Paul Brodeur, journalist who exposed asbestos hazards, dies at 92(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Paul Brodeur, journalist who exposed asbestos hazards, dies at 92
https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2023/08/10/paul-brodeur-dead/
64 comments
My dad is dying from mesothelioma. He was first diagnosed a few years ago, and after surgery and chemotherapy, was in remission for a period of time. He's now been fighting an aggressive second round where immunotherapy has proven ineffective - instead triggering colitis. He's gone from an active and vibrant man to someone who can barely summon the energy to move from his bed to a chair. Every few weeks he has paracentesis to drain multiple liters of fluid from his abdomen. He has no appetite and the food he does eat has almost no taste.
He's nearly 80, and has had many points of exposure throughout his life. He's mentally as sharp as he's ever been, but his body is failing him as he fights this disease.
His remaining time in this world is likely measured in days, or weeks.
He's alive but not living. It's a condition I wouldn't wish on anyone.
He's nearly 80, and has had many points of exposure throughout his life. He's mentally as sharp as he's ever been, but his body is failing him as he fights this disease.
His remaining time in this world is likely measured in days, or weeks.
He's alive but not living. It's a condition I wouldn't wish on anyone.
My dad just passed in a similar fashion from a different cancer. He was fairly sharp until the last month when spiraled out. I'm sorry you are going through it.
Thanks for your note. I'm sorry for what your dad went through, and those he left behind.
Offtopic on this man's death, on topic about asbestos:
My parents always told me my grandpa died because he smoked tobacco. As a kid I took this very serious and of course never once wanted to smoke, having lost him when I was 5 or so. When I was 17-18, my family talked about asbestos and that it was actually asbestos-caused lung cancer that killed him. Usually I hate lies with a passion, but in this case I am glad my parents lied to me.
Thanks for sharing.
I don't agree with the take away. My parents told me my whole life "don't do drugs", and so I didn't. And no one in the family was into drugs.
What's my point? Not sure. I guess I also hate lies with a passion, and additionally there's multiple ways to get the outcome of not getting your kids to do X. I don't know what it is, but some kids when you tell them "don't do X", they want to do X. I guess you and I, luckily, aren't like that, and I suspect maybe that's a large part of why your parents "don't smoke" thing had an affect on you.
I don't agree with the take away. My parents told me my whole life "don't do drugs", and so I didn't. And no one in the family was into drugs.
What's my point? Not sure. I guess I also hate lies with a passion, and additionally there's multiple ways to get the outcome of not getting your kids to do X. I don't know what it is, but some kids when you tell them "don't do X", they want to do X. I guess you and I, luckily, aren't like that, and I suspect maybe that's a large part of why your parents "don't smoke" thing had an affect on you.
The problem is - when parents say "don't do something" (without giving a good excuse not to) - it has little (and often opposite) effect.
I don't believe that. And in fact, you have two examples right here (me and the person I was responding to) where we were told "don't do X" and we didn't.
I know everyone says it, but I think "kids do the opposite" is pop-psych BS. I've never met a balanced a person who'd say "I just did the opposite of what my parents told me". I only know of examples where invariably the kids are disturbed also in other ways, and so it's impossible to disentangle cause and effect.
People just repeat nonsense they hear with no basis whatsoever, and so BS propagates.
I know everyone says it, but I think "kids do the opposite" is pop-psych BS. I've never met a balanced a person who'd say "I just did the opposite of what my parents told me". I only know of examples where invariably the kids are disturbed also in other ways, and so it's impossible to disentangle cause and effect.
People just repeat nonsense they hear with no basis whatsoever, and so BS propagates.
Then how do you explain reverse psychology?
You mean this?
> Susan Fowler writes, "Beware that such strategies [of reverse psychology] can backfire. Children can sense manipulation a mile away." She instead recommends leading by example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology
> Susan Fowler writes, "Beware that such strategies [of reverse psychology] can backfire. Children can sense manipulation a mile away." She instead recommends leading by example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_psychology
Usually when there is cognitive dissonance involved with the command. Parents might tell you being gay or smoking weed sends you to hell, but then when you finally see examples of people that meet these definitions your parents espoused but aren't presumably suffering the harmful effects they claim, you start to question their judgement and the entire belief system they saddled upon you. Teenagers don't usually act out just to act out. They don't argue to you the sky is red when you say its blue, they will argue breathless over it though if you claim its red when they can go outside and see that it is blue.
For a time in the 1950's, Kent cigarettes used asbestos filters.
It's interesting looking back, before the hazards were widely known ("Silk from Stone" - Vermont Life Magazine, 1954. Home of the nations largest asbestos mine)
https://archive.org/details/rbmsbk_ap2-v4_1954_V08N3/page/n3...
https://archive.org/details/rbmsbk_ap2-v4_1954_V08N3/page/n3...
My maternal grandfather was a pipe fitter for the railroad. He suffered many years from lung cancer. I remember when they brought in the hospital bed and oxygen tanks so he could suffer and die at home, with my grandmother always by his side.
