Mortality experience of residents in the neighborhood of an asbestos factory

Our plain-English summary of Mortality experience of residents in the neighborhood of an asbestos factory, by E.C. Hammond, L. Garfinkel, I.J. Selikoff, et al (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1979).

The study

• Authors: E.C. Hammond, L. Garfinkel, I.J. Selikoff, W.J. Nicholson
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1979;330:417-22
• Cited by: 20 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 003997).

Summary of the article

The authors asked whether very light, non-occupational exposure to amosite asbestos dust from a factory in Paterson, New Jersey, which operated during 1942-54, caused measurable harm to men living nearby. Dust from the factory was vented outdoors and blew through open windows. No air measurements were made at the time, but settled attic dust collected years later from houses near the factory still contained appreciable amosite fibers, and houses farther away contained fewer. Using annual city directories, the authors identified male residents of Riverside, the area within one half mile of the factory, and of Totowa, a similar Paterson neighborhood several miles away. Factory workers were excluded. Tracing began in 1968. The analysis included 5,550 men aged 35 or older who were alive on January 1, 1962 (1,779 from Riverside and 3,771 from Totowa), followed to December 31, 1976. Age distributions were nearly identical, and age standardization had virtually no effect. In Riverside, 780 men (43.8%) died, compared with 1,735 (46.0%) in Totowa. Cancer deaths were 9.2% versus 9.4%, and lung cancer deaths were 2.3% versus 2.6%. No peritoneal mesothelioma occurred. One pleural mesothelioma death occurred in a Riverside electrician in 1966. The authors called this the only hint of a fatal effect, but noted that its timing, in the first rather than the last five-year period, detracted from that conclusion.

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 study compared deaths among men who had lived near an amosite asbestos factory in Paterson, New Jersey, with deaths among men from another Paterson neighborhood. Using city directories from 1942-54, the authors identified male residents of Riverside, within one half mile of the factory, and of Totowa, several miles away. They excluded men who had worked at the factory. No dust counts were made while the factory operated, but attic dust collected years later from houses near the factory still contained amosite fibers. The analysis covered 5550 men alive on January 1, 1962 (1779 from Riverside, 3771 from Totowa), followed through December 31, 1976. Over those 15 years, 43.8% of Riverside men and 46.0% of Totowa men died. Cancer caused the deaths of 9.2% versus 9.4%, and lung cancer 2.3% versus 2.6%. No one died of peritoneal mesothelioma. One Riverside man, an electrician, died of pleural mesothelioma in 1966. The authors called this the only finding giving "even a hint" that the light exposure might have caused a death. They had no measurements of neighborhood air contamination, and they noted that an extremely small effect would not be measurable.

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: Historical cohort study comparing mortality of male residents of a neighborhood near an asbestos factory with male residents of a comparison neighborhood, traced through city directories, death certificates and field work
• Who was studied: Men listed in Paterson, New Jersey city directories (1942-54) as living in Riverside (within one half mile of the factory) or Totowa (a similar neighborhood several miles away). The original list had 7653 names: 2447 Riverside and 5206 Totowa. Factory (Unarco) workers and insulation union members were excluded. The analysis included 5550 men alive on January 1, 1962 (1779 Riverside, 3771 Totowa), followed to December 31, 1976. Women were not studied.
• Exposure: Nonoccupational neighborhood exposure to amosite asbestos dust released from the factory (operating 1942-54) through exhaust equipment and open windows. Exposure was not measured. Attic dust collected years later contained more amosite fibers in houses near the factory than in houses farther away. The authors described the exposure as extremely light compared with that of the factory workers.
• Main results:
  • From 1962 to 1976, 780 (43.8%) of Riverside men and 1735 (46.0%) of Totowa men died of all causes.
  • Cancer (all sites) caused the deaths of 163 (9.2%) Riverside men and 353 (9.4%) Totowa men.
  • Lung cancer caused the deaths of 41 (2.3%) Riverside men and 98 (2.6%) Totowa men.
  • In the first 5-year period (1962-66), all-cancer and lung cancer mortality were higher in Riverside. In the second and third periods, they were higher in Totowa.
  • Over the 15 years, both lung cancer and colon-rectal cancer mortality were a little higher in Totowa than in Riverside (colon-rectum: 24 deaths, 1.35%, Riverside; 74 deaths, 1.96%, Totowa).
  • There were no deaths from peritoneal mesothelioma. There was one death from pleural mesothelioma, a Riverside man (an electrician) who died in 1966.
  • Because the two groups had very similar age distributions, age-standardization had virtually no effect on the comparisons.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors stated that total, cancer and lung cancer mortality were slightly worse in Totowa than in Riverside. They called the single pleural mesothelioma death in Riverside the only finding giving even a hint that the slight asbestos exposure might have caused a death. They added that its occurrence in the first rather than the last 5-year period detracts from that conclusion, while calling this point speculation.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • No dust counts were made, so there were no quantitative data on how contaminated the neighborhood air was.
  • An extremely small effect could not be measured, and a complete absence of effect could not be established.
  • Only males were studied, because women could probably not be traced over time due to name changes from marriage or divorce.
  • Deaths from most individual cancer sites other than lung and colon-rectum were too few for meaningful comparison.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Non-Occupational Exposure, Amosite, Lung Cancer, Peritoneal Mesothelioma, Pleural Mesothelioma.

Related studies

• Mortality experience of family contacts of asbestos factory workers — L. Joubert, H. Seidman, et al. (1991)
• Mortality experience of amosite asbestos factory workers: dose-response relationships 5 to 40 years after onset of short-term work exposure — H. Seidman, I.J. Selikoff, et al. (1986)
• Increased risk of lung cancer mortality among residents near an asbestos product manufacturing plant — S. Kumagai, N. Kurumatani, et al. (2010)
• Mortality experience of insulation workers in the United States and Canada, 1943--1976 — I.J. Selikoff, E.C. Hammond, et al. (1979)
• Long-term mortality experience of chrysotile miners and millers in Thetford Mines, Quebec — W.J. Nicholson, I.J. Selikoff, et al. (1979)
• Select mortality and cancer incidence among residents in various U.S. communities that received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from Libby, Montana — D.K. Horton, F. Bove, et al. (2008)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.