Talk:Asbestos

Merge Asbestos fibres

I don't think the other page should be merged into this because it is long, and the information contained in it is too specific for the Asbestos page.Xpanzion 22:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrysotile etiology

I am removing the following section from the article.

the resulting media-driven hysteria and the EPA failed to differentiate between amphibole and chrysotile (serpentine) fibers used for asbestos. Without exception, every human study in the United States showing asbestos etiology is associated with amphibole fiber asbestos, and there is not a single study showing chrysotile etiology.

The statements made in the quote are not verifiable. The quote suggests that chrysotile is safe, there are many sources which disagree with this idea. It is also important to see that this section does not have a neutral POV because of the wording "media-driven hysteria", how can anyone determine objectively that the media activity is hysteric?

This article seems to be centered around Etiology which is causation and not correlation. Materials feared as being carcinogens are often considered risky when a statistically significant correlation is found rather than causation. There are still many unsolved mysteries in the field of cancer, so it is often difficult to prove causation. If someone wants to point out a lack of causation they should do so in the criticism section.Xpanzion 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The statements made in the section you removed (which appear to subsequently have been re-added) are also flat-out incorrect. It is true that chryosotile is less likely than crocidolite to cause cancer; it is not true that chrysotile is less likely to cause asbestosis. 71.116.113.195 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Toxicology Program evaluates exposures that may be carcinogenic (cause cancer). Exposures that are thought to be carcinogenic are included in the Reports on Carcinogens, published every 2 years. Each exposure is assigned to 1 of 2 categories: "known to be human carcinogens," and "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens." The first category includes substances for which human studies (epidemiology studies and/or experimental studies) provide "sufficient evidence" of carcinogenicity in humans. The second category includes substances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and/or sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.

Using this scheme, the National Toxicology Program classifies asbestos as a known human carcinogen.[1]Xpanzion 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No more etiology, focus on epidemiology

As I said earlier, and now can make a better case for, Etiology is not particularly relevant in this article. Etiology is concerned with causation as opposed to Epidemiology which is concerned with evidence. In general Epidemiology is of more concern in cases where public health is at stake. Legal and medical decisions are made with conservative regard for safety, so if epidemiological evidence indicates that asbestos is not safe, legal and medical decisions will assume that asbestos is not safe.[2]Xpanzion 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Challenger O-Ring

"The view that the shuttle Challenger exploded because the maker of O-ring putty was pressured by the EPA into ceasing production of its more temperature-resistant, asbestos-laden putty, prompting replacement with an inferior putty, which had continual problems of a sort which could have caused the O-ring leak and subsequent explosion."

There is no evidence that the EPA pressured the manufacturer to stop making the putty. In fact, NASA replaced it with putty from another company that also contained asbestos. And the problems with the putty started when the origanal putty was still in use. The Challenger disaster was caused because safty problems were ignored, not because of any environmental concerns.

"Myth: Environmental ban led to weaker sealant A favorite of the Internet, this myth states that a major factor in the disaster was that NASA had been ordered by regulatory agencies to abandon a working pressure sealant because it contained too much asbestos, and use a weaker replacement. But the replacement of the seal was unrelated to the disaster — and occurred prior to any environmental ban.

Even the original putty had persistent sealing problems, and after it was replaced by another putty that also contained asbestos, the higher level of breaches was connected not to the putty itself, but to a new test procedure being used. “We discovered that it was this leak check which was a likely cause of the dangerous bubbles in the putty that I had heard about," wrote physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the Challenger investigation board.

And the bubble effect was unconnected with the actual seal violation that would ultimately doom Challenger and its crew. The cause was an inadequate low-temperature performance of the O-ring seal itself, which had not been replaced."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/page/2/

How is asbestos related to mineral wool? --Smack (talk) 05:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, one difference is that mineral wool is an artificial material--that is, it's man-made. Asbestos is naturally occurring; it's mined.--RattBoy 01:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

More information needed

I believe there this article needs to be cleaned up a bit, perhaps clarifying whether or not asbestos is mearly a general term for minerals with similar properties (cleavage patterns and the like), or if the different minerals under the term asbestos have similar chemical make up. I am by no means an expert on geology or industrial materials, but I would prefer to see a little more information about the make up of asbestos materials. Perhaps also a bit about the manufacturing process as well. Just my $0.02. Thanks --Davepetr (talk) 6:57, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here. Asbestos isn't, strictly speaking, "manufactured." As I wrote above, it's extracted from sources in igneous rock.

Of course, the fact that there is confusion at all proves that you're right; the article needs some general clean-up:

• The chemical formulae for the various forms of asbestos should be included (as, for e.g., in the sepiolite article). (In answer to your question, the different asbestos materials are chemically similar. They are magnesium silicates, naturally occurring in a fibrous form.)
• Most web articles on asbestos describe some important regions of the world where it's been mined. That would be a welcome addition here.
• I believe the section(s) on litigation could use more robust references and more balance.

Perhaps I'll work on some of those issues outlined above, when I have a chance.--RattBoy 01:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Asbestos" is a name applying only to six regulated minerals. Other fiberous amphiboles (and other minerals) are refered to as "asbestiform". Also, it's not simply chemistry - Chrysotile has non-fibrous forms that are chemically identical (lizardite, antigorite) and I'm pretty sure either cummingtonite or grunerite (both under amosite - these two are a series like tremolite and actinolite) is chemically identical to anthophyllite - it's only the crystal structure that differs.Kaiguy 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vague Statements re:regulation, and heavy bias re:Litigation

Under "Uses" Amphibole Group the following statement is made: "The use of all types of asbestos in the amphibole group was banned in the mid 1980s. " This may be true somewhere in the world but not in the USA. The US EPA implemented the "Ban and Phase Out Rule" in 1989, but it was sustantially overturned in 1991. New uses are still banned and some specific uses are also still banned.

The litigation section seems to have been written by a tort reform advocate. I'm not disputing the facts, but since there is no ban on most asbestos products in the US it is only the fear of liability that prevents many products from being manufactured containing asbestos. This positive result of asbestos liability should be weighed against the negative aspects.

Finally the sentence under uses serpentine, "Up until recently, chrysotile had been used almost exclusively in the manufacture of packing and friction material such as gaskets, brake and clutch linings." is simply incorrect for the US. Chrysotile is by far the most widely used type of asbestos potentially appearing in any building material that isn't metal, ceramic, glass, plastic, or wood.

I intend to work on some edits to reflect the above concerns. If the person who made the amphibole ban statement would please be more specific about the location of that ban, it would be very helpful.--Ukemike,17:42, 7 October 2005

Your edits look like quite an improvement to me. However, I still think the section is very POV. Perhaps balancing the writing with the view of some on the opposite side would be appropriate.--RattBoy 23:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

RattBoy: you edited out information that was accurate and correct and replaced it with incomplete POV information that minimizes the extent of the asbestos litigation issue. For example, Gerber, who makes baby food, does not manufacture or sell products with asbestos, but has been an asbestos defendant, as the cited study indicates. Can you explain why you made the edit? --FRCP11 00:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed and reworded some text which was obviously POV. I removed phrases like "the problem has grown," which is clearly POV. And I attempted to remove some of the shrill POV bias. I did miss the Gerber reference, but the cited study is unclear about the "peripheral defendants" such as Gerber. All I could find is "The connection of older peripheral defendants to asbestos is clear (e.g., use of asbestos as an insulating material by boiler manufacturers). However, the connection of some of the newer peripheral defendants to asbestos is not obvious (e.g., Campbell’s Soup, Gerber (baby food), and Sears Roebuck.)" The study doesn't detail the nature of the liability of these three companies, so I'm not convinced that the example of peripheral defendants belongs in an encyclopedic article.

