Document 1ymeLEb85GmpzNxDXxamLKz6d

FILE NAME: ZMining (ASMI) DATE: 2000 DOC#: ASMI035 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION:Journal Article fZZZ ,ZZ /' ~ ~ ~~ /k~_~A/_ s-s-. 7J-?G ('2d>-e~) To the Editor-"Corruption of Prf'vmu<;ly PuhlishNl Asbestos Research." The history of thf' corruption of research focused on the health effects of asbestos is well documented. 1- 1 One study, changed at the request of cJshGto-. compunics, appeared in the pages of the prcdPcessor to the Archives of Environmental Hea/th.4 We are, therefore, wnting this letter to correct the record with respect 10 the aforementioned study. In the early I 950s, the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association IQAMA\, an industry trade group, asked the Industrial Hygiene Foundation to perform a mort<.1lity study of asbestos miners in the Province of Quebec. In this study, which was drafted in 1957, investigators reported that the miners had a slatistic.ally significant excess of lung cancer associated with asbestosis. A portion oi this draft read ;is follow': "The numbor of lung cancer deaths c.ombmed with asbestosis is larger than would be expected in each cohort and in the combined cohorts. This difference is significant at the 9.5.4, /pvef using the ch1square test of significance." The aforementioned data (i.e., the conclusion that lung cancer was rt>!Jted to asbestos exposure! were nevt:r published, In iact, the authors published the oppostle conclusionr In c1 comment on the dratt, Dr. Kenneth Smith, medic al rfirector for the Johns-Manville Corporation (i.e., one of the sponsoring companies), noted the followmg in a letter to Ivan Sabounn. an anorney who worked for QAMA: "Hugh latkson and I have rcviPwed the condensation oi the survey which was sent us. We have noted deletion of aH references to the a~socrat1on of asbestosis and lung c.ancer tn thrs condensation. While we helieve that this information is of great scientific value, we can understand the desire of the QAMA to emphasize the exposure of the asbestos miner and nm the case!. of asbestosis. We are <1lso tn agreement with the deletion of the reference to smoking and lung cancer. It must be recognized, however, that . thi~ report will be subjc.'C.led to criticism when publi~hed because alt other authors today correlate lung cancer to cases of asbestosis" !emphasis added!. To achieve the (incorrect) conclusion desired by their ""f'"r"tl' 'f'"n~nrG, thr> ;n1thnr~ m;inip11l;itprf th1 ;t;iti'tics to conclude that there was no significant increased risk of lung cancer associated with asbestos work. TI1E:' lfMruarylFPhruary 2000 [Vol. 55 (No. l)j .wthm~ ind11rlN1 wrnkf'r' witho11I ;1GhP,ln<.i<. in lhP study group (i.e.. thus diluting the eifect oi the "hPaviest" exposures), and they used an inappropridte control group to <.alculate the expected rate of lung can<.ers. Instead of using avaH<1hlP lungcanu.1 r.itt>s from thP eieht co11nl1P"' 'a1rro11nrling thP ~<be~to" min"' researcher~ used rat~ from the Province oi Quebec If expected rates were calculated from data from the eight surrounding coun11es, even with manipulation ol the denominator a statist1ca!lv significmt excess would hc1ve het-n found \fablP l) In addition, the rate oi lung cann'r among nonaobestotics expmed lo asbestos W<lS grea!f'r than E:'xpecled. Although this analysi wa not performPd in the original study, a c.hi-squarP c1nal~'s1s nf the ongi1MI dat.i for the Thetford ("ohort i revo.