May 2005
MILLER A
Mesothelioma in household members of asbestos-exposed workers: 32 United
States cases since 1990.
American Journal of Industrial Med 2005;47:458-62.
PubMed
1: Lemen RA.
Chrysotile asbestos as a cause of mesothelioma: application of the Hill
causation model.
Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004 Apr-Jun;10(2):233-9. Review.
PMID: 15281385 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Chrysotile comprises over 95% of the asbestos used today. Some have
contended that the majority of asbestos-related diseases have resulted from
exposures to the amphiboles. In fact, chrysotile is being touted as the form
of asbestos which can be used safely. Causation is a controversial issue for
the epidemiologist. How much proof is needed before causation can be
established? This paper examines one proposed model for establishing
causation as presented by Sir Austin Bradford Hill in 1965. Many
policymakers have relied upon this model in forming public health policy as
well as deciding litigation issues. Chrysotile asbestos meets Hill's nine
proposed criteria, establishing chrysotile asbestos as a cause of
mesothelioma.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For an articulate viewpoint opposing an asbestos ban,
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/4/491 states that amphibole is
indeed much worse than chrysotile:
snip:
What risks are associated with chrysotile fibres? The Collegium claims that
all asbestos fibres are associated with similar risks of lung cancer and
asbestosis, and only marginally different risks of mesothelioma. Experienced
scientists in the field strongly disagree with this view.5,6,7,8 Risk
assessments and reviews generally attribute peritoneal mesotheliomas
exclusively to amphibole fibres. The 47 cohorts of individuals working with
asbestos reviewed in the most recent and comprehensive risk assessments9,10
show higher risks in those working with amphibole than in those working with
chrysotile. Thus, excess lung cancers occur 3 times, pleural mesothelioma 12
times and peritoneal mesotheliomas 30 times more frequently in mainly
amphibole than in chrysotile industries for an equal number of expected
cases (see additional data in the Table on the CMAJ Web site at
www.cma.ca/cmaj/vol-164/issue-4.htm). Exposure-response comparisons of
studies with meaningful exposure data suggest that chrysotile workers were
4-24 times less at risk of asbestos-induced lung cancer than amphibole
workers at equal exposure.11,12 To put this in perspective, based on the
exposure-response estimate of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the lifetime risk of an asbestos-induced lung cancer in smoking male workers
exposed for 20 years to 20 fibres per millilitre of air in primarily
chrysotile industries was about 2%-10%, compared with 40% in smoking male
workers in industries using amphiboles. Risk in nonsmoking asbestos workers
was about 15 times lower in both cases.
The mining and milling industry is most informative because fibre types are
not mixed, and because it produces fibres of different sizes for all the
asbestos industries. Of all the pleural mesotheliomas reported among
chrysotile workers, 70% occurred among Quebec miners and millers, and most
were traced to coexposures to amphiboles.13 The dose-specific risks of
asbestosis,14,15 lung cancer and mesothelioma are 15-50 times lower in
chrysotile miners than in amphibole miners.14,15 This seems true also for
nonoccupationally exposed populations.16,17,18 In contrast to the
Collegium's interpretation of our research, my colleagues and I found that
the absence of excess lung cancers among residents of chrysotile mining
towns implies a risk at least 15 times smaller than that predicted with the
EPA model,17 and the number of mesotheliomas observed is at least 20 times
smaller than that predicted by the EPA model.19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: Lemen RA.
Asbestos in brakes: exposure and risk of disease.
Am J Ind Med. 2004 Mar;45(3):229-37. Review.
PMID: 14991849 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However 48 year old Canadian MP Chuck Strahl never smoked, has mesothelioma
most likely from working on chrysotile-containing brake shoes.
snip from article below:
"Just after the House broke for the summer, Mr. Strahl, 48, said he started
to feel ill. Then his lung collapsed. "I thought it was just the flu or
perhaps pneumonia, and I was too busy and too stubborn to rush into the
doctor's office," he wrote.
After two weeks of tests and surgery and another collapsed lung,
"Pathologists had determined that the lining (the pleura) had developed
cancer, likely because of an exposure to asbestos when I was a young man. My
logging days included a time when we used open, asbestos brakes on the
yarder and while my exposure wasn't that lengthy, it was intense. Typically,
20-25 years later, the asbestos works its ugly magic. Unfortunately, I'm
right on time."
The Hill Times, August 29th, 2005
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
By Bea Vongdouangchanh
Support for asbestos makes Canada an 'international pariah'
Tory MP Chuck Strahl's stunning announcement that he has cancer should be a
wakeup call for the government to support a global ban on asbestos, says
NDP's Pat Martin.
Canada is an "international pariah" when it comes to supporting and dumping
asbestos around the world, said NDP MP Pat Martin, who's calling for a
global ban on the production, sale and use of asbestos, adding that the
recent announcement of House Deputy Speaker and Conservative MP Chuck Strahl
that he's battling a form of cancer most likely caused by asbestos exposure
should be a wake up call for the government to start moving on the issue.
"Chuck's situation illustrates that this terrible, toxic substance is all
around us and the government has its head in the sand for the sake of a few
jobs in Quebec," said Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.). "They refuse to
acknowledge that there's no safe level of exposure. It reaffirms my
commitment that asbestos in all its forms should be banned."
