The asbestos removal fiasco

Our plain-English summary of The asbestos removal fiasco, by P.H. Abelson (Science, 1990).

The study

• Author: P.H. Abelson
• Journal: Science
• Published: 1990;247(4946):1017
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 15 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 003639).

Summary of the article

In this signed editorial, the author argued against large-scale removal of asbestos from buildings in the United States, which he said could cost $50 to $150 billion. He stated that airborne asbestos levels in buildings containing asbestos are harmlessly small and essentially the same as outdoor levels, that undamaged asbestos does not shed fibers, and that removal releases fibers that could cause more cancer in workers than leaving the asbestos in place would cause in occupants. He criticized federal regulations for grouping chrysotile, which makes up about 95 percent of asbestos in place in the United States, with the amphibole crocidolite, and he described differences between the two minerals in composition, shape, solubility and persistence in tissue. He cited four epidemiological studies of Quebec chrysotile mining localities that, he wrote, showed no statistically significant excess disease in women with lifelong exposure to mine dust. He also criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for promoting the unproven view that a single fiber can cause cancer, for being slow to measure indoor and outdoor fiber levels, and for recommending bulk sampling and visual inspection in schools rather than air measurement. He noted the EPA's own estimate that half of removal projects are done improperly. He concluded that regulations should account for the differing hazards of the asbestiform minerals and that indoor air standards should be based on actual fiber measurements.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This one-page editorial by Philip H. Abelson in Science (March 1990) was an opinion piece, not a research study, and reported no new data. The author argued that removing asbestos from buildings, which could cost $50 to $150 billion, was a mistake. Citing a paper by Mossman and colleagues, the author stated that asbestos fiber levels in the air of buildings containing asbestos were essentially the same as outdoors. The author also stated that removal releases fibers that could cause more cancer in removal workers than leaving the material in place would have caused in occupants. The author criticized federal rules for grouping chrysotile, a serpentine mineral said to make up about 95 percent of asbestos in place in the United States, with the amphibole crocidolite. The author cited four earlier Quebec studies on women living near chrysotile mines, called the EPA's single-fiber view unproven, and noted an EPA estimate that half of removal projects were done improperly. The author concluded that regulations should reflect the differing hazards of these minerals.

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: Editorial (opinion piece); no original research or data
• Who was studied: No population was studied. The editorial discusses asbestos in buildings and schools in the United States and the workers who remove it.
• Exposure: Asbestos in place in buildings, mainly chrysotile (a serpentine mineral), contrasted with the amphibole crocidolite; asbestos removal (abatement) work
• Main results:
  • The author stated that asbestos removal from buildings could cost $50 to $150 billion.
  • Citing B. T. Mossman et al. (Science 1990), the author stated that asbestos fiber levels in the air of buildings containing asbestos are essentially the same as in outdoor air.
  • The author stated that removal releases fibers that could cause more cancer in removal workers than leaving the asbestos in place would have caused in usual occupants.
  • The author criticized federal regulations for grouping chrysotile, a serpentine mineral, with the amphibole crocidolite. The author described chrysotile as tending to disappear in tissue and crocidolite as persisting in tissue.
  • The author stated that four earlier epidemiological studies of Quebec chrysotile mining localities showed that lifelong exposure of women to dust from nearby mines caused no statistically significant excess disease. This is the author's account of other studies, not a finding of this article.
  • The author stated that the EPA had fostered the view that a single fiber can cause cancer, and called this hypothesis unproven.
  • The author reported an EPA estimate that one half of all asbestos removal projects are done improperly.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that regulations should be modified to account for the differing hazards of the various asbestiform minerals, and that indoor air standards should be based on actual measurements of the types and amounts of fibers.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Amphibole Group, Crocidolite, Quebec Chrysotile, Bulk Sample Analysis, Asbestiform.

Related studies

• Pet dogs as sentinels for environmental contamination — L.C. Backer, C.B. Grindem, et al. (2001)
• Asbestos problems in Montana and California — C. Maynard (2004)
• Common sense in the environment — (1991)
• Should asbestos in buildings be regulated on an environmental or occupational basis? — D.M. Hashimoto, T.A. Brennan, et al. (1991)
• Airborne fiber control in buildings during asbestos material removal by amended water methodology — R.N. Sawyer, A.N. Rohl, et al. (1985)
• EPA and asbestos removal — J. Berry (1990)

Browse more research in Science, or return to medical research.