The town hall meeting, which was held Dec. 6, featured a panel discussion about the deadly fallout from town’s vermiculite asbestos mine, which was operated for years by W.R. Grace & Company. Even those who didn’t work in the mine were exposed to asbestos, as dust from the mine covered the surrounding area, railroad tracks and roads used to transport the materials. Asbestos was even used as filler for gardens and ballparks.

According to the Daily Inter Lake report, more than 300 deaths have been linked to asbestos exposure from the vermiculite mine. A special health clinic established by the EPA after the story broke about the widespread asbestos disease affecting Libby area residents is currently treating about 2,800 patients with varying levels of asbestos disease.

Dr. Brad Black, who oversees patient care at the clinic, called the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD), says it’s impossible to really determine how many people have been affected by asbestos in Libby, because around 80,000 people “came and went in Libby while the mine was operating,” the paper reports.

Because of the long latency period of asbestos disease – which includes conditions such as asbestosis, a severe scarring of the lungs that impedes lung function and limits breathing, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that affects the lining of the lungs or, more rarely, the abdomen or heart – which is sometimes as long as 30 or 40 years, Black estimates cases will continue to emerge well into the future, through the year 2030.

Since the asbestos contamination of Libby was brought to light, it has been a roller-coaster ride for area residents. The EPA has spent more than $206 million to date to clean up residential and commercial properties. In June, Libby was declared a public health emergency, which is the first time the agency has made such a determination under the 1980 Superfund law. This will allow more money to be put into the town’s cleanup efforts.

However, there are still lingering questions about just how effective these cleanup efforts really are. The EPA has divided the Libby Superfund site into eight geographical units, and has so far only completed cleanup on two of those units. However, some scientists argue that the type of asbestos affecting Libby – amphibole – is much more toxic than chrysotile asbestos, and that cleanup efforts are being conducted using old research on the wrong type of asbestos.

The Daily Inter Lake reports that EPA officials have admitted they are using toxicology assessments from 1985 data on less toxic asbestos, not Libby asbestos. This is despite a more recent study completed in 2003, which “established exposure benchmarks for mesothelioma and lung cancer based on asbestos epidemiologic studies,” the news agency reports.

According to the paper, federal government risk assessment standards say cleanup efforts are necessary when there is evidence of one death per 10,000 people. In Libby, where the population is around 10,000 people, there have already been 31 deaths just from mesothelioma. This doesn’t even take into account the suffering and death from other asbestos-related diseases.

The asbestos contamination also has been a see-saw on the legal front. In May, W.R. Grace & Co. and several of its top leaders were acquitted of criminal charges related to the widespread asbestos disease affecting its residents. Nearly 800 people still have pending civil suits against the company, which have been delayed by bankrupcy claims on the part of Grace. The company is expected to emerge from bankruptcy in January.

Testimony resulting from the bankruptcy trial in October revealed that there is a 59 percent probability of death for Libby residents exposed to asbestos dust.

“No other place on the planet has that,” the Daily Inter Lake quotes attorney John Heberling, who is representing asbestos clients.

This is a fascinating and tragic series of stories, and I encourage you to visit the Daily Inter Lake online to read the full series. It includes a feature on Gayla Benefield, who, along with compatriot Les Skramstad, began the campaign to expose the Libby contamination and lobby for justice for the town. Here are just a few of the links:

What is a safe dose for Libby?
What’s next for Libby?
Asbestos victims try to stay upbeat
Advocate’s work for asbestos victims spans 35 years
Grace lawsuit claimants still in limbo

SOURCE: myMeso › Montana newspaper series takes a look at Libby today

This week, a story in The Republican reports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will provide assistance to an Easthampton, Mass., town to clean up soil that is contaminated with asbestos. The affected land is the former site of a vermiculite insulation factory operated by W.R. Grace. Although the facility closed 20 years ago, it has left a legacy of danger for residents.

According to The Republican report, Grace shipped more than 250,000 tons of vermiculite ore from its Montana mine to the Easthampton factory over a period of about 40 years.

The cleanup comes as a result of city plans to extend a scenic trail into the area, and also hopes to install a new sewer line. According to The Republican, the cleanup effort involves a span of about 1,000 feet that would be the location of the trail extension and sewer project. It is estimated that soil may have to be removed to a depth of 6-12 inches, although the EPA is still examining the area.

Asbestos exposure is linked to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that affects the lining of the chest and lungs, or, more rarely, the abdomen or heart. The only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure. There is currently no known cure for meso.

SOURCE: myMeso › EPA assisting in asbestos cleanup in Massachusetts

According to the EPA news release, the companies were fined for improperly removing and disposing of asbestos from a historic property that was undergoing renovation and construction. Despite knowing that asbestos was prevalent in the structure, built in the 1800s, the EPA said the companies instructed subcontractors to remove asbestos-containing materials such as vinyl floor tile from the building and to throw it into standard open trash dumpsters.

By failing to use extreme caution in handling asbestos-containing materials, the company put its workers and the public at risk. Asbestos fibers are deadly when they are disturbed, as in demolition work, which releases them into the atmosphere. Inhaled asbestos fibers may cause a variety of asbestos-related diseases including asbestosis, a severe scarring of the lungs that impairs breathing, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer.

The effects of asbestos exposure may not become apparent for years after exposure, when they manifest to cripple or kill.

Just last week, I was invited to participate in a good-intentioned project to help renovate a building for use by a charity group. The notice announced plans to tear down sheet rock, pull down ceilings and rip up flooring, and I shuddered at the thought of potential asbestos exposure.

It still boggles my mind that people are not aware of the potential hazards in tasks that seem harmless and even helpful.

If you are planning to undertake a building renovation project, please, please consider calling an asbestos abatement expert to have the structure inspected for possible asbestos hazards before you begin. Extreme caution should be used – and in many cases is required by law – when handling asbestos-containing materials.

SOURCE: myMeso › Connecticut case underlines asbestos prevalence

Dr. Whitehouse, along with four other physicians including CARD’s Dr. Brad Black, studied 31 mesothelioma cases, including 11 cases not previously reported. The study focused specifically on non-occupational asbestos exposure, including exposure to contamination of the community, the surrounding forested area, and areas in proximity to the Kootenai river and the railroad tracks used to haul vermiculite.

It is estimated that more than 200 people in Libby have died from asbestos-related disease, and CARD is following 2,000 additional asbestos cases. CARD primarily serves Libby residents who were affected by the W.R. Grace-operated vermiculite mine, which was in operation for many years, and at high capacity from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Focus has recently shifted to include people suffering from asbestos disease and mesothelioma who never came into direct contact with the vermiculite mining operation. In June, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency announced an $8 million grant to fund a five-year study of the effects of low-level asbestos exposure.

