Letters
Volume 200 - Issue 6

Asbestos exposure during home renovation in New South Wales

Authors:  Richard A Lemen, Arthur L Frank, Colin L Soskolne, Stanley H Weiss and Barry I Castleman

Med J Aust 2014; 200 (6): 315. || doi: 10.5694/mja13.11293
Published online: 7 April 2014
Arguments drawing attention to this serious problem must be backed up by the most current and accurate evidence
Download PDF (200 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

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.

Additionally, by citing outdated estimates,5 Park et al downplay the risk of mesothelioma from chrysotile asbestos. Updated estimates show the risk of mesothelioma from such exposure to be 10 times higher than in the original estimates cited by Park et al.6

This is especially harmful because chrysotile is the only form of asbestos still sold freely in countries where most of the world’s people live today.3 This paper reminds us how inattention to reference selection and imperfect peer review can play directly into the hands of vested interests.

Authors

  • Richard A Lemen1,2
  • Arthur L Frank3
  • Colin L Soskolne4,5
  • Stanley H Weiss6
  • Barry I Castleman7
  • 1. United States Public Health Service, Canton, Ga, USA.
  • 2. Department of Environmental Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga, USA.
  • 3. Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa, USA.
  • 4. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • 5. Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT.
  • 6. Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, New Jersey School of Public Health, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
  • 7. Garrett Park, Md, USA.

Correspondence: Richard@ralemen.org

Competing interests

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.

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library