Media and science: harmless dioxin, benign CFCs, and good asbestos

Our plain-English summary of Media and science: harmless dioxin, benign CFCs, and good asbestos, by D.P. Rall (Environmental Health Perspectives, 1994).

The study

• Author: D.P. Rall
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 1994;102(1):10
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 6 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Summary of the article

In this editorial, the founder of Environmental Health Perspectives and former director of NIEHS argued that mass media had misled the public about three environmental hazards: dioxin, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and chrysotile asbestos, which he stated makes up 95% of asbestos in place in the United States. On dioxin, he criticized a 15 August 1991 New York Times story reporting that its dangers had been exaggerated. He said the story ignored a January 1991 NIOSH report by Fingerhut et al. that workers exposed for more than 2 years and observed for at least 20 years had a 46% greater cancer death rate than expected, and he cited later confirming studies. On CFCs, he summarized data presented by Sherwood Rowland refuting critics' claims about ozone depletion. On asbestos, he stated that a 19 January 1990 Science report by Mossman and others, most associated with the asbestos industry, argued that chrysotile was less toxic and posed minimal risk at low doses. He said this account ignored human data on chrysotile carcinogenicity, including mesotheliomas among Canadians and among family members of exposed workers. He added that asbestos seldom appears in pure form, that no threshold has been found, and that rebuttal letters received little press coverage. He concluded that professional journals should review their editorial policies and publish balancing views and commentary in the same issue.

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.

In plain English

This one-page editorial in Environmental Health Perspectives reported no new research. It was signed by the journal's founder, a former director of NIEHS. The author argued that mass media had misled the public on three environmental concerns: the toxicity of dioxin, the role of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in destroying the ozone layer, and the cancer-causing potential of chrysotile asbestos. The author described chrysotile as making up 95% of asbestos in place in the United States. On asbestos, the author criticized a 1990 Science report by Mossman and others, which argued that asbestos in public buildings was over-regulated and that chrysotile posed minimal risk at low doses. The author wrote that this account ignored human data on chrysotile's carcinogenic effects, including large numbers of mesotheliomas among Canadians. It also ignored mesothelioma, largely from chrysotile exposure, among family members of workers exposed to low doses. The author stated that a threshold of effect has never been found and that press coverage overlooked letters refuting the article. The author concluded that professional journals should review their editorial policies and publish opposing views in the same issue.

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: Editorial (opinion piece); no original data
• Exposure: Discussed dioxin, CFCs, and asbestos, particularly the chrysotile form of asbestos, described as 95% of asbestos in place in the United States
• Main results:
  • The author argued that a 1990 Science report by Mossman and others claimed chrysotile fibers are less toxic than other forms and pose minimal risk at low doses
  • The author argued that the Mossman account ignored human data on chrysotile's carcinogenic effects, including large numbers of mesotheliomas among Canadians
  • The author argued that the Mossman account also ignored the finding of mesothelioma, largely from chrysotile asbestos exposure, among family members of workers who are exposed to low doses
  • The author stated that asbestos seldom appears in pure form and that a threshold of effect has never been found
  • The author stated that the refutation of the Mossman article in letters to Science received little press coverage
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the first line of defense against bad science and medical reporting is an internal review of professional journals' editorial policies, including balancing controversial views in the same issue

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, NIOSH, Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• High levels of dioxin-like PCBs found in organic-farmed eggs caused by coating materials of asbestos-cement fiber plates: A case study — J. Winkler (2015)
• Gasoline, asbestos, and dioxin — (1994)
• Dioxin and cancer: a critical review — P. Cole, D. Trichopoulos, et al. (2003)
• Mortality risk among workers with exposure to dioxins — J.J. Collins, K.M. Bodner, et al. (2016)
• Change of carcinogenic chrysotile fibers in the asbestos cement (eternit) to harmless waste by artificial carbonatization: petrological and technological results — M. Radvanec, L. Tuček, et al. (2013)
• FIOH-sponsored newsletter misrepresents asbestos hazards in Zimbabwe — J.C. Bailar, S.G. Ballal, et al. (2006)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.