SOURCE: myMeso › CARD physician predicts mesothelioma epidemic

According to recent report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, there were 20 experts appointed to the SAB’s asbestos panel, charged with evaluating the validity of the EPA’s plan to change how the toxicity of the six types of asbestos regulated by the government differ in danger. Its findings would be submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

According to the PI report, scientific advisors say the EPA used the asbestos panel to submit new studies that contradict longstanding research into the dangers of asbestos. The new studies say chrysolite, in particular, the most common type of asbestos, isn’t dangerous and doesn’t cause mesothelioma.

PI quotes Dr. David Egilman, an occupational medicine specialist, who testified at the public meeting, as saying the new study was financed by mining and other asbestos-related industries, and said the studies have no scientific credibility.

Another vocal spokesperson at the hearing was Sen. Patty Murray, who sponsored S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007, which passed the Senate on Oct. 4, 2007. Currently, it is the companion bill to H.R. 3339, the Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act, sponsored by Rep. Betty McCollum, which currently is in committee in the House of Representatives.

Sen. Murray has long been an advocate for a total asbestos ban, calling for better worker protection. The PI quotes Sen. Murray as telling the committee, “I’d like the political appointees at the EPA to look into the eyes of a mesothelioma patient and say that asbestos isn’t dangerous. It appears that this administration is once again putting politics before public health.” Murray is currently chairwoman of the Senate Employment and Workplace Safety Subcommittee.

The EPA asserts the new system is needed to improve how asbestos-contaminated Superfund sites are evaluated. The organization can move forward with its proposal without approval from the OMB or the SAB, if it so chooses.

SOURCE: myMeso › Why is EPA proposing relaxed asbestos rules?

The bill is currently in committee, with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Even if your district’s representative is not on this committee, it is important to let him or her know that you support the bill so that they know how to vote. The more voices they hear from their constituency, the better chance they will pay attention when this finally comes to the House floor.

If your representative IS a member of this committee, it is even more important. Many bills “die” in committee, never making it to a vote of the full House or Senate. Please make sure your representative helps get this bill approved in committee and to the floor for its vote.

My representative, Terry Everett (2nd District, Alabama), acknowledged his receipt of my request with a letter, in which he said he will keep my thoughts in mind should the bill make it to the floor, although he is not a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

According to information provided by Everett’s office, H.R. 3339 would require several actions to be taken by the federal government in addressing asbestos and its harmful effects. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish a plan to increase awareness of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing materials in homes and workplaces and encourage participation in research and treatment endeavors of asbestos-related disease patients.

The bill also would require the disposal of asbestos-containing materials within two years and the prohibition on the importing, manufacturing, processing or distributing of asbestos-containing materials, except for specific exemptions sought by the Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

If you are not sure of the representative for your Congressional District, visit the House of Representatives online. You can also find out here if your representative is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Please take the time to do this today. Your one voice is SO important. Let it join thousands of others to finally make a real difference.

SOURCE: myMeso › Asbestos, mesothelioma bill still in committee

The Libby program, dubbed the Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative, is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The study is expected to span 5 years with a goal of expanding knowledge about the potential and real health issues of asbestos exposure.

Libby already has proved a tragically rich source of knowledge about long-term exposure to high levels of asbestos, as the EPA’s initial examination and cleanup of the town focused on miners with direct exposure to the substance in their jobs, as well as people who handled asbestos mineral and were exposed to asbestos dust secondarily on a daily basis.

But, the Gazette reports, too little is know about exposure to lower levels of asbestos. EPA officials hope that results of the study will benefit not only the residents of Libby, but people throughout the country.

In April, the Minnesota state legislature approved $4.9 million for its own five-year study, to be conducted under the direction of the University of Minnesota, in connection with unusually high levels of mesothelioma affecting Iron Range mine workers. A large question in the area is whether dust from the taconite mined there – a fibrous mineral similar to asbestos – could also cause mesothelioma.

A key part of the Minnesota research will be an examination of previous asbestos exposure among mine workers, which will expand the base of knowledge about the affect of asbestos on health, in addition to the new studies about the effect of taconite.

According to the Billings Gazette, among tests to be included in the Libby study are a comparison of film and digital chest X-rays to determine which is best for assessing the lungs, a comparison of the health of people exposed to Libby asbestos in childhood versus people who weren’t, an expanded evaluation of Libby residents who were exposed to asbestos, an assessment of whether the health problems related to asbestos exposure extend beyond lung disease.

Researchers in Libby also hope to make improvements to public health tracking systems and patient health record databases, to better link exposure information to health conditions, the Gazette reports.

Gayla Benefield, perhaps one of the best-known residents of Libby for her early outcry about the health effects of asbestos on the people in her town, says she is happy to see an emphasis on research.

She was a charter member of the board of directors of the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD), a not-for-profit clinic governed by a volunteer community board and devoted to healthcare, outreach, and research to benefit all people impacted by exposure to Libby amphibole asbestos. She only recently retired from her position with that organization.

“This is something I’ve wanted from the onset – more study and more research,” she says. “I’ve been especially interested in how much or how little of the (asbestos) fiber can cause meso, and I’ve been really concerned about the schools having been contaminated.”

The key, Benefield says, is to detect mesothelioma at its earliest stage, when there is still time for treatment to prolong life. When people around her in Libby began being diagnosed, she says, their mesothelioma was so advanced that many died within days of the diagnosis.

“We all – everyone in Libby – live under the threat of developing mesothelioma,” she says. “They’re never going to get all that (asbestos) fiber out of Libby, or anywhere for that matter, homes with asbestos insulation, so the research is the big thing. Any and all research having to do with mesothelioma is fantastic. A dream come true.”

SOURCE: myMeso › $8 million asbestos study in Libby

Inspectors donned air filters and protective gear while running, biking and playing baseball and other sports in areas of the town to monitor asbestos levels. The paper reported that initial EPA assessments were worst along a creek-side trail in El Dorado Hills Community Park, where asbestos levels were 22-43 times higher than ambient air levels when stirred up by the common recreational activities tested.

It shouldn’t come as a complete surprise to the town. Already, the newspaper reported, asbestos concerns were responsible for a $2.5-million cleanup at Oak Ridge High School, including replacing the running track with a new all-weather surface.

Still, there is active ground clearing and new home construction throughout the town, with an affluent population and fine homes priced in the $700,000 range.

While some residents expressed concern, I was struck by the comments of residents who seemed to want to ignore the threat, or who refused to believe there would be a problem as a result of the asbestos. The Times quoted residents who “shrugged off” the news, saying “the whole thing seems like overkill.” Others objected to “the government” “overreacting,” saying “there’s risk in life whatever you do.”

One resident, who is worried about the effects on her children, recalling how her daughter brushed up clouds of asbestos-laden dust after a cheerleading routine, said, “Most people around here seem more worred about home values than health.”

The same types of risk dismissals are found in the Clear Creek story, where outdoor enthusiasts are vowing to fight the recreational area’s closing, telling the government to stop meddling and let them take the risk.

