Setting the record straight

Our plain-English summary of Setting the record straight, by K. Crump (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2006).

The study

• Author: K. Crump
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2006;12(2):180-1; author reply 182-6
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study. The author disputed statements about the author's own work, and that of coworker Dr. Wayne Berman, made in an earlier article in the journal by Bohme et al. The author said that 1984 OSHA testimony for the Asbestos Information Association supplied risk estimates, not opposition to proposed regulations. Under a 0.5-f/mL standard, the author put the OSHA model's risk at 5/1,000 for all types of asbestos. The author's own estimates, for chrysotile exposure only, were 2.5/1000 in smokers and 0.3/1,000 to 0.5/1,000 in nonsmokers. The author said the EPA report did not conclude that chrysotile probably does not increase mesothelioma risk. Instead, based on 20 studies, it suggested two potencies for chrysotile, both positive, and rejected the idea that chrysotile and amphibole are equally potent (p = 0.0001). The author also defended the McDonald Quebec study and cited an EPA peer panel. In a published reply, Egilman and Bohme welcomed that clarification but disputed other claims, putting OSHA's 1983 figure at 17/1,000 at 0.5 f/cc.

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 a published article (not a research study), followed in the same pages by other letters and an authors' reply
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter concerns the author's 1984 OSHA testimony and a risk-assessment report prepared for the EPA by Berman and the author.
• Exposure: Asbestos, with separate mesothelioma potencies assigned to chrysotile and amphibole
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the risk under the OSHA model for exposure under a 0.5-f/mL standard was 5/1,000 for all types of asbestos.
  • The author's 1984 estimates, for chrysotile exposure only, were 2.5/1000 in smokers and 0.3/1,000 to 0.5/1,000 in nonsmokers.
  • The author stated that the EPA report proposed two different potencies for chrysotile in causing mesothelioma, both positive.
  • The report quoted in the letter said the data were consistent with the hypothesis that all of the mesotheliomas in cohorts exposed primarily to chrysotile are due to small amounts of amphibole contamination.
  • The report quoted in the letter said the hypothesis that chrysotile and amphibole are equally potent in causing mesothelioma was rejected, p = 0.0001.
  • The author disagreed that the McDonald Quebec study is discredited.
  • The author quoted an EPA peer consultation panel as agreeing that amphibole potency is two orders of magnitude greater than chrysotile potency.
  • In the reply, Egilman and Bohme welcomed the author's clarification that both proposed chrysotile potencies were positive.
  • In the reply, Egilman and Bohme stated that the OSHA figure was 17/1,000 at 0.5 f/cc, not 5/1,000.
  • In the reply, Egilman and Bohme stated that the panel endorsed only the general approach, not Berman and Crump's specific application of it.
• The authors' conclusion: The author suggested that studies be judged on their scientific merit as far as possible, rather than on their funding source.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author acknowledged that all 20 studies used in the analysis had limitations of various sorts.

Topics

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

Related studies

• Electricians' chrysotile asbestos exposure from electrical products and risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer — J.E. Goodman, M.K. Peterson, et al. (2014)
• Setting new standards for epidemiological research on mesothelioma — P. Boffetta, C. La Vecchia (2016)
• A meta-analysis of asbestos-related cancer risk that addresses fiber size and mineral type — D.W. Berman, K.S. Crump (2008)
• A meta-analysis of asbestos and lung cancer: is better quality exposure assessment associated with steeper slopes of the exposure-response relationships? — V. Lenters, R. Vermeulen, et al. (2011)
• Evaluation of tremolite asbestos exposures associated with the use of commercial products — B.L. Finley, J.S. Pierce, et al. (2012)
• A case control study of lung cancer and exposure to chrysotile and amphibole at a slovenian asbestos-cement plant — M. Dodic Fikfak, D. Kriebel, et al. (2007)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.