Talk:Chrysotile

Carcinogenity Dispute
previously the article read:

Chrysotile, a form of asbestos, is a proven human carcinogen (List of IARC Group 1 carcinogens). It is known contributor to mesothelioma. However, unlike other asbestos forms of asbestos such as crocidolite and amosite, Chrysotile only poses a risk when absorbed in extreme quantities. This is due to the fact that Chrysotile is a rolled phyllosilicate, whereas other asbestoform minerals are bladed amphiboles. These blades become imbeded in lung tissue upon inhalation, and serve as a constant irritant until the tissue becomes cancerous. Chrysotile is much more flexible than amphibole asbestos, and does not cause cancer in the same manner. Instead, the risk posed by Chrysotile in large quantities is similar to silicosis caused by inhalation of fine grained quartz. However, EPA and OSHA guidelines do not distiguish between phyllosilicate and amphibole asbestoses. it was changed to: Chrysotile, a mineral used for asbestos, is not a human carcinogen and no etiology link has been found for chrysotile exposure. Every human and animal study showing asbestos etiology is associated with amphibole fiber asbestos, and there is not a single study showing pure chrysotile etiology. However, some chrysolite ore deposits do contain amphibole fiber asbestos such as tremolite, crocidolite and actinolite. Amphibole asbestos minerals have hard, needle-like fibers that penetrate into the lung tissue by piercing the walls of the alveoli. Since the body cannot dissolve or dispose of the amphibole fibers they cause a scarring of the lungs, called asbestosis, or cause a cancer of the lining (pleura) of the lung, called mesothelioma. Chrysotile fibers, on the other hand, are dissolved or otherwise expelled by the body.

both viewpoints are supported by various authors therefore there is uncertainty —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutPower (talk • contribs) 13:56, 16 August 2007

however it has been changed to

demonstrate that now in 2011 all recognized scientific and medical bodies agree that chrysotile is carcinogenic and not just in massive quantities. Additional citations will be added shortly. Gofigure41 (talk)

Please change the statement that the Canadian government is against naming it as a carcinogen, in light of their recent change on the matter http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1256956--conservative-government-ends-opposition-to-listing-asbestos-as-hazardous-substance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent60 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturing "uncertainty"
Chrysotile is considered a "Class 1 carcinogen" by the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the European Union and most other governments around the world. There's a long discussion, for example, of the evaluation process undertaken by the Australian government here, in deciding to impose severe limitations on its use: http://asbestos.vieiratriallaw.com/archives/-asbestos-faqs-australia-severely-restricts-chrysotile.html

There are many documented cases of people dying from mesothelioma (whose only known cause is asbestos exposure) after having contact with only white asbestos (for example the case study in this BBC Radio 4 investigation from 2006: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/items/01/2006_42_wed.shtml

The Asbestos industry has put substantial funding into a campaign to convince the world that chrysotile poses "no measurable risk to health". This is spearheaded by the organisation formerly known as the "Asbestos Institute", and now known as the "Chrysotile Institute". This closely mirrors the strategy pursued by the Tobacco Industry in setting up the "Tobacco Institute" in the 1950s to convince the world that the smoking-cancer link was still a matter of scientific controversy. In reality, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field had concluded from the mid 1950s onwards that the smoking-cancer link was real, just as the overwhelming majority now believe that chrysotile (aka "white asbestos" prior to being rebranded under its chemical name) is harmful to human health.

The fact that a small number of scientists who are paid "consultants" to the asbestos industry say that they disagree with everyone else about the dangers of white asbestos does not make the matter "controversial". A small number of extremists still believe passionately that the earth is flat (see http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//) but that is no reason for us to consider the case "not proven" or be any less certain that we aren't going to fall off the edge of the world on our next foreign vacation...

A more moderate industry line is to focus on the fact that white asbestos is not quite so harmful as the blue and brown varieties. But given the tens of thousands of deaths caused by those substances, this isn't much of a commendation...

86.139.91.114 08:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very few references
It should be easy to find references to back up what is said in the article. The refs given above would be a start.--HughGRex (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some refs added, more to come. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Irritant
Asbestos is not a carcinogen it is an irritant because the danger comes from its physical properties not an inherent radiation. A carcinogen is described as a radiation emitting substance or a radionuclide. The article should be changed to reflect the difference. Tomgazer (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To quote from our Carcinogen article "A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide or radiation, that is an agent directly involved in the exacerbation of cancer  or in the increase of its propagation", it goes on to state that asbestos is regarded as carcinogenic, this source states that it is "known to be a carcinogen". Mikenorton (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The danger of Asbestos comes from it's physical properties of being long and narrow which can lead to it becoming lodged in the lungs and causing irritation. It is not STRICTLY a carcinogen because it's real danger comes from it's physical shape. Tomgazer (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not how the article, or the sources that I've read (not very many admittedly) define a carcinogen. Mikenorton (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chrysotile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100710154834/http://www.cfmeu-construction-nsw.com.au:80/tacanadianasbestos.htm to http://www.cfmeu-construction-nsw.com.au/tacanadianasbestos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chrysotile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606012916/http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/asbestos/cover2.html to http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/asbestos/cover2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrysotile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609230055/http://asrg.berkeley.edu/96SmithChrysotile.pdf to http://asrg.berkeley.edu/96SmithChrysotile.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118192625/http://www.themarknews.com/news/?open=7487 to http://www.themarknews.com/news/?open=7487

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrysotile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306134819/http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf to http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927060339/http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/pdf/chry_e.pdf to http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/pdf/chry_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation 24 doesn’t work or has expired
Either an alternative source should be found or maybe the wayback machine has the original. JukeDragh (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)