Explore the vast range of titles available.

Many developed countries have banned the use of asbestos, but not the United States. There have, however, been multiple efforts in the US to establish strict exposure standards, to limit asbestos use, and to seek compensation through the courts for asbestos-injured workers’ In consequence of these efforts, asbestos use has declined dramatically, despite the absence of a legally mandated ban. This manuscript presents a historical review of these efforts.

Sailors have long been known to experience high rates of injury, disease, and premature death. Many studies have shown asbestos-related diseases among shipyard workers, but few have examined the epidemiology of asbestos-related disease and death among asbestos-exposed sailors serving on ships at sea. Chrysotile and amphibole asbestos were used extensively in ship construction for insulation, joiner bulkhead systems, pipe coverings, boilers, machinery parts, bulkhead panels, and many other uses, and asbestos-containing ships are still in service. Sailors are at high risk of exposure to shipboard asbestos, because unlike shipyard workers and other occupationally exposed groups, sailors both work and live at their worksite, making asbestos standards and permissible exposure limits (PELs). based on an 8-h workday inadequate to protect their health elevated risks of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related cancers have been observed among sailors through epidemiologic studies. We review these studies here.

Contrary to common belief among health professionals and the public, asbestos has never been permanently banned in the United States. A significant new use rule issued by the EPA creates loopholes that will permit continued and potentially expanded use of asbestos.

There was an error in the original article [...]

An under-recognised aspect of the current humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is the impact of the war on the environment and the associated risks for human health. This commentary contextualises these impacts against the background of human suffering produced by the overwhelming violence associated with the use of military force against the general population of Gaza. In calling for an immediate cessation to the violence, the authors draw attention to the urgent need to rebuild the health care system and restore the physical and human infrastructure that makes a liveable environment possible and promotes human health and well-being, especially for the most vulnerable in the population. Environmental remediation should therefore form one of the most important parts of international efforts to assist reconstruction, through which we hope Palestinians and Israelis will achieve lasting peace, health, and sustainable development, all as part of accepted international human rights obligations.

Background: All 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. Objective: We 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. Discussion: All 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. Conclusions: All 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.

OBJECTIVES. This article examines the credibility and policy implications of the \"amphibole hypothesis,\" which postulates that (1) the mesotheliomas observed among workers exposed to chrysotile asbestos may be explained by confounding exposures to amphiboles, and (2) chrysotile may have lower carcinogenic potency than amphiboles. METHODS. A critical review was conducted of the lung burden, epidemiologic, toxicologic, and mechanistic studies that provide the basis for the amphibole hypothesis. RESULTS. Mechanistic and lung burden studies do not provide convincing evidence for the amphibole hypothesis. Toxicologic and epidemiologic studies provide strong evidence that chrysotile is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma. Chrysotile may be less potent than some amphiboles for inducing mesotheliomas, but there is little evidence to indicate lower lung cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS. Given the evidence of a significant lung cancer risk, the lack of conclusive evidence for the amphibole hypothesis, and the fact that workers are generally exposed to a mixture of fibers, we conclude that it is prudent to treat chrysotile with virtually the same level of concern as the amphibole forms of asbestos.