Asbestos

From

Jump to: navigation, search

Summary

TBD.

Studies and Reports

  • Modl A et al., Airborne asbestos concentrations associated with heavy equipment brake removal, Ann Occup Hyg. 53(8):839-57, November 2009.
    • Abstract. "Asbestos-containing brake linings were used in heavy-duty construction equipment such as tractors, backhoes, and bulldozers prior to the 1980s. While several published studies have evaluated exposures to mechanics during brake repair work, most have focused on automobiles and light trucks, not on heavy agricultural or construction vehicles. The purpose of this study is to characterize the airborne concentration of asbestos to workers and bystanders from brake wear debris during brake removal from 12 loader/backhoes and tractors manufactured between 1960 and 1980. Asbestos content in brake lining (average 20% chrysotile by polarized light microscopy) and brake wear debris [average 0.49% chrysotile by transmission electron microscopy (TEM)] was also quantified. Breathing zone samples on the lapel of mechanics (n = 44) and area samples at bystander (n = 34), remote (n = 22), and ambient (n = 12) locations were collected during 12 brake changes and analyzed using phase contrast microscopy (PCM) [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 7400] and TEM (NIOSH 7402). In addition, the fiber distribution by size and morphology was evaluated according to the International Organization for Standardization method for asbestos. Applying the ratio of asbestos fibers:total fibers (including non-asbestos) as determined by TEM to the PCM results, the average airborne chrysotile concentrations (PCM equivalent) were 0.024 f/cc for the mechanic and 0.009 f/cc for persons standing 1.2-3.1 m from the activity during the period of exposure ( approximately 0.5 to 1 h). Considering the time involved in the activity, and assuming three brake jobs per shift, these results would convert to an average 8-h time-weighted average of 0.009 f/cc for a mechanic and 0.006 f/cc for a bystander. The results indicate that (i) the airborne concentrations for worker and bystander samples were significantly less than the current occupational exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc; (ii) approximately 2% of respirable fibers were >20 microm in length; and (iii) approximately 95% of chrysotile in the brake linings degraded in the friction process. The industrial hygiene data presented here should be useful for conducting retrospective and current exposure assessments of individuals, as well as hazard assessments of work activities that involve repairing and replacing asbestos-containing brakes in heavy construction equipment."
  • Blake C et al. Airborne asbestos exposure during light aircraft brake replacement, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (54:3;242-246), August 2009.
    • Abstract. "Asbestos containing materials are a component of many vehicle brake systems, including those found in some light aircraft. To characterize the asbestos exposure that results from the installation and maintenance of these components, an aircraft fitted with asbestos containing brake pads had brake changes performed while both area and personal air samples were taken. The brake changing process took place in a closed, unventilated aircraft hanger and all operations were performed according to the manufacturer’s recommended procedure. Personal air samples did not detect any measurable amount of asbestos fibers during the brake changing or subsequent cleanup procedures. Analysis of personal samples (n = 9) using phase contrast microscopy indicated airborne fiber concentrations at or below 0.003 f/ml as 8-h time weighted averages (TWAs) and less than 0.069 f/ml averaged over 28–30 min sampling periods. Airborne chrysotile fibers were detected by two area air samples with fiber concentrations remaining at or below 0.0013 f/ml over an 8-h TWA. These results indicate that normal brake changing work practices on aircraft with asbestos containing brake pads does not produce a harmful level of asbestos exposure for aircraft mechanics."
  • Blake C et al., Evaluation of asbestos exposure within the automotive repair industry: A study involving removal of asbestos-containing body sealants and drive clutch replacement, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (52:3;324-331), December 2008.
