Chrysotile Asbestos and Mesothelioma

Abstract

Vol. 118, No. 7 PerspectivesOpen AccessChrysotile Asbestos and Mesothelioma Richard A. Lemen Richard A. Lemen Search for more papers by this author Published:1 July 2010https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002446AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit The Editor’s Summary for the article by Tse et al. (2010) stated the following:Assuming an average latency of 42 years, the authors predict that incidence rates will peak in 2009 and that diagnoses will peak in 2014. However, they caution that ongoing use of chrysotile asbestos (which has been implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma) and the release of asbestos fibers from older buildings during demolition or renovation may slow the projected decline.The statement concerning chrysotile asbestos being “implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma” is inconsistent with current scientific opinion. I refer you to the most recent evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in which Straif et al. (2009) stated,Epidemiological evidence has increasingly shown an association of all forms of asbestos (chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite) with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Although the potency differences with respect to lung cancer or mesothelioma for fibres of various types and dimensions are debated, the fundamental conclusion is that all forms of asbestos are “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1).In addition, opinions such as that expressed in the Editor’s Summary are advanced only by scientists with prochrysotile industry bias.When I wrote the draft for the first IARC Monograph on asbestos in 1976, which the expert committee accepted and published in 1977 as IARC Monograph Volume 14, a similar conclusion was stated: “Many pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas have been observed after occupational exposure to crocidolite, amosite and chrysotile.” Since then—more than 30 years—science has not changed its opinion that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, cause mesothelioma.In fact, in the article that is the subject of the Editor’s Summary, Tse et al. (2010) did not indicate that chrysotile is not a cause of mesothelioma; on the contrary, they stated the following:Although the mesothelioma incidence is anticipated to decline in the coming decades, it may not decrease to background risk levels given that chrysotile consumption has not been banned under the current legislation and that secondary asbestos exposure from the environment will likely continue. Nevertheless, the hypotheses generated from this ecologic study need further confirmation by subsequent analytic studies. The present study provides supportive evidence for an immediate and global ban on asbestos use.I hope that future Editor’s Summaries will reflect the conclusions of the article and not put forth statements that are not supported by mainstream science. I also support the conclusion of Tse e al. (2010) for “an immediate and global ban on asbestos use.”Editor’s Note: We appreciate Lemen’s concern about the incorrect statement that was included in the original Editor’s Summary for Tse et al. (2010), and we regret the error. The Editor’s Summary has been corrected in the online version of the paper, and an erratum was published in the June issue of EHP [118:A240 (2010)]; the text of the erratum is included below:The Editor’s Summary for the article “Are Current or Future Mesothelioma Epidemics in Hong Kong the Tragic Legacy of Uncontrolled Use of Asbestos in the Past?” by Tse et al. [Environ Health Perspect 118:382–386 (2010); doi:10.1289/ehp.0900868], has been corrected online: specifically, “(which has been implicated but not conclusively established as a cause of mesothelioma)” has been deleted.The author testifies in asbestos litigation on behalf of plaintiffs.ReferencesIARC. 1977. Asbestos. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Hum 14:1-106. Google ScholarStraif K, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Baan R, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi Fet al.. 2009. A review of human carcinogens—part C: metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. Lancet Oncol 10:453-45419418618. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarTse LA, Yu IT, Goggins W, Clements M, Wang XR, Au JSet al.. 2010. Are current or future mesothelioma epidemics in Hong Kong the tragic legacy of uncontrolled use of asbestos in the past?Environ Health Perspect 118:382-38620064790. Link, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 118, No. 7 July 2010Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Originally published1 July 2010Published in print1 July 2010 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]iehs.nih.gov. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.