3 ms·
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 > Necroscopic studies have led to the determination o
by shawnz 6y ago
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1 https://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/9/809#xref-ref-7-1
> Necroscopic studies have led to the determination of asbestos fibre load and the demonstration of a dose related effect, thus making improbable the argument that mesothelioma only requires one fibre of asbestos for initiation of the malignancy.
Furthermore, asbestos exposure in urban settings is very common: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.669 https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/arrd.1980.122.5.669
> We isolated uncoated asbestos fibers from the lungs of 21 urban dwellers who had fewer than 100 asbestos bodies/gram of lung, a level shown previously to be associated with environmental rather than occupational exposure to asbestos
- dccoolgai 6y agoConsidering that Mesothelioma can take 30+ years to manifest, that info about exposure being common does _not_ improve my day. The truth is, it's hard to unravel: especially with 100s of billions of dollars on the line in liability, there is probably some "sugar science" going on - maybe on both sides even. What I _do_ know is that: 1. It's harmful af (regardless of "how much" the research says, the fact is: harmful af). 2. Everyone thinks it's banned, but it's not. 3. Some people make billions of dollars continuing to use it (enabled by #2) 4. I'm not in the set of people described in #3 I'd like it to be banned.
- shawnz 6y agoI certainly agree with all that. It should be banned.