Exposing the “Myth” of ABC, “Anything But Chrysotile”: A critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies

Egilman, David; Fehnel, Corey R.; Bohme, Susanna Rankin

doi:10.1002/ajim.10300

Cited by 70 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All one need do is review the list of asbestos industry advocates involved in the writing of the WHO documents to see how the confusion arose over which asbestos fibers were to be considered carcinogenic (Egilman et al 2003;Infante, in press;Lemen, in press;Tweedale 2000). The last WHO publication to recommend a protective exposure standard for asbestos was published 15 years ago (WHO 1987).…”

Section: Un Agenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The asbestos cancer epidemic.

LaDou

2004

Environ Health Perspect

180

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The asbestos cancer epidemic may take as many as 10 million lives before asbestos is banned worldwide and exposures are brought to an end. In many developed countries, in the most affected age groups, mesothelioma may account for 1% of all deaths. In addition to mesotheliomas, 5-7% of all lung cancers can be attributed to occupational exposures to asbestos. The asbestos cancer epidemic would have been largely preventable if the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) had responded early and responsibly. The WHO was late in recognizing the epidemic and failed to act decisively after it was well under way. The WHO and the ILO continue to fail to address the problem of asbestos mining, manufacturing, and use and world trade of a known human carcinogen. Part of the problem is that the WHO and the ILO have allowed organizations such as the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and other asbestos industry advocates to manipulate them and to distort scientific evidence. The global asbestos cancer epidemic is a story of monumental failure to protect the public health.

show abstract

Section: Un Agenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The asbestos cancer epidemic.

LaDou

2004

Environ Health Perspect

180

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The role of chrysotile in the causation of mesothelioma has been debated for decades (Churg, 1988;Huncharek, 1994;Smith and Wright, 1996;Stayner et al, 1996;Egilman et al, 2003;McDonald, 2010). One view is that the amphiboles (crocidolite, amosite and tremolite) explain almost all cases of mesothelioma and that "chrysotile mesothelioma" is induced by contaminating tremolite (McDonald, 2010).…”

Section: Chrysotilementioning

confidence: 99%

Mineralogy and Malignant Mesothelioma: The South African Experience

Phillips¹,

Rees²,

Murray³

et al. 2012

Malignant Mesothelioma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…15 This position -that low levels of exposure to chrysotile is safe -is contrasted with the view that fibre consistency is irrelevant and, even if chrysotile has lower bio-persistence, it can still trigger mesothelioma and other asbestos diseases (Egilman 2003;Landrigan and Soffritti 2005). 16 Egilman argues, for instance, that even if chrysotile fibres are broken down in the lung, they are not expelled from the body and thus still pose a long-term risk (2003).…”

Section: Governance and Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Show me the Evidence’: Mobilisation, Citizenship and Risk in Indian Asbestos Issues

Waldman

2009

IDS Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis paper examines asbestos issues, mobilisation and citizenship in India. It shows how asbestos has been considered as a tool for Indian economic growth and modernisation and explores the scientific debates around its 'safe' use. In seeking to locate experiences of citizenship within a globalised context, this research has focused on anti-asbestos mobilisation and protest in cosmopolitan cities as well as more decentralised contexts. It argues that the state's narrow definition of asbestos diseases enables it to officially document the lack of asbestos diseases experienced by Indian workers. This process, which defines sufferers as politically invisible and inconsequential, accompanied by the 30 year delay between exposure and the onset of disease, hinders anti-asbestos organisations as there is no constituency to be mobilised. Parallel (and partially interrelated) grassroots asbestos movements which are more worker-orientated are, however, marginalised from the transnational protests. The paper argues that mobilisation around identity issues thus creates different contexts in India, in which activists are simultaneously both intimately connected and enormously distant to different aspects of the mobilisation process. In addition, while geographic and political differences are compressed through transnational mobilisation; class, regional and educational differences are expanded.

show abstract

Exposing the “Myth” of ABC, “Anything But Chrysotile”: A critique of the Canadian asbestos mining industry and McGill University chrysotile studies

Cited by 70 publications

References 53 publications

The asbestos cancer epidemic.

The asbestos cancer epidemic.

Mineralogy and Malignant Mesothelioma: The South African Experience

‘Show me the Evidence’: Mobilisation, Citizenship and Risk in Indian Asbestos Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About