While we're on the topic of POV, I question the neutrality of sentences like "A RAND study found that less than half the money spent on asbestos litigation went to injured parties; the majority went to attorneys." Sounds very damning of the Terrible Trial Lawyers, doesn't it? However, the linked news release says "Claimants have received about 42 cents of every dollar...31 cents has gone to defense costs, and 27 cents has gone to plaintiffs' attorneys and other related costs." Given the use of expert witnesses (most of whom are not attorneys) in litigation, I believe that the sentence, as written in the article, is POV, unsupported by the citation, and almost certainly incorrect.--RattBoy 12:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone claiming that the litigation problem hasn't grown? If so, then "the problem has grown" is POV, and both sides' arguments should be included. If not, then it's an accurate description and shouldn't be omitted just because the facts make the trial bar look bad. -- FRCP11 14:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that the amount of litigation has grown. The POV in the text is "the litigation problem has grown." There are two perspectives to consider here: one is that the problem is the litigation; the other is that the problem is asbestos. "The problem has grown" implies the former, and therefore, in my opinion, it's clearly tort-reform POV.--RattBoy 09:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. -- FRCP11 13:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In the Whittington v. U.S. Steel case in Madison County, the plaintiff probably got his mesothelioma while he was manufacturing brake linings for dozens of years; however, his suit was against another employer, U.S. Steel, who was sued because there was asbestos-containing insulation at the plant. The jury wasn't allowed to be told of Whittington's other asbestos exposure, so U.S. Steel, who didn't manufacture asbestos, and probably didn't cause Whittington's cancer, was hit for $250 million before settling.[3], [4] We've gone from asbestos manufacturer to manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to, well, everybody who ever had an asbestos-containing product in its facilities. It's inaccurate to limit it to just those who manufactured asbestos-containing products, so I've changed the sentence to peripheral defendants, since that is unambiguously sourced. The "most US industries have had asbestos defendants" is an accurate statistic from the RAND report; I can put in the precise numbers if you still find that problematic, but wanted to avoid too much detail in an encyclopedia entry.

I toned down the RAND description, per your suggestion. -- FRCP11 14:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I put together a few more changes, in order to impart some more balance to the article (which is still, in IMHO, heavily biased against litigation):

• "Bankrupt" is a loaded word. It implies that the companies were driven out of business. In fact, they chose to file Chapter 11 to avoid paying creditors.
• The Environmental Working Group contends that asbestos-related deaths have increased (at least in the period ending in 2001). I noted that fact.
• The sentence, "Many attorneys, including Peter Angelos, have become rich because they established lucrative relationships with unions that steered potential asbestos plaintiffs to their law firms." is very one-sided. For some reason, in our system of Free Enterprise, apparently it's okay for anyone to seek to improve their standard of living--except attorneys and members of labor unions. (The reference doesn't back up the phrase "many attorneys," but I'll let that go for now.) There was no comparison of the lawyers' wealth to the wealth of execs from asbestos corporations which had hidden the dangers of asbestos. I attempted some balance by noting that companies have saved $$millions by filing Chapter 11--and thus backing out on their commitment to their employees.--RattBoy 10:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This is helpful. I don't agree with all of your changes, however.

• "Bankrupt" is a neutral term. It means "someone who has insufficient assets to cover their debts." One cannot file Chapter 11 if one has sufficient assets to cover their debts. It's considerably more neutral than implying there's something morally wrong with filing Chapter 11--indeed, the left protested that Republicans made it harder to file bankruptcy in legislation this year. I'm changing that back.
• The problem with the Angelos statement is that it was so neutral as to not convey the underlying issue, rather than too POV. (And Mother Jones is hardly a right-wing corporatist source.) The objection to union's steering their employees to particular attorneys is that there are kickbacks involved, that the mass screenings are manufacturing plaintiffs who don't actually have claims, and the union employees are not getting the best deal they could've gotten if the union officials (and attorneys!) were acting ethically towards their fiduciaries. I've changed accordingly. [5]
• Your own cited link, EWG estimates that asbestos deaths will increase, but their own statistics show a 2000 peak, with a decline in 2001, and even that increase admittedly reflects a change in reporting. And even some plaintiffs' attorneys contend that deaths have already peaked, so it's not just "tort reform advocates". I've changed accordingly. [6]
• Your "ten percent on the dollar" is incomplete, because it implied all corporations, rather than those whose debts exceeded their assets and could not possibly pay every claim. I've made it more accurate, while retaining the discussion of the fact that companies forced into Chapter 11 may not have fully paid seriously injured plaintiffs, and clarified the criticism of the poorly structured bankruptcy proceedings of some of the earlier bankruptcies. -- FRCP11 13:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's look at some of these issues in greater depth:

• I think one has to be careful in reading the stats. The EWG link shows a slight decline in deaths from mesothelioma and asbestosis between 2000 and 2001. That's hardly indicative of a Y2K peak and subsequent drop; further data collecting and reporting would be necessary to determine whether the death rate were in fact dropping.

The Worthington reference you provide does not consider asbestosis. Not only that, its reporting years, in increments of ten, do not lend support to the contention that deaths have peaked. According to NIOSH, "Asbestosis deaths among US. residents age 15 and over have increased from fewer than 100 in 1968 to more than 1,250 annually in 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, with no apparent leveling off to this trend."

In any case, the text looks more balanced now.

The NIOSH cite is correct as far as it goes, however meso and lung cancer deaths, which are serveral times larger in total than asbestosis deaths are down (see SEER, for instance) and there is a reasonable likelihood that some of the NIOSH data, which are taken from NCHS multiple cause of death data abstracted from death certificate tapes, exhibit diagnosis effect linked back to the litigation. The 2002 WoRLD report put out by NIOSH suggests, also, a flattening of incidence. Figure 1.1 therein, by the way, seems to show that the biggest increase was not in the 'underlying cause' but in the 'contributing cause' reference. The medical articles I've read don't buy that there is an increase in bona fide asbestosis. All in all, I think the most likely case is that for the most part we have passed the peak in deaths and should see a slow, but steady decline for the next forty years or so. I think the EWG cite is not NPOV, and the NIOSH cite is at least incomplete.--Bob Herrick 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• As for the use of the term, "bankrupt:" while you're nearly correct that the term, "bankruptcy," has a specific legal meaning (it has several definitions, actually: Chapters 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13), there still is a connotation that the lay person will understand as meaning "out of business." The passive voice, "been bankrupted," connotes "action at a distance," rather than a business decision undertaken to address the conditions that the corporation faced. My terminology, "filed Chapter 11," is indisputably correct--more so than the ambiguous and emotional term, "bankrupt." While I agree that it is factually accurate that the corporations could be defined as insolvent when they applied for Chapter 11 reorganization, it is also undeniable that the filing was a business decision-a choice that was made to avoid paying creditors. You view my terminology as POV, but please tell me: what part of it is incorrect?