My father worked in asbestos abatement projects, along with cleaning up other kinds of HAZMAT. I doubt that this is a mere coincidence.
My father worked in asbestos abatement projects, along with cleaning up other kinds of HAZMAT. I doubt that this is a mere coincidence.
As a student in the 80's, I had sidejob as an enqueteur. The worst campaign I remember was for asbestos roof tiles. It was a completely inane questionaire the goal of which was to get people to agree to a 2 hr (sales) follow-up. I ditched that one after the first half day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> mesothelioma is very bad and does not require heavy, prolonged exposure — brief or low-level exposures have been linked to mesothelioma.
Link?
Link?
Lemen, R. A. (2004). Asbestos in brakes: exposure and risk of disease. American journal of industrial medicine, 45(3), 229-237.
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.
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.
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.
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/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7810008/
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.
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...
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/24/1189745...
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
And drinks soda? Eats red meat? Drives a car? Works out infrequently or too frequently?
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.
No mention of "Currents of Death".
Nor the briefly titled, "The Great Power-Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields".
Never heard of these, should they have been mentioned?
He wrote another book titled, "The Zapping of America: Microwaves, Their Deadly Risk, and the Coverup".
I'd never heard of these either. These other books about microwaves and power lines, the titles seem a bit too dramatic and click-baity, which makes me skeptical. But kinda curious if there's any evidence of such coverups.
I'd never heard of these either. These other books about microwaves and power lines, the titles seem a bit too dramatic and click-baity, which makes me skeptical. But kinda curious if there's any evidence of such coverups.
I worked for an attorney that had a few doz old+active mesothelioma cases on the shelf. About every third year, each would get a check for ~$12.
It's supposedly not used by many manufacturers today but imagine through the 1990s when asbestos was still used widely in car brake pads, at every traffic light when cars stop the particles would fly into the air, then pedestrians are crossing the street, etc. breathing through that cloud.
Sadly just one of the very many negative externalities of car-centric cities that are imposed on people who don't opt-in to the madness.
I think the more pressing concern is the systemic nature of this issue. We’ve eliminated lead and MTBE from auto fuel, and no longer use asbestos, but have replaced them with plastic (leading to micro plastics everywhere, including being found in heart tissue), PFAS, BPA, etc. The EPA approved a plastic waste fuel proposed by Chevron that is highly likely to cause cancer with almost no pushback. Almost 100% of the US population has DuPont C8 (used to make Teflon) in their bloodstream.
It’s a call for government regulators who aren’t industry pushovers and conservative evaluation and approval approaches to novel materials. We need a system that won’t enable us to continually find new ways to poison ourselves, but still allows for material innovation. Activists and journalism professionals are key stakeholders in this effort, holding (or at least trying to) government and industry accountable. We continue to need people like Paul who talk about this. Same story, different materials.
(walkable communities are of importance and significance as well of course)
It’s a call for government regulators who aren’t industry pushovers and conservative evaluation and approval approaches to novel materials. We need a system that won’t enable us to continually find new ways to poison ourselves, but still allows for material innovation. Activists and journalism professionals are key stakeholders in this effort, holding (or at least trying to) government and industry accountable. We continue to need people like Paul who talk about this. Same story, different materials.
(walkable communities are of importance and significance as well of course)
What is an acceptable rate of causing cancer and how do you determine what rate a new material will have?
I hope your answer to the first question is not zero because things like PFAS do have benefits that are directly translatable to health outcomes. For example, when used for water proofing clothing, they might prevent hypothermia and save lives in extreme conditions. Plastic water bottles enable the distribution of clean water in areas that don't have (can't afford) good infrastructure. Less glass and more plastic means less broken glass on city streets, which I appreciate as a dog owner who doesn't want his pooch to step on broken shards.
I hope your answer to the first question is not zero because things like PFAS do have benefits that are directly translatable to health outcomes. For example, when used for water proofing clothing, they might prevent hypothermia and save lives in extreme conditions. Plastic water bottles enable the distribution of clean water in areas that don't have (can't afford) good infrastructure. Less glass and more plastic means less broken glass on city streets, which I appreciate as a dog owner who doesn't want his pooch to step on broken shards.
Some cancer (harm, in general) is going to have to be acceptable. Zero risk is rare. I am not a chemical engineering domain expert, so I can’t speak to the acceptable amount of harm caused to progress ratio. Do the math and make it public. With that said, I’d argue we’re too far to one side of the pendulum and need to find the middle close to less overall harm caused.
It’s not all doom and gloom. Switching from lead and MTBE to ethanol as an anti knock additive in auto fuel was an objective win. There are more wins like that out there I believe.
It’s not all doom and gloom. Switching from lead and MTBE to ethanol as an anti knock additive in auto fuel was an objective win. There are more wins like that out there I believe.
We have standards for acceptable risk. In the Chevron example, they were just ignored by the EPA.
