How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: Spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases

25Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The silicate mineral asbestos is categorized into two main groups based on fiber structure: serpentine asbestos (chrysotile) and amphibole asbestos (crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite). Chrysotile is used in more than 2 000 applications and is especially prevalent in the construction industry. Although its use is banned or restricted in more than 52 countries, an estimated 107 000 workers die from asbestos exposure each year, and approximately 125 million workers continue to be exposed. Furthermore, ambient exposures persist to which the public is exposed, globally. Today, the primary controversies regarding the use of asbestos are the potencies of different types of asbestos, as opposed whether or not asbestos causes morbidity and mortality. The asbestos industry has promoted and funded research based on selected literature, ignoring both clinical and scientific knowledge. In this piece, we highlight a prominent example of a conflicted publication that sought to undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop the use of all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos. Independent and rigorous scientific data provide sufficient evidence that chrysotile asbestos, like other forms of asbestos, is a cause of asbestos-related morbidity and premature mortality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Baur, X., Soskolne, C. L., Lemen, R. A., Schneider, J., Woitowitz, H. J., & Budnik, L. T. (2015). How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: Spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 21(2), 176–179. https://doi.org/10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000105

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free