    • Abstract. "Two independent assessments were performed of airborne asbestos concentrations generated during automotive repair work on vintage vehicles . The first involved removal of asbestos-containing seam sealant, and the second involved servicing of a drive clutch. Despite the relatively high concentrations (5.6–28%) of chrysotile fibers detected within bulk samples of seam sealant, the average asbestos concentration for personal breathing zone (PBZ) samples during seam sealant removal was 0.006 f/cc (fibers/cubic centimeter of air). Many other air samples contained asbestos at or below the analytical limit of detection (LOD). Pneumatic chiseling of the sealant material during removal resulted in 69% of area air samples containing asbestos. Use of this impact tool liberated more asbestos than hand scraping. Asbestos fibers were only detected in air samples collected during the installation of a replacement clutch. The highest asbestos corrected airborne fiber concentration observed during clutch installation was 0.0028 f/cc. This value is approximately 100 times lower than Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc. The airborne asbestos concentrations observed during the servicing of vintage vehicles with asbestos-containing seam sealant and clutches are comparable to levels reported for repair work involving brake components and gaskets."
  • Jiang G et al., A study of airborne chrysotile concentrations associated with handling, unpacking, and repacking boxes of automobile clutch discs, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (51:1;87-97), June 2008.
    • Abstract. "Although automotive friction products (brakes and manual clutches) historically contained chrysotile asbestos, industrial hygiene surveys and epidemiologic studies of auto mechanics have consistently shown that these workers are not at an increased risk of developing asbestos-related diseases. Airborne asbestos levels during brake repair and brake parts handling have been well-characterized, but the potential exposure to airborne asbestos fibers during the handling of clutch parts has not been examined. In this study, breathing zone samples on the lapel of a volunteer worker (n = 100) and area samples at bystander (n = 50), remote area (n = 25), and ambient (n = 9) locations collected during the stacking, unpacking, and repacking of boxes of asbestos-containing clutches, and the subsequent cleanup and clothes handling, were analyzed by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). In addition, fiber morphology and size distribution was evaluated using X-ray diffraction, polarized light microscopy, and ISO analytical methods. It was observed that the (1) airborne asbestos concentrations increased with the number of boxes unpacked and repacked, (2) repetitive stacking of unopened boxes of clutches resulted in higher asbestos concentrations than unpacking and repacking the boxes of clutches, (3) cleanup and clothes handling tasks yielded very low asbestos concentrations. Fiber size and morphology analyses showed that amphibole fibers were not detected in the clutches and that the vast majority (>95%) of the airborne chrysotile fibers were less than 20 μm in length. Applying the ratio of asbestos fibers:total fibers (including non-asbestos) as determined by TEM to the PCM results, it was found that 30-min average airborne chrysotile concentrations (PCM adjusted) were 0.026 ± 0.004 f/cc or 0.100 ± 0.017 f/cc for a worker unpacking and repacking 1 or 2 boxes of clutches, respectively. The 30-min PCM adjusted average airborne asbestos concentrations at bystander locations ranged from 0.002 ± 0.001 f/cc and 0.004 ± 0.002 f/cc when 1 or 2 boxes of clutches were handled, respectively. Estimated 8-h TWA asbestos exposures for a worker handling 1 or 2 boxes of clutches over a workday ranged from 0.002 to 0.006 f/cc. The 30-min PCM adjusted average airborne asbestos concentration for a worker continuously stacking unopened boxes of clutches was 0.212 ± 0.014 f/cc; the 8-h TWA was 0.013 f/cc. Additionally, 30-min PCM adjusted average airborne asbestos concentrations following cleanup and clothing handling were 0.002 ± 0.001 f/cc and 0.002 ± 0.002 f/cc, respectively, both resulting in estimated 8-h TWA asbestos exposures of 0.0001 f/cc. The results of this study indicate that the handling, unpacking, and repacking of clutches, and the subsequent cleanup and clothes handling by a worker within a short-term period or over the entire workday, result in exposures below the historical and current short-term and 8-h occupational exposure limits for asbestos."
  • Lee R and Van order D, Airborne asbestos in buildings, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (50:2;218-225), March 2008.
