10 Aug How Asbestos Exposure Still Affects Workers Across North Texas
Asbestos exposure is often discussed as a workplace problem from another era. Yet its health effects continue to appear in patients today. That is largely because mesothelioma can develop many years after a person first inhaled asbestos fibers. Someone who worked around insulation, construction materials, industrial equipment, or older mechanical systems decades ago may only now be dealing with the medical consequences.
The disease remains rare, but it has not disappeared. According to CDC U.S. Cancer Statistics, 2,669 cases of malignant mesothelioma were reported in the United States in 2022, based on data highlighted in a September 2025 update. Most cases are associated with asbestos exposure. For workers and families trying to understand how an old job may relate to a recent diagnosis, medical records and employment history can become important. Some patients also consult Dallas asbestos attorneys to investigate whether occupational exposure may provide grounds for a claim. According to the CDC U.S. Cancer Statistics program, mesothelioma rates have remained relatively stable in recent years, though the disease's long latency means new cases from past exposures continue to emerge.
[IMAGE GOES HERE]
Dr. Shan[/caption]
Zhilei Shan, MD, PhD
Postdoctoral fellow on Nutritional Epidemiology
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Unhealthy sleep behaviors and sleep disturbances are associated with higher risk of multiple diseases and mortality. The current profiles of sleep habits and disturbances, particularly the differences between workdays and free days, are unknown in the contemporary US.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
Response: In this nationally representative cross-sectional analysis with 9004 adults aged 20 years or older, differences in sleep patterns between workdays and free days were observed. The mean sleep duration was 7.59 hours on workdays and 8.24 hours on free days (difference, 0.65 hour). The mean sleep and wake times were at 11:02 PM and 6:41 AM, respectively, on workdays and 11:25 PM and 7:41 AM, respectively, on free days (differences, 0.23 hour for sleep time and 1.00 hour for wake time). With regard to sleep disturbances, 30.5% of adults experienced 1 hour or more of sleep debt,46.5% experienced 1 hour or more of social jet lag, 29.8% had trouble sleeping, and 27.2% experienced daytime sleepiness.

Dr. Gamboa Madeira[/caption]
Sara Gamboa Madeira
Medical Doctor - General & Family Physician
PhD Student - EnviHealth&Co - Faculty of Medicine
Lisbon University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: One in every five employees work in shifts across Europe1. Shift work have been associated with an increased risk for several cardiovascular diseases2 and three main mechanism have been proposed: unhealthy behaviours, disturbed sleep, and circadian misalignment.
This study focused on the role of circadian misalignment, which we assessed via social jetlag. Social jetlag is calculated using the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire3 by the difference between sleep behaviour on free-days (mainly driven by the individual “biological clock”, also called chronotype) and sleep behaviour on workdays (mainly drive by the “social clock”, namely work schedules). Chronotype is an individual feature which ranges from early/morning people to late/evening people (from proverbial lark to owls), with the majority of the population falling in between as a Gaussian distribution. Therefore higher levels of social jetlag mean a greater mismatch between what your biological clock need (e.g. go to sleep at 9pm) and what your social obligations impose on you (e.g. work until midnight).
Dr. Meyer, J.D.[/caption]
Michelle N. Meyer, PhD, JD
Assistant Professor & Associate Director, Research Ethics, Center for Translational Bioethics & Health Care Policy
Faculty Co-Director, Behavioral Insights Team, Steele Institute for Health Innovation
Assistant Professor of Bioethics
Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine
Geisinger, PA
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Earlier research had found people are less likely to say they'll receive a COVID-19 vaccine offered to them under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) than one offered to them following full FDA approval. Earlier surveys had also found that only around 30% of health care workers intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Because the public often looks to local health care workers for health advice, and in most prioritization schemes they were slated to be offered vaccines first, this was quite concerning for the prospect of achieving population immunity. Commenters had warned that if the FDA chose to make COVID-19 vaccines available under EUAs, that substantial efforts would need to be made to ensure trust. On Dec. 4, 2020, an announcement about anticipated vaccine availability was emailed to all 23,784 Geisinger employees, who were asked to indicate their intention to receive a vaccine when one was available to them and the reasons for any hesitation they might have.
Dr. Jacob[/caption]
Jesse T. Jacob, MD
School of Medicine
Director, Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Since coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recognized in the United States in January 2020, the risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) attributed to exposures in the health care workplace has been studied with conflicting results, and the role of job functions (such as nurse) or specific workplace activities, including care for individuals with known and unknown SARS-CoV-2 positivity, increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
We assessed more than 24,000 healthcare providers between April and August 2020 across four large academic medical systems (Emory, Johns Hopkins, Rush University Medical Center, and University of Maryland) which collaborate in the CDC’s Prevention Epicenter Program and conduct innovative infection prevention research. Each site conducted voluntary COVID-19 antibody testing on its health care workers, as well as offered a questionnaire/survey on the employees’ occupational activities and possible exposures to individuals with COVID-19 infection both inside and outside the workplace. We also looked at three-digit residential zip-code prefixes to determine COVID-19 prevalence in communities.