Posted By Adrian Watson The one fibre theory was a theory prevailing in the 1950's and 1960's before the defence mechanisms against cancer were understood. Whilst one fibre may initiate the changes that lead to cancer, you have to breath millions of fibres in to get the "fatal fibre"; partly because humans have evolved generally effective defence mechanisms against cancer. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Ron Hunter With all this discussion of "conkers bonkers" and general knocking of our profession in the press, I am just so disappointed that such misinformation even finds its way into our own Magazine!

Posted By John Allen This is miles from “conkers bonkers” territory. One – we should be pleased that local authority has upheld a law intended protect workers and the public from one of the major causes of preventable death. Two – as has already been explained there is nothing wrong with the one fibre theory, other than the fact that nobody breathes in just one fibre. However there are well documented cases of people contracting mesothelioma from short term exposures to low concentrations of asbestos dust. Three – the seriousness of the case was recognised by the severity of the fine imposed by the court. Four – apart the reference to “one fibre” the rest of the councillor’s statement is absolutely correct. Five – the newspapers which run the anti H&S stories are unlikely to have the technical nous to understand the subtleties of any theory of epidemiology.

Posted By Ron Hunter John, you say the newspapers which run the anti H&S stories are unlikely to have the technical nous to understand the subtleties of any theory of epidemiology.> Well that's as maybe but that didn't stop them running with the story back in the early 80's following John Selwyn Gummer's "single fibre" remarks, and causing a significant amount of wholly unecessary panic and confusion. These same remarks could be picked up by the local press covering that incident (and I wholly agree the incident was serious and worthy of prosecution) and start the whole sorry nonsense starting again.

Posted By alan noble On 28th July 1983, John Selwyn Gummer stated in parliament: "It is not a substance for which one can state a low level below which there is no risk. We must therefore assume that a single fibre could do real damage which may not be seen for twenty years or more" This apparently in answer to a question about whether there was a "safe" level of exposure. He wasn't exactly a lucky minister I remember him feeding his daughter beefburger during BSE. The theory then came out that it only took one prion to induce nvCJD which was predicted to do real damage in 20 years or more. Millions were spent eliminating the possibility of one prion entering the food chain. I think at last count there were less than 100 cases of nvCJD. I worked for a local authority where a tenant broke a mercury barometer. They took extraordinary precautions to ensure the house was "safe" including moving the tenant out,replacing furnishings,a battery of tests. All the work they did was directed by the local Consultant in Public Health Medicine. I think it took about 2 weeks and costs a few thousand. Rightly risk is based on prevailing medical opinion and we seem to live in a society that expects no risk. So it is not suprising that 'no risk' , single fibre, single prion, no mercury becomes reflected in our laws and practises. Suprisingly this hasn't been applied to smoking, must be some other imperative working there!