Response to Murray M. Finkelstein, letter to the editor re Bernstein et al: Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(2): 154-183

Our plain-English summary of Response to Murray M. Finkelstein, letter to the editor re Bernstein et al: Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(2): 154-183, by D. Bernstein, J. Dunnigan, T. Hesterberg, et al (Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2013).

The study

• Authors: D. Bernstein, J. Dunnigan, T. Hesterberg, R. Brown, J.A. Legaspi Velasco, R. Barrerao, J. Hoskins, A. Gibbs
• Journal: Critical Reviews in Toxicology
• Published: 2013;43(8):709-10
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This article was a letter to the editor, not a study, and reported no new data. The authors had written a 2013 review titled "Health risk of chrysotile revisited." Here they replied to a letter by Murray M. Finkelstein, which said the review ignored human lung burden studies that contradicted its conclusions about the short biopersistence of chrysotile. The authors argued that the studies Finkelstein cited involved mixed exposure to amphibole asbestos and chrysotile, with exposures dating from the first half of the 20th century. Citing toxicology studies from their review, they argued that amphibole fibers could trap chrysotile in an inflammatory matrix so that it cleared slowly. They also argued that the lung digestion method used in those studies could not show where in the lung fibers were located. They cited other fiber burden studies that, in their account, linked mesothelioma risk to amphibole rather than chrysotile fiber levels. The authors stated that the data Finkelstein cited did not contradict their review. They disclosed that the original review was funded by the International Chrysotile Association with The Canadian Chrysotile Association. They also disclosed that three of the authors had served as expert witnesses on the health effects of chrysotile.

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 (reply to another letter); no original data
• Who was studied: no people were studied; the letter responded to Murray M. Finkelstein's letter criticizing the authors' 2013 review
• Exposure: chrysotile and amphibole asbestos, as discussed in the lung burden studies the authors argued about
• Main results:
  • The authors described Finkelstein's criticism: that their review ignored human lung burden studies that contradicted its conclusions on chrysotile's short biopersistence
  • The authors argued that the studies Finkelstein cited appeared to support their review's concepts
  • The authors noted that the exposures in those studies dated from the first half of the 20th century
  • The authors argued that in people exposed to both amphibole and chrysotile, chrysotile would be trapped in an inflammatory matrix created by amphibole fibers and would clear slowly
  • The authors argued that the lung digestion method used in the cited studies could not show where fibers were located in the lung
  • The authors cited other fiber burden studies that, in their account, showed mesothelioma risk correlated with amphibole and not chrysotile fiber levels
  • Declaration of interest: the original review was funded by the International Chrysotile Association, in cooperation with The Canadian Chrysotile Association
  • Declaration of interest: authors David Bernstein and Allen Gibbs had appeared as expert witnesses in chrysotile litigation
  • Declaration of interest: author Jacques Dunnigan had served as an expert witness on the health effects of chrysotile before the Quebec workers' compensation board
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the data cited by Finkelstein did not contradict the concepts in their review

Topics

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

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

Related studies

• Letter to the Editor re Bernstein et al: Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(2): 154-183 — M.M. Finkelstein (2013)
• Response to a letter to the editor by Dr. Murray M. Finkelstein regarding the article by Finley et al. (2012) — B.L. Finley, J.S. Pierce, et al. (2013)
• Health risk of chrysotile revisited — D. Bernstein, J. Dunnigan, et al. (2013)
• Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding "Ambient Asbestos Fiber Concentrations and Long-Term Trends in Pleural Mesothelioma Incidence Between Urban and Rural Areas in the United States (1973-2012)" by Finkelstein — K.A. Keeton, M.E. Glynn, et al. (2018)
• Authors' response to Finkelstein's letter to the editor regarding our recent review of ambient airborne asbestos concentrations (Abelmann et al., 2015) — A. Abelmann, M.E. Glynn, et al. (2016)
• Editor's preface to the report of the workshop on health risks associated with chrysotile asbestos — J.M. Ellison (1994)

Browse more research in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, or return to medical research.