Discovery of New Biomarkers May Lead to Test for Early Detection of Mesothelioma
We hear the question countless times from newfound friends, “I know I have been exposed to asbestos in the past, is there any test out there that can determine if I have cancer or mesothelioma?”
Until a few years ago, there was no such test. However, recently several doctors and clinics have researched ways of determining the existence of mesothelioma markers in the blood.
In 2005, new developments using a blood serum marker were used to detect cancer in a longitudinal study in Libby, Montana.
Later that year, results from a study conducted by researchers at New York University (NYU) School of Medicine revealed the mesomark assay, the world's first and only in vitro test for monitoring mesothelioma. This program was developed by Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. It was an effective way to measure proteins within the blood that reflect changes in disease. The findings represented a major milestone in the management of mesothelioma, as the test hoped to enable doctors to more accurately monitor patients for treatment.
This week, the biotech company Somalogic announced at the Fourth AACR International Conference on Molecular Diagnostics in Cancer Therapeutic Development a new technology that could allow doctors to identify mesothelioma in patients before they show visible symptoms.
Scientists tested 357 serum samples from patients diagnosed with mesothelioma or lung cancer. The results were compared to controls consisting of subjects exposed to asbestos, high-risk smokers, and those with benign lung disease. If this technology proves reliable it could be used in a screening process for people with a history of asbestos exposure
Rachel Ostroff, Ph.D., of SomaLogic in Boulder, Colorado said "Detection of these aggressive cancers at an earlier stage would identify patients for early treatment, which may improve their survival and quality of life."
Knowing if and when the enemy will strike always helps in developing a battle plan for victory.
We will update this story when the results of the next round of studies are published.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Phase II Study of IMC-A12 in Patients With Mesothelioma Who Have Been Previously Treated With Chemotherapy
IMC-A12 for Mesothelioma
IMC-A12 is a new cancer treatment that has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
It is an antibody that is designed to block the effects of a protein called Type I Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1R). IMC-A12 blocks the receptors in cells that respond to IGF-1R, which are thought to play an important role in helping cancer cells to grow and divide.
Researchers are interested in determining whether IMC-A12 is an effective treatment for individuals who have mesothelioma that has not responded to standard chemotherapy.
The objective if this study it to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IMC-A12 treatment in individuals with mesothelioma who have previously had chemotherapy.
Individuals at least 18 years of age who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma that has not responded to chemotherapy are eligible.
Eligible participants will be screened with a full physical examination and medical history, blood and urine samples, and imaging studies.
Participants will receive IMC-A12 once every 3 weeks (21-day cycle), and will be evaluated before the start of each new cycle with blood tests and imaging studies if needed.
Treatment cycles will continue for as long as needed, unless severe side effects develop or the disease progresses.
This study is currently recruiting participants. This study has been verified by National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC), June 2010
Contact: NCI Referral Office 1-888-NCI-1937 ncicssc@mail.nih.gov
IMC-A12 is a new cancer treatment that has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
It is an antibody that is designed to block the effects of a protein called Type I Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1R). IMC-A12 blocks the receptors in cells that respond to IGF-1R, which are thought to play an important role in helping cancer cells to grow and divide.
Researchers are interested in determining whether IMC-A12 is an effective treatment for individuals who have mesothelioma that has not responded to standard chemotherapy.
The objective if this study it to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IMC-A12 treatment in individuals with mesothelioma who have previously had chemotherapy.
Individuals at least 18 years of age who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma that has not responded to chemotherapy are eligible.
Eligible participants will be screened with a full physical examination and medical history, blood and urine samples, and imaging studies.
Participants will receive IMC-A12 once every 3 weeks (21-day cycle), and will be evaluated before the start of each new cycle with blood tests and imaging studies if needed.
Treatment cycles will continue for as long as needed, unless severe side effects develop or the disease progresses.
This study is currently recruiting participants. This study has been verified by National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC), June 2010
Contact: NCI Referral Office 1-888-NCI-1937 ncicssc@mail.nih.gov
Phase II Study of IMC-A12 in Patients With Mesothelioma Who Have Been Previously Treated With Chemotherapy
IMC-A12 is a new cancer treatment that has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
It is an antibody that is designed to block the effects of a protein called Type I Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1R). IMC-A12 blocks the receptors in cells that respond to IGF-1R, which are thought to play an important role in helping cancer cells to grow and divide.
