To the Editor: Park and colleagues’ important scientific contribution draws attention to the risk of exposure to asbestos in home renovation, a risk often unrecognised by those doing such work.1 However, by stating that the risk of disease from chrysotile asbestos “is still controversial”, the authors promote unproven and unsubstantiated claims that chrysotile asbestos can be used safely, and cast doubt on the findings of multiple international health organisations that conclude otherwise.2,3 In stating this, Park et al refer to Bernstein and colleagues’ work,4 which is funded by the very trade lobbies promoting the use of chrysotile.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Park E-K, Yates DH, Hyland RA, Johnson AR. Asbestos exposure during home renovation in New South Wales. Med J Aust 2013; 199: 410-413. <MJA full text>
- 2. World Health Organization. Elimination of asbestos-related diseases. Geneva: WHO, 2006. http://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/asbestosrelateddiseases.pdf (accessed Feb 2014).
- 3. Weiss SH. A call to action: epidemiologists assert themselves with scientific data. Int J Occup Environ Health 2012; 18: 167-170.
- 4. Bernstein D, Dunnigan J, Hesterberg T, et al. Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol 2013; 43: 154-183.
- 5. Hodgson JT, Darnton A. The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. Ann Occup Hyg 2000; 8: 565-601.
- 6. Hodgson JT, Darnton A. Mesothelioma risk from chrysotile. Occup Environ Med 2010; 67: 432.
All authors have been retained and/or testified as expert witnesses in asbestos personal injury compensation claims, usually at the request of plaintiffs. Remuneration for such work is donated by Arthur Frank to his employing institution.