I just don’t understand this attitude. Asbestos is proven to be a danger, causing asbestosis, mesothelioma and other lung and stomach cancers. If people were told they were building their homes on radioactive land, or bike riding through Chernobyl, they would be concerned. Why is this deadly threat so much less apparent to them? Most seem to have the attitude that they will “worry about it later.”

What about the children? With the often long latency period for asbestos damage, youngsters exposed to asbestos now are at risk of developing problems in the prime of life. Are parents really willing to risk the lives of their children in order to not be “inconvenienced” or to “make their own decisions” independent of government recommendations?

If the EPA were to turn away from this danger, to issue a warning but not aggressively pursue closures and clean-up, what would the public say years from now, when people are affected with asbestosis and mesothelioma? “Where was our warning?” “Where was the government, to tell us there was danger?”

You can’t have it both ways.

SOURCE: myMeso › More asbestos danger for California town

The closure order states, “This closure is necessary to protect public land users from human health risks associated with exposure to airborne asbestos in the CCMA based upon a final report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency that concludes that public use activities could expose an individual to excess lifetime cancer risks. The order will remain in effect while the BLM completes a Resource Management Plan for the CCMA to determine if and how visitor use can occur without associated health risks.”

The risk in this area comes from natural deposits of asbestos. Asbestos is linked to mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer.

The San Francisco Chronicle, on the SFGate.com web site, quotes Jere Johnson, a project manager with the EPA, as saying, “Frankly, we were surprised at how high the levels of asbestos are at Clear Creek. What we found is that there is a lot of asbestos in the soil, and when you disturb the soil it poses a health risk.”

Chronicle reporter Carolyn Jones says outdoor enthusiasts are not happy about the area’s closing, and are skeptical of the danger. She quotes Don Amador, Western representative for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an outdoor advocacy group, as saying, “It’s unprecedented, as far as public land issues go. We’re going to want to fight it, either administratively or in court.”

The article says the area will most likely be off-limits for at least a few years, while the Bureau of Land Management completes its own study.

There will be a public meeting tonight at the Santa Clara Convention Center, 5001 Great America Parkway, from 6-9 p.m. There also will be an open house from 3-5 p.m. Additional meetings will be held from 6-8 p.m. May 19 at Veterans’ Memorial Hall, 649 San Benito Street in Hollister; and 6-8 p.m. May 21 at the Martin Luther King Jr. Library, Room 225, 150 E. San Fernando Street, San Jose.

If you live in the area, please let me know if you attend any of these meetings. We will follow this issue and let you know if there are new developments.

SOURCE: myMeso › Asbestos hazard forces 31,000-acre land closing

The school was closed Monday after testing revealed the high asbestos levels present in the facility. Students will be relocated to a facility in the nearby community of Swea City, with plans to complete this resume classes Thursday. Students have three weeks remaining in the school year.

According to a story on MidIowaNews.com, the district has been concerned about the school since at least May 4, 2007, when Paul Baer of The Institute for Environmental Assessment sent a memo stating that accoustical ceiling spray on the ceiling of the second floor hallway and classrooms contained asbestos. The news story goes on to say that the memo stated that due to roof leaks beginning in 2002, asbestos was beginning to separate from the plaster and would release asbestos fibers into the air if it fell.

On March 18, 2008, the Fairmont Sentinel, a daily paper that serves southern Minnesota and northern Iowa, reported that concerns were raised at the March 17 school board meeting. North Kossuth Superintendent Mike Landstrum told the Sentinel that an IEA inspector “told me there were some major concerns with health issues.”

Following the meeting, two public hearings were set to address the issue, one on April 7 at Swea City, and one April 14 in Bancroft.

The Sentinel reported that at the Swea City meeting April 7, in a letter to the district, George Rosburg of the IEA stated the water damage, visible leaks and sagging asbestos ceiling spray were “… a serious health & safety concern, and recommends North Kossuth Community Schools consider the asbestos removal and roof repair as a very high priority.”

Until this decision to relocate students, North Kossuth Elementary has been located in space rented from St. John’s Catholic School, a private school located on the same campus. North Kossuth has rented the property since 2002. Because the district leases the building, St. John’s is responsible for maintenance, which would include asbestos removal and other repairs.

North Kossuth’s lease agreement with St. John’s does not expire until 2012.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires all public school districts and private schools, known as local education agencies or LEAs, to inspect all school buildings for both friable and nonfriable asbestos; to develop plans to manage asbestos in schools; and to carry out the plans in a timely fashion.

SOURCE: myMeso › Asbestos closes North Iowa elementary school

W.R. Grace operated the vermiculite mine that is most notably associated with causing asbestos disease, including mesothelioma, in the town of Libby, Montana, affecting generations of residents in that area.

The AP story reports millions of tons of asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore were shipped from the mine near Libby between 1923 and the early 1990s, reaching more than 250 processing plants across the U.S., where it was used in manufacturing insulation, fireproofing, gardening and other products.

According to the AP report, “Monday’s agreement calls for the company to pay $250 million in cash into a trust fund for asbestos victims, followed by deferred payments of $110 million per year for five years beginning in 2019 and $100 million per year for 10 years beginning in 2024.”

Companies formerly affiliated with Grace, including Sealed Air Corp. and Fresenius Medical Corp., also will contribute to the fund.

When Grace filed for bankruptcy in April 2001, it had been named in 110,000 asbestos personal injury claims. It is not known how many more claims may be filed after the establishment of the trust.

Attorneys representing Libby said settlement amounts for plaintiffs there have yet to be determined, but they expect that each case will depend on the severity of injury resulting from asbestos exposure.

Judge Judith Fitzgerald, who presided over the settlement hearing, must still approve the agreement.

This announcement follows on the heels of an announcement in March that Grace would reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency $250 million for the investigation and asbestos cleanup in Libby.

Read the complete story here, in the Flathead Beacon, which serves Western Montana and the Flathead Valley.

SOURCE: myMeso › Grace agrees to asbestos claims settlement

W.R. Grace operated a vermiculite mine and processing plant in and near Libby from 1963 to 1990. The vermiculite was contaminated with high levels of asbestos.

According to a story by Tristan Scott in the Missoulian, the agreement settles the 2001 claim brought by the federal government under the Superfund law to recover past and future costs related to asbestos removal from homes, businesses, schools and playgrounds in Libby. More than 200 Libby residents have died from asbestos-related diseases.

It is estimated that the EPA has spent about $168 million removing asbestos-contaminated soils and other materials near Libby, according to the Missoulian story.

Reporter Scott said the settlement requires W.R. Grace to pay the $250 million within 30 days of approval by a federal bankruptcy court.

The money also will be used to resolve a 2003 judgment against Grace in which a judge ordered the company to pay the EPA $54.5 million to cover costs of asbestos cleanup in Libby, but which the company could not pay due to bankruptcy status.

