The four most pernicious myths in asbestos litigation: Part II: safe thresholds for exposure and Tyndall lighting as junk science

Our plain-English summary of The four most pernicious myths in asbestos litigation: Part II: safe thresholds for exposure and Tyndall lighting as junk science, by C. Meisenkothen (New Solutions, 2014).

The study

• Author: C. Meisenkothen
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2014;24(1):27-55
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Part I of this survey confronted the first two Most Pernicious Myths in Asbestos Litigation: the supposed harmlessness of chrysotile asbestos; and so-called idiopathic mesothelioma. Part II discusses the pernicious notions of safe exposure thresholds for asbestos and the unreliability of Tyndall lighting. Defendants' attempts to preclude plaintiffs' experts from testifying about these generally accepted scientific facts are a disservice to the legal system and to plaintiffs who have been harmed by asbestos. These defense tactics attempt to deny reality and to spin scientific facts in order to keep them from the jurors' eyes and ears. This undermines the legal system and harms the integrity of the scientific enterprise. Defendants' efforts to manufacture "controversy" over previously uncontroversial facts are bald attempts to infect the legal process with junk "doubt science." The role of this type of "doubt science" is being steadily exposed as legitimate researchers resist the degradation of their disciplines and the scientific literature by unprincipled purveyors of this insidious brand of junk science.

In plain English

This article is not a research study. It is the second part of a commentary by a lawyer who, the article discloses, represents plaintiffs in asbestos litigation. It reported no new data. Instead, the author drew on published studies, health-agency statements, expert witnesses' depositions and court decisions to argue against two positions the author attributed to defendants. The first was that there is a safe level of asbestos exposure below which mesothelioma will not occur. Against it, the author cited agencies including IARC, EPA, NIOSH and the World Health Organization, and earlier studies reporting mesothelioma or cancer after brief exposures to crocidolite or amosite. The second was that Tyndall lighting is "junk science." Tyndall lighting is a high-intensity light used to make airborne dust visible in videotaped simulations of work with products such as gaskets and brake linings. Here the author cited a 2001 EPA procedure and published articles that used the method. The author concluded that these positions are "legally and scientifically bankrupt" and that such expert testimony should be admitted in court. The author noted that the article presents only a small sampling of the literature.

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: Legal commentary and narrative review (advocacy article) written by a plaintiffs' asbestos lawyer. It presents no original data.
• Who was studied: No study population. The author discussed published studies, statements from government and international health agencies, deposition testimony of expert witnesses, and U.S. court decisions on two topics: safe exposure thresholds and Tyndall lighting.
• Exposure: Asbestos in general. Studies cited involve chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite and tremolite (including tremolite contamination of chrysotile). The Tyndall lighting section concerns dust released from products such as gaskets, brake linings, rope packing and floor tiles.
• Main results:
  • The author quoted health agencies stating that no safe threshold for asbestos is known. For example, the author quoted the World Health Organization as saying that no safe exposure level can be proposed because a threshold is not known to exist.
  • The author cited a 1986 study of amosite asbestos factory workers (Seidman et al., described as Selikoff's team). That study reported a clear excess risk of cancer after work exposure to amosite as short as one month. This is the cited study's finding, not this article's.
  • The author cited a 1988 study of miners and millers at the Wittenoom crocidolite mine in Western Australia (Armstrong et al.). It documented 32 cases of mesothelioma, and the median duration of employment was four months.
  • On Tyndall lighting, the author pointed to a 2001 EPA standard operating procedure for video exposure monitoring of activities potentially associated with airborne asbestos. The author also pointed to a 2002 peer-reviewed gasket-removal study (Longo et al.) that used the method.
  • The author stated that expert testimony that there is no safe threshold and that each exposure contributes has been admitted by most courts. The author cited decisions from Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, New York and federal courts.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the claims that a safe exposure threshold exists and that Tyndall lighting is junk science are legally and scientifically bankrupt. The author also concluded that plaintiffs' experts' generally accepted opinions should presumptively be admitted in court.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the article presents only a small sampling of the available literature.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Idiopathic Mesothelioma, Defendant, Plaintiff.

Related studies

• The four most pernicious myths in asbestos litigation: Part I: safe chrysotile and idiopathic mesothelioma — C. Meisenkothen (2014)
• Asbestos-associated diseases. Science, public policy, and litigation — H. Weill (1983)
• Assessment of airborne asbestos exposure during the servicing and handling of automobile asbestos-containing gaskets — C.L. Blake, G.S. Dotson, et al. (2006)
• The limits of thresholds: silica and the politics of science, 1935 to 1990 — G. Markowitz, D. Rosner (1995)
• Two different methods, three different variations, four different sources: what bulk asbestos PLM method is your laboratory using? Part 1 — D.B. McGrath, D.R. Van Orden, et al. (2010)
• Analytical performance issues. Two different methods, three different variations, four different sources: what bulk asbestos PLM method is your laboratory using? Part 2 — D.B. McGrath, D.R. Van Orden, et al. (2010)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.