The article is misleading.

The asbestos that invades your lungs is most dangerous when it has separated into microscopic fibers. Those fibers can be inhaled into the tiny airways, deep in the lung, that are analogous to and adjoining the capillaries in the lung. The wall that separates the tiny airways from the tiny blood vessels is the wall cross which oxygen gets into the blood and carbon dioxide comes out of the blood. (Remember osmosis?)

The fibers that are inhaled are so small they cannot be seen with the naked eye. They are measured in microns. If one were to look at these fibers under a microscope they would appear as flat specs of material; however, the thin edges are not straight planes. They look like razor blades with the teeth of a saw.

Once asbestos fibers are inhaled they remain in the lung forever, embedded in the lung tissue. They do not deteriorate. It is also very difficult to determine that they are there, because of their size and their embedded location. Diagnosis is generally made based upon the long range symptoms.

If that were all that there is to it, the asbestos would have a kind of congestive impact, but it gets worse. The lung consists of elastic tissue, which enables breathing by inflation and deflation of the lung.

Well, every time one breaths, those little saws move and make microscopic cuts in the lung. The person does not feel that occurring. Every place there is a microscopic cut, there soon develops a small bit of scar tissue. Each bit of asbestos fiber cuts over and over and over again. Over the years, a lot of scar tissue can develop. Scar tissue is NOT elastic. As more of the lung develops scar tissue, the lung becomes less and less elastic. The lung can no longer fulfill its function adequately. Breathing becomes labored and that is not reversible.

So, if one walks through a cloud of microscopic asbestos fibers (or worse, runs through it or pauses to gasp for air), one can be in deep, long range, non-remediable trouble.

Let's take a different scenario. One lives or works in a building where microscopic fibers flake off from the places where asbestos is installed. That may be because of a draft or because of someone brushing up against it or building vibration or because of deterioration of a wrapper from around the asbestos. Those fibers go into the air and you breath them in over a course of time, perhaps over the entire time you are living or working ior studying in that place.

Large quantities of inhaled asbestos can injure quickly. Small quantities can accomplish the same injury over time.

The main article does not accurately describe the problem and understates the insidious danger presented by asbestos. The article should be substantially modified since people may rely upon it to their detriment.

I rather like you description of injury from asbestos. Since you were being, correctly I believe, tediously correct I believe you should have mentioned which of the several forms of asbestos harms in this manner.

Having said all that, I very seriously doubt that "people may rely upon [Slates article] to their detriment"

You suggest that I exaggerate when I say that people may rely on articles, such as this, to their detriment. I doubt that people will or will not decide to walk through an asbestos cloud based on the article. I use reliance more in the sense of not being alert to the presence and dangers of asbestos endangered environments.

In my view, soft-pedaling the potential harm from asbestos exposure is a bad mistake. We are in the current asbestos mess because of a century of mis-statements and soft-pedaling. The danger from asbestos can be easily explained, but seldom is, even by those who are attempting to write objective articles.

My reference to reliance was intended to apply to: a) Failure to insist upon proper removal of asbestos from the many places in which it continues to exist; b) Failure to press for appropriate, aggressive enforcement of regulations relating to asbestos.

And, then, there is the innate immune system. Macrophages. When these ferocious little guys come across something they don't like, and they really don't like things that we call submicron particles such as bits of asbestos and, lo, diesel exhaust particles, they attack with bursts of free radicals. Were these particles the bacteria that this system is designed to eradicate, the particles would be destroyed and the macrophages would be on their way. Asbestos and diesel carbon don't eradicatate (shrug), so the indefatigable immune cells attack, and attack, and attack. When we, as the noble Americans, attack radicals and cause collateral damage such as entire families immolated with white phosphorus (pity the survivors), we do what the immune cells do to the surrounding tissues. That protein mentioned, elastin, is thoroughly crosslinked into old leather and the lung becomes a flaccid sack. The elastin is a major part of exhalation, no elastin, no alveolar contraction, no gas exchange. Emphysema. This repetitive chemical injury is also carcinogenic. All of the particulate load carried by the lung is additive in this regard. Snort a little asbestos, go outside and get a dose from your testicularly challenged neighbor's diesel pickup truck, pull in behind a dump truck with that black plume from the exhaust (the color is appropriate), add in fibers from ubiquitous sources, say tire residue, and you begin to see why some people see smoker's tumors as simply canaries in our collective coal mine. Their aggragate exposure is simply higher. As we add sources, lung cancer will increase and smoker's tumors will be for everybody. About all you can really do is take a deep breath and enjoy your day.