This settlement will not have a bearing on pending criminal charges against W.R. Grace, whose senior corporate officials allegedly conspired to hide the dangers of asbestos and obstructed justice during the EPA’s investigation and cleanup. The criminal trial is expected to open in Missioula, Montana, in April or June, Scott reports.

For more information, read the complete story online.

To learn more about Libby and what happened there, visit this PBS web site, which has a wealth of information about the town.

High Plains Films, a documentary production company, produced an excellent film about the town, which you can view or purchase by visiting their web site.

This story is so sad. A whole town was basically destroyed by asbestos. People brought asbestos home from the factory and put it in their gardens. It was used to pave a running track at the school. It was everywhere. Still is.

The EPA estimates they’ll be cleaning in and around Libby for at least another 5 years, and even then they doubt they’ll be able to remove all the asbestos.

SOURCE: myMeso › Too late for Libby

What is Mesothelioma?

Mesothelioma cancer, or malignant mesothelioma, is an extremely rare disease generally affecting the lining of the lungs, and, more rarely, the abdominal cavity and/or the heart. Mesothelioma cancer is most strongly associated with exposure to asbestos, and can remain latent in those exposed for 30 to 40 years.

There are three types of mesothelioma cancer: pleural, in which the cancer affects the lining of the lungs/chest;  peritoneal, which affects the lining of the abdominal cavity; and pericardial, which affects the lining of the heart.

Pleural mesothelioma is the most common form of malignant mesothelioma, accounting for approximately three out of every four cases. The pleura is defined as the outer lining of the lungs and chest cavity. Pleural mesothelioma typcially has a latency period of 30-40 years or longer.

Peritoneal mesothelioma generally accounts for about 25 percent of maglignant mesothelioma cases diagnosed each year. It can have a shorter latency period than pleural mesothelioma, developing in 20-30 years or shorter. It affects the peritoneum, which is the lining of the abdominal cavity. Peritoneal mesothelioma generally occurs more often in males than females.

Pericardial mesothelioma, which affects the pericardium, the lining of the heart, is extremely rare. This form of malignant mesothelioma is usually fatal, due to its difficulty in diagnosis and treatment. It is generally diagnosed in a very late stage, and surgical or other treatment options are dangerous and difficult.

Mesothelioma in general is fairly rare in the United States. There are an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 new cases of mesothelioma each year in the United States. However, in European countries, especially the UK, as well as in Australia, the rate of mesothelioma is increasing.

For years, mesothelioma was thought to be  rare in people under age 55. Traditionally seen primarily in older men, usually with a background of working in a factory, shipyard, mine or other environment with heavy asbestos exposure, today more and more cases of secondary exposure are being diagnosed, and it is affecting greater number of women.

The average age for someone with mesothelioma used to be around 72, but each year it seems mesothelioma affects younger people, and a greater number of women. Last year, a 3-year-old girl was diagnosed with mesothelioma, stunning the physicians who were treating her.

Mesothelioma is a serious disease. By the time the symptoms appear and cancer is diagnosed, the disease is often advanced. The average survival time is about 1 year. The 5-year relative survival rate is around 10%, but this rate has been slowly improving.

The 5-year survival rate refers to the percentage of patients who live at least 5 years after their cancer is diagnosed. Many of these patients live much longer than 5 years after diagnosis, and 5-year rates are used to produce a standard way of discussing prognosis.

Five-year relative survival rates do not include patients dying of other diseases and are considered to be a more accurate way to describe the prognosis for patients with a particular type and stage of cancer. That means that relative survival only talks about deaths from mesothelioma. Of course, 5-year survival rates are based on patients diagnosed and initially treated more than 5 years ago. They may no longer be accurate. Improvements in treatment result in a more favorable outlook for recently diagnosed patients.

Symptoms of Mesothelioma

Early symptoms of mesothelioma can be very general. Thus, they are often ignored.

Symptoms of pleural mesothelioma (lining of the chest) can include:

* pain in the lower back or at the side of the chest

* shortness of breath

* trouble swallowing

* hoarseness

* cough

* fever

* sweating

* tiredness

* weight loss

* swelling of the face and arms

* muscle weakness

Symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma (lining of the abdominal cavity) include:

* belly pain

* weight loss

* nausea

* vomiting

* fluid or a lump in the abdomen

Symptoms of pericardial mesothelioma (lining of the heart) include:

* constrictive pericarditis

* pericardial effusion

* cardiac tamponade

* heart failure caused by myocardial infarction

Of course, these same symptoms can also be caused by other minor ailments. But if you have worked with asbestos and you have any of these symptoms, you should see your doctor right away.

Diagnosing Mesothelioma

Diagnosing mesothelioma is often difficult, because the symptoms are similar to those of a number of other conditions.

Diagnosis begins with a review of the patient’s medical history, including any history of asbestos exposure. A complete physical examination may be performed, including x-rays of the chest or abdomen and lung function tests. As a rule, a chest x-ray is not useful in finding mesothelioma early.

One test being studied is a blood test. This test measures the levels in the blood of a certain protein that is higher in people who have lung damage due to asbestos. It is even higher if the person has mesothelioma.

A CT (or CAT) scan or an MRI may also be useful. A CT scan is a series of detailed pictures of areas inside the body created by a computer linked to an x-ray machine. In an MRI, a powerful magnet linked to a computer is used to make detailed pictures of areas inside the body. These pictures are viewed on a monitor and can also be printed.

A biopsy is needed to confirm a diagnosis of mesothelioma. In a biopsy, a surgeon or a medical oncologist (a doctor who specializes in diagnosing and treating cancer) removes a sample of tissue for examination under a microscope by a pathologist. A biopsy may be done in different ways, depending on where the abnormal area is located.

If the cancer is in the chest, the doctor may perform a thoracoscopy. In this procedure, the doctor makes a small cut through the chest wall and puts a thin, lighted tube called a thoracoscope into the chest between two ribs. Thoracoscopy allows the doctor to look inside the chest and obtain tissue samples.

If the cancer is in the abdomen, the doctor may perform a peritoneoscopy. To obtain tissue for examination, the doctor makes a small opening in the abdomen and inserts a special instrument called a peritoneoscope into the abdominal cavity.

If these procedures do not yield enough tissue, more extensive diagnostic surgery may be necessary.

If the diagnosis is mesothelioma, the doctor will want to learn the stage (or extent) of the disease. Staging involves more tests in a careful attempt to find out whether the cancer has spread and, if so, to which parts of the body. Knowing the stage of the disease helps the doctor plan treatment.

Mesothelioma is described as localized if the cancer is found only on the membrane surface where it originated. It is classified as advanced if it has spread beyond the original membrane surface to other parts of the body, such as the lymph nodes, lungs, chest wall, or abdominal organs.

New developments in Diagnosis of Mesothelioma

A recently published report in the Journal of the American Medical Association holds out hope for earlier detection of mesothelioma, a deadly cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

Researchers compared three types of endoscopic collection for accuracy in detecting cancerous cells in the lymph nodes to determine their accuracy.

