[remote_phone]

People with heavy, prolonged exposure to asbestos have up to 13% chance is getting cancer.

People with prolonged exposure to sawdust have a 16% chance of getting cancer.

Asbestos is dangerous but not nearly as dangerous as most people think.

[goeiedaggoeie]

Turns out getting particles into our lungs are bad! I recently did some DIY on an old cottage on our land which was empty for years, I got a N100 mask since it was painted with lead paint which was flaking off and I was putting lead containment paint over it after brushing it down. An older person seeing me take this rudimentary precaution went about mocking me for being timid.

[CharlesW]

Can you post a link to the source?

It's well-known that both asbestos and wood dust (especially hardwood dust) are carcinogens, but (for example) mesothelioma is very bad and does not require heavy, prolonged exposure — brief and/or low-level exposure has been shown to cause it too. Additionally, inhaled asbestos fibers can remain in the lungs and pleural lining for decades. In contrast, the human body can expel wood dust over time.

[remote_phone]

> mesothelioma is very bad and does not require heavy, prolonged exposure — brief or low-level exposures have been linked to mesothelioma.

Link?

[CharlesW]

Lemen, R. A. (2004). Asbestos in brakes: exposure and risk of disease. American journal of industrial medicine, 45(3), 229-237.

[remote_phone]

A more recent and substantial study disproves that idea.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4243788/

Workers with heavy exposure to asbestos have a similar risk of lung cancer as persons with low or no exposure 20 years after the exposure has ended.

[gpm]

What exactly do you think that study contradicts? It seems to show that asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer for about two decades. That seems to support the comment you're saying it disproves, not disprove it.

[atdrummond]

One of the sad things about the massive increase in popularity of engineered quartz countertops has been the massive increase in 20-something year olds getting silicosis and needing lung transplants.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810008/

[asdff]

Just to be clear about your source for other readers. It discusses the workers who produce these counter tops versus people merely having them in the home (what I originally inferred with your comment), it says the mean age of onset was 43 years old, and that 79% of the workers with silicosis did not use personal protective equipment.

[atdrummond]

I’m pretty certain the studies are lagging indicators with regards to the age of incidence; the jobs have seen a significant shift in the ages of employees as more of the work is now done by immigrant/second gen labor than in years prior. A family on my street in Palo Alto had three sons diagnosed with silicosis by 25.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/24/1189745...

[Spooky23]

That’s an ignorant interpretation of those statistics.

13% risk is a number controlling out other factors. Cancer is a numbers game and as a person living your life you stack the risks together.

Trying to rhetorically minimize the danger of this stuff by comparing it to sawdust is specious and gross. Exposure to sawdust is a narrow occupational hazard easily mitigated with PPE. Exposure to asbestos is a much broader - use of baby powder, serving on a ship, working in a boiler room, working as a mechanic, etc. Its a very broad risk that most workers didn’t even realize they were exposed to - just their presence was a risk.

[logdap]

> 13% risk is a number controlling out other factors

So is the other figure, so the comparison is valid. Maybe wood dust is more dangerous that you assume?

BTW, the asbestos in baby powder had nothing to do with industrial use of asbestos. It was in the talc because asbestos and talc are frequently coincident in the ground.

[remote_phone]

Please provide sources for all of your claims.

[tegmark]

i discovered this after buying a house with asbestos and looking not only into the official guidelines but the undercurrent of industry experts, their observations. the risks of asbestos are massively overblown in the way that the public understands it. massively. it was shocking to find out.

[jtwaleson]

Do you have some sources? I'm interested in this topic as there is also asbestos in my house.

[tegmark]

i only have sources for standard guidelines

[delphi4711]

assuming you are correct, what if someone is exposed to both asbestos and sawdust? And what if that person is also a smoker? And now that person also lives in a house with high radon exposure.

[kbelder]

And drinks soda? Eats red meat? Drives a car? Works out infrequently or too frequently?

[delphi4711]

correct. An additional chance of 13% to get cancer is a lot, because the chances are already quite high. Trying to downplay the risks of asbestos isn't helping.