    • Abstract. "The concentration of airborne asbestos in buildings nationwide is reported in this study. A total of 3978 indoor samples from 752 buildings, representing nearly 32 man-years of sampling, have been analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. The buildings that were surveyed were the subject of litigation related to suits alleging the general building occupants were exposed to a potential health hazard as a result the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The average concentration of all airborne asbestos structures was 0.01 structures/ml (s/ml) and the average concentration of airborne asbestos >=5 μm long was 0.00012 fibers/ml (f/ml). For all samples, 99.9% of the samples were <0.01 f/ml for fibers longer than 5 μm; no building averaged above 0.004 f/ml for fibers longer than 5 μm. No asbestos was detected in 27% of the buildings and in 90% of the buildings no asbestos was detected that would have been seen optically (>=5 μm long and >=0.25 μm wide). Background outdoor concentrations have been reported at 0.0003 f/ml >=5 μm. These results indicate that in-place ACM does not result in elevated airborne asbestos in building atmospheres approaching regulatory levels and that it does not result in a significantly increased risk to building occupants."
  • Pierce J et al., An evaluation of reported no-effect chrysotile asbestos exposures for lung cancer and mesothelioma, Crit Rev Toxicol. 38(3):191-214, 2008.
      Abstract. "Numerous investigators have suggested that there is likely to be a cumulative chrysotile exposure below which there is negligible risk of asbestos-related diseases. However, to date, little research has been conducted to identify an actual "no-effect" exposure level for chrysotile-related lung cancer and mesothelioma. The purpose of this analysis is to summarize and present all of the cumulative exposure-response data reported for predominantly chrysotile-exposed cohorts in the published literature. Criteria for consideration in this analysis included stratification of relative risk or mortality ratio estimates by cumulative chrysotile exposure. Over 350 studies were initially evaluated and subsequently excluded from the analysis due primarily to lack of cumulative exposure information, lack of information on fiber type, and/or evidence of significant exposures to amphiboles. Fourteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria were found where lung cancer risk was stratified by cumulative chrysotile exposure; four such studies were found for mesothelioma. All of the studies involved cohorts exposed to high levels of chrysotile in mining or manufacturing settings. The preponderance of the cumulative "no-effects" exposure levels for lung cancer and mesothelioma fall in a range of approximately 25-1,000 fibers per cubic centimeter per year (f/cc-yr) and 15-500 f/cc-yr, respectively, and a majority of the studies did not report an increased risk at the highest estimated exposure. Sources of uncertainty in these values include errors in the cumulative exposure estimates, conversion of dust counts to fiber data, and use of national age-adjusted mortality rates. Numerous potential biases also exist. For example, smoking was rarely controlled for and amphibole exposure did in fact occur in a majority of the studies, which would bias many of the reported "no-effect" exposure levels towards lower values. However, many of the studies likely lack sufficient power (e.g., due to small cohort size) to assess whether there could have been a significant increase in risk at the reported no-observed-adverse-effects level (NOAEL); additional statistical analyses are required to address this source of bias and the attendant influence on these values. The chrysotile NOAELs appear to be consistent with exposure-response information for certain cohorts with well-established industrial hygiene and epidemiology data. Specifically, the range of chrysotile NOAELs were found to be consistently higher than upper-bound cumulative chrysotile exposure estimates that have been published for pre-1980s automobile mechanics (e.g., 95th percentile of 2.0 f/ cc-yr), an occupation that historically worked with chrysotile-containing friction products yet has been shown to have no increased risk of asbestos-related diseases. While the debate regarding chrysotile as a risk factor for mesothelioma will likely continue for some time, future research into nonlinear, threshold cancer risk models for chrysotile-related respiratory diseases appears to be warranted."
  • Paustenbach D et al., Chrysotile asbestos exposure associated with removal of automobile exhaust systems (ca. 1945-1975) by mechanics: results of a simulation study, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 16(2):156-71, March 2006.
