Mineral Fibres - An Approach to Decision Making

Our plain-English summary of Mineral Fibres - An Approach to Decision Making, by A. Englund (1980).

The study

• Author: A. Englund
• Published: BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MINERAL FIBRES (J.C. WAGNER, EDITOR), LYON: IARC SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, VOLUME 30, PP. 989-993 (1980)
• 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 was a conference presentation offering the author's viewpoint, not an original study, and it reported no new data. The author ran occupational health services for the Swedish construction trades and discussed asbestos and man-made mineral fibres (MMMF) from the point of view of the people who use these materials. The author noted that most people exposed to asbestos and MMMF are users, mostly construction workers. The author also mentioned that the author's own earlier studies of Swedish construction worker cohorts had seen increased respiratory cancer, but gave no figures here. Citing work by others, the author said that so far neither animal nor epidemiological studies suggested MMMF had the same effect on lung fibrosis as asbestos. The author described how Swedish construction workers chose to stop working with asbestos. The author recommended MMMF over asbestos, with a first choice of fibres of nonrespirable size whenever possible. The author noted that respirable size is relevant only for the lung and that the upper respiratory tract might also matter, and urged the lowest possible dust emissions whatever fibre is chosen. The author concluded that observations already available should be used now in day-to-day decision-making.

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 viewpoint presentation at a scientific conference; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population. The author wrote from the perspective of users of asbestos and MMMF, particularly the construction trades in Sweden, where the author was in charge of occupational health services.
• Exposure: Asbestos and man-made mineral fibres (MMMF), including glass fibre and mineral wool, as used in construction
• Main results:
  • The author stated that the majority of people exposed to asbestos and MMMF today are users, primarily construction workers.
  • The author referred to the author's own earlier studies of Swedish construction worker cohorts, which had seen increased mortality and morbidity from respiratory cancer. No figures were given in this article.
  • Citing animal studies and epidemiological reviews by others, the author stated that so far these did not suggest MMMF have the same fibrosis effect on the lung as asbestos.
  • The author noted that the author's finding of excess nasal sinus and larynx cancer was not corroborated by Dr Newhouse's latest report.
  • The author described how Swedish construction workers chose not to keep working with asbestos, and how the construction industry turned entirely away from asbestos products.
  • The author recommended MMMF over asbestos, with a first choice of fibres of nonrespirable size whenever possible.
  • The author noted that respirable size is relevant only for the lung, and that the upper part of the respiratory tract might also be important to consider.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that observations already brought forward should be used now in everyday decision-making, as in historical public health actions taken before disease mechanisms were known. The author added that the lowest possible dust emissions should be achieved whatever fibre is chosen.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Fibrosis.

Browse return to medical research.