Asbestos Carcinogenicity is Well Established and Can Lead to Mesothelioma

Asbestos exposure is an impetus for disease development, its carcinogenicity for the mesothelium and lung tissue is well documented.  One interesting study that examines this issue is called, "Silica, asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, and cancer" by Kyle Steenland and Leslie Stayner - Cancer Causes and Control - Volume 8, Number 3 / May, 1997.  Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - Approximately three million workers in the United States are estimated to be exposed to silica, man-made mineral fibers, and asbestos. The lung is the primary target organ of concern. Each of these substances is composed predominantly of silicon and oxygen; asbestos and silica are crystalline, and asbestos and man-made mineral fibers are fibers. Man-made mineral fibers and asbestos are used as insulating agents, with the former having generally replaced the latter in recent years. Silica is used in foundries, pottery, and brick making, and is encountered by miners. A meta-analysis of 16 of the largest studies with well-documented silica exposure and low probability of confounding by other occupational exposures, indicates a relative risk (RR) of 1.3 (95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-1.4). Lung cancer risks are highest and most consistent for silicotics, who have received the highest doses (RR = 2.3, CI = 2.2-2.4, across 19studies).

The data for mineral fibers continue to support the International Association for Research on Cancer's 1988 judgment that mineral fibers are a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B). Recent epidemiologic studies provide little evidence for lung carcinogenicity for either glass wool or rock/slag wool. Ceramic fibers, a much less common exposure than glass wool and rock/slag wool, are of concern because of positive animal studies, but there are insufficient human data. Regarding asbestos, its carcinogenicity for the lung and mesothelium is well established. With regard to the controversy over chrysotile and mesothelioma, the data suggest chrysotile does cause mesothelioma, although it may be less potent than amphibole asbestos."

Another interesting study is called, "Increased risk of malignant mesothelioma of the pleura after residential or domestic exposure to asbestos: a case-control study in Casale Monferrato, Italy." By C Magnani, P Dalmasso, A Biggeri, C Ivaldi, D Mirabelli, and B Terracini - Environ Health Perspect. 2001 September; 109(9): 915–919.  Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - The association of malignant mesothelioma (MM) and nonoccupational asbestos exposure is currently debated. Our study investigates environmental and domestic asbestos exposure in the city where the largest Italian asbestos cement (AC) factory was located. This population-based case-control study included pleural MM (histologically diagnosed) incidents in the area in 1987-1993, matched by age and sex to two controls (four if younger than 60). Diagnoses were confirmed by a panel of five pathologists. We interviewed 102 cases and 273 controls in 1993-1995, out of 116 and 330 eligible subjects. Information was checked and completed on the basis of factory and Town Office files.

We adjusted analyses for occupational exposure in the AC industry. In the town there were no other relevant industrial sources of asbestos exposure. Twenty-three cases and 20 controls lived with an AC worker [odds ratio (OR) = 4.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-11.1)]. The risk was higher for the offspring of AC workers (OR = 7.4; 95% CI, 1.9-28.1). Subjects attending grammar school in Casale also showed an increased risk (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4-7.7). Living in Casale was associated with a very high risk (after selecting out AC workers: OR = 20.6; 95% CI, 6.2-68.6), with spatial trend with increasing distance from the AC factory. The present work confirms the association of environmental asbestos exposure and pleural MM, controlling for other sources of asbestos exposure, and suggests that environmental exposure caused a greater risk than domestic exposure."

A third study is called, "Radiological findings as predictors of mortality in Quebec asbestos workers." By F D Liddell, J C McDonald - Br J Ind Med 1980;37:257-267 – Here is an excerpt: "Abstract - Two cohorts of chrysotile miners and millers in Quebec were selected to study the extent to which chest radiographs taken while still employed predict mortality. The paper presents mainly findings in much the larger cohort, which consisted of 4559 men (two-thirds past workers) whose latest radiograph had been assessed by one of six experienced readers into what became the UICC/Cincinnati (U/C) classification; by the end of 1975 there had been 1543 deaths in this cohort. The findings were generally confirmed in the other cohort, comprising 988 current male workers, who had been examined in 1967-8 by questionnaires on respiratory symptoms and smoking and by lung function tests, and for whom all six readers had assessed their 1966 radiographs into the U/C classification; 130 men had died by the end of 1975. Men with any radiographic abnormality, heavy dust exposure, or a history of cigarette smoking had relative risks (RRs) of total mortality greater than unity.

Death from pneumoconiosis was associated with small parenchymal opacities, usually irregular, of profusion l/l or more, and with heavy dust exposure but not with smoking. Most who died from lung cancer had smoked cigarettes, or had been heavily exposed to dust, or both. Small parenchymal opacities were present in most but not all the excess deaths due to lung cancer. Deaths from other malignant diseases showed no consistent dust or x-ray patterns. RRs of deaths from most other causes were raised for certain radiographic features. Failures in forecasting mortality were primarily due to deaths in which asbestos-related disease was not the primary cause but may have been a contributing factor. The main findings validated the U/C classification convincingly, particulary as the films had been taken as routine and were of modest quality. Despite objective rules for the reading and the fact that all six readers were contributing to the development of the classification, there was inevitably some observer variation. The importance of radiographic technique and the need for careful control of the reading is evident. Our results provide support for the use of the chest radiograph for surveillance of asbestos workers, and for environmental monitoring. Its protective value for individual workers, however, is limited to the extent that radiological progression continues after withdrawal from exposure, and by the carcinogenic risk associated with dust already retained."

If you found any of these excerpts, please read them in their entirety.  We all owe a debt of gratitude to these researchers.