Chrysophiles versus Chrysophobes
The White Asbestos Controversy, 1950s-2004
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3406620 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Geoffrey Tweedale (Manchester Metropolitan University), Jock Mcculloch |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 95 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 239-259 |
| Publication date | 2004-06-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Isis (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0021-1753 • E-ISSN: 1545-6994 |
| Publisher | University of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1086/426196 |
| PMID | 15490967 |
| OpenAlex | W2019756367 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 58 |
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
Asbestos · Asbestosis · Biology · Chrysotile · Environmental health · Hazard · Mesothelioma · Pathology · Political science · White (mutation · Medicine · Occupational and environmental lung diseases · Occupational exposure and asthma · Radiation Dose and Imaging
| Citations per year | 0.06 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2009 - 2009 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |