Document 2qOaYoD3JmKvEE126OGOQYOkr

#.............. . ....................................................................................................................7. terra* of pneumoconiosis i"4.7%-. and In 169c*ses which proved'not'to have any type"6f pneumoconiosis U was 8.3%. Gloyne considered "the mortality '* of the asbestos worker*" to he "disturbing", First of all. U la obvious that the paper doe* not deal with the "mortality of asbestos workers", and socondly, U must bo borne In mind that all of Or. Gloyno's cates were submitted to him for study because the findings were unusual for uncomplicated pneumoconiosis. It can reasonably be assumed that cases, including those of ashestosls, In which the finding* were not considered unusual were not sent to Sr. Gloyne for examination. As a matter of fact. In the same paragraph In which he ex* I presses concern over the Incidence rate In asbestos!*, Dr. Gloyne himself points out that the'rate for lung cancer based on necropsies at the London Chest Hoopllal wae 21.1% while the figures of the Registrar-General showed only 2.4%. He thus rocogntzed that autppsles on a certain selected group of cases were not representative of the general population.. It would soom, then, that notwithstanding the valua ol Dr. Gloyno's work, lta Importance as an index of the prevalence of lung cancer in asbestotlce has been misinterpreted by oomo who bare quoted him. All that It really shows Is the fact that in a (roup of 121 cases, selected for special study primarily bocautc they soomed abnormal by prollmlnary examination, 17, or 14, I7 had luag cancer. Morewother la 1947, In the report of'the Chief Inspector of rectories, reviewed all cases reported between 1924 and 1946 In which as - bseloela was the caaso ol death or a coexisting condition. This work woe later extended to Include all such coses rcporlod up to December, 1951, by 0256