    • Abstract. "For decades, asbestos-containing gaskets were used in virtually every system that involved the transport of fluids or gases. Prior to the mid-1970s, some automobile exhaust systems contained asbestos gaskets either at flanges along the exhaust pipes or at the exhaust manifolds of the engine. A limited number of automobile mufflers were lined with asbestos paper. This paper describes a simulation study that characterized personal and bystander exposures to asbestos during the removal of automobile exhaust systems (ca. 1945-1975) containing asbestos gaskets. A total of 16 pre-1974 vehicles with old or original exhaust systems were studied. Of the 16 vehicles, 12 contained asbestos gaskets in the exhaust system and two vehicles had asbestos lining inside the muffler. A total of 82 samples (23 personal, 38 bystander, and 21 indoor background) were analyzed by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) and 88 samples (25 personal, 41 bystander, and 22 indoor background) by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM). Only seven of 25 worker samples analyzed by TEM detected asbestos fibers and 18 were below the analytical sensitivity limit (mean 0.013 f/cc, range 0.001-0.074 f/cc). Applying the ratio of asbestos fibers:total fibers (including non-asbestos) as determined by TEM to the PCM results showed an average (1 h) adjusted PCM worker exposure of 0.018 f/cc (0.002-0.04 f/cc). The average (1 h) adjusted PCM airborne concentration for bystanders was 0.008 f/cc (range 0.0008-0.015 f/cc). Assuming a mechanic can replace four automobile single exhaust systems in 1 workday, the estimated 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) for a mechanic performing this work was 0.01 f/cc. Under a scenario where a mechanic might repeatedly conduct exhaust work, these results suggest that exposures to asbestos from work with automobile exhaust systems during the 1950s through the 1970s containing asbestos gaskets were substantially below 0.1 f/cc, the current PEL for chrysotile asbestos, and quite often were not detectable."
  • Mangold C et al., An exposure study of bystanders and workers during the installation and removal of asbestos gaskets and packing, J Occup Environ Hyg. 3(2):87-98, February 2006.
    • Abstract. "From 1982 until 1991, a series of studies was performed to evaluate the airborne concentration of chrysotile asbestos associated with replacing gaskets and packing materials. These studies were conducted by the senior author in response to concerns raised by a report from the Navy in 1978 on asbestos exposures associated with gasket work. A series of studies was conducted because results of those who worked with gaskets within the Navy study did not address the background concentrations of asbestos in the work areas, which may have been significant due to the presence of asbestos insulation in the ships and shipyards. The intent of the studies performed from 1982 through 1991 was to re-create the Navy's work practices in a contaminant-free environment during an 8-hour workday (so the data could be compared with the OSHA permissible exposure limit [PEL]). Samples were collected to characterize personal and area airborne asbestos concentrations associated with the formation, removal, and storage of gaskets, as well as the scraping of flanges and the replacement of valve packing. The results indicate that the 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposures of pipefitters and other tradesmen who performed these activities were below the current PEL and all previous PELs. Specifically, the highest average 8-hour TWA concentration measured for workers manipulating asbestos gaskets during this study was 0.030 f/cc (during gasket removal and flange face scraping onboard a naval ship). Likewise, the 8-hour TWA breathing zone concentrations of a worker removing and replacing asbestos valve packing did not exceed 0.016 f/cc. In most cases, the concentrations were not distinguishable from ambient levels of asbestos in the ships or the general environment. These results are not surprising given that asbestos fibers in gasket materials are encapsulated within a binder."
  • Goodman M, Mesothelioma and lung cancer among motor vehicle mechanics: a meta-analysis, Ann Occup Hyg. 2004 Jun;48(4):309-26. Epub 2004 May 17.
    • Abstract. "We conducted a systematic review and analysis of the epidemiological literature that examines the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma among motor vehicle mechanics who may have been engaged in brake repair and, thus, were potentially exposed to asbestos. All relevant studies were classified into three tiers according to their quality. Tier III (lowest quality) studies were cited for completeness, but were not included in the meta-analysis. Meta relative risks (meta-RRs) were calculated for mesothelioma and lung cancer using both fixed and random effects models for Tiers I and II, separately, followed by stratified analyses based on study design or exposure characterization (garage workers versus brake workers) and, for lung cancer studies, based on adequate adjustment for smoking. The meta-analysis for Tier I (higher quality) and Tier II (lower quality) studies of mesothelioma yielded RR estimates of 0.92 (95% CI 0.55-1.56) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.52-1.28), respectively. Further stratification according to exposure characterization did not affect the results. The meta-analysis for lung cancer produced RR estimates of 1.07 (95% CI 0.88-1.31) for Tier I and 1.17 (95% CI 1.01-1.36) for Tier II. When the lung cancer analysis was limited to studies that used adequate control for smoking, the resulting RR estimate was 1.09 (95% CI 0.92-1.28). Based on these findings, we conclude that employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma. Although some studies showed a small increase in risk of lung cancer among motor vehicle mechanics, the data on balance do not support a conclusion that lung cancer risk in this occupational group is related to asbestos exposure."
