Article Text

PDF
Letter
Unreliable proposed ‘new standard’ for assessing asbestos exposure
  1. David Egilman1,
  2. Xaver Baur2,3,
  3. Colin L Soskolne3,4,5,6,7
  1. 1The Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Attleboro, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2Institute for Occupational Medicine, Charité University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  3. 3Collegium Ramazzini
  4. 4Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Australia
  5. 5International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology (IJPC-SE)
  6. 6American College of Epidemiology
  7. 7University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Egilman, The Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, 8 North Main Street, Attleboro, MA 02703, USA; degilman{at}egilman.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Gilham and colleagues conclude that there is a linear dose–response relationship between lung asbestos burden and the development of mesothelioma, and that the lung burden should be considered a reliable tool to predict future mesothelioma rates in participants born since 1965.

The paper and commentary are based on incorrect assumptions that generate both an invalid analysis and invalid conclusions:

  • The authors exclusively rely on asbestos fibre counts measured in lung tissue decades after exposures had taken place, as an indicator of asbestos dose.

Only 2% of the fibres identified were chrysotile, while chrysotile represented as much as 90% of the asbestos used in the UK. Chrysotile is not lung biopersistent; but biopersistence correlates with neither lung …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles