Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos

Our plain-English summary of Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos, by W.J. Nicholson (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2000).

The study

• Author: W.J. Nicholson
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2000;37(2):238
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor by William J. Nicholson. It replied to J. Corbett McDonald, who challenged a proposed asbestos ban, asserting that crocidolite and amosite were disproportionately responsible for the substantial asbestos-related mortality in industrialized countries. It reported no new research, relying on earlier studies and government assessments. The author wrote that chrysotile caused more cancer deaths worldwide than amosite or crocidolite, largely through greater use. The author stated that the three fiber types had similar per-fiber lung cancer potency in asbestos-using industries, with substantially lower risk in chrysotile mining and milling. Citing an Environmental Protection Agency analysis of 38 studies, the author stated crocidolite's mesothelioma potency was 2 to 4 times that of amosite or chrysotile. Citing a Department of Labor analysis of chrysotile and amosite mortality, the author gave a lifetime risk of 3.3 deaths per 1000 exposed to 0.1 fibers/mL for 45 working years from age 25. The author stated that 2 fibers/mL for 45 working years carries a cancer mortality risk of 6.4 per 100 workers. The author concluded that a worldwide ban was justified.

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 (commentary citing earlier studies and government assessments; no new data)
• Exposure: chrysotile asbestos, compared with the amphiboles amosite and crocidolite
• Main results:
  • The author stated that chrysotile had caused more cancer deaths worldwide than amosite or crocidolite, largely because of its greater use. This was the author's statement, not a new finding.
  • Citing earlier work, the author stated that chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite had similar lung cancer potencies per fiber in asbestos-using industries, but that a substantially lower risk is seen in chrysotile mining and milling.
  • Citing a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986) analysis of mesothelioma-to-lung-cancer ratios across 38 studies, the author stated that crocidolite had a mesothelioma potency 2 to 4 times that of amosite or chrysotile, which had similar potencies to each other.
  • Citing a U.S. Department of Labor analysis of chrysotile and amosite mortality, the author gave a lifetime risk of 3.3 deaths per 1000 workers exposed for 45 working years to 0.1 fibers/mL, beginning at age 25.
  • The author stated that exposure to 2 fibers/mL for 45 working years carries a cancer mortality risk of 6.4 per 100 workers. The author noted that standards in major developing countries are often 2 fibers/mL or higher.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the proposed ban was justified, that substitute man-made fibers without chrysotile's carcinogenicity are available, and that without exposure control in countries now using asbestos, the only recourse is international action to ban asbestos worldwide.

Related studies

• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why not ban asbestos? — J.C. McDonald (2000)
• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos — C. Maltoni (2000)
• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Trust me, I'm a doctor — M. Greenberg (2000)
• Re: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why not ban asbestos? — B. Castleman (2000)
• RE: Call for an International Ban on Asbestos: Why asbestos should be banned — R.A. Lemen (2000)
• South African asbestos: production, exports, and destinations, 1959-1993 — J.S. Harington, N.D. McGlashan (1998)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.