Why study asbestos?

Our plain-English summary of Why study asbestos?, by T.L. Guidotti (Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 2008).

The study

• Author: T.L. Guidotti
• Journal: Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health
• Published: 2008;63(3):99-100
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 5 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

In this editorial, the editor in chief of Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health asked whether further research on asbestos was still needed. He noted that asbestos was among the most heavily studied hazards in history, with 9,297 MedLine citations, and that its knowledge base was unrivaled for any occupational exposure except lead and noise. He answered "yes and no." On the "yes" side, he argued that enough was known to justify a total ban on the export, import, and use of asbestos, and he supported the Collegium Ramazzini's call for a ban, then 8 years old. He stated that chrysotile is carcinogenic. He also stated that the "third wave" of lung cancer and mesothelioma in mostly developing countries had repeated the earlier history of the United States and Europe. He listed arguments he considered settled, including that cancer risk at low exposure is above a linear extrapolation from high-level exposure and that asbestos probably causes colon cancer. On the "no" side, he argued that if doubt still prevented a ban, more evidence should be supplied. He added that asbestos serves as a model occupational hazard for research on fibers, carcinogenesis, aging, and the limitations of meta-analysis, and that its risks are not obsolete, citing Libby, Montana. He concluded that asbestos must continue to be studied so that past mistakes are not repeated.

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 editorial by the journal's editor in chief was an opinion piece, not a research study, and reported no new data. The author noted that asbestos had 9,297 MedLine citations. The author argued that enough was known to justify a total ban on asbestos export, import and use, backing the Collegium Ramazzini's call. Among arguments the author described as settled were that chrysotile is clearly carcinogenic although less so than amphiboles, and that asbestos probably causes colon cancer. The author described a so-called third wave of lung cancer and mesothelioma in mostly developing countries that kept using asbestos after developed countries restricted it. Arguing for continued study, the author wrote that if decision-makers genuinely need more information, it should be supplied; if the request covers inaction, doubt should be overwhelmed with evidence. The author added that local decision-makers seldom accept outside data, that asbestos is a model for occupational health research, and that its risks are not obsolete, citing Libby, Montana. The author concluded that study should continue so the same tragic mistakes are not repeated.

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 by the journal's editor in chief); no original data
• Exposure: asbestos in general, including chrysotile compared with amphiboles; discussed as an occupational and environmental hazard
• Main results:
  • The author noted that asbestos had 9,297 MedLine citations, describing it as among the most heavily studied hazards.
  • The author argued that enough is known to support a total ban on export, import and use of asbestos.
  • The author endorsed the Collegium Ramazzini's call for a ban on the mining, use and export of asbestos.
  • Among arguments the author described as settled: chrysotile is clearly carcinogenic although less so than amphiboles.
  • Among arguments the author described as settled: asbestos probably causes colon cancer.
  • The author described a so-called 'third wave' of lung cancer and mesothelioma cases in countries, mostly developing, that continued to import and use asbestos after developed countries restricted it.
  • The author argued conditionally: if decision-makers genuinely think they need more information, it should be supplied; if the call for more information is cover for inaction, the response is to overwhelm doubt with evidence.
  • The author noted that local decision-makers seldom accept data from elsewhere.
  • The author argued that asbestos risks are not obsolete, citing Libby, Montana.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that asbestos should continue to be studied so that the same tragic mistakes are not made in the future, and because it serves as a test case for occupational health.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Occupational Exposure, Collegium Ramazzini, Chrysotile, Carcinogenic, Lung Cancer, Mesothelioma, Colorectal Cancer, Carcinogenesis.

Related studies

• Canada, chrysotile, and the search for truth — T. Ogden (2008)
• Global mesothelioma deaths reported to the World Health Organization between 1994 and 2008 — V. Delgermaa, K. Takahashi, et al. (2011)
• Malignant mesothelioma: global incidence and relationship with asbestos — C. Bianchi, T. Bianchi (2007)
• The global spread of asbestos — A.L. Frank, T.K. Joshi (2014)
• Global Asbestos Disaster — S. Furuya, O. Chimed-Ochir, et al. (2018)
• The case for a global ban on asbestos — J. LaDou, B. Castleman, et al. (2010)

Browse more research in Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, or return to medical research.