I don't want a revert war here, so I suggest we work on some agreeable language. How about this: instead of

"dozens of companies have been bankrupted,"

we use

"over 70 corporations have filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the face of heavy liability claims. [7]" ??

See my comment about section 524(g) below. This is the actual section that the majority of the asbestos bankruptcies have filed under.--Bob Herrick 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Notably, according to this link, none of the 15 largest bankruptcies in history appears to have been asbestos-related. The Environmental Working Group has some interesting data that comes to bear on this issue. They quote Halliburton, Owens-Corning, and Babcock & Wilcox all assuring the business community that filing Chapter 11 was a business decision undertaken to protect their assets, and that their day-to-day operations continued unimpeded.

Those firms made those comments to reassure customers and employees. Halliburton and McDermott (The parent of B&W) bankrupted subsidiaries while Owens Corning was pretty much the whole shooting match (international subs may have escaped), as was Johns Manville, National Gypsum, Federal Mogul, Armstrong World Insustries, and Kaiser Aluminum. In each case customers were relatively unaffected, employees suffered to the extent their pensions and savings were in equity, bondholders lost much but not all of their lendings, and the equity holders got wiped out, which is more or less what Chapt 11 expects to see.

You are correct that some Democrats opposed the Republican bankruptcy reform that was passed in the last year. In contrast, note that, again according to the EWG, Congress created the 524(g) trust provision in 1994, which helped shield asbestos defendants from their liabilities. It is unsurprising that Congress has allocated "protection" disproportionately.

It is a requirement of 524(g) that over 50% of the equity of a company filing under 524(g) be donated to a trust to pay claimants. In most cases the actual percentage donated is 100%. That means that the equity owners of the company are not exactly 'shielded,' since they can and do lose everything. What 524(g) actually does shield is some of the assets of the bankrupt firm for the benefit of future claimants, by requiring the presesence of a 'Futures Representative' who speaks on their behalf and negotiates to protect some of the assets in the trust to pay those that will assuredly be diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease--Bob Herrick 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

• Your re-wording of the "ten cents on the dollar" phrasing is an improvement. --RattBoy 00:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I know you've already discussed this, but as a first-time reader of this article, the Litigation section is definitely very POV, most notably in the last 3 paragraphs. It's not often when I read a Wikipedia article and go "Wow, that's not neutral at all." It definitely needs some reworking. 156.34.184.199 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked this article up for the first time and it reeks of POV. Much of what I'm reading is not scientifically sound and it's definitely in serious need of citations. Isn't there a template that requests citations be added to lousy articles? It is just not the case that nonfriable asbestos will become airborne with the smallest damage and will eventually spread significant contamination to every area throughout a structure, regardless of what "tenets of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" might dictate. An appeal to science seems ironic in this particular context. Is it just me? --Economy1 19:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just reading the old edits, looks like it was written by somebody in the uk, could be wrong though --Streaky 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"bankruptcy"

I think "filed for bankruptcy" is better than "filed for reorganization under Chapter 11" simply on the principle that three words are better than six if there's no loss in accuracy and a gain in avoiding jargon. (All corporate bankruptcies are business decisions, so I don't quite understand the import of you pointing that out here on the talk page.) But these are style issues, and I don't substantively object to your proposed language, so I leave the final decision to you or another editor. I'm glad we could come to a consensus. -- FRCP11 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Section 524(g) of the US Code relates specifically to companies that file for protection under Chpt 11 as a result of asbestos liabilities. Patterned on the Manville bankruptcy decisions, 524(g) creates a channeling order forcing all future claimants to a trust formed under the section, provided the debtor meets certain requirements. This is unlike any other form of Chpt 11 filing of which I am aware, where only cognizable claims are extinguished. Consequently the simple word 'bankruptcy' may be an insufficient description of the process that some 70 companies have gone through (or are still in process of going through). --Bob Herrick 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Consolidate articles?

The litigation section is getting awfully long. There's an Asbestos and the law article that overlaps quite a bit, but both articles have points or sources unique to them. Either the Asbestos and the law material should be rolled into the "litigation" section in this article, or there should be a "main" tag in this article, with most of the litigation material moved into the Asbestos and the law article. Because there was apparently a vote last year rejecting deletion of the "asbestos and the law" sub-article, someone should take on the task of consolidating the litigation section in this article into the sub-article. -- FRCP11 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the legal stuff realy should be taken out of this article. I'd like to see a n expansion of the section on the dangers of asbestos instead. There's pretty strong evidence linking asbestos with many respitory diseases and I don't believe this is as well covered as it should be. I would contribute here but I have a conflict of interest as I recently had a close family member die of mesotheleoma --Swamp Ig 14:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

reference check

"Asbestos has a synergistic effect with tobacco smoking in the causation of lung cancer." What is the best published research article to cite for this statement? --JWSchmidt 13:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a stat from the American Cancer Society: 7x more likely for asbestos alone, 50x to 90x more likely for asbestos plus smoking.[8] -- FRCP11 14:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is, of course, not at issue with mesothelioma, since asbestos is the only known cause of this cancer of the pleural lining of the lungs (and other parts of the body). This cancer is different than lung cancer caused by smoking. Also, the legal system has a way of dealing with comparative negligence. But all that said, this is not a polemic on tort reform.jgwlaw 15:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

cement or concrete?

"the fibers are typically mixed with cement..." Cement or Concrete? please clarify, somebody. --Quadraxis 01:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Personal research seems to suggest concrete would be better. --Quadraxis 02:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the technical difference between concrete and cement, but I can say that almost all the product descriptions I have ever read - which is a lot - refer to asbestos cement, e.g., for lagging or piping. These have not been technical descriptions, but those given in product brochures, pleadings in lawsuits, descriptions in epidemiological articles, and in company histories. --Bob Herrick 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

helpful article

This article might help those wishing to work on the Asbestos article. Note that it is a us government website, doesn't this mean its public domain, hence we can take pictures from it?! --Quadraxis 02:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos Mineralogy, Chemical Reactions, and Smokers

There are four points that need to be considered regarding the capacity of asbestos to cause cancer.

First, Chemistry. While chrisotile is a magnesium silicate, the asbestiform amphiboles are silicates of iron, with or without magnesium and calcium. The higher the iron content, more dangerous is the amphibole.

Second, Iron Oxidation in the Lungs. In a humid and closed environment, as it is the interior of the lungs, the mineral could eventually oxidise, with the iron of the asbestos transformed into iron hydroxides, that could "glue" to the internal walls of the lungs, causing inflamations that could originate cancer. This does not happens with chrisotile, as magnesium hydroxides are soluble.

Third, Inspiration of Hot Air. It is well know that the rate of oxidation of a mineral increases when the temperature of the environment increases. It is also well known that the incidence of asbestosis is very much greater in smokers than non-smokers. The link between these two observations should be studied.

Possibly, the best way to avoid asbestosis is to stop smoking.

Last, Fibers. Usually the human body have his ways to eliminate particles inspired into the lungs, the most common being the common coughs. Coughing is not particularly efficient with fibers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.232.177.223 (talk • contribs) 14 November 2005.

But this won't affect mesotheliioma.jgwlaw 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also inaccurate. I'd be interested to see citations to peer-reviewed literature claiming asbestos fibers "glue" themselves to the lung; I've never head this argument even from a defense expert. It is true that amphiboles are more toxic to macrophages.

The best way to avoid asbestosis is to avoid asbestos. If you can't do that, don't smoke on top of it. However, smoking does nothing to increase your risk of mesothelioma. Khazeh 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The below notes are an abridged version of a dissertation I wrote in 1988 scubaholic (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike in other asbestos-related cancers, smoking plays no role in mesothelioma development and fibrosis [a]. Although it is established that the majority of mesotheliomas are due to asbestos exposure (Buchanan [b] cites 85% of mesotheliomas identified in the UK between 1950 and 1968) - these cancers were known long before any substantial quantity of asbestos was mined or used. The cancers have been reported as resulting from ionising radiation, sugar cane farming in India, previous pneumothorax or pleuropulmonary disease and exposure to the Zeolite mineral Erionote in a Turkish population[a]. Scubaholic 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In studies [d] up to 14 fibrous materials have been proven to cause mesothelioma when implanted in the pleural and peritoneal cavities of animals, these being: Amosite, Anthophyllite, Chrysotile, Crocidolite and Tremolite, Borosilicate and aluminium silicate glass, glass fibre, aluminium oxide, potassium titanate, silicon carbide and sodium aluminium carbonate, wollastonite and attapulgite. Studies have further shown mesotheliomas due to the avian leucosis virus and to ethylene oxide, ([a]; [c]). These studies suggest it is the particulate dimensions rather than the physio-chemical properties that determine how carcinogenic any fibre will be, with thin-long fibres being the most carcinogenic [c] Scubaholic 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[a] Pelnar in Parmegggiania: 1983 'Encyclopaedia. Occupational Health and Safety', Vol. 1, Revised 3rd Edition, International Labour Office, Geneva

[b] Buchanan: 1979 in Michaels & Chissick (eds) pp 395-408 'Asbestos: Properties, applications and Hazards', Vol 1. J Wiley and Sons Interscience Publications.

[c] Acheson and Gardner 1983, 'The control limit for Asbestos' HMSO, London.

[d] Harrington, Gilson and Wagner: 1971 ' Asbestos and mesothelioma in man', Nature Vol 232 pp54.

scubaholic (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I know of no evidence that amphiboles with a higher iron content are more dangerous. I do know that Crocidolite (Riebeckite) is generally considered the most carcinogenic, but I also know that in Libby Montana, huge health effects are being seen from winchite (among others) which differs from tremolite only in the amount of sodium in the mineral. Kaiguy 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Useful link for links section

A non-profit site with lots of information and advice on asbestos, its removal, detection analysis, different types etc. About Asbestos. I hope you can consider is being put in the links section.

Iron or magnesium?

How come at the top it says asbestos is a magnesium silicate, but the formulas contain no Mg? Can magnesium be replaced by iron? If so the article should explain, because right now it's contradictory and confusing. —Keenan Pepper 06:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Commercially, the term is restricted to a few minerals from two hydrated silicate groups; that is the amphibole and serpentine minerals. It should be noted that asbestos forming minerals may also form non-asbestiform varieties, such that mineral names often associated with asbestos are not actually synonymous with asbestos.

The general formula for the serpentine polymorphs Chrysotile, Antigotrite and Lizardite is: $Mg3(OH)4[Si2O5]$.

The general empirical formula of the amphiboles is defined as $A(0-1)X2Y5(OH,F)2[Z8O22]$, where Z is the Si-ion of a Si-tetrahedron, or substitute of it: ($Si6,Si6Al2,Si7Al,Si6Al2$). A is usually Na, X can be Mg2, Ca2, Na2, NaCa and Y can be Mg5, Mg3Al2, Mg4Al. though $Fe+2$ can substitute for Mg and $Fe+3$ for Al in Y sites and K for Na in all sites. scubaholic (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for more info

The salamander page says that the ancient Chinese used to make clothes from asbestos. WE should address this in this article as well, with perhaps some more info on how asbestos was used in ancient China. --Kerowyn 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

More info is needed on why asbestos is so heat proof and fire proof and its physical properties. the figure for thermal conductivity is 0.0004 (cal/sec)/(cm2 C/cm) or 0.08 (W/m K) this should be included.

World Trade Center collapse and asbestos

An anonymous user added this comment:

• There are suggestions that the World Trade Center towers could still be standing or at least would have stood for longer had asbestos lagging not been removed in the years prior to 2001.

I'm going to revert to a previous version. That comment needs references--the original source is apparently [9]. A quick web search reveals discussions of this idea, including refutations:

• Jim Norton's anti-environmental myths page
• Discussion

Seems like this statement is appropriate for Talk, currently, but subject to debate. --Cotinis 09:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user has restored the unreferenced comment. Being anonymous, there is no way to leave a message. I don't want to get into an edit war, and I'm not trying to stress one point of view here. What do others think? --Cotinis 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds as if that statement could be included, if it was qualified by information from its refuting sources, eg. "There are suggestions that the World Trade Center towers could still be standing or at least would have stood for longer had asbestos lagging not been removed in the years prior to 2001, but this is disputed by source [1] and [2], which say this would have had (no/a minimal) effect etc etc." - does that help at all? Also, there is a way of editing an anon's talk page - it's just an IP number, but it still exists (if you edit it!). Cormaggio ^@ 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did, basically. See what you think. (I'm not really sure this sort of thing even belongs here--might be better served by wiki links to articles on the WTC and on the Challenger, etc.) I don't think there is any point editing the talk page for an IP number, that may change the next time they log on--aren't they often assigned dynamically? I figure if users want feedback, they can get an ID and join the community. (But hey, I'm new to all of this.) --Cotinis 17:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your additions seem fine, and they seem relevant here on this page - many articles contain relatively trivial or peripheral information that is more relevant to another article - but there's no real harm in duplicating information on two pages. And on IP talk pages - it's true that they are assigned dynamically, but people still message them (though I don't know if they are read much, if at all). You're probably best off sticking to what you've already done - moving discussion to the article talk page. (Apologies for delayed response.) Cormaggio ^@ 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Asbestos and Amiante

At List of false friends, "Asbestos" is marked as a false friend between the French word Asbestos and English word Asbestos (which, it claims, refers to the Qeubecois mining town). That page says the word Quicklime should be used instead, which I note is also referred to in this article as the meaning of the greek word "asbestos". The page also says that the word "amiante" should be used instead, a word which until today, I had never heard of. (Incidentally, it was a French speaker that used the word "amiante" in an email, which brought me to that page, and now here.) Can anyone elighten me? Cormaggio ^@ 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Asbestos is best translated in French by the word "amiante". It is true that the word "asbestos" in French refers to the canadian town. When a French speaker says "asbestos", he does not mean at all the English "asbestos". Elmoctar 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)elmoctar

Bias Removal

This article seems largely biased against asbestos in the last few statements about critics, methinks it needs a tidy job.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragoonboy 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 June 2006.