Typically, doctors use several different techniques to diagnose lung cancers, including mesothelioma. Those techniques include physical exams, chest X-rays, CT scans and surgical biopsies to examine the cells in the lungs and the lymph nodes.

Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and the outcomes are typically unpromising. The low survival rates for lung cancer are often attributed to the difficulty of diagnosing the disease early enough for effective treatment.

This is especially true of mesothelioma, a disease that affects the tissues of the lining between the chest wall and the lungs. Often, by the time mesothelioma is detected, the cancer has reached untreatable stages.

Because of this, researchers are increasingly turning to new methods of detection that may identify deadly cancers at earlier stages when chemotherapy, surgery and other treatments may be effective.

The most accurate methods of diagnosis to date involve collecting cell samples from the lungs or lymph nodes for examination under a microscope. The most common method for collecting these cells is a mediastinoscopy, which is an invasive surgery that involves anesthesia and incision. The surgeon makes an incision at the top of the breast bone and inserts a thin, lighted tube into the chest cavity to withdraw cell and fluid samples.

Mediatinoscopy is typically used to determine whether fluids in the chest cavity contain cancerous cells or asbestos fibers.

In the past few years, doctors have developed less invasive procedures to collect tissue samples from the chest. These procedures use an endoscope, a small medical device that consists of a camera mounted on a flexible tube. Ultrasound probes, needles and other instruments can be inserted through the tube to remove samples for biopsy. These endoscopic procedures are far less invasive than more traditional methods, reducing the risks to patients who undergo them.

In the study reported in JAMA, researchers compared three different procedures using an endoscope, each of them considered minimally invasive:

• Transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA)

• Endobronchial ultra-sound guided fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA)

• Transesophegeal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNA)

In each procedure, an endoscope was used to remove tissues or fluids with a fine needle. The researchers then compared the findings among the three methods to determine which was the most sensitive for detecting the presence of cancerous cells in the lymph nodes of the chest.

The study consisted of tests taken on 138 patients in the U.S. who were believed to have lung cancer. Each patient underwent all three procedures in sequence.

The results of the study showed:

- 30% (42) of the patients had malignant lymph nodes

- EBUS-FNA detected 29 of the cancers. TBNA only detected 15

- EUS-FNA and EBUS-FNA used in combination detected 93% of the cancers.

The combination was also able to detect malignancies in patients who would not have been identified by CT scans of the chest. The results of the study suggest that the minimally invasive procedures may be a viable alternative to more invasive standard procedures for evaluation patients believed to have lung cancer.

The lower risks associated with the procedure will make the diagnostic process more comfortable for patients and provide for a shorter recovery time.

Reference: Wallace, M, Pascual, J, Raimondo, M, et al. Minimally invasive endoscopic staging of suspected lung cancer. Journal of American Medical Association. 2008. 299(5) 540-546. Source: www.asbestos.com

New System May Give Lung Cancer Patients Hope

The Associated Press Aug. 31, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20533486

Thousands more lung cancer patients each year could be offered surgery or other aggressive therapy under a new system that classifies many tumors as more treatable than in the past.

It is the first big overhaul of a decades-old method used to predict survival and help determine whether a lung cancer patient will have surgery, chemotherapy or be treated at all.

The new guidance is to be presented at a conference of lung cancer specialists in Seoul, South Korea, that starts Saturday. It is expected to be adopted by policy-making groups in the next year. Lung cancer is the world’s top cancer killer, claiming 1.3 million lives each year.

In the United States, 213,380 new cases and 160,390 deaths from the disease are expected this year. Nearly 60 percent of people die within one year of diagnosis, and nearly 75 percent die within two years, American Cancer Society statistics show.

In treating it, doctors use a formula called tumor staging. It is based on a tumor’s size, how far it has spread and other factors to predict a patient’s survival odds and to guide treatment.

More precise sorting

The current system was developed from about 5,000 tumor samples from University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston decades ago — before improved scanning technology was available to evaluate a cancer’s spread.

The new plan is based on 100,000 tumor samples from around the world including Asia, where lung cancer rates are projected to climb because of trends in smoking, unhealthy lifestyles and aging populations. It keeps four broad groupings but sorts people more precisely based on refined understanding of tumor characteristics.

The result: “There will clearly be shifting of patients from categories not operable to operable” — as many as 10,000 a year in the United States, said Dr. David Johnson, a lung cancer specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He reviewed the plan, which was partly published in a medical journal recently.

The stage of the tumor at diagnosis is the best predictor of survival. Only 20 percent of cases are diagnosed in Stages 1 or 2, when tumors are small and confined to a lung, Johnson said. About 30 percent to 40 percent are found in Stage 4, after they have widely spread. The rest are in the middle.

Five-year survival rates are 47 percent for Stage 1 and 26 percent for Stage 2, but only 8 percent for Stage 3, and 2 percent for Stage 4, according to the American College of Surgeons.

Most lung cancers are the type called ”non-small cell,“ which is covered by the new staging system. The system was developed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, a group of lung cancer specialists from around the world.

Changing groupings

Dr. Peter Goldstraw, a surgeon at the Royal Brompton Hospital in London, led the project, and Canadian scientists independently validated the recommended changes by comparing survival across geographic regions.

Among the changes: creating more sub-stages for tumor size, reassigning some large tumors to a more advanced stage, reclassifying tumors that have spread into the fluid surrounding the lung, and recognizing that spread to certain lymph nodes is more dangerous than its spread to others.

“By changing some of these groupings, some patients will get moved to an earlier stage of disease for which we tend to be more aggressive” in treatment, said Dr. Joan Schiller, a lung cancer specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas .

“Before, a patient may have only been offered chemotherapy. They may now be offered chemotherapy and radiation,” or more intense radiation, she said. Conversely, some people thought to have earlier-stage tumors now will be grouped with those whose tumors have widely spread, and discouraged from undergoing therapies that have little chance of helping them.

“In some cases, patients were getting inappropriately aggressive treatment,” Schiller said.

Some people with very small tumors may get away with less therapy — taking out just a segment of lung instead of an entire lobe, said Dr. Stephen Swisher, a chest surgeon at M.D. Anderson.

The impact of the changes in Europe and Japan is unclear because doctors in those countries tend to remove whole lungs rather than lobes to treat lung cancer, Johnson noted. Doctors hope that ultimately survival will improve, but that won’t happen “unless we get patients into the right hands” and they get correct treatment, Johnson said.

Revising the staging system also will do little good if doctors don’t do the right tests to properly stage a tumor, said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. Staging for lung and other types of cancer should become even more precise in the near future as biomarkers and gene tests are developed to better sort patients, he added.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Risk Factors for Mesothelioma

The main risk factor for developing mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos.

Asbestos refers to a family of fibrous minerals made of silicate. Asbestos was once used in many products such as insulation, floor tiles, door gaskets, soundproofing, roofing, patching compounds, fireproof gloves and ironing board covers, and even brake pads.

