Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background: The dust diseases silicosis and asbestosis were the first occupational diseases to have widespread impact on workers. Knowledge that asbestos and silica were hazardous to health became public several decades after the industry knew of the health concerns. This delay was largely influenced by the interests of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and other asbestos mining and product manufacturing companies. Objectives: To understand the ongoing corporate influence on the science and politics of asbestos and silica exposure, including litigation defense strategies related to historical manipulation of science. Methods: We examined previously secret corporate documents, depositions and trial testimony produced in litigation; as well as published literature. Results: Our analysis indicates that companies that used and produced asbestos have continued and intensified their efforts to alter the asbestos-cancer literature and utilize dust-exposure standards to avoid liability and regulation. Organizations of asbestos product manufacturers delayed the reduction of permissible asbestos exposures by covering up the link between asbestos and cancer. Once the decline of the asbestos industry in the US became inevitable, the companies and their lawyers designed the state of the art (SOA) defense to protect themselves in litigation and to maintain sales to developing countries. Conclusions: Asbestos product companies would like the public to believe that there was a legitimate debate surrounding the dangers of asbestos during the twentieth century, particularly regarding the link to cancer, which delayed adequate regulation. The asbestos-cancer link was not a legitimate contestation of science; rather the companies directly manipulated the scientific literature. There is evidence that industry manipulation of scientific literature remains a continuing problem today, resulting in inadequate regulation and compensation and perpetuating otherwise preventable worker and consumer injuries and deaths.
Background: The dust diseases silicosis and asbestosis were the first occupational diseases to have widespread impact on workers. Knowledge that asbestos and silica were hazardous to health became public several decades after the industry knew of the health concerns. This delay was largely influenced by the interests of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) and other asbestos mining and product manufacturing companies. Objectives: To understand the ongoing corporate influence on the science and politics of asbestos and silica exposure, including litigation defense strategies related to historical manipulation of science. Methods: We examined previously secret corporate documents, depositions and trial testimony produced in litigation; as well as published literature. Results: Our analysis indicates that companies that used and produced asbestos have continued and intensified their efforts to alter the asbestos-cancer literature and utilize dust-exposure standards to avoid liability and regulation. Organizations of asbestos product manufacturers delayed the reduction of permissible asbestos exposures by covering up the link between asbestos and cancer. Once the decline of the asbestos industry in the US became inevitable, the companies and their lawyers designed the state of the art (SOA) defense to protect themselves in litigation and to maintain sales to developing countries. Conclusions: Asbestos product companies would like the public to believe that there was a legitimate debate surrounding the dangers of asbestos during the twentieth century, particularly regarding the link to cancer, which delayed adequate regulation. The asbestos-cancer link was not a legitimate contestation of science; rather the companies directly manipulated the scientific literature. There is evidence that industry manipulation of scientific literature remains a continuing problem today, resulting in inadequate regulation and compensation and perpetuating otherwise preventable worker and consumer injuries and deaths.
Over the past 60 years, many organizations in numerous countries have proposed occupational exposure limits (OELs) for airborne contaminants (1). The limits or guidelines that have been the most widely accepted both in the United States and in most other countries are those issued annually by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and are termed Threshold Limit Values Ò (TLVs) (1-10).The usefulness of establishing OELs for potentially harmful agents in the working environment has been demonstrated repeatedly since their inception (3, 5, 6). It has been claimed that whenever these limits have been implemented in a particular industry, no worker has been shown to have sustained serious adverse effects on his health as a result of exposure to these concentrations of an industrial chemical (7). Although this statement is arguable with respect to the acceptability of OELs for those chemicals established before 1980, and later found to be carcinogenic, there is little doubt that millions of persons have avoided serious effects of workplace exposure due to their existence.
The work of professionals in industrial hygiene and allied disciplines such as environmental health can substantially benefit from use of airborne exposure study design and data analysis methodologies that are based in mathematical statistics and probability theory. It has been said that “the science of statistics deals with making decisions based on observed data in the face of uncertainty”. This chapter discusses some major areas of industrial hygiene practice where statistical methods perform an important role; the need for statistically sound study designs for both experimental and observational studies; discussions concerning statistical methods used for occupational epidemiological studies; concerning estimating possible threshold levels and low‐risk levels for occupational exposures; the area of application for statistics that is of primary interest and receives most attention in this chapter. This is the estimation of occupational exposures to airborne contaminants and calculation of error limits for such estimates. Nine possible objectives of occupational exposure estimation are discussed, which have their own special requirements for study design strategies. Occupational exposure study designs and related data analysis methods have come to be broadly called sampling strategies. These sampling strategies are plans of action, based on statistical theory used to determine a logical, efficient framework for application of general scientific methodology and professional judgment. Some basic statistical theory relevant to occupational exposure data are presented. Distributional models are given that identify the contributions of various sources of variation to the overall (net) random error in occupational exposure estimates. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) nomenclature for exposure data is first given and a model is given for the contributions of the various components of variation to the net random error in occupational exposure measurements (due to the measurement procedure used), and the model is extended for total error to include random and systematic variations in true exposure levels (over times, locations, or workers doing similar work). Information is included on the mathematical characteristics of basic distributional models. This is the starting point for deriving sampling distributions of industrial hygiene exposure data taken by various sampling strategies. General properties of the normal distribution model are given and of the lognormal distribution model (both two‐parameter and three‐parameter). The adequacy of normal and lognormal distribution models for certain general types of continuous variable data (specifically occupational exposure measurements) is discussed. These data models are then used to apply special‐interest applications of statistical theory to occupational exposure study designs and specialized data analyses. Basic principles of statistically sound study design and data analysis that apply to all industrial hygiene surveys, evaluations, or studies are presented. Particular study designs to be used for collecting data to estimate individual occupational exposures and exposure distributions are given. This section first discusses the cornerstone concept of worker target populations and discusses in detail another important concept, the determinant variables affecting occupational exposure levels experienced by a target population, discusses exposure measurement strategies selected to measure a short‐ or long‐period, time‐weighted average (TWA) exposure of an individual worker on a given day. Both practical and statistical considerations are discussed for long‐term and short‐term exposure estimates. Lastly, exposure monitoring strategies are presented for measuring multiple exposures (e.g., multiple workers on a single day, a single worker on multiple days, or multiple workers on multiple days). Eight possible elements of monitoring programs are discussed in detail, with examples of both exposure screening and exposure distribution monitoring programs. The last section presents specialized applied methods for formal statistical analysis of occupational exposure data generated by the study designs discussed earlier.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.