The only thing that may have needed changing was 'pundit' as a title for Steve Milloy. Milloy is NOT a dean, as someone wrote - that was factually inaccurate (and outrageous). He is a publisher of "Junk Science". He is also a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. I changed 'pundit' (which gives him too much credit) to 'colu mnist and publisher'. Besides this, there is nothing that needs changing in this section. This article is not a political rag, nor is it an opportunity for pushing a POV, as it was previously. Asbestos is dangerous. The first medical report was in 1925, detailing its dangers. The inhalation of asbestos particles is dangerous. The only 'evidence' to the contrary is in the minds of junk scientists, who are more full of junk than science.jgwlaw 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all people who inhale abestos develop disease- even after long term exposure. Yes it is carcigenic, but the amount and length of exposure is important. Very few people have developed disease after a brief exposure. Only 5% of workers who were occupationally exposed to asbestos will develop the most serious form of mesothelioma.

There is no bias in this factual article

THe article is fine. It is correct, and factual. If you have a problem with it, please discuss it here. It no longer is a rant on tort reform, but an article on asbestos. In fact, the section about 'critics of regulation' doesn't even belong here. Sorry but Steve Milloy and crew are dead wrong about the Trade Center, to the point of looking like idiots. This doesn't even belong in an encyclopedic article. jgwlaw 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of bias in this article; it contains incorrect medical information, for starters, and it treats things that are in controversy as though they were facts. For example, there is no peer-reviewed literature showing that chrysotile is less likely to cause a fibrogenic response (i.e. asbestosis) than the amphiboles. The difference in carcinogenic potency is undisputed, but claiming that one causes disease more than the other, or that very high doses of chrysotile are necessary to cause disease, is not fact; it is propaganda. I will try to go through and cite to the medical literature when I have more time. Khazeh 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is pretty well accepted that crocidolite is the most carcinogenic.Kaiguy 08:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It is very well accepted that amphibole asbestos (including crocidolite) is the most likely to cause a carcinogenic response. That is different from afibrogenic response. (Carcinogenic = mesothelioma, lung cancer; fibrogenic = asbestosis.) There is no peer-reviewed literature of which I am aware suggesting that amphiboles are more likely than serpentines to cause asbestosis; there's one article by Gaensler that suggests amphiboles MAY be more fibrogenic, but the source he cites (the Royal Commission of Ontario's 1980 report) actually suggests the opposite! However, since there is also not a consensus that chrysotile is more likely to cause asbestosis than crocidolite is, I will not add that to the article. 71.116.113.195 07:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

All types of asbestos cause similar fibrosis (Gilson 1983) and there is no evidence that any asbestos is more fibrigenic than another (Newhouse 1979). The governing factors in contracting the disease are not chemical, but depend on the diameter, shape and general nature of the fibres and to the degree of exposure to them (Reynolds and Willis 1984). scubaholic (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

References

References need to be reformatted, which I will help with, as time permits. jgwlaw 21:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just re-formatted the references WLU 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology in the beginning needs a serious clear up, I don't understand a *** of it, extinguishable? quicklime? sbestos? "not"? huhh??? Shandris^{the azylean} 08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is not very readable! However, I would prefer a geologist or the like to write the intro...rather than me, anyway.jgwlaw 23:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro section very long

The introduction section is estreamly long, and it's not layed out very well, and jumps around the topic a lot. I always believe that the intro should only be one or two paragraphs to give an overview of the material and then go into the separate sections. I think it would be a much better article if someone (I will volunteer in people think it's a good idea) moved a lot of the material in the intro into the appropriate areas of the article, and made the intro much shorter. --Nekura 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

bias -- yes, possibly

First, let me don my asbestos underwear 8^) by saying that I have no connection whatsoever with asbestos mining or manufacturers, litigiation, legislation, etc. etc. I stumbled on the article whilst reading about firefighting, and noticed the little controversy here. In view of the claims of bias, I have just been reading the section "Critics of safety regulations" and comparing them to their original sources, and I have to say that the section as it currently stands is very definitely not an NPOV representation of the critical view. In fact, it strongly resembles a straw man attack (both by addressing only the claims most easily rebutted--mainly by bloggers!--and by exaggerating what was claimed) with some ad hominem thrown in for good measure (by suggesting that all critics are industry mouthpieces).

While Milloy did write an article in which he speculated (frequently using "may", "might have", etc) that the WTC might have taken up tp two hours longer to collapse if the original fireproofing plan had been adhered to (he never claims that any was removed, nor that the collapse would have been prevented), most of his criticism seems to be focussed on the allegedly unscientific basis for the EPA's exposure limits. Milloy claims that these limits are based on extrapolations from high exposure rates rather than analysis of actual low exposure rates, and consequently the associated risk-benefit analyses (comparing benefit to risk for replacing asbestos in various applications, and in benefit to risk in removal projects) are also unscientific and invalid.

Nor is he some lone loon or industry lackey in saying this; despite the denial in our article, this view has been debated in serious medical journals, see e.g. [10], while a detailed longitudinal study by the Canadian government (conducted by the Institut National de Santé Publique in Quebec) concluded that the EPA formulae exaggerated the risk of mesothelioma by a factor of 60 times and the risk of cancer by "a factor of at least 10" (PDF, 567 kB).

An additional argument of critics which is covered in the medical literature but not mentioned here is that most of the "safe" alternative which are being used to replace asbestos are actually unknown factors; we actually have no idea if they have a lower, similar, or higher risk of similar sorts of lung injury, and it will take decades to find out. Given that the injurious nature of asbestos derives (in large part) from the fibrous nature of its particles and its low chemical reactivity, it actually seems quite likely that many effective replacements will behave in a similar way!

I do not claim that all these criticisms are correct, and am in no position to actually evaluate them, but it seems clear to me that our current "Critics" section is not even remotely an NPOV representation of these views. -- Securiger 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased? would I be biased if I said getting shot in the head with an M82 at point blank range was dangerous? It's not bias it's simple fact like the sun itself rising in the morning - this is one article where agreement should be possible, why does it seem that's not the case? Alternatives to asbestos and POV surrounding them are simple irrelevances to this article which is about Asbestos --Streaky 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The M82 is firstly a straw man because what I was arguing about is not whether asbestos is dangerous, but whether this article fairly represents the arguments of critics of the safety regulations; it is also a false analogy because being shot in the head is dramatically more lethal than asbestos dust;
2. Claiming that "It's not bias it's simple fact" is an ipsedixitism, one of the worst of logical fallacies (and highly POV);
3. "this is one article where agreement should be possible" is obviously not true (since there are, in fact, critics), and also another straw man (since, once again, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing about the dangers of asbestos, but whether or not the views of the critics have been fairly represented);
4. The hazard of asbestos alternatives most certainly is relevant, because it is one of the major arguments put forward by critics. (It would not matter whether or not it was a valid argument, so long as we actually present it, and fairly; but as it happens it actually is an extremely good argument, because the choices, in cases where asbestos fireproofing already exists, are a) leave the asbestos there, and mitigate dust formation; b) tear out the asbestos (risking spreading the dust in the process) and leave nothing for fireproofing; or c) tear out the asbestos (spreading dust) and replace it with something else. Option b) is probably the worst opton because fire kills far more people than do asbestos related diseases. So deciding between the realistic alternatives a) and c), we need to know if the alternative material is actually significantly safer. If it isn't, or is only slightly safer, then the option which minimises human suffering is likely to be leaving the asbestos where it is.)