Researchers are interested in determining whether IMC-A12 is an effective treatment for individuals who have mesothelioma that has not responded to standard chemotherapy.
The objective if this study it to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IMC-A12 treatment in individuals with mesothelioma who have previously had chemotherapy.
Individuals at least 18 years of age who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma that has not responded to chemotherapy are eligible.
Eligible participants will be screened with a full physical examination and medical history, blood and urine samples, and imaging studies.
Participants will receive IMC-A12 once every 3 weeks (21-day cycle), and will be evaluated before the start of each new cycle with blood tests and imaging studies if needed.
Treatment cycles will continue for as long as needed, unless severe side effects develop or the disease progresses.
This study is currently recruiting participants. This study has been verified by National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC), June 2010
It is an antibody that is designed to block the effects of a protein called Type I Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1R). IMC-A12 blocks the receptors in cells that respond to IGF-1R, which are thought to play an important role in helping cancer cells to grow and divide.
Researchers are interested in determining whether IMC-A12 is an effective treatment for individuals who have mesothelioma that has not responded to standard chemotherapy.
The objective if this study it to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IMC-A12 treatment in individuals with mesothelioma who have previously had chemotherapy.
Individuals at least 18 years of age who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma that has not responded to chemotherapy are eligible.
Eligible participants will be screened with a full physical examination and medical history, blood and urine samples, and imaging studies.
Participants will receive IMC-A12 once every 3 weeks (21-day cycle), and will be evaluated before the start of each new cycle with blood tests and imaging studies if needed.
Treatment cycles will continue for as long as needed, unless severe side effects develop or the disease progresses.
This study is currently recruiting participants. This study has been verified by National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC), June 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Court Rejects Pfizer’s “Bad Faith”
Court Rejects Pfizer’s “Bad Faith” Attempt to Limit Liability to Asbestos Victims
Many of our clients, as well as thousands of other victims of asbestos disease, were exposed to asbestos products manufactured by a company called Quigley. Because of legal maneuvering on the part of Quigley's parent company, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc., these families have been forced to stand in line and wait patiently for the justice they deserve. Here's the latest in Pfizer's lawyers attempt to delay, obfuscate, duck, bob and weave.
Earlier this month, a New York bankruptcy judge rejected the latest attempt by Pfizer, Inc. to shake off an estimated $900 million worth of asbestos damages through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan for its Quigley unit, which manufactured asbestos containing products from the 1940’s through the 1970’s.
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein refused to confirm Quigley's fourth Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan on the grounds it would run out of money within five years of paying claims for asbestos injuries and was unfair to some of the most seriously injured asbestos claimants. Judge Bernstein found that Pfizer, the architect, funder and chief beneficiary of Quigley's Chapter 11 plan, engaged in "bad faith" vote manipulation and should not enjoy the benefit of a confirmation ruling that would shield it from damage claims arising from Quigley products.
A maker of “Insulag”, “Panelag” and “Damit” refractory products for iron, steel, power generation, petroleum and other industries, Quigley was acquired by Pfizer in 1968. By 2003, it was out of operation, facing $1.2 billion worth of claims for asbestos damages, with more expected in future decades. In 2004, Pfizer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on behalf of Quigley, part of what Judge Bernstein found was a bad faith scheme to "divide and conquer" law firms that represent people with asbestos injuries.
Quigley is one of many companies that resorted to Chapter 11 protection in order to get a reprieve from asbestos injury claims, and gain bargaining advantage with plaintiff's firms. Asbestos bankruptcy plans are generally designed to shield a company from product liability lawsuits by diverting the claims to a trust funded with cash, stock, insurance proceeds and other assets earmarked to cover the anticipated cost of current and future injury claims.
According to Judge Bernstein, Pfizer's $216 million contribution to the Quigley bankruptcy trust was far less than the benefit the company would obtain if the Quigley Chapter 11 plan was confirmed: immunity from more than $900 million in product liability claims.
Judge Bernstein’s ruling will force Pfizer into renewed negotiations if it wants to preserve its immunity from personal injury claims brought by persons injured by Quigley’s asbestos products. At the time it filed for bankruptcy protection in 2004, Quigley had been hit with 411,100 asbestos personal-injury claims. Experts estimated another 261,567 lawsuits would be filed in the coming decades.
If new plan is not approved, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy could be dismissed, allowing all of the pending and future lawsuits against Quigley/Pfizer to proceed.
