Public Being 'Misled' Over Asbestos Dangers

Our plain-English summary of Public Being 'Misled' Over Asbestos Dangers, by C. Joyce (1990).

The study

• Author: C. Joyce
• Published: New Scientist 126:126, April 14 (1990)
• Type of article: Trade journal article
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library, J-M no. 004456. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This is a short news report in New Scientist, not a research study. The author described a dispute in the United States over a paper in the journal Science. The paper's principal author, Brooke Mossman of the University of Vermont, argued that chrysotile, the most common form of asbestos, is relatively benign and that amphibole is the most dangerous type. William Nicholson, Philip Landrigan and colleagues at Mount Sinai School of Medicine said the paper contained "specious" arguments. Nicholson cited 1976 research reported to show that workers had equal cancer risk whatever form of asbestos they inhaled. Mossman's group had found less asbestos in air samples from schools and public buildings than in outside air. The critics questioned this, noting that 83 per cent of samples in one study showed no fibres. Government estimates cited by Nicholson put the risk from 13 years of exposure at 0.002 fibres per cubic centimetre at four to 12 deaths per 100 000 people. Applied to a school population of 20 million pupils, this estimate implied between 800 and 2400 deaths due to asbestos. These were calculated projections, not counted deaths. New Scientist could not reach Mossman before publication.

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: News report (magazine journalism) on a scientific dispute; not an original study
• Who was studied: No study population. The report concerned asbestos in US public buildings, especially schools, and a debate among scientists and members of Congress (1990).
• Exposure: Asbestos in buildings, with the debate centred on chrysotile versus amphibole fibres
• Main results:
  • Nicholson's Mount Sinai group said the Science paper by Mossman contained "specious" arguments and would mislead the public and the scientific community
  • Nicholson cited 1976 research said to show workers had equal cancer risk regardless of which form of asbestos they inhaled
  • Nicholson said chrysotile fibres eventually dissolve in the lungs but amphibole fibres do not. As a result, autopsies find few chrysotile fibres even though those fibres have already done their damage.
  • Nicholson cited 1988 Mount Sinai research by Edward Johnson and a co-author (name garbled in scan) said to show chrysotile can transfer DNA from one cell to another
  • The Environmental Protection Agency considers all types of asbestos fibres equally carcinogenic
  • Mossman's group found that air samples from schools and public buildings contained less asbestos than outside air
  • Nicholson said the figures were too good to be true: 83 per cent of samples in one study showed no fibres at all
  • Government studies cited by Nicholson estimated a risk for 13 years of exposure (the typical US school period) of four to 12 deaths per 100 000 people exposed to 0.002 fibres per cubic centimetre
  • Applied to a school population of 20 million pupils, this estimated risk translated into a projected 800 to 2400 deaths due to asbestos. This was a calculation, not a count of deaths that had occurred.
• The authors' conclusion: The report drew no conclusion of its own. It reported critics' claims that the public was being misled. Landrigan was quoted as saying the Science article was scientifically inaccurate and could harm public health by giving schools false reassurance.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • New Scientist was unable to reach Mossman for a response before publication

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Amphibole Group.

Browse return to medical research.