Basically, every Chevron employee working with those products will likely develop cancer as a result.
Environmental issues are tough. It’s easy to focus on your dogs’ paw and not even be aware that people are needlessly suffering and dying to protect it.
Basically, every Chevron employee working with those products will likely develop cancer as a result.
Environmental issues are tough. It’s easy to focus on your dogs’ paw and not even be aware that people are needlessly suffering and dying to protect it.
I don't know anything about this Chevron example, but there are two possibilities:
A) it's not as clear cut as you say
B) it is as clear cut as you say, and I agree with you
But if the latter were true, there would probably be a high profile post on HN or elsewhere about it.
A) it's not as clear cut as you say
B) it is as clear cut as you say, and I agree with you
But if the latter were true, there would probably be a high profile post on HN or elsewhere about it.
First few links.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Propublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Propublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel...
Right, so, I suspect this didn't get much traction, despite being posted and re-posted many times, because the cancer risk assessment was total bunk:
> For exposure assessment, EPA develops conservative exposure scenarios which are designed to provide conservative estimates of exposure; this allows EPA to have high confidence – when it finds no risks of concern – that this is in fact the case. In some instances, due to a lack of information on which to based exposure estimates, the conservative assumptions can lead to an over-estimate of risk. For one of the PMN substances in this integrated risk assessment (a jet fuel), the Agency divided the total projected future annual production volume of the new jet fuel by the total number of locations expected to receive the fuel, and then assumed each location could be an end-use location (e.g., airport) and that all the fuel would be burned there. The scenario that was modeled effectively presumed that every plane at the airport was idling on a runway burning an entire tank’s fuel without ever taking off, that the components of the fuel that contribute to c risk are not fully combusted and are present in the exhaust, and that residents living nearby (in a fenceline community) would continuously breathe the exhaust each day over many years in their lifetime.
It's unfortunate we don't have a better risk assessment.
> For exposure assessment, EPA develops conservative exposure scenarios which are designed to provide conservative estimates of exposure; this allows EPA to have high confidence – when it finds no risks of concern – that this is in fact the case. In some instances, due to a lack of information on which to based exposure estimates, the conservative assumptions can lead to an over-estimate of risk. For one of the PMN substances in this integrated risk assessment (a jet fuel), the Agency divided the total projected future annual production volume of the new jet fuel by the total number of locations expected to receive the fuel, and then assumed each location could be an end-use location (e.g., airport) and that all the fuel would be burned there. The scenario that was modeled effectively presumed that every plane at the airport was idling on a runway burning an entire tank’s fuel without ever taking off, that the components of the fuel that contribute to c risk are not fully combusted and are present in the exhaust, and that residents living nearby (in a fenceline community) would continuously breathe the exhaust each day over many years in their lifetime.
It's unfortunate we don't have a better risk assessment.
There’s a shit-ton of loopholes in this space because the legislation creating the EPA doesn’t require oversight for chemicals in use before 1976. Many of these byproducts are awful, but not subject to regulatory analysis. It’s similar to hoe people say that if we discovered acetaminophen in 2023, it would never be FDA approved!
One branch of my family grew up near the Mobil Refinery on the Newtown Creek in Queens, NYC. 12/12 have had cancers from that place, as do many others.
One branch of my family grew up near the Mobil Refinery on the Newtown Creek in Queens, NYC. 12/12 have had cancers from that place, as do many others.
I would agree but we're talking about asbestos here. It was primarily used in building insulation. Are you suggesting we should have opted out of housing altogether as the sane people opt out of driving? Because I would have suggested we simply stop using asbestos, whether in houses or cars.
He's just getting angry at cars for the sake of it. It's very trendy now to pretend to forget that cars are one of the best tools available to a person alive in the last century. It's purely an emotional display.
Yikes.
Bus and train brakes are made of the same stuff.
Now we have carbon fibre. And asbestos is still everywhere. You just need to know where to look for it. However, in most cases it is perfectly safe unless pulverized.
I don’t consider it perfectly safe. We live in a world of constant change. If you install something, say fireproofing on a structure, you need a plan to remove it in the event of a repair or renovation. You can’t say “it’s fine as long as you don’t touch it” because what thing on Earth is never touched again?
>Computer simulation study of fullerene translocation through lipid membranes (2008)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2008.130
https://www.nature.com/articles/nnano.2008.130
Brake pad dust doesn’t contain fibers that are the cause of lung cancer in people who were exposed to asbestos.
I would watch guys I worked with stand in a cloud of dust cutting up 4'x8' sheets of asbestos. I'd offer them my respirator and they'd refuse. They considered that to be unmanly and made a point to give me shit over that.
A few years into that work I convinced the engineers who'd designed those asbestos heat shields to use galvanized sheet metal, which is what the OEM used and we removed. It was less expensive, easier to fabricate and install, and it worked a lot better.
I owe Paul Brodeur a lot, and so do many others.