Occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos and cancer risk: a review of the amphibole hypothesis

This article examines the credibility and policy implications of the "amphibole hypothesis," which postulates that (1) the mesotheliomas observed among workers exposed to chrysotile asbestos may be explained by confounding exposures to amphiboles, and (2) chrysotile may have lower carcinog...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of public health (1971) 1996-02, Vol.86 (2), p.179-186
Main Authors: Stayner, L T, Dankovic, D A, Lemen, R A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Asbestos
Asbestos, Amphibole - adverse effects
Asbestos, Amphibole - toxicity
Asbestos, Serpentine - adverse effects
Asbestos, Serpentine - toxicity
Autopsies
Biological and medical sciences
Cancer
Carcinogens
Chrysotile asbestos
Epidemiologic Methods
Epidemiology
Fibers
Health risks
Humans
Hypotheses
Lung cancer
Lung Neoplasms - etiology
Medical sciences
Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma - etiology
Mineral oils
Mining industry
Mortality
Occupational Exposure
Occupational hazards
Public health
Rats
Relationship
Risk
Textile industry
Tumors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article examines the credibility and policy implications of the "amphibole hypothesis," which postulates that (1) the mesotheliomas observed among workers exposed to chrysotile asbestos may be explained by confounding exposures to amphiboles, and (2) chrysotile may have lower carcinogenic potency than amphiboles. A critical review was conducted of the lung burden, epidemiologic, toxicologic, and mechanistic studies that provide the basis for the amphibole hypothesis. Mechanistic and lung burden studies do not provide convincing evidence for the amphibole hypothesis. Toxicologic and epidemiologic studies provide strong evidence that chrysotile is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Chrysotile may be less potent than some amphiboles for inducing mesotheliomas, but there is little evidence to indicate lower lung cancer risk. Given the evidence of a significant lung cancer risk, the lack of conclusive evidence for the amphibole hypothesis, and the fact that workers are generally exposed to a mixture of fibers, we conclude that it is prudent to treat chrysotile with virtually the same level of concern as the amphibole forms of asbestos.
ISSN:0090-0036
1541-0048
DOI:10.2105/AJPH.86.2.179