>ling. A.mon3 .l,.;-t6 min. ers without .isuestosi. 5 developt"d Jung c.anter between 19.JO and 19) 5. In the cighr n>untie~ .1rtjacent to Thetford, 'i4 men developed lung cancer between 1950 and l 9.J5 (the population of the wuntres 1n l Y52 was 97,6001. Th!:' resulting relatiw ri-.k w;1~ ! '>'> fJ ~ .orn )Table 2iJ. The data <lff' qualified by the tart that Ca.:r Ca.: -1 (-;~:I .~-O:,~:,-~;~,..~~ung :i~~ hpl'Cled lllllg Canc-1!'1' Cates Vari.:il>lc Exposed 1\;<HJt'Xf>ll'>ll l01t;l.. LC NnlC Tnrals ,, 5,'114 ';,'121 Oh)t-ntd i4 97,S..t.6 9 ...,fl()() hl !IP JI,( HH ).~ i hpffi [( l h0450 l .)4. i4~l /,! 5,919.39) ; 'Jl i' tF540.b '17.fi!l(I' HJ!.460 :os 12 { RR= 2.53 -- .00 \.;I "lore~ LC ~ lull)\ trl!\fl"f, and RH - retari.~ 11o;l.. Rounded to next whole 11umb!>f _________ J 75 -J ~i:-2~ Co.:;:.rison of Observed tung c".:.cer Cases .- - I ithout Asbestosis in Thetford Cohort with Expected lung ncer uses 1 I v.,riahlP hpmen TolJb LC Total> (JbSi'f\Cd 54 97,54f> 9i.(.OO :;y I 01.08:: I 01.141J' LC '\o LC Total~ 2.06843(, \.';4t9!1 Li4&' 59 9Jl :;(t 97.<;4l 07 'li.&DW RR = 2.5';; fJ ~ 03792 .'<oles: LC = lung cancer, .ind RR = rel~live risk. 'RoundP<l In ""'! whnfp n11mhPr 10 101.087 103. 52 J' diJgnosis of asbestosis in this population m.iy not have been accurate. In the draft, Braun speculated that asbestosis had been underdiagnosed in this population iperhaps b}' the COl'porate doctors to minimize compensation payments). Therefore, in this group of nonashestotics, some may have had fibrosis of the lung attributable to asbestos exposure. This study had a minimal impact on the medical lit erature. but it continues to influence asbestos litigation. One author referenced this study in a book written in 1960 to support the .i~sert1011 th.it "aslwsto> h.id no~ been founci to bt> tarcinogern< "At th.it t1111t. Dr. Sr1111!1 wrote that 1t was clear to "all' rCSl'Jr< her-. that a,fll',ln' caused lung cancer. La'\ yer~ tor .i<be5t i~ t omp,1ntP use the Lorrupted Braun and fiudn ,tud~ to argLK' tho: the relation~hip betwL-tn a;be,to~ ,md I,111g cam c j, unclear or controversiil/-,1'> lc1te a' I'/(J(1. Thh t v111t.1I circle oi events, in whith uJmp.m1P~ tha1 11rst cr1anged the !Jraun and Truan paper to 5Ull their ncccb ,md nm~ attempt to rely on the corrupted ~tmh to escape l1<1liili tv in coun. is ironic-hut not uniquP-in !ht> h"hH\ 01 asbestos Iit1gation. Reference~ Ca;tlern.in Bl. c\~lie~lo> \letl11I .11110 , g.d \'"'-"< t>. ''" ,,,, fnglewood Ctit{'-, NJ: Prent1u- f--t.tlf '....,l\\ 11Pd 81.1..,nr-..., 1(1'1(1 2 lillit'nlield 0 The -1lent 1 lh1 .1,h,.,to' 111d.i,i ,md P,1h .,, ' ,, pationJ! <.anu., r<'se.m h " c '" '""h \m I f.'uhlit lh1hh 1991. 81:791 119 3. Hardv Hl. fgdm.:m f1 ( otrupflnP 1)1 rx <._;,1p..1tw-ul rnMi. :1! l1tPr aturp: I~!' a'hP,lm r.x.1mplP Am I !nil ,\\pd 1'141. ~0111 i }- -}'I 4 Braun D, Tru.m T. An ~p.dPm1olog1t al 'lu<h nl lung <.mi,., 111 J'l*'to' miner; Mer Ind Htdllh l 958 1''.td.J -l2. Johnstone RT, M1llPr 'i. Oc.cupa110~.i D1sl-'J,,., ,md /11du,1:,1' Medic m. l'h1l,1delph1a. P.\ ~\'.B. ,,1u11rle" ( o. l 4bll David Steven Egilman, M,O., M.P.H. Clini1 al ,.\551~t.mt Pmic,:101 Brown U 111vt'r~ih Br<lmtrei?, :\1a'i!>LIChuseth Alexander Reinert CambridgE', ll.1assachu~ett<, 76 Archies of Environltlt'ntat liealth