Review of asbestos related deaths and Controversial Issues

Review of asbestos related deaths and Controversial Issues

 

Keeping up with advances in mesothelioma research can be a difficult task. It seems like every day there's a new clinical trial was carried out or some new area is investigating, and for good reason. More than 250,000 people have died as a result of exposure to asbestos, and that number continues to rise. Continuing the effort and support, we can beat this deadly disease. One interesting study examined the relationship between deaths related to asbestos and insulation workers is called, "Asbestos-associated deaths of workers in isolation in the United States and Canada, 1967-1987 by Selikoff, IJ | Seidman, [... ANN NY Acad SCI].... H Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Vol 643, pp 1-13, 1991 Here's an excerpt: "In addition to showing an increase in deaths from asbestosis a study of the causes of death in 17,800 asbestos insulation workers followed prospectively for 20 years (1967-1986) has also shown a significant increase in cancer in a variety of organs. These include lung cancer, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, gastrointestinal and other cancers, such as the oral cavity and oropharynx, larynx, kidney, pancreas, gallbladder and bile ducts.Furthermore, no increase in cancer of the urinary bladder, prostate, testicular, primary liver cancer, and primary brain cancer, or for melanoma, leukemia, or lymphoma was found. Since the study provides extensive data, which reflect 301,592.6 person-years of experience, you can be pretty sure that, at least for this asbestos exposure, at this time, the "negative" finding can be accepted with some confidence.Apparently, every organ and tissue has its own neoplastic response to asbestos, and in some tissues cancer risk is increased, but not in others "Another study worth looking at is called," Asbestos-related disease in the place of labor and the environment: controversial issues .. "By Churg A. - Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Monogr Pathol 1993 (36) :54-77 Here is an excerpt:..." Pathological diagnostic criteria classics asbestosis, ie the presence of diffuse interstitial fibrosis like usual interstitial pneumonia, and asbestos bodies visible sections of normal tissues, have shown withstand the test of time. Cases with no visible asbestos bodies in routine sections or iron-stained tissue almost never turn out to be asbestosis. Remember that workers with asbestos exposure develop all interstitial lung diseases to which the rest of the population is subject, some of these conditions are treatable and not bad to be diagnosed as asbestosis, which can not be treated. There is strong epidemiological and pathological evidence that the unique combination of asbestos exposure and lung cancer is the association of asbestosis and lung cancer. Therefore, a type of lung cancer should only be attributed to asbestos exposure asbestosis when present by clinical or pathological reasons. The histological type and tumor location are irrelevant in this regard. Analytical electron microscopy revealed that chrysotile asbestos does not induce mesothelioma in man, but it is necessary that the extremely high levels of retained fibers, as high as those levels observed in cases of asbestosis, that this event occurs. The weight of evidence suggests that exposure of the general population to very low levels of chrysotile found in a public building (not very different levels of ambient air) will never cause mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer, because all these diseases seem to require exposure to chrysotile very high occupancy. Even if one accepts the ideas (probably wrong) that no level of exposure to asbestos poses a risk of cancer, and that the mathematical extrapolation of the risks of occupational exposure to high-level exposure to low-level construction is scientifically valid , calculated risks are much smaller than the real, everyday risks such as driving to work. . Thus, exposure to asbestos in ambient levels seem to produce any real health hazard "For more information, please read the studies in their entirety and consider doing some independent research on your own Art By:. Mont Wrobleski