-- Securiger 05:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is POV about saying the dangers of asbestos are well settled? That is a fact. It no longer is in debate. 67.35.126.14 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On the better late than never theory, I think the sentence above would be improved if it said 'the health effects' rather than 'dangers' since that is the specific 'danger' that is not in dispute (and even that claim might be mildly disputed, as the controversy surrounding the McDonalds might suggest). Regarding substitutes, I will have to go back to my library, but I have looked into fiberglass and rock wool (and one or two others) and my recollection is that epidemiological studies indicate that neither are as hazardous as is asbestos. If I get some spare time in the next few weeks I will provide some sources.

Bob Herrick 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I'm going to keep coming back to add citations as I can find time and sources but your help is needed. Please.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the citation to the EWG that I added but as far as I can tell, that's the only place in the world that has come up with the "10,000 deaths annually in the US" figure. They get there with kind of fuzzy math, in my opinion, but I'm leaving the basic assertion in place for now because it has been repeatedly cited. For example.[11]

However, I'd really like someone who knows something more than I about the UK to assist with the alleged reference to the "Report of the Select Committee 1994" mentioned in the (probably POV) section dealing with how early "we" knew of the dangers of asbestos. Google that title and the only thing you find is this quote. Over and over. That seems quite suspicous to me. The United Kingdom Parliament website [12] identifies that both the House of Lords and the House of Commons have numerous "Select Committees" but my search of their archives failed to yield these supposed quotations. The only things I can find on the net are secondary sources that say the same thing, sometimes verbatim. For example. [13]

I was able to find this, however: [14] Since the EEA appears to be a legitimate agency of the EU, I plan to update text and citations from this source. Anybody got something better?--Economy1 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. You might want to try the private databases available with a public library account. I'm talking about ProQuest, LexisNexis, EBSCO, and so on. See Wikipedia:Article development for more information on how to do research.--Coolcaesar 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern asbestos usage

The article has a lot about the dangers and litigation against asbestos and little about how it is actually used today in industry. In passing it's mentioned that many uses of asbestos are harmless...and since there is still an 'asbestos industry' presumably they are still selling these products. Someone with expertise on the subject might want to expand this. Antonrojo 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco and Mesothelioma

The statement under diseases caused by asbestos: Asbestos has a synergistic effect with tobacco smoking in the causation of pleural mesothelioma. citing the e-medicine.com article is incorrect. (The e-medicine.com article is also incorrect in this statement.) Tobacco is not synergistic with asbestos in causing mesothelioma. Tobacco is synergistic with asbestos in causing asbestosis and lung cancer (bronchogenic carcinoma). There are any number of print and Internet references on this, even the Wikipedia article on Mesothelioma. I don't want to get in and edit this statement right now--I'm not familiar with the reference format used, perhaps somebody more familiar with this article can do the edit. (The article really needs some reliable print references as well.)--Cotinis 14:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. I do not recall reading any peer-reviewed article that claims a link between smoking and meso. Lung cancer, for certain, has such support, with a debate as to whether the effect if additive or multiplicative. If I can find them again, I will post some sources. --Bob Herrick 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For example - Hammond, Selikoff and Seidman, "Asbestos Exposure, Cigarette Smoking and Death Rates" Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences V 330, 1979, pp 485 says, in part, "so it appears that cigarette smoking has little or no effect upon death rates from pleural mesothelioma." Their 1980 study in an amosite asbestos factory reached the same conclusion. Also see Yano, Tanaka, Funaki, et al, "Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Pleural Thickening in Asbestos Workers," British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Oct 1993, where the Promed abstract begins "It is well known that an interaction exists between smoking and exposure to asbetos in the occurrence of lung cancer, whereas occurrence of malignant mesothelioma has not been related to smoking." I will spare you the citation from the Croatian Journal of Medicine, which says the same thing. My files have several other articles that relate to lung cancer, asbestos, and smoking, all of which conclude that there is some synergy. I am aware of only one study, out dozens, in which such a synergy was not found, but have not read that article myself. --Bob Herrick 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the cited e-medicine article. The section on causes does not mention smoking. As far as my brief read found, smoking was not mentioned in the article. I bit the bullet and deleted the sentence. --Bob Herrick 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no peer-reviewed literature that links mesothelioma with smoking. (As far as I am concerned, not even any non-peer-reviewed, defense-oriented publications will claim there is.) It's a bit of a puzzle in the scientific community as to why; speculation is that the toxins from smoking do not make their way into the pleura. Khazeh 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Counts and Countries

Asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S. history, involving more than 6,000 defendants and 600,000 claimants.[13]

These numbers have been overtaken by events. The RAND study cited elsewhere counts 8,400 defendants. The Enpro 3Q 2006 Quarterly statement has them at 804,000 total claims. Enpro, by the nature of its operations (Garlock and Anchor Packing) should get most, but proably not all, claims filed in the US.

Also, the article might want to pick up on litigation outside the US. Australia, the UK, France, and the Netherlands, off the top of my head, have on-going litigation activities, some of which resemble mass torts in the US, e.g., the Cape case in the UK, and the actions against James Hardie in Australia, that could be included. --Bob Herrick 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Source?

Does anyone have a source for this:

Current trends indicate that the rate at which people are diagnosed with the disease will likely increase through the next decade

I believe that SEER data show a mild decrease in mesothelioma diagnoses since the early 1990's, while lung cancer, at least among men, has been dropping for about a decade. If the current litigation trends are any clue, the rate of diagnosis of non-malignant asbestos-related disease has, at least for now, abated hugely.