Many of our clients, as well as thousands of other victims of asbestos disease, were exposed to asbestos products manufactured by a company called Quigley. Because of legal maneuvering on the part of Quigley's parent company, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc., these families have been forced to stand in line and wait patiently for the justice they deserve. Here's the latest in Pfizer's lawyers attempt to delay, obfuscate, duck, bob and weave.
Earlier this month, a New York bankruptcy judge rejected the latest attempt by Pfizer, Inc. to shake off an estimated $900 million worth of asbestos damages through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan for its Quigley unit, which manufactured asbestos containing products from the 1940’s through the 1970’s.
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein refused to confirm Quigley's fourth Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan on the grounds it would run out of money within five years of paying claims for asbestos injuries and was unfair to some of the most seriously injured asbestos claimants. Judge Bernstein found that Pfizer, the architect, funder and chief beneficiary of Quigley's Chapter 11 plan, engaged in "bad faith" vote manipulation and should not enjoy the benefit of a confirmation ruling that would shield it from damage claims arising from Quigley products.
A maker of “Insulag”, “Panelag” and “Damit” refractory products for iron, steel, power generation, petroleum and other industries, Quigley was acquired by Pfizer in 1968. By 2003, it was out of operation, facing $1.2 billion worth of claims for asbestos damages, with more expected in future decades. In 2004, Pfizer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on behalf of Quigley, part of what Judge Bernstein found was a bad faith scheme to "divide and conquer" law firms that represent people with asbestos injuries.
Quigley is one of many companies that resorted to Chapter 11 protection in order to get a reprieve from asbestos injury claims, and gain bargaining advantage with plaintiff's firms. Asbestos bankruptcy plans are generally designed to shield a company from product liability lawsuits by diverting the claims to a trust funded with cash, stock, insurance proceeds and other assets earmarked to cover the anticipated cost of current and future injury claims.
According to Judge Bernstein, Pfizer's $216 million contribution to the Quigley bankruptcy trust was far less than the benefit the company would obtain if the Quigley Chapter 11 plan was confirmed: immunity from more than $900 million in product liability claims.
Judge Bernstein’s ruling will force Pfizer into renewed negotiations if it wants to preserve its immunity from personal injury claims brought by persons injured by Quigley’s asbestos products. At the time it filed for bankruptcy protection in 2004, Quigley had been hit with 411,100 asbestos personal-injury claims. Experts estimated another 261,567 lawsuits would be filed in the coming decades.
If new plan is not approved, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy could be dismissed, allowing all of the pending and future lawsuits against Quigley/Pfizer to proceed.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Dr. Cameron: "A Blessing"
When Patricia Crawford was initially diagnosed by doctors at Kaiser Permanente, they tried to steer her into having her lung removed using the radical lung-amputating extra-pleural pnuemonectomy (EPP). She was not made aware of the lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) surgery and probably would've consented. But, thanks to the diligence and curiosity of her children, who logged onto the internet and discovered Dr. Robert Cameron, she sought a second opinion.Undaunted by the lack of a formal referral from Kaiser Permanente, Patricia set up an appointment with Dr. Cameron. She knew that Kaiser's vast bureaucracy would either delay or reject the referral, but time was short. She decided to pay for the consultation herself and worry about coverage later.
Dr. Cameron talked with her extensively about her surgical options. He explained the differences between the EPP, which removed the lung, and the P/D, which spared the lung. He explained to her that the P/D provided the same tumor clearance as the EPP with a lower risk of mortality.
He also explained to her the adjuvant use of radiation as well as immunotherapy and chemotherapy. Patricia ultimately chose to undergo the pleurectomy/decortication at UCLA on January 10, 2008. (For more information on the differences between the EPP and P/D, click here) The doctors at Kaiser, who recommended the EPP, had not even mentioned the PD as an option. Patricia is thankful that she found Dr. Cameron. "He has been a blessing."
Beware of “Madison Avenue” Meso Lawyers
Nowhere to Hide
It’s late at night, you’re dozing off with the TV on, the screen goes dark and is soon filled with words in white lettering, as an all too serious narrator begins reading: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call the number on your screen now…”
Now it’s morning, you’re settling in with a cup of coffee, your eyes are on the newspaper but you’re listening to CNN when, once again, the all too familiar voice beckons: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call the number on your screen now…”
Now you’re up and dressed. Before leaving the house, you flip over to the Weather Channel for a quick check of the forecast, but before you can get your “Local Weather on the 8’s”, you’re forced to once again endure the barely human voice: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call the number on your screen now…”
You’re at an intersection waiting for the “Walk” signal when your view is eclipsed by a large bus pulling over at a nearby bus-stop. On the back of the bus is a large rectangular sign with the image of a man with a weathered face and stoic expression, wearing a hard-hat, next to which you see the text: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call 1-800…”
These days there’s no escaping “Madison Avenue” meso lawyers and their seemingly limitless advertising budgets.