  • Paustenbach D et al., Occupational exposure to airborne asbestos from coatings, mastics, and adhesives, J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 14(3):234-44, May 2004.
    • Abstract. "Over the past few years, a question has arisen about the degree of exposure to airborne asbestos associated with the application, cleanup, and tear-out of glues and mastics used between 1940 and the present. These liquid products were used either to adhere insulation to pipes and boilers or to cover the insulation so as to protect it. In this study, four asbestos-containing products, a coating, two mastics, and an adhesive, which were representative of the various classes of products that have been used historically, were tested to determine the airborne concentration of asbestos fibers released during five different activities (application, spill cleanup, sanding, removal, and sweep cleaning). Each activity was performed for 30 min (often in triplicate). Personal (n=172) and area (n=280) air samples were collected during the tests, and each was analyzed for total fiber concentrations using phase contrast microscopy (PCM), and for asbestos fiber count using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). A measurable concentration of asbestos fibers was detected in six of the 452 samples collected (0.0017-0.0184 fibers/ml). The observed asbestos fibers counts for each product were similar to background. Only one asbestos fiber was detected in an indoor background sample; no asbestos fibers were identified in any of the outdoor background samples. The (raw) PCM-total fiber concentrations were adjusted based on TEM analyses that reported fraction of asbestos fibers (to derive a PCM-asbestos concentration) and by the fraction of the 8-h workday that a worker spends performing the activity (to derive a calculated TWA). For the coatings, mastics, and adhesives evaluated in the present study, the calculated TWAs using hypothetical work scenarios were well below the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 0.1 fibers/ml. The calculated TWAs ranged from 0.03 to 0.009 fibers/ml. The actual concentration of airborne asbestos due to these products is almost certainly much less than the TWAs, and may be so low as to not be measurable. These results support the historical view that these products, over the past 50 years, did not pose an occupational health hazard under foreseeable uses."
  • Paustenbach D et al., An evaluation of the historical exposures of mechanics to asbestos in brake dust, Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 18(10):786-804, October 2003.
    • Abstract. "This article presents a historical analysis of published data regarding the exposure of brake mechanics to asbestos as a result of doing brake work. Concerns about this possible hazard were first raised in the late 1960s. This analysis focuses on 30 years of data collected during the brake repair event (e.g., a brake job) and 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) personal samples. A brake job TWA represents the average concentration a mechanic experienced during brake servicing, rather than throughout the workday, and an 8-hour TWA represents the average airborne concentration of asbestos for the entire workday (which would involve brake work and other activities). Nearly 200 brake job and 8-hour TWA airborne asbestos samples were analyzed to assess how asbestos concentrations varied by type of vehicle serviced, country in which mechanics worked, time period, and brake-cleaning method. To facilitate comparisons, brake job TWAs were converted to estimated 8-hour TWAs using the durations and number of brake jobs performed per mechanic each day. Estimated and measured 8-hour TWAs for mechanics servicing automobiles and light trucks ranged from <0.002 to 0.68 f/cc, with a mean of 0.04 f/cc. In contrast, the 8-hour TWAs for mechanics servicing heavy trucks and buses ranged from 0.002 to 1.75 f/cc, with a mean of 0.2 f/cc, suggesting that these mechanics experienced higher daily asbestos exposures than automobile and light truck mechanics. Brake job and 8-hour TWAs for brake mechanics worldwide were found to be similar during the same time periods, and they were consistently below contemporaneous occupational health standards in the United States. The increased use of brake-dust control measures in some garages resulted in at least a 10-fold decrease in the TWA airborne concentrations of asbestos from the 1970s to the late 1980s."
  • Homa D et al., A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer and asbestos exposure, Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Jun 15;139(12):1210-22.
    • Abstract. "A meta-analysis of the relation between asbestos exposure and colorectal cancer mortality was conducted, using published reports of 20 asbestos-exposed cohorts. Summary standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for colorectal cancer were examined in relation to asbestos type and estimates of dust exposure (as direct estimators of asbestos exposure) and in relation to lung cancer SMR and the proportion of all deaths due to mesothelioma (as proxy estimators of asbestos exposure). An elevated summary SMR was observed in cohorts exposed to amphibole asbestos (summary SMR = 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.00), but not in cohorts exposed to serpentine asbestos (summary SMR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.81-1.33) or in cohorts exposed to both serpentine and amphibole asbestos (summary SMR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.74-1.42). Cohorts having a lung cancer SMR greater than 2.00 had a summary SMR of 1.51 (95% CI 1.29-1.76), and cohorts in which more than 1% of all deaths were attributed to mesothelioma had a summary SMR of 1.24 (95% CI 0.94-1.64). After stratifying the cohorts based on mortality due to all cancers excluding those known or suspected to be associated with asbestos exposure, lung cancer mortality was not clearly associated with colorectal cancer mortality, suggesting that the crude association between these factors may be due to misdiagnosis of lung cancer as other types of cancer in the reported causes of death. These results suggest that exposure to amphibole asbestos may be associated with colorectal cancer, but these findings may reflect an artifact of miscertification of cause of death. The results also suggest that serpentine asbestos is not associated with colorectal cancer."
  • Whysner J et al., Asbestos in the air of public buildings: a public health risk?, Prev Med. 1994 Jan;23(1):119-25.
    • Abstract. "The Environmental Health and Safety Council of the American Health Foundation has examined current estimates of cancer risks associated with the presence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in public buildings. The Council finds that even complete removal of asbestos from all of these buildings will provide no measurable benefit to public health. The removal of nonfriable ACM only can be postulated to protect the public against a small hypothetical risk that cannot be measured epidemiologically. Moreover, examination of the assumptions used in the risk assessment calculations leads to the conclusion that these small calculated risks are likely to represent overestimates. In recent surveys, the measured asbestos levels in indoor air cast some doubt on whether occupant exposure to asbestos levels are contributed to significantly by ACM even when some of the material is friable or in bad condition. Furthermore, the models used for cancer risk estimates assume no threshold level for cancer and conclude that any exposure is carcinogenic. This may be unjustified in light of information on the mechanisms for some asbestos-caused disease. Based on the best available data, it is very unlikely that cancer will result from indoor asbestos exposure, especially where ACM is well maintained."
  • Garabrandt D et al., Asbestos and colon cancer: lack of association in a large case-control study, Am J Epidemiol. 1992 Apr 15;135(8):843-53.
    • Abstract. "Previous studies linking exposure to asbestos with human colon cancer have used mortality rather than incidence as their endpoint and have neither assessed nor controlled for confounding by diet, genetic factors, or other risk factors for colon cancer. A case-control study of 746 histologically confirmed cases of colon cancer and 746 matched neighborhood controls was conducted in Los Angeles County, California. In univariate analyses of the 419 male pairs, a weak association was found between asbestos exposure and colon cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.69). When confounding by family history of large bowel cancer, diet, body weight, and physical activity was controlled, there was no association between colon cancer and exposure to asbestos among males (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.50). When asbestos exposure was restricted to occurrences preceding diagnosis by more than 15 years, there was no clear association between such exposure and colon cancer, either before (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.76-1.70) or after confounding was controlled (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.60-1.44). Further analyses by frequency and duration of exposure failed to show any association between asbestos and risk of colon cancer, but did show a consistent pattern of confounding by nonoccupational factors that, when controlled, invariably produced a weak protective effect of asbestos exposure. Among the 327 female pairs, only 6 cases and 11 controls reported asbestos exposure (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.20-1.48), and there was no evidence of risk increasing as the frequency or duration of exposure increased. This study suggests not only that occupational exposure to asbestos is not a risk factor for colon cancer in the general population of Los Angeles, but also that observed associations between asbestos and colon cancer should not be interpreted as causal unless confounding by nonoccupational factors has been evaluated and controlled."


Additional Resources

Retrieved from "http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Asbestos"
Personal tools