As the link between asbestos and mesothelioma has become well known, the use of this material has almost stopped. Most use stopped after 1989, but it is still used in some products. Experts have linked this drop in asbestos use to the fact that the rate of development of mesothelioma is no longer increasing [in the U.S.].

Still, up to 8 million Americans may already have been exposed to asbestos. Exposure to asbestos particles suspended in air and building materials is much less hazardous except when they are being removed.

Since asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, it can also be found in dust and rocks in certain parts of the United States as well as the world.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 733,000 schools and public buildings in the country today contain asbestos insulation. As many as 10% to 15% of schools in the United States may contain asbestos insulation.

People who may be at risk for occupational asbestos exposure include some miners, factory workers, insulation manufacturers, railroad workers, ship builders, gas mask manufacturers, and construction workers, particularly those involved with installing insulation.

Several studies have shown that family members of people exposed to asbestos at work have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma, because asbestos fibers are carried home on the clothes of the workers.

The incidence rate for mesothelioma in men is dropping, probably because they are no longer being exposed directly to asbestos in their work. But the incidence rate for mesothelioma in women is steady, which suggests that they are being exposed in a way that is not directly tied to work, but more to their environment either at home or work. One example would be asbestos in buildings where they work or live.

A study from California also links mesothelioma to naturally occurring asbestos deposits in mountains.

Another important point about asbestos and mesothelioma is that the risk of mesothelioma does not drop with time after exposure to asbestos. The risk appears to be lifelong and undiminished.

There are 2 main forms of asbestos — serpentine and amphiboles. Serpentine fibers are curly and pliable. Chrysotile is the only type of serpentine fiber and it is the most widely used form of asbestos. Amphiboles are thin, rod-like fibers. There are 5 main types — crocidolite, amosite, anthrophylite, tremolite, and actinolyte. Amphiboles (particularly crocidolite) are considered to be the most carcinogenic (cancer-causing).

However, even the more commonly used chrysotile fibers are associated with malignant (cancerous) mesotheliomas and should be considered dangerous as well.

When asbestos fibers are inhaled, most are cleared in the nose, throat, trachea (windpipe), or bronchi (large breathing tubes of the lungs). Fibers are cleared by sticking to mucus inside the air passages and being coughed up or swallowed. The long, thin, fibers are less readily cleared, and they may reach the ends of the small airways and penetrate into the pleural lining of the lung and chest wall. These fibers may then directly injure mesothelial cells of the pleura, and eventually cause mesothelioma.

Asbestos fibers can also damage cells of the lung and result in asbestosis (formation of scar tissue in the lung), and/or lung cancer.

The risk of lung cancer among people exposed to asbestos is increased by 7 times, compared with the general population. Indeed, asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer are the 3 most frequent causes of death and disease among people with heavy asbestos exposure.

Peritoneal mesothelioma, which forms in the abdomen, may result from coughing up and swallowing inhaled asbestos fibers. Cancers of the larynx, pancreas, esophagus, colon, and kidney may also come from asbestos exposure, but the increased risk is small.

The risk of developing a mesothelioma is related to how much asbestos a person was exposed to and how long this exposure lasted. People exposed at an early age, for a long period of time, and at higher levels are most likely to develop this cancer.

Mesotheliomas take a long time to develop. The time between first exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is usually between 20 and 50 years.

Other Asbestos-Related Cancer

Asbestos Related Lung CancerLung cancer, or bronchial carcinoma, occurs in several forms. The most common causes of lung cancer are smoking and asbestos.

This web site has focused on the most lethal of the lung cancers – mesothelioma. Not every asbestos-related lung cancer, however, is a mesothelioma. Other thoracic carcinomas, such as adenocarcinoma, are also caused by exposure to asbestos.

The connection between asbestos exposure and lung cancer was noted as early as 1925, and confirmed over the next 70 years by many epidemiologic studies of asbestos-exposed workers.

The four main types of commercially used asbestos, chrysotile, amosite, anthophyllite, and mixtures containing crocidolite, have all been associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. About one in seven people who suffer from asbestosis, a lung disease resulting from high exposure to asbestos, eventually develop lung cancer.

Asbestos is estimated to account for 3,400 to 8,500 new lung cancer cases in the United States each year. Like mesothelioma, the latency period between asbestos exposure and the development of asbestos related lung cancer may be two, three, four, or even more decades.

Very often, asbestos-related cancer victims also suffer from asbestosis, a scarring of the lung tissue caused by asbestos exposure. About one in seven people with asbestosis will eventually develop lung cancer.

Although commonly associated with lung cancer, adenocarcinoma is a type of cancer that develops in cells lining glandular types of internal organs, such as the lungs, breasts, colon, prostate, stomach, pancreas, and cervix.

Another type of adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, accounts for only 10-15% of all adenocarcinomas and is particular to aggressive carcinomas that are comprised of at least sixty percent mucus. Non-small cell lung cancers make up over three quarters of all new lung cancer cases in the United States.

While there is only one type of small cell lung cancer, there are three types of non-small cell lung cancer. The three types of non-small cell lung cancer are squamous carcinoma, large cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma. When adenocarcinoma develops in the lung’s air sacs, it is called bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma. About forty percent of all lung cancer cases diagnosed today are adenocarcinoma.

The progression of adenocarcinoma is quite unpredictable. In most cases, adenocarcinoma spreads slowly and causes very few lung cancer symptoms. But it can also be extremely invasive, aggressively spreading through the body and causing death before it can be treated. Given the disease’s variability, the five-year prognosis for patients with adenocarcinoma is dim: most are given only a 10 percent chance of survival.

Sometimes, tumors spread to the liver, adrenal glands, and bones, making adenocarcinoma much more difficult to treat. Symptoms of adenocarcinoma lung cancer may include shortness of breath, the coughing up of blood, fatigue, chest pains, and unexplained weight loss. Adenocarcinoma is usually treated with surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

SOURCE: myMeso › What is Mesothelioma?

Asbestos is Leading Risk Factor for Mesothelioma

The main risk factor for developing mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. Asbestos refers to a family of fibrous minerals made of silicate. Asbestos was once used in many products such as insulation, floor tiles, door gaskets, soundproofing, roofing, patching compounds, fireproof gloves and ironing board covers, and even brake pads. As the link between asbestos and mesothelioma has become well known, the use of this material has almost stopped. Most use stopped after 1989, but it is still used in some products.

Experts have linked this drop in asbestos use to the fact that the rate of development of mesothelioma is no longer increasing [in the U.S.]. Still, up to 8 million Americans may already have been exposed to asbestos.

Exposure to asbestos particles suspended in air and building materials is much less hazardous except when they are being removed. Since asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, it can also be found in dust and rocks in certain parts of the United States as well as the world. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 733,000 schools and public buildings in the country today contain asbestos insulation. As many as 10% to 15% of schools in the United States may contain asbestos insulation.

