Book Reviews: Asbestos Final Report of the Advisory Committee

Our plain-English summary of Book Reviews: Asbestos Final Report of the Advisory Committee, by M.L. Newhouse (1980).

The study

• Author: M.L. Newhouse
• Published: British Journal of Industrial Medicine Volume 37, PP198-200. 8/5/80
  Health, Safety, and Environment Publication Information Sheet. (1980)
• 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 article was a book review, not a study. The author reviewed the two-volume Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos (HMSO, London, 1979). The committee, set up by the Secretary of State for Employment, began its deliberations in 1976 to review the health risk to people exposed to asbestos at work and to the general public. The review relayed figures from the report: crocidolite had not been imported into Britain since 1970, about 25 000 workers may be exposed at any one time, and deaths from mesothelial tumours reached 292 in the UK in 1976. The report found no evidence of a threshold for lung cancer or mesothelial tumours. It judged crocidolite more dangerous than chrysotile or anthophylite in relation to mesothelial tumours, with amosite intermediate, and accepted an increased risk of gastrointestinal tumours. It recommended control limits of 1 fibre per ml for chrysotile, 0.5 for amosite and 0.2 for crocidolite. For the general public, it concluded that chrysotile containing small quantities of amphibole was unlikely to have produced any material increase in lung cancer risk. The author described the report as well-presented, comprehensive and thoughtful.

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: book review of a government advisory committee report (not an original study)
• Who was studied: The reviewed report covered people exposed to asbestos at work in Britain and the general public exposed to asbestos used at work, from consumer products or from asbestos waste. The committee began its deliberations in 1976 and had 15 members.
• Exposure: Asbestos in general, with separate treatment of chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite and anthophylite. Industries discussed included asbestos cement, insulation board, friction materials, textiles, and removal, stripping and demolition including shipbreaking.
• Main results:
  • In Factory Inspectorate personal samples, 98.5% of asbestos cement industry samples were below 2 f/ml and 95% below 1 f/ml. For insulation board, 88.6% were below 2 f/ml and 72.5% below 1 f/ml. Maximum concentrations were 10.2 f/ml for friction materials and 13.7 f/ml for insulation board.
  • The committee estimated that about 25 000 workers may be exposed at any one time.
  • Deaths due to mesothelial tumours continued to rise and reached 292 in the UK in 1976.
  • The report accepted that there is an increased risk of gastrointestinal tumours.
  • In relation to mesothelial tumours, the report considered crocidolite more dangerous than chrysotile or anthophylite, with amosite in an intermediate position.
  • Citing the Rochdale study, the report noted an annual incidence of 0.5% of certified asbestosis after a cumulative dose of less than 100 fibre year/ml.
  • The committee found no evidence of a threshold for lung cancer or mesothelial tumours, and accepted that risk is proportional to cumulative dose.
  • Recommended control limits were 1 f/ml for chrysotile, 0.5 f/ml for amosite and 0.2 f/ml for crocidolite.
  • Prohibitions were limited to spraying asbestos as thermal insulation, importing raw crocidolite, and importing manufactured goods containing crocidolite.
  • For the general public, the committee concluded that chrysotile containing small quantities of amphibole was unlikely to have produced any material increase in lung cancer risk or any appreciable number of mesothelioma cases.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the report was well-presented, comprehensive and thoughtful. The author also judged it probable that more time than the planned 1 December 1980 start date would be needed for the new control limits.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The review noted that the report had insufficient data to draw conclusions about asbestos dust levels in buildings.
  • The review noted that differences in measurement techniques made it difficult to assess dose-response studies, and that comparisons with other countries were also difficult.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Crocidolite, Lung Cancer, Chrysotile, Amosite, Amphibole Group.

Browse return to medical research.