Document 6BNoxaY7G3eY2x0gQ1zBMR4bg

FILE NAME Industrial Hygiene Foundation IHF DATE 1957 DOC IHF034 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Letters - Manville IVAN SABOURIQ.Nc. COMPEDENTIAL COMPEDENTIAL , =e 00f8 gee, On (CEs, Downbur tu, 233, T A. O. P Chiffon Mal ChiffCohnifCfhoinffCohnif, fon ASBESTOS QuebUE . Led, aoe DOM DOM RE 247 JURYST Dr.~ rsm state Q.M.A. #orung #orung #orung wrhaiire "Seeevienu ee Sam & bGreanwieth Dr.~ rsmDr.~ rsm state our last Q.M.A. Q.M.A. #orung 2 ave We We oau rances ou r r Ws cha so * #orung @ Brape of publication publicationpublication arances arances to the trheelpy orting reporting classwt classwt classwt clinics in the ducted ducted the ee ad thely thely thely deter is the thely thely is ariance ducted beses worters purp faet ates ee of of cancer ariance ariance in from workers ANCOS rity natering natering from vorters (nad figures are landThe present figures and conclusions conclusions conclusions Te oe land page page bortos rozes that cus nociled nociled however have bem rozes conclusions conclusions ig that cage should should fared fared t la marly date Jury Latest withbar est^ Jury noctiss noctiss with XP Latest your cors 187 Jury Latest marly marly date ects, me S asy, I romnst, me oeme Juan Sad D D IVAN SABOUREY 2-23 od aa poe FORFT ORTIETH I STERT EEHT NEW Yelek N No sent us we have noted deletion of all references to the association of asbestosis and lungcancer in this condensation formation is Whilwee belithe atvtheis in- Q.A.M.At.o emopfhgarseiazte tshceieenxtpiofsiucrevaolfuetheweascbanesutnodsermsitnaenrd antdhendoetsitrhee cofas theeosf asbestosis also are in agreement with the deletion of the reference to when be Nowever will be subjected lung criticism - must Nowever that this report to 2c3r0iticciassm eosf whasebnestposius blisheasdbestbosies cIafuwseearaell tootrheesrtraiuctthotrhsistodcaoyndc ensoatr ionrte o la cat nce er miners greater emphasis should be placed on the choice of asbestos ing the conort The fact that all members of the words used in defincohort had 5 or more years of exposure to asbestos should be reiterated . Following are comments on certain paragraphs of the condensation Page 9 \ so We believe the first sentence in paragraph 2 should read one has written extensively - - - =", , Perhaps no Page 14 In the third sentence of paragraph 2 the definition of expanded to emphasize that cohort should be This might be done by exposed personnel were not included in the sample auding a sentence similar to the following Office and ionthetrhe ecxopho or sted personnel regardless of length of employment were not included Page Page 1515 sentence To further emphasize emphasize the exposure aspect of of paragraph 2 might read All workers with posure were placed in one of three categories the miners the second more than 5 years of ex- graph It might be As previously para- advisable to add another sentence at the end of this noted workers with no exposure were not included in the data 1. Ivan Sabourin canice - 20) . ' December 30 2:57 ismadeto the 95 level of signifi- on Pages 23 to 25inthe advisable Decause explain by foot- 45 271 The table inthecenter of the pageshows a rateof 3 in the - 54 age group In original survey this ratewas 27 substitutionIn the last sentence of the first paragraph paragraph we would like to suggest the of the word undertaken for the word commissioned In the second sentence of paragraph 3 we would like to suggest that the of elements ; the the cohort definition be repeated A cohort was defined as group miners miners who asbestos naving at least 5 years of exposure in the indstry and were industry in the industry during during 1950. 1950. Only those workers who met these criteria in- were cluded in the study Page 49 a In the last sentence of paragraph 1 we would like to suggest suggest the dele- tion of the phrase which have been explained in some detail since such explanation was deleted in the condensation This publication should form the basis for future surveys and reports Dr. Braun should be asked to establish the framework of reporting for Doctors Grainger and Cartier so that each year the status of every member of the original cohort could be reported to the industrial Hygiene Foundation and the continuing study be analyzed by their experts We cannot emphasize this point too a strongly because nowhere in the literature today is there reported study whichis so valuable and which approximates this magnitude We agree with Doctors Cartier and Braunthat a certain number of workers be probably have some asbestotic fibrosis which cannot diagnosed by ray Un- fortunately we cannot take lung biopsies on all workers and we have no other means of making a diagnosis before there are ray changes Therefore the annual study of all exposed asbestos workers becomes increasingly increasingly important We feel that Dr. Braun and his staff are for this very valuable contribution to our medical efforts will be rewarded in the near future by the recognized journal to be congratulated heartily knowledge We trust that their publication of this work in a Sincerely Kenneth W. Smith M.D. Medical Director