Asbestos and cancer: history and public policy.

Abstract

so replete with error that it seems to me it would be appropriate to designate him as a negative correspondent -namely, somebody who is wrong more often that chance alone allows him to be. Weller writes that "it is reasonable to expect that those concerned with mining and processing asbestos should have been alert to the growing body of medical opinion ... to the established links between asbestos inhalation and serious diseases." One might ask, should they (the asbestos producers and if it comes to that the medical and scientific communities) have known in 1950 on the basis of 30 to 40 published cases of concomitant asbestosis and lung cancer, that there was a cause and effect relation? This was five or more years before Doll published his classic paper.' As for mesothelioma, the association between exposure to crocidolite and mesothelioma did not come to light until the paper by Wagner et al in 1960.2 It was uncertain whether amosite was similarly carcinogenic, and this is what prompted Selikoff to carry out his study, which was subsequently published in 1972.' Weller tells us that "Johns Manderville" (Johns Mansville?) and other companies should have read Gloyne's pertinent abstract! Gloyne certainly did not write the abstract! Weller does not reference Gloyne's paper, but I assume he refers to the description of