“Scorched Earth” Campaign for Meso Victims
So who are these “Madison Avenue” meso lawyers who are saturating our airwaves, billboards and bus placards with their distasteful attempts to reach the one out of every 103,000 Americans who will be diagnosed with mesothelioma this year?
Typically, they are national firms which, curiously enough, don’t even specialize in the handling of mesothelioma cases. Instead, many of these firms handle a wide array of cases including pharmaceutical cases, tobacco cases, securities fraud cases, Chinese drywall cases, mold cases, medical malpractice cases and various forms of class action cases. Many of the firms have only recently jumped on the “mesothelioma bandwagon,” adding these cases to their diverse practices.
Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk
Any law firm with a large marketing budget can hire an advertising firm to produce a slick (usually not-so-slick) TV commercial and run demographic studies on the times and channels to run the commercials where they will have the best chance of reaching their “market.” But does possessing the so-called savvy to market legal services the same way others market “male enhancement” products qualify a law firm to represent a family struggling with mesothelioma?
In order to effectively represent a family afflicted with mesothelioma, a law firm must have the knowledge and experience necessary to quickly educate the family about the full extent of their medical options and assist them in getting prompt attention from the physicians who have developed an expertise in the treatments they are interested in (See our article “Should Lawyers Advise Their Clients on Treatment Options” Published in Asbestos Magazine).
Because of a mesothelioma patient’s limited life expectancy, efforts must be made to bring the case to trial as soon as the court will allow. These efforts, not surprisingly, are met with great resistance from defense attorneys whose billable rates incentivize them to make the case drag on as long as possible so that the mesothelioma patient never sees his or her day in court. Again, meeting and overcoming these unique challenges requires attorneys who are experienced and have a proven track record in handling mesothelioma cases.
Are “Madison Avenue” meso lawyers up to these challenges?
Can a family struggling with mesothelioma afford to risk that they’re not?
Click here for the full article.
It’s late at night, you’re dozing off with the TV on, the screen goes dark and is soon filled with words in white lettering, as an all too serious narrator begins reading: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call the number on your screen now…”
Now it’s morning, you’re settling in with a cup of coffee, your eyes are on the newspaper but you’re listening to CNN when, once again, the all too familiar voice beckons: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call the number on your screen now…”
Now you’re up and dressed. Before leaving the house, you flip over to the Weather Channel for a quick check of the forecast, but before you can get your “Local Weather on the 8’s”, you’re forced to once again endure the barely human voice: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call the number on your screen now…”You’re at an intersection waiting for the “Walk” signal when your view is eclipsed by a large bus pulling over at a nearby bus-stop. On the back of the bus is a large rectangular sign with the image of a man with a weathered face and stoic expression, wearing a hard-hat, next to which you see the text: “If you or a loved one was diagnosed with mesothelioma, call 1-800…”
These days there’s no escaping “Madison Avenue” meso lawyers and their seemingly limitless advertising budgets.
“Scorched Earth” Campaign for Meso Victims
So who are these “Madison Avenue” meso lawyers who are saturating our airwaves, billboards and bus placards with their distasteful attempts to reach the one out of every 103,000 Americans who will be diagnosed with mesothelioma this year?
Typically, they are national firms which, curiously enough, don’t even specialize in the handling of mesothelioma cases. Instead, many of these firms handle a wide array of cases including pharmaceutical cases, tobacco cases, securities fraud cases, Chinese drywall cases, mold cases, medical malpractice cases and various forms of class action cases. Many of the firms have only recently jumped on the “mesothelioma bandwagon,” adding these cases to their diverse practices.
Talk the Talk and Walk the Walk
Any law firm with a large marketing budget can hire an advertising firm to produce a slick (usually not-so-slick) TV commercial and run demographic studies on the times and channels to run the commercials where they will have the best chance of reaching their “market.” But does possessing the so-called savvy to market legal services the same way others market “male enhancement” products qualify a law firm to represent a family struggling with mesothelioma?