If the reference is global then it makes more sense to me, as meso and lung cancer rates are unlikely to abate in the EU, Australia, Asia, Latin America or Africa for some time yet. --Bob Herrick 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources to consider: (1) Bianchi and Bianchi, "Malignant Mesothelioma: Global Incidence and Relationship with Asbestos, Industrial Health 2007, 45. 379-387. This article suffers from having been written in a second language so some of the sentence constructions are hard to parse in english, but the content seems sound. If I counted correctly, the article identifies sources for data in 37 countries including the US. Most of these sources are inadequate to directly measure mesothelioma incidence over time, but it is clear that rates vary, and are influenced by the amount of asbestos used, how it was used, and when it was last used. (2) The classic article (in my opinon) is Peto, Decarli, LaVecchia, Levi, and Negri "The European Mesothelioma Epidemic" British Journal of Cancer (1999), 79 (3/4), 666-672. This paper uses the approach developed by Dr. Peto in the UK and Drs. Nicholson, Selikof, et. al. in the US to project mesothelioma incidence in six countries in Europe (France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Netherlands, and Switzerland). In each case the article predicts the peak incidence at a point in time somewhere between 2010 and 2020 (2025 in the case of the Netherlands). (3) Pelucci, Malvezzi, LaVecchia, Levi, Decarli and Negri, "The Mesothelioma epidemic in Western Europe: an update" Brit. J. of Cancer (2004) 90, 1022-1024. This article updates (2) and reports that more recent data suggest that the peaking may happen earlier than previously thought, and that the actual rate of mesothelioma incidence from 1995 - 1999 was lower than had been expected.Bob Herrick 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Naval shipyard workers???

Sorry for all the nitpicking today, but this statement

A lung disease first found in naval shipyard workers

sounds like it might have come from someone with more than a passing familiarity with current litigation trends.

I could buy that it was first found in the 1920's in the UK, or that it was noted in the next decade as an occupational disease among workers at Johns Manville, but for my money the real first diagnoses were BCE by some few centuries (at least).--Bob Herrick 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the Romans knew it had health effects. Plus, I don't remember exactly when, but asbestos regulations were part of a British mines safety act before 1920.Kaiguy 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Critics

I tagged this article section with {{pov-section}} because it makes the argument that the critics are wrong. There are three sections of discussion about bias here:

1. Bias_Removal
2. bias -- yes, possibly
3. Vague Statements re:regulation, and heavy bias re:Litigation

I suggest that instead of trying to make a single 'objective' assessment ourselves, we stick to quoting the various assessments we can find in verifiable sources. --Uncle Ed 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually on Johns Manville's website they have this history: "1945- Government mandates production of asbestos-containing insulation products (silica/asbestos combination) to insulate Navy vessels, and products for other war purposes."

-http://www.jm.com/corporate/56.htm

Asbestos causes "stone lungh" or thats what it is in finnish but anyways and that slices alveoli and thats what causes the disease. Now the only way of asbestos to get in the lung is when its in a dust like form wich can be inhailed. Only way for asbestos to turn to such is if it breaks. Of course when it goes in to the lung you couff it, but you really dont its like inhailing dust, I've come in contact with "powdery" asbestos and it doesn't feel like anything when you breath it in, lucky for me that was a long time ago and I'm still here. It's comletely harmless when intact or as a fibre. Peacekeeper II, too lazy to log on since -06 13:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Excess Links?

I think some of the links under the Health and Environment section are of marginal value to the page and would like some input on cleaning them.Boston2austin 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrysotile - Safer?

It is safer and more flexible than amphibole types of asbestos; it can be spun and woven into fabric. Chrysotile does not persist in the lungs after inhalation; it is quickly eliminated by the body

- Where does this information come from? As an Environmental, Health & Safety Professional I have never heard or seen anything indicating that Chrysotile is safer than an amphibole. Nor have I seen any studies indicating that chrysotile fibers are eliminated by the body. The references to chrysotile as being safe should be removed.

Gavatronix 14:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard (from Dan Crane at OSHA, who should know his stuff) that Chrysotile has an 18 month half-life in the body, or thereabouts. Not quite 'quickly eliminated' but not as bad as the amphiboles, either. I've also heard that Chrysotile is less dangerous than the amphiboles, but never that it isn't dangerous.Kaiguy 01:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The current text is extremely POV as well as inaccurate. Chrysotile is less likely to provoke a carcinogenic response from the body--that does not mean it is "safe", that it is less likely to provoke a FIBROGENIC response, or that the concern about asbestos is "hysteria". I am removing those sentences from the section on etiology because they are flat-out false and POV. Khazeh 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Lung penetration is governed by the fibres aerodynamic properties, which depend on its shape and nature. Fibres that are long and thin, rigid and free from adherent particles will tend to exhibit lamina flow, whilst shorter, less rigid, curved or waxy fibres, or those with adherent particles show turbulent flow characteristics. The latter fibres, characteristically those of Chrysotile, have a much greater possibility of touching the respiratory tract walls and therefore being removed by the mucociliary escalator (Jones 1979; Reynolds and Willis 1984). scubaholic (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be little question that Chrysotile is less dangerous than other types of Asbestos. A Google search will quickly confirm this. This article appears to be authoritative:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/338/22/1565

This does not mean that industrial exposure to it is not hazardous. What should be considered carefully is whether the anti-asbestos hysteria is justified when it comes to Chrysotile. The relevant question here is really if it is more or less hazardous than other materials. The inhalation of fine sand has been shown to cause lung cancer and nobody is proposing that we ban sand. Tyrerj (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of exposure

I don't see anything in this article about how much exposure one must have to be at risk for lung disease. Is it a matter of minutes or a matter of years? If anyone knows this I'd appreciate it AdamBiswanger1 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also wondered this for a great length of time. If anyone knows, please say.

RetroToysRUs 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule along the lines of "if you are exposed to asbestos for X fiber-years you are safe but more than X you are not". All exposure increases the risk of contracting an asbestos-related disease; there is disagreement as to how much exposure creates a significant risk, and of course not all asbestos diseases are the same. Khazeh 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The length of exposure is not a factor in the common epidemiological risk model of mesothelioma (Nicholson, Selikof, Siedman, et.al.), which is linear with respect to the quantity of fibers inhaled and a power of time from first exposure, with the generally accepted exponent (as reported by the USEPA in 1986) of around 4. I recall reading that there was some suspicion that short, very intense exposures could be particularly hazardous. By short, I mean periods of around three months and by sharp I mean conditions similar to those found in the hulls of ships being built during WWII. I have seen expert testimony by (I think) Murray Finkelstein, that fiber concentrations of 600 f/ml were common ("It looked like it had been snowing inside"). Apparently at least one of the studies done of WWII shipbuilders found that there was an abnormal rate of meso incidence among workers that had only worked three months. It was not clear, if I recall correctly, if this was a real phenomonon, or if especially sensitive indviduals simply could not work in the environment any longer than that amount of time. If any of this is important, I would be happy to (in a few weeks) provide citations and to correct any of the numbers I may have misremembered. Bob Herrick 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think on the contrary the hard and fast rule is your exposure has to be high, either a lot in a short period or a little for a long period of time, and that any disease takes a long time (years) to appear. scubaholic (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My notes on 'Carcinoma of the Bronchus' have that there is no 'asbestos-cancer' with less than 0.5-1 million fibres/g of lung tissue. Furthermore a period of exposure over 15 years is usually considered a pre-requesite before asbestos may be diagnosed as having a role in tumour development (Wagner 1979). scubaholic (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Chrysotile: safest or most dangerous?

There seems to be some discrepancy in the article (or maybe I'm illiterate). The paragraph under "White asbestos" states that chrysotile is "one of the major causes of asbestos-related diseases in the U.S." Yet under etilogy, it says that "there is not a single study showing chrysotile etiology."

