Scientific Controversy and Asbestos: Making Disease Invisible

Braun, Lundy; Greene, Anna; Manseau, Marc; Singhal, R.; Kisting, Sophie; Jacobs, Nancy J.

doi:10.1179/oeh.2003.9.3.194

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dust control regulations for asbestos dust were introduced in the UK for the first time in 1931. 1 These simply required adherence to a short series of legal requirements to prevent 'the escape of asbestos dust into the air of any room in which persons work'. 2 Understandably, there was no attempt in 1931 to address what level of dust was needed before the prohibition would be breached because there was no equipment to measure it.…”

Section: Regulatory Triggers That May Fail For Nanotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it took far too long to get there. Whilst there were many reasons leading to the regulatory failure regarding the health risks of asbestos [1,5], one practical problem was the inability to 'measure' (by counting) asbestos fibres. This requires a specialised optical microscope (a phase contrast microscope with a specially designed eyepiece graticule) to check air samples.…”

Section: Regulatory Triggers That May Fail For Nanotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff

Ludlow

2008

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst there are not yet laws specifically relating to nanotechnology and its products in any country, the technology and its products are not unregulated. Regulatory frameworks created for conventional technologies and products will be expected to apply to nanotechnology and its products. For example, new medicines are regulated in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If a new medicine incorporates nanotechnology, then it should still be regulated as a medicine. However, whether the expectation that pre-existing regulatory frameworks will apply is correct and, if so, whether the application of such frameworks is adequate are important issues to be answered. This paper considers these questions, drawing on lessons learnt from significant regulatory reviews undertaken in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia.

show abstract

Section: Regulatory Triggers That May Fail For Nanotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Regulatory Triggers That May Fail For Nanotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff

Ludlow

2008

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Controversies such as these have helped to make the disease experiences of asbestos-exposed workers and people in asbestos-contaminated communities invisible and uncompensated, allowing the asbestos industry to escape accountability (Braun et al 2003). The problem extends well beyond asbestos.…”

Section: Science and Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Case for a Global Ban on Asbestos

LaDou

Castleman

Frank

et al. 2010

Environ Health Perspect

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAll forms of asbestos are now banned in 52 countries. Safer products have replaced many materials that once were made with it. Nonetheless, many countries still use, import, and export asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and in those that have banned other forms of asbestos, the so-called “controlled use” of chrysotile asbestos is often exempted from the ban. In fact, chrysotile has accounted for > 95% of all the asbestos used globally.ObjectiveWe examined and evaluated the literature used to support the exemption of chrysotile asbestos from the ban and how its exemption reflects the political and economic influence of the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry.DiscussionAll forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are proven human carcinogens. All forms cause malignant mesothelioma and lung and laryngeal cancers, and may cause ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other cancers. No exposure to asbestos is without risk. Illnesses and deaths from asbestos exposure are entirely preventable.ConclusionsAll countries of the world have an obligation to their citizens to join in the international endeavor to ban the mining, manufacture, and use of all forms of asbestos. An international ban is urgently needed. There is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile from the worldwide ban of asbestos.

show abstract

“…Chrysotile is the most common and only form of asbestos still being mined. 13 Widespread international consensus exists over the dangers of crocidolite and amosite (Braun, Greene, Manseau, Singhal, Kisting and Jacobs 2003;Landrigan and Soffritti 2005;McCulloch 2002;Welch 2007). This perception of risk has been extended to all forms of asbestos by those mobilising for asbestos bans (Normark 2006;Brophy 2006;Leigh and Driscoll 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

Scientific Controversy and Asbestos: Making Disease Invisible

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff

Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff

The Case for a Global Ban on Asbestos

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About