In order to effectively represent a family afflicted with mesothelioma, a law firm must have the knowledge and experience necessary to quickly educate the family about the full extent of their medical options and assist them in getting prompt attention from the physicians who have developed an expertise in the treatments they are interested in (See our article “Should Lawyers Advise Their Clients on Treatment Options” Published in Asbestos Magazine).
Because of a mesothelioma patient’s limited life expectancy, efforts must be made to bring the case to trial as soon as the court will allow. These efforts, not surprisingly, are met with great resistance from defense attorneys whose billable rates incentivize them to make the case drag on as long as possible so that the mesothelioma patient never sees his or her day in court. Again, meeting and overcoming these unique challenges requires attorneys who are experienced and have a proven track record in handling mesothelioma cases.
Are “Madison Avenue” meso lawyers up to these challenges?
Can a family struggling with mesothelioma afford to risk that they’re not?
Click here for the full article.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Dr. Cameron: "He clarified my options in lay terms"
Holger Lochheed is a 70 year-old retired hotel restaurant manager who lives with his wife Lynne in Mesquite, Texas. Holger was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma two years ago during a routine physical.Holger recently reviewed a copy of the Pacific Heart, Lung & Blood Institute’s “Patients Road Map”, a brochure written to help mesothelioma patients navigate the many roads before them on their journey to proper diagnosis, treatment and coping with their disease. Here it Holger’s enthusiastic response.
Dear Mr. Caron,
Thank you for your letter and the "Patients Roadmap" brochure.
While the brochure is informative, short and to the point, it lacks the strong emphasis to seek out a specialist as early as possible.
My personal scenario is a case in point. After diagnosis, I was referred to a local Oncologist (a charming gentleman) who gave me 9 months to live and with treatment 3 years. His referral to a Thoracic Surgeon was even bleaker: an immediate operation followed by heavy radiation. Outlook: 2 years and "I'll try to save part of your lung".
Thank God your office referred me to Dr. Cameron. He clarified my options in lay terms.
I chose to do nothing.
So far this decision had stood me in good stead. I feel well and live the good life. Naturally I am under no illusions and know this could change at a moments notice.
Therefore, it is my humble opinion that the publication needs to put a MUCH STRONGER emphasis on the importance of seeking out meso specialists as early as possible.
Kind regards,
Holger Lochheed
Thursday, September 16, 2010
California City Ignores Dangers of Asbestos, Approves Mountain Biking Facility on Asbestos-Rich Soil
Last month, the San Luis Obispo, California City Council approved a donor agreement with a mountain biking group to develop a recreation facility in a city-owned area with soil type rich with asbestos.
The group, Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers, hopes to build a bicycle skills course in the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve, a 363-acre area four miles north of San Luis Obispo. Much of the landscape of Stenner Springs is made up of serpentine soil, a type of material which state and federal governments have designated as a source of naturally occurring asbestos. Asbestos is known to cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the linings of the lungs that is nearly always fatal.
Though serpentine soil is relatively common in California, scientists and government regulators have recently stepped up efforts to study the effects of naturally occurring asbestos in dust and warn people of the danger.
In a study released in 2009 by the University of California Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, dust from serpentine soil is cited as a potential cause of cancer. The study says, “People may inhale or swallow dust containing asbestos fibers. These fibers can cause cancer and other diseases by remaining in the lungs or traveling to the lining of the lungs or the abdominal cavity.”
The California Air Resources Board identified asbestos as a toxic air contaminant with no safe threshold level in 1986.
“In general, people are not aware of the dangers of serpentine soil,” said Toby O’Geen, a soil scientist at the University of California, Davis. “I wouldn’t make a trail over it unless they import trail material. If they are laying down bicycle trails over crushed rock and soil and don’t put down a layer of topsoil, the risk may be much higher.” He added: “There’s no way to know how much of a problem you have unless you take samples.”
According to Neil Havlik, natural resources manager for the city of San Luis Obispo, the city hasn’t tested for asbestos at the site. Havlik said the state air resources board only requires asbestos testing when a grading project is larger than an acre. “My guess is there is asbestos there, but it’s far below the threshold,” Havlik said, adding that the construction of the bicycle skills park won’t require much below-ground work. “Asbestos is a concern in certain circumstances,” he explained. “Our expectation in this particular project is that the ground disturbance is very minor.”