Aren't those two statements contradictory? --ScottJ 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Some enormous percentage of all the asbestos used in the US was chrysotile (over 90% if I recall correctly), most of which came from Canada. However, I think it is a short hand to talk of chyrsotile vs. amphibole as if there was no overlap. I am pretty sure that there is a small amount of amphibole asbestos contaminating almost all chrysotile asbestos (1/2% - 1 1/2%). When you hear a defendant speak of a 'purely chrysotile exposure', as you do, what they mean is that they exclusively purchased chrysotile asbestos, probably from Canada, but they are not reallying considering or opining on the possibility of contamination. There have been some studies with an uncontaminated chrysotile source (It has been ages since I read them so I am not sure I can locate them) that are claimed to show no excess mesothelioma's from such pure exposure, but since such conditions are rare in the real world, the studies are not of much use. I recall also that the studies were highly contentious. Bob Herrick 22:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Globalize template added for 'Etiology' section

Please try to make the discussion more general than it currently is. Brrk.3001 08:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Very Hazardous"

The phrase in the subject line is used either directly or in modified form several times in the article. I don't disagree that asbestos causes increased indcidence of certain diseases, but I wonder if the phrase 'very hazardous' is strictly correct.

I believe the literature suggests that a high rate of mesothelioma incidence is on the order of 10 - 20 per million per year, and that peak incidence comes after quite a long time - the medical literatures is commonly quoted as saying 30 - 40 years from peak exposure, but claimant data I have seen puts it more like 40 - 50 years from first exposure (peak clamining activity is around age 71, average age at year of first exposure is around age 24). The median age at death resulting from mesothelioma at any site is 73.

While mortality is high, it is not as if exposure to asbestos is an instant death sentence. Certainly it is hazardous if routine and excessive exposure takes place but most people that are exposed to asbestos will die of some other cause.

Estimates of the population (almost all male) occupationally exposed to asbestos range from about 25 million (Nicholson, et. al) to 100 million (expanded to include automotive brake repair and more constuction workers. I saw estimates in the last five years that half of all asbestos-exposed workers were still alive.

To put things in perspective, there are around 2,500 male deaths a year from mesothelioma (estimated from SEER data and confirmed by National Center for Health Statistics multiple cause of death data. At the same time, there are approximately 90,000 male deaths a year due to all forms of lung cancer.

The top five causes of death in the US are:

1. Heart Disease (654,000)
2. Cancers (550,000, of which 157,000 involve the trachea, bronchus or lung)
3. Stroke/Cerebovascular Disease (150,000)
4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseae (124,000)
5. Accidents (109,000, of which 44,000 involve motor vehicles)

Injury by firearms accounts for 29,000 deaths, alcohol for 20,000 deaths, and drugs for 28,000 deaths.

Smoking, according to the American Cancer Society, "accounts for 30% of all cancer deaths and 87% of all lung cancer deaths" and "is a major cause of heart disease, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema...".

So, tobacco kills more people than asbestos, but none of the wikipedia articles on Smoking. Tobacco or the health effects of tobacco smoking use the word 'hazardous' at all.

The article on firearms does not use the word 'hazardous' while the article on gun safety uses the word in the context of the dangers of a ricochet.

The article on alcohol similarly does not use the word, nor does the article on the effects of alcohol.

The articles on drug abuse and addiction do not refer to use as 'hazardous', while the article on heroin only uses the word in the context of the relative risk of withdrawal from heroin vs other drugs: "Also, though unpleasant, opioid withdrawal seldom has the potential to be fatal, whereas complications related to withdrawal from benzodiazepines, barbiturates and alcohol (such as epileptic seizures, cardiac arrest, and delirium tremens) can prove hazardous and are potentially fatal."

All in all, I think the phrase 'very hazardous' is represents a point of view, and that the unmodified term 'hazardous' would be more neutral.

Bob Herrick 20:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist Asbestosdoc.com?

This is the fourth or fifth time I've had to remove it from this page. Please blacklist it. The site is an adsense blog with no relevance or value. Boston2austin 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also just removed it from "Asbestos and the Law" Entry. Boston2austin 04:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It was also removed earlier today as well. Boston2austin 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

Modern usage - Serpentine group section reads "Chrysolite is the only asbestos mineral in the serpetine group.". Sholdn't be chrysotile there? Zanudaaa 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Additions to History Section

In order to give a fuller picture of the history of asbestos-related diseases I am preparing a short section abstracted from an early article on the subject. I welcome comments and suggestions, particularly as this work is based on a single secondary source, and one that is not considered (by me at least) to be unbiased. I expect to be able to locate some of the orginal source material, but in at least one case (published in French) I will not be able to verify the summary prepared by my secondary source. --Bob Herrick 20:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The edits are now in. For the most part I was able to find primary sources, although in one case (Montague Murray) the souces I checked have said that this 'frequently cited source' cannot be located.Bob Herrick 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Litigation section of article

Since there is an article on Asbestos and the law, I shortened this section, moving off-topic bits to more relevant areas, updated some references, and added a short para on litigation outside the US, pointing to the law article. I will impose on a colleage of mine to look over the non-US litigation section for improvment or expansion. Could this last change be a basis for removing the 'worldwide' view tag. Any thoughts?

Bob Herrick 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This section still seems to have a faint whiff of anti-lawsuit bias. There appear to be lots of good citations so perhaps it's just a matter of changing the tone of some of the sentences. To me, on a first reading, it seems overly sympathetic to the plight of the defendants.--JD79 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead sentence begins by "The word Asbestos is derived from a Greek adjective meaning inextinguishable". This is fine, but the article is about the thing, not the word. I would have replaced it by "Asbestos is a ___________, whos name is derived from....". Only that I don't know what it is exactly. A mineral? Achemical component? No idea. So if someone knows, please change it or let me know. --SidiLemine 13:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How about: Asbestos is a generic name for a group silicate minerals that have a fibrous habit, in which the majority of fibrils in a natural aggregate have an aspect ratio (length:width) greater than 100:1. The word derives from the Greek for unconsumable and was first applied by Pliny the Elder (23-79AD) to describe the incombustable Tremolite-Actinilite mineral fibres used by the Romans for lampwicks and cremation shrouds... scubaholic (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Asbestos(amiante) Gaskets

Hi everybody . My father has started in italy a gasket company in the 70" and he produced for many years paper Asbestos(amiante) gaskets . I want to know which kind of Asbestos(amiante) fibers where used in that kind of paper. I want to know how dangerous it is for the health of the people that where working with this material compeared to the other asbestos materials . Please if anyone know about let me know. thanks

Giulio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.155.25 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad citations

As long as feeble biased resources form the foundation of large sections of this article, it cannot escape the POV problem. PLEASE offer reputable sources and not junk opinions to support legal allegations. Particularly where you state that "court documents prove guilty knowledge," the citations should be real and solid and not missing newspaper reports from obscure journals. Note that I am not disuputing the science or history. Rather, I'm just asking that article editors actually CITE the science and history. --Economy1 (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view tag

Why does this article have a tag about the U.S. centered section of the article with a heading "United States?" Of course that section deals primarily with the United States...Balonkey (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)