People who may be at risk for occupational asbestos exposure include some miners, factory workers, insulation manufacturers, railroad workers, ship builders, gas mask manufacturers, and construction workers, particularly those involved with installing insulation. Several studies have shown that family members of people exposed to asbestos at work have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma, because asbestos fibers are carried home on the clothes of the workers.

The incidence rate for mesothelioma in men is dropping, probably because they are no longer being exposed directly to asbestos in their work. But the incidence rate for mesothelioma in women is steady, which suggests that they are being exposed in a way that is not directly tied to work, but more to their environment either at home or work. One example would be asbestos in buildings where they work or live. A study from California also links mesothelioma to naturally occurring asbestos deposits in mountains.

Another important point about asbestos and mesothelioma is that the risk of mesothelioma does not drop with time after exposure to asbestos. The risk appears to be lifelong and undiminished. There are 2 main forms of asbestos — serpentine and amphiboles.

Serpentine fibers are curly and pliable. Chrysotile is the only type of serpentine fiber and it is the most widely used form of asbestos.

Amphiboles are thin, rod-like fibers. There are 5 main types — crocidolite, amosite, anthrophylite, tremolite, and actinolyte. Amphiboles (particularly crocidolite) are considered to be the most carcinogenic (cancer-causing). However, even the more commonly used chrysotile fibers are associated with malignant (cancerous) mesotheliomas and should be considered dangerous as well.

When asbestos fibers are inhaled, most are cleared in the nose, throat, trachea (windpipe), or bronchi (large breathing tubes of the lungs). Fibers are cleared by sticking to mucus inside the air passages and being coughed up or swallowed. The long, thin, fibers are less readily cleared, and they may reach the ends of the small airways and penetrate into the pleural lining of the lung and chest wall. These fibers may then directly injure mesothelial cells of the pleura, and eventually cause mesothelioma.

Asbestos fibers can also damage cells of the lung and result in asbestosis (formation of scar tissue in the lung), and/or lung cancer. The risk of lung cancer among people exposed to asbestos is increased by 7 times, compared with the general population. Indeed, asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung cancer are the 3 most frequent causes of death and disease among people with heavy asbestos exposure.

Peritoneal mesothelioma, which forms in the abdomen, may result from coughing up and swallowing inhaled asbestos fibers. Cancers of the larynx, pancreas, esophagus, colon, and kidney may also come from asbestos exposure, but the increased risk is small. The risk of developing a mesothelioma is related to how much asbestos a person was exposed to and how long this exposure lasted. People exposed at an early age, for a long period of time, and at higher levels are most likely to develop this cancer.

Mesotheliomas take a long time to develop. The time between first exposure to asbestos and diagnosis of mesothelioma is usually between 20 and 50 years.

Asbestosis

asbestosis – Asbestosis is a breathing disorder caused by inhaling asbestos fibers. Prolonged accumulation of these fibers in your lungs can cause scarring of lung tissue and shortness of breath. Asbestosis symptoms can range from mild to severe, and usually don’t appear until years after exposure.

According to information provided by the Mayo Clinic, symptoms of asbestosis include shortness of breath, initially only with exertion but eventually even while resting; decreased tolerance for physical activity; coughing, chest pain, and even finger deformity (clubbing) in some cases.

Asbestosis may cause such a reduced flow of oxygen as to be disabling or even fatal. It can also lead to complications like high blood pressure in the lungs, heart problems, lung cancer, other lung damage including those affecting the lining of the lungs and chest cavity, the pleura. These include pleural thickening and hardening (pleural plaques), and abnormal accumulation of fluid between the layers (pleural effusion).

Asbestosis itself does not increase your risk of developing mesothelioma, but it indicates that you were exposed to asbestos and therefore are also at risk for developing malignant mesothelioma.

Adenocarcinoma

adenocarcinoma (A-den-oh-KAR-sih-NOH-muh) – Cancer that begins in cells that line certain internal organs and that have gland-like (secretory) properties.

Although commonly associated with lung cancer, adenocarcinoma is a type of cancer that develops in cells lining glandular types of internal organs, such as the lungs, breasts, colon, prostate, stomach, pancreas, and cervix. Another type of adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, accounts for only 10-15% of all adenocarcinomas and is particular to aggressive carcinomas that are comprised of at least sixty percent mucus.

Non-small cell lung cancers make up over three quarters of all new lung cancer cases in the United States. While there is only one type of small cell lung cancer, there are three types of non-small cell lung cancer. The three types of non-small cell lung cancer are squamous carcinoma, large cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma. When adenocarcinoma develops in the lung’s air sacs, it is called bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma. About forty percent of all lung cancer cases diagnosed today is adenocarcinoma.

Like other cancers, adenocarcinoma is the growth of abnormal cells. These cancerous cells multiply out of control and form a tumor. In the lung, as the tumor grows, it destroys parts of the lung. Eventually, the tumor’s abnormal cells can spread (metastasize) to other parts of the body, including the local lymph nodes in the chest and the central portion of the chest, called the mediastinum; the liver; the bones; the adrenal glands; and other organs, including the brain.

Adenocarcinoma is more likely than other types of lung cancer to be contained in one area of the body. If it is truly localized, it may also respond better than other lung cancers to treatment, especially surgical removal of the tumor and draining lymph nodes.

Adenocarcinoma is the most common form of lung cancer. Most of this type of cancer is found in smokers. However, it also is the most frequent type of lung cancer seen in nonsmokers. It is the most common form of lung cancer seen in women and people younger than 45.

As with other forms of lung cancer, you are more likely to get adenocarcinoma if you:

• Are exposed to asbestos. Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that is used in home insulation, fireproofing, tiles for floors and ceilings, automobile brake linings, and other products. It is believed that asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer. People at risk of lung cancer include workers who are exposed to asbestos on the job (miners, construction workers, shipyard workers and auto mechanics who work with brakes), and people who live or work in buildings in which building products that contain asbestos are deteriorating. In addition to the adenocarcinoma type of lung cancer, individuals who have been exposed to asbestos, and particular types of asbestos, are also at a significant greater risk of developing a specialized type of lung cancer called mesothelioma.

• Are exposed to other carcinogens in the workplace. These include uranium, arsenic, vinyl chloride, nickel chromates, coal products, mustard gas, chloromethyl ethers, gasoline, diesel exhaust and high levels of talc dust.

• Smoke cigarettes. Smokers have 13 times more risk of developing lung cancer than nonsmokers. Cigarette smoke is associated with most cases of adenocarcinoma. Smoking is by far the leading risk factor for lung cancer, substantially more significant than all the other risk factors combined.

• Breathe cigarette smoke. Nonsmokers who inhale the cigarette fumes of smokers have an increased risk of lung cancer.

