Document B8kO1g8yR8q4V3oEzkRdNjEqJ

FILE NAME: Asbestos Mining (ASMI) DATE: 1957 Dec 30 DOC#: ASMI029 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to Mr. Ivan Sabourin from Dr. Kenneth Smith, J-M, with Commentary on Language in Summary of Survey Results K % >> V; h \ H i n v i . O n K Ks 'lo i! N S -Ma NVI PLI-] Cj()K Pc )JiATI O N rvM.sn-T^i i:a s r row n u n i s i u n . r \i:w YOUK IG, N \ December 30, 1557 Mr. Ivan Saoourin St Jonns Quebec Rbj I.H.F. Survey Dear Ivan: ' . i-- ' Hugh Jackson and I nave reviewed the + _ you sent us. We hare noted deletion i ^ of the surTCr '*ich asbestosis and lung cancer in ^ a 1 references to the association of fomation is of great scientific value ^ believe that this in- Q.A.M.A. to emphasise the exposure of th* a k ^nderstajld the desire of the aebestosis. We also are in agreement with th6^ 0^ n0t the cases of smoking and lung cancer. g ` th th deletion of the reference to criticism 1,111 be - W - t e d to ana cases of asbestosis. If we are to restS!^^- toda^ correlate lung cancer miners, greater emphasis should be placed oi t L uS - ^n S a U n t0 asbesfcos ing the conort. The fact that m f , d on the choice of words used in aefin- exposure to asbestos should be reiterated! ^ Chort had 5 or toore year's of Following are comments on certain paragraphs of the condensation. We believe the first sentenc one has written so extensively ______ m paragraph 2 should read "Perhaps no Page Ik expanded be lhis aught be done by adding a sentence* el"e " A ln=l.lci;c: in the sample, other non-exposed ,,ersonnei, regardles" S t e t t *1 following: "office and in the conort". 01 ieneth of amployment were not included Page 18 sentence posare vero placed in one of three c a t e t i ! TM>" ` 5 yearS 0f It might be advisable to graph, "As add another sentence previously noted workers at the end of this para- with no exposure were not included in the data". '^Mr. Ivan Sabourin ' N- Page 23 December 30, 1957 cnc. section on Statistical Methods of the original was deleted in the condensation we feel it sipht ho note the meaning of "the 951 leierofligSficScs: I f ?5* leVel f b i I'*'-'s .23 to 25 " fUSe thls Wnole secUon ^ * 1'- change. "i?ht be " * b a r by the following therefore the hypothesis that asbestos rainers'do^no^have aTi^h^ 13 if'?1' " ** lung cancer than does the general population c a n n S T b f j e c ^ ? "' Uty fro" Page 111 age g r o u p ^ L l h e ^ g ^ ^ y l h f r a ^ ' w T ? . " ^ Page h f 2?1 ^ the ^ " 5ii " "=s nrsnrii="r suggest the elements ^ ^ ^ * ' 5 5 3 I! Z `at the of asbestos miners having at ipo,,+ e ,r_^_ -* ^ co^or"^ Wa- defined as a group in the industry during 1950 Only this* w i exp0ure in ths indstry and who were eluded in theTtcdyi? * thoSb ''rkerS "ho "et these criteria r e in Page k9 In the last sentence of paragraph 1 wa wouTh -m u - +,, tion of the phrase "wnich have been p S i X m J i Uld l ^ e to suggest the dele- was deleted in the condensation. ^ d ** Sme detail" since such explanation Dr. Braun s ^ l d ' S ^ " Orainger ana Cartier so th^t elrt y e S cohort coula be reported to tho study be analyzed by their xoer+u? because novr.ere in the U t e r a t S valuable ana which r X ^ h L 'X ^ ^ " " reports. S e iSf''01'? f reportir* * * Doctors th? ,Btatus of ever7 ember of the original :-f^lene Foundation and tne continuing ? f ? h empb" iie ^ Point too strongly "^ ^ W 'iCb * probably S v ^ s o L ^ s L s t o U c ' f S r S i s " T ic k a ^ a g n o l L 8 S r e b1hJrieS ~ ^ study of all exposed asbestos workers '^ o r s ' T Z * f W orkers "" " > " for this v!jyfv 2 u i w e S i r i b u ^ `" V "1'' S U i f ar8 10 be oongratulabed heartily efforts ilfbe recognized journal. Lt^aTtS We tLir future by the publication oi tills work in a ;nneth W* Smith, M.D. iodical Director