Re: Comments on Egilman's response to Hessel regarding the health hazards of brake dust and his reflections on corporate behavior

Our plain-English summary of Re: Comments on Egilman's response to Hessel regarding the health hazards of brake dust and his reflections on corporate behavior, by D. Paustenbach (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2019).

The study

• Author: D. Paustenbach
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2019;62(7):616-624
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The author, whose current and former employers had been criticized, responded to a 2017 letter by Dr. Egilman in the same journal about litigation-related research on brake dust. The author disputed many of Egilman's statements. The author said that Kelsh and colleagues had disclosed their litigation ties, and that the author knew of no contract letting automaker lawyers read or change manuscripts. The author also argued that the journal should not have published Egilman's letter. In the author's view and experience, mesothelioma in most vehicle mechanics came from amphibole exposure unrelated to mechanic work, and mechanics' risk from their work was de minimis. The author acknowledged that some scientists disagree. Citing the author's own earlier work and EPA analyses, the author stated that typical exposures of United States mechanics during the era of asbestos in brakes were around 0.04 f/cc as an 8-hour average. The author concluded that Egilman confuses defending unwarranted legal claims with "manufacturing doubt." The author disclosed being retained in more than 500 asbestos-related cases.

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 another letter (opinion and rebuttal, with deposition excerpts); no original research
• Who was studied: Not applicable: no people were studied. The letter discusses vehicle mechanics and brake dust litigation.
• Exposure: Asbestos in brake dust (brake wear debris), in particular chrysotile asbestos in friction materials, as discussed by the author
• Main results:
  • The author disputed Egilman's claim that Kelsh et al failed to disclose that their research was connected to litigation.
  • The author stated that, as group leader at Exponent at the time, the author knew of no contract with the automakers giving lawyers a right to read or change manuscripts.
  • The author argued that the journal's editors should not have published Egilman's letter.
  • In the author's experience and view, mesothelioma in the vast majority of vehicle mechanic cases was due to amphibole exposure unrelated to mechanic work. In the author's view, mechanics' risk of mesothelioma from their work was de minimis. The author acknowledged that some scientists believe brake dust has caused mesothelioma in some mechanics.
  • The author's exposure statements concerned mechanics in the United States during the era of asbestos in brakes. The author stated that their exposure was, under nearly all circumstances, relatively low on an 8-hour time-weighted average basis.
  • For these United States mechanics in the asbestos-brake era, the author stated, citing the author's own prior work and EPA analyses, that typical exposures were around 0.04 f/cc on an 8-hour time-weighted average basis.
  • In response to the claim that future payments depended on favorable research results, the author stated that the author was not asked to work on Ford cases from December 2010 to roughly 2014.
  • Disclosure: the author was employed by Cardno ChemRisk and has been retained in more than 500 asbestos-related cases, including brake wear debris cases. The author stated that no outside financial support was provided for preparing the letter.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that Dr. Egilman confuses the defense of unwarranted legal claims with "manufacturing doubt".

Topics

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

Related studies

• Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law — D. Egilman, T. Bird, et al. (2014)
• MetLife and its corporate allies: dust diseases and the manipulation of science — D.S. Egilman, T. Bird, et al. (2013)
• Asbestos dust exposure during brake repair — K. Rödelsperger, H. Jahn, et al. (1986)
• Assessing specific causation of mesothelioma following exposure to chrysotile asbestos-containing brake dust — M.D. Freeman, S.S. Kohles (2012)
• The Production of Corporate Research to Manufacture Doubt About the Health Hazards of Products: An Overview of the Exponent Bakelite® Simulation Study — D. Egilman (2018)
• Exposure to brake dust and malignant mesothelioma: a study of 10 cases with mineral fiber analyses — K.J. Butnor, T.A. Sporn, et al. (2003)

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