Mr. Martin told The Hill Times that one of the main reasons he became an MP
is "to fight for the global ban of asbestos." As a young man, he had worked
in an asbestos mine in the Yukon from 1974-1975 and said he was lied to
about asbestos hazards. "For the tragedy of asbestos to strike so close to
us all on Parliament Hill, it strengthens my resolve that this is Canada's
greatest shame and is crying out to be addressed."
Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, B.C.) announced last week in a column
in the Chilliwack Times, a local paper in his riding, that he is suffering
from lung cancer likely caused by exposure to asbestos when he worked as a
logger years ago.
Mr. Strahl said he plans to continue his MP and deputy Speaker duties. "This
column is about me (always a difficult subject), and it is about my cancer,"
he wrote. "I don't see any other way around this. I'm a kind of private guy
in many ways, and I like to be pretty stoic about problems I face day to
day. But my job is so public and expectations so obvious that it can't
really be a secret. And perhaps it wouldn't be fair to be secret anyway,
because there are so many people who need to know and want to help out in
ways small and large."
Just after the House broke for the summer, Mr. Strahl, 48, said he started
to feel ill. Then his lung collapsed. "I thought it was just the flu or
perhaps pneumonia, and I was too busy and too stubborn to rush into the
doctor's office," he wrote.
After two weeks of tests and surgery and another collapsed lung,
"Pathologists had determined that the lining (the pleura) had developed
cancer, likely because of an exposure to asbestos when I was a young man. My
logging days included a time when we used open, asbestos brakes on the
yarder and while my exposure wasn't that lengthy, it was intense. Typically,
20-25 years later, the asbestos works its ugly magic. Unfortunately, I'm
right on time.
"A column like this could have the word 'unfortunately' sprinkled
throughout, and it is the perfect word for the situation. Unfortunately, I
was exposed to asbestos. Unfortunately, my body couldn't handle it.
Unfortunately, it targets the lungs. Unfortunately, there is no cure, only
treatment. Unfortunately, like all cancer, the disease has an awful,
debilitating effect on your family and friends, all of whom want to help,
can't believe it is happening, and just wish they could do something to make
the world 'right' again.
"I'm none too thrilled with it all either. The treatment will be determined
in the next few days, and I'll have to start that soon. It won't be any fun,
but it has to be done and I'll just get at it when they're ready. I'm hoping
to be able to keep working while this happens. I'll be in there sluggin' for
now, and much of what comes up will be simply business as usual."
Conservative House Leader Jay Hill told The Hill Times last week that he was
"struggling a lot" with the news of Mr. Strahl's cancer.
"He's my closest personal friend," said Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River,
B.C.). "The friendship that we've developed over the last decade as
Parliamentarians has morphed into a very close personal relationship. It
goes unsaid that myself and our entire caucus give our utmost support and
encouragement during this difficult time. He's loved by all and respected by
MPs. The respect they have for him as Deptuy Speaker is reflective of the
respect they have for him as an individual."
Mr. Martin said he was shocked when he heard the news. "We wish Chuck the
best. He's such a healthy and vibrant man and if anyone can beat it, it's
him."
He told The Hill Times that he is also worried about his own health and
regularly goes for bronchoscopies which show there is scarring around his
lungs but there is no sign of cancer.
Earlier this year, Mr. Martin was in Washington, D.C. for the first World
Asbestos Awareness Day with a U.S. lobby group. "It was on April 1, April
Fool's day, unfortunately, which is an irony because we've all been fooled
by asbestos for so long," he said, adding that the government refuses to
acknowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
Health Canada's website states that "asbestos poses health risks only when
fibres are present in the air that people breathe. If asbestos fibres are
enclosed or tightly bound in a product, for example in asbestos siding or
asbestos floor tiles, there are no significant health risks.
"When inhaled in significant quantities, asbestos fibres can cause
asbestosis (a scarring of the lungs which makes breathing difficult),
mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the lining of the chest or abdominal cavity)
and lung cancer. The link between exposure to asbestos and other types of
cancers is less clear."
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dennis wrote:
Horse****. Nobody, but nobody, has ever gotten sick from a commercial
asbestos product. Not brake shoes, not insulation, certainly not floor
tile. The hazard associated with asbestos is in MINING it. Over many
years.
I tend to agree up to a point.
Asbestos insulation does pose a risk as it is so friable when disturbed.
It doesn't pose a risk unless you disturb it and inhale it for 20 years or
so.
The fibers are so fine that they can be inhaled and are listed as a
cancer-causing product.
So is silica so you better not go outside.
The other sources of asbestos are really not a risk at all and of course
that's why they are NOT listed as needing a permit to remove. (Only the
friable types of asbestos are dangerous.)
Almost every substance that is a hazard is safe at some level of exposure.
Almost every substance that is safe is a hazard at some level of exposure.
The reality is that asbestos was really only a hazard to those who had
extreme and long-term exposure to it, mainly folks that mined it, sprayed
it inside ships or used it to manfacture parts like brake shoes, however,
I believe even the evidence on the latter is pretty weak.
Matt