Letter to Editor regarding Franzblau et al. 2020: Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, Science of Total Environment, v714,1-8

Our plain-English summary of Letter to Editor regarding Franzblau et al. 2020: Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, Science of Total Environment, v714,1-8, by A.L. Frank (The Science of the Total Environment, 2020).

The study

• Author: A.L. Frank
• Journal: The Science of the Total Environment
• Published: 2020;739:139129
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study. A Drexel University author responded to Franzblau and colleagues' 2020 paper on asbestos-containing materials in abandoned Detroit homes. The letter objected to its conclusion that asbestos removal might not be needed before demolishing derelict housing. The author stated no safe asbestos exposure level is known. The author wrote that chrysotile's lesser potency versus amphiboles is not universally accepted, citing animal evidence of risk as great as amphiboles. It also cited chrysotile-only exposed Balangero miners in Italy as showing excess lung cancers, mesotheliomas and other cancers. The author criticized the paper for relying on firms paid to do defense-related analyses and offering no Detroit demolition air measurements. Citing Brown (1987), the author wrote that 0.3 to 0.6 f/cc can occur during demolition even with water, which not all Detroit demolitions use. Given that removal is 20% of total cost, the author concluded that risking demolition workers and the public by not removing all asbestos did not seem warranted. The author declared medical-legal asbestos work, mainly for plaintiffs, with all funds paid to the university.

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 another paper (Franzblau et al. 2020); no original data
• Who was studied: No population was studied. The letter concerns the Franzblau et al. 2020 paper on asbestos removal before demolition of derelict housing units in Detroit.
• Exposure: Asbestos released during demolition of derelict housing. The letter discusses chrysotile compared with amphiboles.
• Main results:
  • The author stated that US governmental agencies and IARC note there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure above zero.
  • The author wrote that the presumed lesser potency of chrysotile compared with amphiboles is not universally accepted. The author cited animal evidence (Wagner et al., 1974) of chrysotile risk as great as amphiboles. This is the cited study's finding, not this letter's.
  • The author cited Pira et al. (2009), a study of chrysotile-only exposed Balangero miners in Italy, as evidence of excess lung cancers, mesotheliomas and other cancers. This is the cited study's finding, not this letter's, and it was not cited as a comparison with amphiboles.
  • The author criticized the Franzblau paper because much of its supporting evidence came from firms paid to do defense-related analyses.
  • The author cited Brown (1987) as reporting levels of 0.3 to 0.6 f/cc during building demolition even when water was used. This is the cited study's finding, not this letter's.
  • The author criticized the Franzblau paper for offering no actual air measurements taken during demolition in Detroit.
  • The author described asbestos removal before demolition as a relatively small share of total cost, at 20%.
  • Competing interest declared by the author: medical-legal asbestos work, primarily for plaintiffs, with all funds paid to the author's university.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that, given the relatively small 20% cost of removal, the risk to demolition workers and the general public of not removing all asbestos made the paper's recommendation seem unwarranted.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM).

Related studies

• Response to Letter to the Editor regarding Franzblau et al., Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, from Prof. Arthur Frank, MD, PhD — A. Franzblau, A.H. Demond, et al. (2020)
• Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit — A. Franzblau, A.H. Demond, et al. (2020)
• Measurement of asbestos emissions associated with demolition of abandoned residential dwellings — R.L. Neitzel, S.K. Sayler, et al. (2020)
• Risk assessment of asbestos containing materials in a deteriorated dwelling area using four different methods — Y.L. Zhang, H.S. Byeon, et al. (2021)
• Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding "Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long-Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence Between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012)" by Finkelstein — K.A. Keeton, M.E. Glynn, et al. (2018)
• Response to a letter to the editor by Dr. Murray M. Finkelstein regarding the article by Finley et al. (2012) — B.L. Finley, J.S. Pierce, et al. (2013)

Browse more research in The Science of the Total Environment, or return to medical research.