Chrysophiles versus chrysophobes: the white asbestos controversy, 1950s-2004

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2173/72914
Title:
Chrysophiles versus chrysophobes: the white asbestos controversy, 1950s-2004
Authors:
Tweedale, Geoffrey; McCulloch, Jock
Citation:
ISIS, 2004, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 239-259
Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
Issue Date:
Jun-2004
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2173/72914
PubMed ID:
15490967
Additional Links:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/loi/isis
Abstract:
In the first half of the twentieth century, asbestos was a controversial mineral because of its association with asbestosis and asbestos related lung cancer. It has proved no less so since the 1960s, when another asbestos cancer, mesothelioma, was identified. Mesothelioma appeared to be more strongly linked with blue asbestos (crocidolite) than with the other asbestos varieties, brown (amosite) and white (chrysotile). This finding triggered a fierce debate between “chrysophiles” (those who declared chrysotile innocuous) and “chrysophobes” (those who believed it was a mortal hazard). This essay attempts the first history of the chrysotile controversy, which shows that a scientific consensus on the safety of white asbestos was very slow to emerge. This was only partly due to the complexities of scientific research. Political, economic, and social factors have militated against a speedy resolution of the debate, facilitating the continued production and use of asbestos in the developing world.
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Description:
Full-text of this article is not available in this e-prints service. This article was originally published [following peer-review] in ISIS, published by and copyright University of Chicago Press.
Keywords:
Asbestos; Chrysophiles; Chrysophobes; Cancer
ISSN:
1545-6994; 0021-1753

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorTweedale, Geoffrey-
dc.contributor.authorMcCulloch, Jock-
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-08T08:37:55Z-
dc.date.available2009-07-08T08:37:55Z-
dc.date.issued2004-06-
dc.identifier.citationISIS, 2004, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 239-259en
dc.identifier.issn1545-6994-
dc.identifier.issn0021-1753-
dc.identifier.pmid15490967-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2173/72914-
dc.descriptionFull-text of this article is not available in this e-prints service. This article was originally published [following peer-review] in ISIS, published by and copyright University of Chicago Press.en
dc.description.abstractIn the first half of the twentieth century, asbestos was a controversial mineral because of its association with asbestosis and asbestos related lung cancer. It has proved no less so since the 1960s, when another asbestos cancer, mesothelioma, was identified. Mesothelioma appeared to be more strongly linked with blue asbestos (crocidolite) than with the other asbestos varieties, brown (amosite) and white (chrysotile). This finding triggered a fierce debate between “chrysophiles” (those who declared chrysotile innocuous) and “chrysophobes” (those who believed it was a mortal hazard). This essay attempts the first history of the chrysotile controversy, which shows that a scientific consensus on the safety of white asbestos was very slow to emerge. This was only partly due to the complexities of scientific research. Political, economic, and social factors have militated against a speedy resolution of the debate, facilitating the continued production and use of asbestos in the developing world.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherUniversity of Chicago Pressen
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.journals.uchicago.edu/loi/isisen
dc.subjectAsbestosen
dc.subjectChrysophilesen
dc.subjectChrysophobesen
dc.subjectCanceren
dc.titleChrysophiles versus chrysophobes: the white asbestos controversy, 1950s-2004en
dc.typeArticleen
All Items in e-space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.