The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure: the Wittenoom data

Our plain-English summary of The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure: the Wittenoom data, by A. Rogers, G. Major (The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2002).

The study

• Authors: A. Rogers, G. Major
• Journal: The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
• Published: 2002;46(1):127-8; author reply 128-9
• Type of article: Comment, Letter
• Cited by: 10 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

In this letter, two occupational hygienists questioned the cumulative crocidolite exposure levels that Hodgson and Darnton (2000) used in their mesothelioma and lung cancer risk estimates for the Wittenoom cohort of about 6500 male Australian Blue Asbestos workers in Western Australia. The authors noted that the cohort worked at three mines and various mills over 23 years, all of which were always extremely dusty. They reported that most of the Mines' Inspectorate konimeter results from the early 1950s to 1966 were recorded as 1000+ particles per cc, indicating instrument overloading, and that these data were never suitable for estimating fibre concentrations. The only fibre monitoring was a 1966 survey by one author (G.M.) at the Colonial Gorge mine and mill. It covered 12 shifts and collected 38 static samples, and it was reported only in general terms in 1968. Others had derived median estimates of 50 fibres/ml for ever mill workers, 12 fibres/ml for ever mine but never mill workers and 5 fibres/ml for other work. The authors considered these somewhat low compared with 1966 dust levels. They concluded that there was insufficient information to calculate fibre dose scientifically, called the published values 'guesstimates', and denied that the original hygienist had verified them. In a reply, the cohort researchers acknowledged the inadequacy of the monitoring data, described the cohort follow-up, and stated that they never claimed Mr Major agreed with the estimates.

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 was a letter to the editor, not a research study, followed by a reply. The letter's authors, occupational hygienists, criticized the cumulative crocidolite exposure levels Hodgson and Darnton (2000) used to estimate mesothelioma and lung cancer risks for the Wittenoom cohort of 6500 male crocidolite mine and mill workers in Western Australia, employed over 23 years. They wrote that most konimeter dust readings were recorded as 1000+ particles per cc and were never suitable for estimating fibre levels. The only fibre monitoring was a 1966 survey by one of them: 38 static samples over 12 shifts. Others turned this into median estimates of 50 fibres/ml for ever mill workers, 12 for ever mine but never mill workers and 5 for other work, which the letter's authors said seemed somewhat low. They judged the information insufficient to calculate fibre dose scientifically and concluded that poor exposure estimates produce inaccurate risk analysis. The reply agreed the monitoring data were inadequate but denied stating that the hygienist agreed with the estimates. The supplied text of the reply is cut off.

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 (commentary on another paper's exposure estimates), with a reply from other authors
• Who was studied: The Wittenoom cohort: 6500 male workers at crocidolite mines and mills in Western Australia over 23 years of operation (the letter describes operations from 1943 to 1966)
• Exposure: Crocidolite from mining and milling; the letter disputes the cumulative crocidolite exposure levels used by Hodgson and Darnton (2000) in their risk estimates
• Main results:
  • According to the letter, most konimeter dust measurements (early 1950s to 1966) were recorded as 1000+ particles per cc, which the authors say overloaded the instrument and were never suitable for estimating airborne fibre concentrations
  • The only fibre-level monitoring was a 1966 survey at the Colonial Gorge mine and mill by one of the letter's authors, over 12 shifts, with 38 static samples
  • Others derived median estimated time-weighted concentrations from that survey: 50 fibres/ml for 'ever mill workers', 12 fibres/ml for 'ever mine but never mill workers' and 5 fibres/ml for 'other' categories of work
  • The letter's authors said these estimated values seemed somewhat low compared with dust levels observed in 1966
  • The letter's authors stated their opinion that there is insufficient exposure information to calculate asbestos fibre dose scientifically
  • The letter's authors denied De Klerk et al.'s (1989) statement that the exposure estimates had been verified by the industrial hygienist who conducted the original survey
  • The reply agreed there were difficulties with the exposure histories and with the inadequacy of the dust monitoring data
  • The reply denied having stated that the 1966 hygienist agreed with the exposure estimates
• The authors' conclusion: The letter's authors concluded that using poor exposure estimates produces only inaccurate risk analysis

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Lung Cancer, Asbestos Exposure, Wittenoom, Crocidolite, Australian Blue Asbestos.

Related studies

• Predicted mortality from malignant mesothelioma among women exposed to blue asbestos at Wittenoom, Western Australia — A. Reid, G. Berry, et al. (2009)
• Exposures estimates of the Wittenoom mining workforce and town residents - Implications associated with risk estimation for persons exposed to asbestiform riebeckite — A.J. Rogers (2018)
• Pleural mesothelioma and occupational and non-occupational asbestos exposure: a case-control study with quantitative risk assessment — D. Ferrante, D. Mirabelli, et al. (2016)
• A risk assessment for exposure to grunerite asbestos (amosite) in an iron ore mine — R.P. Nolan, A.M. Langer, et al. (1999)
• Sources of uncertainty in dose-response modeling of epidemiological data for cancer risk assessment — L. Stayner, A.J. Bailer, et al. (1999)
• Are children more vulnerable to mesothelioma than adults? A comparison of mesothelioma risk among children and adults exposed non-occupationally to blue asbestos at Wittenoom — A. Reid, P. Franklin, et al. (2018)

Browse more research in The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, or return to medical research.