Document 06Z65VepXJgn1B06qBBNVVrNm

6. (61 cases of lung cancer) suggests --but doe* not prove--that lung cancer la an occupational hazard of aabeitoa workers." Neither this artlclo or any previous one which we have examined preaonta any figures to prove that asbeatosle la an Infrequent occurrence. Estimates of the number of persona potentially exposed to aabeatos duet in the United Statoe alone vary from 10,000 to 35, 000 and tho Incidence of asbestosts of any degree might be hlghor than Doll Imagines. This study, like so many others, Involves autopsy records. The nutnbor of persons Involved In the statistical analysis le only 113 representing ? only 1,042,25 man years of llfo. It Is also true that {n selecting men who had been employed for at least 20 years, the study automatically excludod those who dlod from other causes after shorter employment. Another reason why this publication ts of Importance is a statement which It contains to tho effect that "the strongest ovldcnce that It (lung cancer) may be a hazard (In asbostoe workers) has beon produced by Merewothor and by Gloyne." In 1951 Gloyne (*41)' presented a rovtew of 1Z05 autopsies on persons who had worked In various dusty occupations. Thin number included 132 asbestos workers, of whom 121 showed "pneumoconiosis''--presumably a s bsitosla. Primary cancer of the lung occurred 17 tlmee In this group, an Incidence rate of 14.1% for lung cancer among outooelcd aebeetosls cases. There were In his series 796 caeee with silicosis, and 6.9% of those also showed prlmory cancer of the lung. The Incidence of lung cancer In other 0255