'); } -->
Chrysotile asbestos is a known human carcinogen. Why expose workers and the public? We believe that Professor John J.W. Rogers, in his Nov. 12 Point of View article on asbestos, grossly underrepresented the human health risks associated with exposure to chrysotile asbestos.
The National Toxicology Program, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have established chrysotile asbestos as a known human carcinogen. Internationally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the International Program on Chemical Safety have classified chrysotile as a known human carcinogen. An exposure level without a cancer risk has not been established for any form of asbestos.
Rogers' primary argument for the lack of hazard with chrysotile appears to be the risk of mesothelioma. It is generally accepted that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, cause mesothelioma; however, there is some scientific debate concerning the relative risk of mesothelioma posed by chrysotile versus the amphibole forms of asbestos. Nonetheless, there is no known safe exposure level for asbestos-related mesothelioma, and the scientific evidence continues to demonstrate risks at very low exposures.
Elevated mesothelioma risk has been demonstrated among household members of asbestos workers and among the general public living in the vicinity of industrial plants processing asbestos.
Rogers dismissed risks other than mesothelioma associated with exposures to chrysotile asbestos. The World Heath Organization recently affirmed that all forms of asbestos cause cancers of the lung, larynx and ovary as well as mesothelioma. Exposure to chrysotile causes fibrosis of the lung (asbestosis), which is disabling and often fatal.
The World Health Organization estimated that at least 90,000 people die each year from asbestos-related lung cancers alone. The International Labor Organization and the World Health Organization have called for a worldwide ban on all asbestos use, and more than 43 countries have banned the use of chrysotile.
We see no need to further the legacy of asbestos-related diseases in the U.S. and worldwide through continued use of chrysotile and other forms of asbestos. Appropriate substitute materials exist for all legitimate uses of asbestos, including chrysotile. Elimination of asbestos exposures is not "reverse greenwash" - it is sound public health policy.
John M. Dement
Professor, Duke University Medical Center
Durham
David P. Brown
Director, Program Development
Health Sciences Research
SRA International
Research Triangle Park
Keep up with the latest opinions from the News & Observer, delivered straight to your inbox!
![]() |
@Nyx.CommentBody@