Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By AMJAD AL ATA
Hi all there,
I would like to know, if the ingestion of asbestos result in any adverse health effect?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
There is some research to say that this may be a problem with cancers of the digestive tract, cant remember the reference but will see if I have it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Try a search on mesothelioma in the urinary tract.The condition is as odd as hens teeth but there are instances of same.These persons would 'appear' to have a link to asbestos exposure.No in depth research has been conducted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Aiden,
I for one would be more than slightly suprised if you got mesthelioma of the urinary tract, as the mesothium are the lining to the lungs and plueral cavity.
On a more serious note, there is no conclusive proof that asbestos is or is not a carcinogen of the alimentary or excretory systems. Whilst mesothelioma is cancer of the lining of the lung and plueral cavity, secondary tumours may cause cancers of the kidneys and reproductory systems.
Regards Adrian Watson
PS Search IACR on the net, then asbestos in their web site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte
If you were to ingest asbestos, unless it was shrink rapped and you swallowed it whole there would still be a possibility of it being aspirated into the lungs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
No, but if you breath it in you do swallow it!
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul L Williams
A tall tale maybe? I always remember chatting to a contractor in his 60's that was removing asbestos from the site I was working. He told me that when he was an asbestos lagger, many year prior, he mixed the asbestos in a bucket and hand patted it around pipes. He said on a Monday morning after a heavy weekend drinking he used to mix a small amount of the asbestos with water and drink it. He said it was great for settling the stomach. Urrm I wonder if he is still alive?. On a serious note as it is mineral based it should pass through the system without any harmful effects. I would still advise anyone who has ingested asbestos though to be checked over by their GP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Hi Adrian
Prepare to be surprised!!!!!!!
Mesothelioma IS NOT the strict preserve of the respiratory system.Mesothelioma is the term used to describe a cancerous tumour which involves the mesothelial (lining) cells of an organ,ie lungs ,heart or abdominal organs.When safety people talk about Mesothelioma we generally refer TO PLEURAL MESOTHELIOMA .Ie Lung related cancer.
There is however PERITONEAL MESOTHELIOMA,a cancer of the stomach lining which is the next most common form of mesothelioma cancer.(and so on and so on)
As I said previously, cancers to the urinary tract(lining) have been 'associated' with asbestos exposure.Linkage has not been proven.You will note that I did encourage the inquirer to look at these studies for himself.As for yourself, Adrian, I would urge you to do some/any research on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Aidan,
I do and should have been more careful, but it ain't in the urinary tract!
Mesothelium Anat. Epithelium that forms the surface layer of the pleurae, peritoneum, and pericardium.
Pluera. Either of two serous membranes, right and left, which form a closed double-walled sac around each lung in a mammal, one side or layer (in full pulmonary pleura, visceral pleura) being attached to the lung, the other (in full costal pleura, parietal pleura) to the inner wall of the chest.
Peritoneum. The thin serous membrane which lines the inside of the abdominal cavity and is folded over the surfaces of the abdominal viscera, which it keeps in place; in vertebrates below mammals, and some invertebrates, the membrane lining the whole body-cavity. LME.
Pericardium. The membranous sac which encloses the heart and the beginning of the major blood-vessels in vertebrates; the cavity or sinus enclosing or constituting the heart in certain invertebrates.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Amjad,
Patty's Toxicology 5th Edn states:
Epidemiology: Nonrespiratory Cancers There has been some question regarding the possible carcinogenic effect of asbestos on the larynx, kidney and gastrointestinal tract. No significant excesses for laryngeal cancer were found in four cohorts exposed almost exclusively to chrysotile. Since kidney cancer is rare, cohort studies have had limited statistical power to detect even moderate increases of kidney cancer. There was no overall excess of kidney cancer in the cohort of miners and millers followed by McDonald et al. Selikoff et al. in their study of 632 asbestos insulation workers followed between 1943 and 1962 found an SMR of 309 for cancer of the stomach, colon and rectum. Selikoff et al. in another study with a the cohort of 17,800 insulation workers followed from 1967 and 1976 in which they found 2271 deaths, also found significant increased mortality for cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon-rectum, larynx, buccal cavity and pharynx and kidney. In a predominantly chrysotile exposed cohort, there is no consistent evidence of excess mortality from stomach or colorectal cancer. In the analysis of mortality in the Quebec cohort up to 1989, the SMR for gastric cancer was elevated in the highest exposure category (SMR = 1.39); the corresponding SMR for lung cancer was 1.85. Overall, there was no systematic relationship with exposure.
In 1999, Goodman et al. published the results of a study wherein they examined the data from 69 asbestos-exposed occupational cohorts and applied a meta-analytic technique to determine the magnitude of association between exposure and lung cancer and to determine if other cancers may be related to such exposure. The lung cancer data showed meta-SMRs of 163 and 148 with and without latency, respectively, and significant heterogeneity of results even after stratification according to occupational groups. Stratification of lung cancer studies according to percentage of mesothelioma deaths showed a dose–response effect. Z-scores ranged from – 12.21 to + 29.49. Analysis for laryngeal cancer yielded meta-SMRs of 157 and 133 with and without latency, respectively, demonstrating homogeneous results across studies accompanied by no evidence of dose–response effect. Kidney cancer demonstrated statistically nonsignificant meta-SMRs of 120 and 111 with and without latency respectively. The authors concluded that an association was suggested between asbestos and laryngeal carcinoma and no clear association with other cancers.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AMJAD AL ATA
Many thanks to all who resonded.
Amjad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Adrian,
Sometimes its best not to ask! as the answer may be above someones head!
So is that a YES or a NO or a maybe the juries out!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.