However, according to the environmental impact study that’s part of the project report, one of the few potentially significant environmental impacts of the project is “substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.” Due to a fire in the area in 1994, the mineral soil under the future location of the bicycle skills area has been exposed, Havlik said during the council meeting.
According to the 2009 asbestos study: “No one knows how many fibers are needed to cause lung cancer or other diseases. Heavy and frequent occupational exposures are more likely to cause the disease than are nonoccupational exposures; however, a lifetime of exposure to low levels is also recognized as a potential hazard. Environmental health scientists have suggested that children have a higher risk of exposure than adults in the same environment due to their faster breathing rates, time spent outdoors, and greater time for disease to develop.”
The 84-page report detailing the city’s plans for the Stenner Springs area mentions asbestos only twice: “Serpentine carries the risk of asbestos. Be sure to patrol erosion areas, as these areas are subject to asbestos.”
Both the study and the federal government’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry advise people living or working near naturally occurring asbestos to “walk, run, hike, and bike only on paved trails and pave over unpaved walkways, driveways, or roadways that may have asbestos-containing rock or soil.” They also advise that recreational activity in serpentine soil in outdoor areas be restricted to “outdoor areas with a ground covering such as wood chips, mulch, sand, pea gravel, grass, asphalt, shredded rubber, or rubber mats.”
Last month, the San Luis Obispo, California City Council approved a donor agreement with a mountain biking group to develop a recreation facility in a city-owned area with soil type rich with asbestos.
The group, Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers, hopes to build a bicycle skills course in the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve, a 363-acre area four miles north of San Luis Obispo. Much of the landscape of Stenner Springs is made up of serpentine soil, a type of material which state and federal governments have designated as a source of naturally occurring asbestos. Asbestos is known to cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer of the linings of the lungs that is nearly always fatal.
Though serpentine soil is relatively common in California, scientists and government regulators have recently stepped up efforts to study the effects of naturally occurring asbestos in dust and warn people of the danger.
In a study released in 2009 by the University of California Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, dust from serpentine soil is cited as a potential cause of cancer. The study says, “People may inhale or swallow dust containing asbestos fibers. These fibers can cause cancer and other diseases by remaining in the lungs or traveling to the lining of the lungs or the abdominal cavity.”
The California Air Resources Board identified asbestos as a toxic air contaminant with no safe threshold level in 1986.
“In general, people are not aware of the dangers of serpentine soil,” said Toby O’Geen, a soil scientist at the University of California, Davis. “I wouldn’t make a trail over it unless they import trail material. If they are laying down bicycle trails over crushed rock and soil and don’t put down a layer of topsoil, the risk may be much higher.” He added: “There’s no way to know how much of a problem you have unless you take samples.”
According to Neil Havlik, natural resources manager for the city of San Luis Obispo, the city hasn’t tested for asbestos at the site. Havlik said the state air resources board only requires asbestos testing when a grading project is larger than an acre. “My guess is there is asbestos there, but it’s far below the threshold,” Havlik said, adding that the construction of the bicycle skills park won’t require much below-ground work. “Asbestos is a concern in certain circumstances,” he explained. “Our expectation in this particular project is that the ground disturbance is very minor.”
However, according to the environmental impact study that’s part of the project report, one of the few potentially significant environmental impacts of the project is “substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.” Due to a fire in the area in 1994, the mineral soil under the future location of the bicycle skills area has been exposed, Havlik said during the council meeting.
According to the 2009 asbestos study: “No one knows how many fibers are needed to cause lung cancer or other diseases. Heavy and frequent occupational exposures are more likely to cause the disease than are nonoccupational exposures; however, a lifetime of exposure to low levels is also recognized as a potential hazard. Environmental health scientists have suggested that children have a higher risk of exposure than adults in the same environment due to their faster breathing rates, time spent outdoors, and greater time for disease to develop.”
The 84-page report detailing the city’s plans for the Stenner Springs area mentions asbestos only twice: “Serpentine carries the risk of asbestos. Be sure to patrol erosion areas, as these areas are subject to asbestos.”
Both the study and the federal government’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry advise people living or working near naturally occurring asbestos to “walk, run, hike, and bike only on paved trails and pave over unpaved walkways, driveways, or roadways that may have asbestos-containing rock or soil.” They also advise that recreational activity in serpentine soil in outdoor areas be restricted to “outdoor areas with a ground covering such as wood chips, mulch, sand, pea gravel, grass, asphalt, shredded rubber, or rubber mats.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)