramid and cellulose, may also carry health risks, and raised concerns about substitute performance in pipes and brakes. He stated that a ban would not address the main cause of the mesothelioma epidemic, which he identified as existing friable amphibole-containing products in buildings. He concluded that any ban should follow a comparative risk assessment applying the precautionary principle equally to chrysotile and its substitutes.

    PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

  • A ban on asbestos: is now the time?. 2001;164(4):453, 455. In English, French. Comment · Editorial PubMed · Free full text

  • A call for an international ban on asbestos. J. LaDou, P. Landrigan, J.C. Bailar, et al. 2001;164(4):489-90. PubMed · Free full text

    Summary

    In this commentary, written on behalf of the Collegium Ramazzini, the authors called for an immediate international ban on all mining and use of asbestos. They summarized published evidence rather than reporting new research. They stated that asbestos had caused over 200 000 deaths in the United States, that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, cause asbestosis, lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma, and that amphibole-free Canadian chrysotile is still associated with mesothelioma. Citing Peto and colleagues, they reported predictions that mesothelioma deaths among men in Western Europe would rise from just over 5000 in 1998 to about 9000 by 2018. They argued that controlled use is not a realistic alternative. Even the strictest occupational exposure limit for chrysotile (0.1 fibre per millilitre of air) was estimated to carry lifetime risks of 5 per 1000 for lung cancer and 2 per 1000 for asbestosis, and exposures in newly industrializing countries are often much higher. They cited a 7-fold increase in the rate of death from pleural cancer among women living in Canadian asbestos mining areas. They described the industry shifting sales to developing countries such as Brazil, where use averaged more than 1 kg per citizen per year, compared with less than 100 g in the United States. They concluded that a worldwide ban was long overdue and absolutely necessary.

    PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

  • Should Canadian health care professionals support the call for a worldwide ban on asbestos?. J. Siemiatycki. 2001;164(4):495-7. Comment · Review PubMed · Free full text

    Summary

    In this commentary, the author responded to the Collegium Ramazzini's call, published in the same CMAJ issue, for an international ban on asbestos. He described two schools of thought. One held that all asbestos types are highly carcinogenic, that no exposure level is safe and that asbestos should be banned outright. The other saw differences in risk by fibre type and exposure, and questioned both the relevance of historic cohort risks to current conditions and the safety of substitutes. He noted allegations of self-interest on both sides and Canada's role as a major producer of chrysotile, mined mainly in Quebec. He listed points of broad consensus, such as that most, if not all, types of asbestos can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. He also listed controversial questions, such as whether chrysotile is less carcinogenic and whether substitutes are safer. He argued that a worldwide ban raised an ethical issue by denying developing countries, now the main market, the choice to import asbestos, and cited DDT and malaria as a cautionary example. He concluded that the call was well-motivated and defensible, but that he was neither confident enough to support it nor convinced it was wrong. He proposed that it be considered by an international panel that excluded people with significant asbestos research experience or interests.

    PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

  • The debate on banning asbestos. D.C. Muir. 2001;165(9):1189; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

    In plain English

    This item is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reported no data. The writer, David C.F. Muir, an internist at Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation in Hamilton, Ontario, was responding to a set of CMAJ editorials about calls for a ban on asbestos. He said that a few years earlier he had written to the Canadian and Quebec governments. He had suggested that asbestos be exported only to countries that could ensure it was handled with the same precautions required by law in Canada, with some form of supervision by independent experts. He said the proposal did not receive support. He was told it was not practical, that it interfered with foreign countries, and that other exporters would fill the gap. He wrote that, without assurances about how asbestos is handled in receiving countries, there is a clear moral choice to make. He added that the same issues should concern those who profit from exporting pesticides. The same page also printed separate letters by other writers, which are not covered here.

    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.

  • The debate on banning asbestos. T.L. Guidotti. 2001;165(9):1189-90; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • The debate on banning asbestos. D. Ahmad, W.K. Morgan. 2001;165(9):1190; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • The debate on banning asbestos. R. Wilson, R.P. Nolan, S.G. Domnin. 2001;165(9):1190-1; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • The debate on banning asbestos. D. Janigan. 2001;165(9):1190; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • The debate on banning asbestos. D.V. Bates. 2001;165(9):1191; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • The debate on banning asbestos. L. Kazan-Allen. 2001;165(9):1189; author reply 1191-3. Comment · Letter PubMed · Free full text

1990s

1980s

  • Mortality rates among employees potentially exposed to chrysotile asbestos at two automotive parts factories. M.M. Finkelstein. 1989;141(2):125-30. PubMed · Free full text

    Abstract

    A study of the mortality rates among 1657 employees at two Ontario automotive parts factories that manufactured friction materials containing chrysotile asbestos was initiated in response to the workers' concerns about the effects of asbestos on their health. A total of 1194 men and 258 women had had their first potential exposure at least 10 years before the end of the study period; 563 of the men and 138 of the women had had such an exposure at least 20 years before the end of the study period. A significantly increased rate of death from laryngeal cancer and an elevated rate of death from lung cancer were observed in a cohort analysis. One or two deaths might have been due to pleural mesothelioma. There was no increase in the rate of death from gastrointestinal cancer or from nonmalignant respiratory disease. Case-control analysis showed no association between the risk of laryngeal or lung cancer and the total duration of employment (a surrogate for the extent of ambient exposure to asbestos or other workplace toxic substances) or employment in departments where asbestos had been used. An association between risk of death and occupational exposure is uncertain.

  • Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?. D.V. Bates. 1988;138(5):400-1. Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?. D.V. Bates. 1987;136(2):107-9. PubMed · Free full text

    Summary

    In this editorial, based on an address to a health and safety seminar in Sudbury, Ontario, in June 1986, the author asked whether Canada should promote or prohibit the use and export of asbestos. He outlined the history of asbestos production and of medical evidence on asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. He listed inquiries and actions, including the Beaudry Commission in Quebec, the Swedish import ban, the 1982 Manville Corporation bankruptcy and the 1986 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to phase out asbestos over 10 years. He cited an estimate of 82 lifetime excess cancers per 10 000 workers exposed for 40 years to 0.5 fibres/mL. He reported that the Canadian government had funded the Asbestos Institute of Canada to contest the EPA proposal. He disputed a Canadian expert's claim that 99% of lung cancers were related to smoking, citing Saracci's analysis that 91% of excess lung cancers in asbestos workers would be eliminated if they did not smoke, and 82% if smokers were not exposed to asbestos. He set out arguments for promotion and for prohibition. He concluded that if the government promoted asbestos, it should set up an independent commission to ensure safe export, proper labelling, purchaser acknowledgement of risks and health surveillance. He added that the government should fund research and surveillance equally with industry promotion, and that health care organizations should act together to ensure these steps were taken.

    PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

  • Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?. C.E. Forget. 1987;137(10):874. Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • Asbestos: promotion or prohibition?. W.K. Morgan. 1987;136(6):569. Letter PubMed · Free full text

  • US surgeon general ignites furor with findings on smoking in the workplace. M. Korcok. 1986;134(7):801-6. PubMed · Free full text

Browse every journal in the library or the library by type of article, or return to medical research.

Cite this page

“CMAJ.” AsbestosClaims.Law Library. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/research/journals/cmaj.

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.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a free case review

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.