Asbestos and Mesothelioma

[Isaacson]

I don't wish to underestimate the impact that Mesothelioma has on those who have worked with Asbestos, but I'm curious from a scientific point of view as to why it has affected so few people. I know generally reports are shocked by the large number of people affected, but given that Asbestos was pretty much ubiquitous for nearly 40 years, is present in almost every home and public building, and has no lower threshold of carcinogenesis, I'm more surprised at the low number of people who actually end up with the disease. Even among workers exposed to huge doses for 30 years, the rate of Mesothelioma is about 1 in 10. What is that is protecting the 9 out of every ten workers who have managed to breathe in doses of a carcinogenic fibre at 1000 times the safe level for 30 years with no ill effect, and vice versa, what is it about a person who breathes in 0.02f/ml (just above the safe threshold) and is unfortunate enough to contract the disease?

 

All of the research I've been able to track down on the internet seems to focus on the fact that Asbestos causes Mesothelioma in 1 in ten workers (closer to 1 in 1000 more moderately exposed people), and how this happens and what can be done to prevent it. Very noble and necessary work, but there is a notable absence of research on the fact that it doesn't seem to affect 9 out of ten workers and 999 out of every 1000 people more moderately exposed. Surely the key to helping people through the last few decades of an Asbestos riddled environment would be to find out what the majority of people have got that the unfortunate minority seem to lack and seeing if we can pass it over in some way.

 

Links to any research of this nature would be gratefully received.

[StringJunky]

 

Susceptibility and resistance in the genesis of asbestos-related mesothelioma

 

Abstract

 

Asbestos is the principal agent in the etiology of malignant mesothelioma. However, a small proportion of people exposed to asbestos develop mesothelioma. This suggests the role of host factors in the genesis of the tumor. A genetic susceptibility is suggested by the occurrence of more mesothelioma cases among blood-related members of a single family. Such an occurrence reached about 4% in a large mesothelioma series. In some studies, mesothelioma patients showed higher prevalences of additional malignancies when compared with controls. This indicates a particular vulnerability to cancer in people with mesothelioma. Not rarely, very old persons heavily exposed to asbestos remain free from asbestos-related cancer, a fact indicating an absolute resistance to the oncogenic effects of asbestos. A relative resistance may be recognized in people severely exposed to asbestos who develop mesothelioma only after 60 years or more since the onset of the exposure. The long survivals, rarely observed among mesothelioma patients, have been attributed to a high efficiency of immune mechanisms. Mesotheliomas have been reported among people with severe immune impairment, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients or organ transplant recipients. The natural history of mesothelioma shows that a resistance to the oncogenic effects of asbestos does exist. Probably, such a resistance is due to the efficient immune mechanisms. To strengthen the defence mechanisms may represent a way for preventing mesothelioma among people exposed to asbestos.

 

Read full paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796755/

Note: there are related papers on that page that you could look at as well. I googled: mesothelioma susceptibility to find the paper.

Edited September 15, 2016 by StringJunky

[Isaacson]

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for, I don't know why that didn't turn up in the many Google searches I did. I never used the term 'susceptibility', and that must have been the key. I've only been posting here for a while, but I've never had a post answered so entirely in one go, thanks.

[StringJunky]

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for, I don't know why that didn't turn up in the many Google searches I did. I never used the term 'susceptibility', and that must have been the key. I've only been posting here for a while, but I've never had a post answered so entirely in one go, thanks.

I think you know: half the trick to a successful search is figuring out the keywords/combination of keywords you expect to find in the document you are looking for.

Edited September 16, 2016 by StringJunky