Scientific evidence for Chrysotile asbestos and cancer & mesothelioma

90% to 95% of asbestos used was Chrysotile.What do the studies show?I know that there was a study of 3072 (?) long term textile workers in a South Carolina Chrysotile factory, and the workers worked from, I think, 1916 to 1977.As of 2001, two thirds (or around 2000) died and there were two total cases of Mesothelioma.There were (iirc) 53 cases of lung cancer deaths, which was four times what one would expect.EDIT - There were 195 lung cancer deaths after extensive follow up and combing, and it looks like 21 Asbestosis deaths, and three Mesothelioma deaths. But this was a 1916-1977 group of South Carolina textile workers (not a healthy demographic cohort group considering the time & place nevermind the job!) (Lung cancer deaths in the general national 2026 population is 4.0% of men and 3.6% of women) (This heavy Chrysotile exposure worker cohort death rate from lung cancer looks to be a bit under 6.5% but I am sure that longer lives would give the cancer more time to develop so it would surely go higher still)I could be confusing this with a Chinese study. There was a Chinese study which had long term follow-up of heavily exposed workers and the total excess mortality was 250 verses 200 or 25%.Chrysotile asbestos seems to have a lot of combined factors which cause excess mortality - especially lung cancer, specifically those with a combination history of smoking and heavy Chrysotile exposure.I would legalize Chrysotile asbestos but limit factory workers (and mine workers) to a very short employment and with strong breathing equipment & full-equipment showers before going to the changing room. Then a strong outside fan blowing session before going to the parking lot. I would also require a central digital database which requires every Chrysotile product to be registered in its location - both address and where specifically in the structure it is located. With pictures. And directions, descriptions, instructions for removal or a future remodel.The Twin Towers might not have fallen, in 2001, had more asbestos been used. Though the fallen structures surely had a large cocktail of toxic dust - including Asbestos.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The general population cancer rate is 453.4 per 100,000Mortality rate is 145.4Lung cancer rate is 50 to 60 per 100,000None smokers have a 10 to 15 lung cancer rate per 100,000NOW ASBESTOS!"In non-smokers heavily exposed to asbestos, this risk is elevated by a factor of roughly 5""This results in a lung cancer rate of about 50 to 75 per 100,000"" When studying chrysotile exposure, the interaction between asbestos and cigarette smoke is widely documented as being multiplicative (sure-additive), meaning the combined effect is much greater than adding the two individual risks together"" Smokers heavily exposed to chrysotile experience an exponentially higher lung cancer mortality rate"That is AI GoogleSee the available journal (free no paywall nor password wall online):Occup Environ Med
2010 Sept 10Lung Cancer Mortality From Exposure To Chrysotile Asbestos And Smoking: A Case-Control Study Within A Cohort In ChinaIt is a study of 1139 asbestos workers in China. Stratified in low, medium, and heavy exposure plus with smokers verses non smoking asbestos workers."The adjusted OR for lung cancer was 3.66 ( 95% CI 1.61 to 8.29) for high exposure and was slightly elevated for medium exposure (1.25; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.31)"Smoking among the high exposure group had a 10.39 OR
Non smokers had a OR of 5.23 for heavy exposure"Multivariate analysis revealed that the risk for lung cancer in the high-exposure group was over three times that in the reference group (OR 3.66...) ...the difference was statically significant. Medium exposure was associated with a slightly increased risk, which was not statistically significant (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.47 to 3.31)"That was the 2010 journalNow see:Am Journal of Epidemiology
2013: April 4
Stephen R ColeAnalysis of Occupational Asbestos Exposure and Lung Cancer Mortality Using the G Formula"The cohort included 3,072 men and women employed at a textile production plant""During the 117, 471 person-years of follow-up, 195 lung cancer deaths and 1703 other deaths occured"The study conclusion was that the lung cancer deaths could have been reduced by 24% by following the current OSHA (2013) regulations which only allow 1/330 of the asbestos particles - essentially gutting the textile operation.So about 45 to 46 fewer lung cancer deaths from the South Carolina textile plant.Why not just have non-smoking workers be a legal requirement for employment? Why not have workers only be allowed to work 4 hours a day, five days a week? Why not have full body gear with breathing equipment inside and sealed? Why not have a requirement for an employee to work the full four hours without a break, then go get showered before removing full body gear?I am starting to feel like Asbestos - if Chrysotile - is something that got trash-canned before proper worker safety was ever attempted. The problem with Chrysotile is that we should understand that fibers should not be heavily breathed in all day long at work. Proper worker safety could eliminate Asbestosis, Mesothelioma and even the vast majority of lung cancer cases from Asbestos (Chrysotile!). Granted it is complicated when this stuff gets produced then used all over the place, but regulations can solve the problems there as well.The cigarette smoke issue probably should be an alert (alert!) to us of the combined toxic effect of various chemicals in our environment and FOR SURE should be seen as a phenomenon in which we surely are unaware of the dynamic synergies
(Asbestos and cigarette smoke are one we ARE aware of)