• Are exposed to radon gas. Radon is a colorless, odorless radioactive gas that is formed in the ground. It seeps into the lower floors of homes and public buildings and can contaminate drinking water. Radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer. It’s not clear whether elevated radon levels contribute to lung cancer in nonsmokers. However, research has shown that radon exposure contributes to increased rates of lung cancer in smokers and in people exposed to higher levels of radon, such as miners. You can test the levels of radon in your home and surrounding area by using commercially available radon testing kits.

Your doctor will ask you whether you smoke or whether you live with a smoker. If you smoke, your doctor will ask you how much you smoke and how long you have smoked. Your doctor also will ask whether you have worked in an industry where you may have been exposed to asbestos or other carcinogens.

Call your doctor promptly if you have any of the symptoms of lung cancer, especially if you are a smoker or you have worked in an industry with high exposure to asbestos.

The outlook depends on the stage of the cancer and the overall health of the patient. In general, the prognosis is poor, especially if the lung cancer has spread to areas outside of the chest wall or has involved the lymph nodes of the mediastinum. This cancer can only be cured when surgery or radiation therapy can completely remove the tumor. However, many lung cancers are diagnosed at a stage when this is not possible. About 17 percent of people with adenocarcinoma survive more than 5 years after diagnosis.

Asbestos exposure increases the risk of lung cancer by nine times. A combination of asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking raises the risk to as much as 50 times.

A person who has had lung cancer is more likely to develop a second lung cancer than the average person is to develop a first lung cancer.

Repeated respiratory infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, can be a sign of lung cancer.

Asbestos Information

Asbestos and asbestos containing materials are responsible for causing asbestos cancer and asbestos disease cases around the world. Two of the most dangerous forms of asbestos disease are mesothelioma and asbestosis. Asbestos has been used in thousands of products for more than a century because it is highly versatile, abundant, and relatively cheap. Since asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral, it requires no manufacturing. Instead, asbestos only has to be mined, crushed, and added into products during the manufacturing process. Since asbestos is basically a rock, it is highly impervious to heat. It also happens to be chemically inert. Since its basic mineral structure is shaped in long, thin fibers, it can be broken down into these fibers to add strength and flexibility to nearly any product. A characteristic of asbestos is what is known as tensile strength. It allows products to be flexible yet strong while not adding excessive weight. Asbestos is one of few minerals that can actually be woven. Asbestos was commonly woven into materials that made excellent insulators, but were too brittle to be used by alone because they would crumble. Asbestos made insulation products flexible and durable since it was not affected by heat. Asbestos is not a very effective insulator by itself. All these qualities add up to a very useful and inexpensive product but some of them also make asbestos toxic to those that inhale asbestos fibers. There are six forms of asbestos characterized by differences in structure and color. Asbestos is also divided into two categories: serpentine and amphibole asbestos. Serpentine asbestos is made of curly fibers and amphibole asbestos is made of long, straight fibers. Both types of asbestos are considered dangerous, though it is thought amphibole asbestos forms, including crocidolite and amosite, may be more dangerous to humans.

Asbestos Exposure

Unfortunately, there are many opportunities for asbestos exposure since asbestos was used so abundantly in both industrial and consumer products. Most people that develop asbestos cancer and other asbestos diseases, including mesothelioma and asbestosis, usually have a history of chronic exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is somewhat unique in this respect, as mesothelioma cases have developed in people with limited asbestos exposure. As a result, there is no established “safe” level of asbestos exposure. Workers are exposed to asbestos when the substance or products containing asbestos are cut, crushed, sanded, drilled or otherwise disturbed. When left undisturbed, asbestos-containing materials can be relatively safe. In cases where asbestos materials are mined, installed, removed, demolished, or serviced, exposure can be a risk unless strict asbestos abatement techniques are employed. When inhaled, microscopic asbestos fibers can make it past the body’s natural defenses and deep into the lungs causing asbestos disease. Once within the lungs, the fibers can irritate lung tissue leading to asbestos cancer. If asbestos fibers make their way to the alveoli or air sacs in the lungs where oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange takes place, they can cause irritation and scarring called asbestosis. Asbestos fibers that pass through the alveoli and into the pleural mesothelium, can eventually lead to asbestos cancer in the form of tumors and malignant mesothelioma.

Asbestos Products

The following is a list of products that commonly contain asbestos:Roofing shinglesFelt and tar joint compoundCement pipesWall boardCeiling tilesSiding gasketsLaboratory hoodsMastics and sealantsBrake liningsFire doorsInsulation on some wiringCooling towersPaintTaping compound (thermal)Flexible duct connectorsGreenhouse materialsAppliance insulationSheet vinyl floor coveringPlaster sprayed-on fireproofingRefractory cement chalk boardsInsulation on steam pipesHeat resistant gloves and suitsAsbestos blankets Cork Board

Asbestos History

Asbestos was first discovered to be dangerous at the beginning of last century. It has been known as a carcinogen since the 1960s and was subsequently banned in more than 30 countries under grounds that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Mining and manufacture of most asbestos products has been ceased in the U.S., yet we continue to import more than 30 million pounds of asbestos in foreign products each year. A new recommendation by an EPA-sponsored panel of asbestos industry members and other experts on the topic called for a ban of all importation, manufacture, and mining of asbestos and asbestos containing products in the U.S. Although this may be a good sign, it also means that new risks of asbestos exposure are still developing. Since asbestos cancer and asbestos diseases take years and even decades to develop, many more cases of asbestos disease will be diagnosed.

Asbestos Legislation

On March 1, 2007, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced S. 742: Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007 to the 110th Congress. This is an act to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce the health risks posed by asbestos-containing materials and products having asbestos-containing material, and for other purposes. The bill is an effort to ban all production and use of asbestos in America , launch public education campaigns to raise awareness about its dangers and expand research and treatment of diseases cause by asbestos. Murray’s legislation, which was first introduced in the 107th Congress, will also authorize additional studies to determine which commercial products today still contain asbestos, increase funding for asbestos-related diseases, and call for a national mesothelioma registry to help public health professionals track this deadly asbestos-related disease. Studies estimate that during the next decade, 100,000 victims in the United States will die of an asbestos related disease – equaling 30 deaths per day. The bill passed in the Senate on Oct. 4, 2007 by Unanimous Consent.

Currently, the companion to this bill, H.R. 3339, the Bruce Vento Ban Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2007, is in committee in the House of Representatives. The House bill toughened the legislation, under the direction of the Environment and Hazardous Material Subcommittee of the House’s Energy and Commerce Committee, eliminating an exception for asbestos present at 1 percent or less by weight, making the ban a matter of federal statute rather than EPA regulation, and adding enforcement provisions. The bill must pass committee to make it before the full House for a vote.

Critically needed medical research funding provisions from Sen. Murray’s and Congresswoman McCollum’s legislation have not yet been added to the Committee Print. Supporters are urged to contact their Representative in Washington, DC, to urge inclusion of the research funding and swift passage of the complete bill once the funding is in place.

SOURCE: myMeso › Mesothelioma and Asbestos