Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Perhaps

Our plain-English summary of Based on available data, can we project an acceptable standard for industrial use of asbestos? Perhaps, by S. Samuels (1979).

The study

• Author: S. Samuels
• Published: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 215-221 (first page 215; page 216 shown) (1979)
• Type of article: Conference paper
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This is a commentary, not a research study, by an author from the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It reported no new data. The author argued that a threshold of safe asbestos exposure had not been demonstrated and that workplace standards are set by feasibility rather than by biological data alone. The author criticized the five fiber asbestos standard of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. The author stated that the 0.5 fiber standard OSHA was proposing was based only on feasibility and was already being achieved in well-controlled situations, and the author's organization favored aiming at the 0.1 value proposed by NIOSH. The author cited an ambient level of about 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter measured by Dr. William Nicholson and treated mesothelioma as a possible surrogate measure of asbestos-related effects. On that basis the author argued that, for most work populations, a permissible exposure limit justified by feasibility is 0.01 fibers. The author called for the same uniform approach to community and workplace standards.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary or position paper from a labor union perspective (conference contribution); no original data
• Who was studied: No study population; the paper discusses U.S. occupational asbestos exposure standards
• Exposure: Airborne asbestos in workplaces and the community, discussed in terms of permissible exposure standards (5, 2, 0.5, 0.1 and 0.01 fibers)
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the ACGIH five fiber asbestos standard was not acceptable to government or labor in the United States
  • The author argued that feasibility is the controlling factor in setting every environmental standard
  • The author stated that the proposed 0.5 fiber standard was already being achieved in well-controlled situations, citing Dr. Kotin and reports from union affiliates
  • The author's organization favored aiming at the 0.1 value proposed by NIOSH
  • The author stated that a threshold of safe exposure had not been demonstrated
  • The author cited an ambient asbestos level measured by Dr. William Nicholson of about ten thousand fibers per cubic meter, or 0.01 fibers per cubic centimeter
  • The author proposed mesothelioma as a possible surrogate measure of asbestos-related effects
  • The author argued that for most work populations a permissible exposure limit justified by feasibility is 0.01 fibers
• The authors' conclusion: The author called for the same uniform approach to community and workplace standards, rejecting what the author described as a caste system that accepts higher risks for workers
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that there was not time to discuss the meaning of "feasible" or "necessary" in substance

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure, OSHA, NIOSH, Fibers per Cubic Centimeter (f/cc), Mesothelioma, Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL).

Browse return to medical research.