Letter to the Editor regarding Bullock 2020

Our plain-English summary of Letter to the Editor regarding Bullock 2020, by D. Egilman, B. Castleman, T. Bird (Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2020).

The study

• Authors: D. Egilman, B. Castleman, T. Bird
• Journal: Critical Reviews in Toxicology
• Published: 2020;50(10):953-954
• 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. The authors responded to a 2020 commentary by William Bullock on US knowledge of asbestos disease. They argued that Bullock gave an inaccurate description of what the physicians Alice Hamilton and Carey McCord knew about asbestos hazards, and that Bullock mischaracterized the authors' own work. The letter said McCord's 1932 book Silicosis in the Foundry referred to asbestosis, and a 1935 McCord chapter called silica or asbestos dust "a menace to health and life." It said the 1949 second edition of Hamilton's Industrial Toxicology reported a fairly high lung cancer incidence among asbestos workers. In 1933-34, it added, Hamilton wrote to General Electric's president recommending better dust control and chest X-rays of the longest-exposed workers. They cited a 1935 Pennsylvania state report listing 45 UK references and over 30 more from other countries. They also pointed to 10 JAMA editorials, articles and letters on asbestosis and/or asbestosis and lung cancer, published 1927 to 1949. They stated their own position: companies and others strategically kept certain information from workers and the public. The authors concluded Bullock's commentary gave an incomplete portrayal.

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 responding to a published commentary; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter discusses a 2020 commentary by William Bullock and historical US publications and correspondence on asbestos hazards from about 1912 to 1953.
• Exposure: Asbestos dust and asbestos hazards in general; no fiber types are named. One example is asbestos dust in the insulating department of General Electric's York, PA plant.
• Main results:
  • The letter states that McCord's own publications did mention asbestos as a hazard. The 1932 book Silicosis in the Foundry referenced asbestosis, and a 1935 chapter said silica or asbestos dust is a menace to health and life.
  • The letter states that the second edition of Hamilton's Industrial Toxicology (Hamilton and Hardy 1949) included a section on lung cancer with silicosis and asbestosis. Relying largely on French and German references, Hamilton concluded that the incidence of lung cancer among asbestos workers was fairly high.
  • According to the letter, Hamilton wrote letters to General Electric President Gerard Swope in 1933-34. In them Hamilton recommended improving dust control and taking chest X-rays of the longest-exposed workers.
  • The letter states that Pennsylvania state officials published a report titled "Asbestosis" in 1935. It cited 45 references from the UK and over 30 more from Germany, France, Italy, and Canada.
  • Citing Castleman 2005, the letter states that JAMA published 10 editorials, articles and letters on asbestosis and/or asbestosis and lung cancer between 1927 and 1949. It adds that in the 1920s JAMA reached 80 percent of US physicians.
  • The authors state that their position is not that the information was widely known in the 1930s. They say instead that asbestos mining and manufacturing companies, insurance companies and others strategically kept certain information from workers and out of the public sphere.
  • The letter states that the 2017 Barlow et al. review cited only three corporate documents in its 30-page paper, and that Bullock's commentary cited none.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Bullock's commentary gave an incomplete portrayal. In their view, it did not justify a title implying an exhaustive review of what was known about asbestos hazards, by whom, and when.

Related studies

• Response to Letter to the Editor from Egilman, Castleman and Bird (2020) concerning Bullock (2020), Perspectives on the knowledge of asbestos disease in the United States - what was known, by whom and when — W.H. Bullock (2020)
• 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)
• Author's response to: "Letter to the Editor" regarding content of "Mesothelioma from asbestos exposures: Epidemiologic patterns and impact in the United States" by R. A. Lemen, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 2016; 19: 250-265 — (2017)
• Letter to the Editor regarding the Donovan et al. (2011) article — D. Egilman, J.H. Schilling (2012)
• 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)
• Letter to Editor regarding Franzblau et al. 2020: Asbestos-containing materials in abandoned residential dwellings in Detroit, Science of Total Environment, v714,1-8 — A.L. Frank (2020)

Browse more research in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, or return to medical research.