Document byQovvLj745YMeG1J0E3j1DJk

FILE NAME Industrial Hygiene Foundation IHF DATE 1957 Dec 30 DOC IHF075 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Letter from Manville Y a EXECT VE VE OFFICES MANVILLE CORPORATION TWENTY EAST FORTLET^ STREET NEW YORK IG N.Y. December 30 1957 Mr. Ivan Sabourin St. Jonns Quebec . . oo a . Re I.H.F. Survey Dear Ivan of, Hugh Jackson and I have reviewed the condensation of the survey which you sent us We have noted deletion of all references to the association of asbestosis and lung cancer in this condensation While we believe that this information is of great scientific value we can understand the desire of the Q.A.M.A. to emphasize the exposure of the asbestos miner and not the cases of asbestosis We also are in agreement with the deletion of the reference to smoking and lung cancer criticism and cases It must be recognized however that this report will be subjected to when published because all other authors today correlate lung cancer of asbestosis If we are to restrict this condensation to asbestos miners greater emphasis should be placed on the choice of words used in defining the cohort The fact that all members of the cohort had 5 or more years of exposure to asbestos should be reiterated . Following are comments on certain paragraphs of the condensation Page 9 We believe the first sentence in paragraph 2 should read Perhaps no one has written so extensively - - ~ -", Pag1e4 In the third sentence of paragraph 2 the definition of cohort should be expanded to emphasize that exposed personnel were not included in the This might be done by adding a sentence similar to the sample other following Office and exposed personnel regardless of length of employment were not included in the cohort Page 18 sentence To further 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 advisable to add another sentence at the end of this paranoted workers with no exposure were not included in the data 4,Mr. Ivan Sabourin 2 - December 30 1957 Page 23 In the fourth sentence reference is made to the 95 level of significance This phrase was explained clearly and thoroughly on Pages 23 to 25 in the section on Statistical Methods of the original survey Because this whole section was deleted in the condensation we feel it might be advisable to explain by footnote the meaning of the 95 level of significance We feel that the fifth sentence might be made stronger by the following change However having found just 12 cases we are not above this level and therefore the hypothesis that asbestos miners do not have a higher mortality from lung cancer than does the general population cannot be rejected Page 41 The table in the center of the page shows a rate of 271 in the 45 - 54 age group In the original survey this rate was 27 Page 48 In the last sentence of the first paragraph we would like to suggest the substitution of the word undertaken for the word commissioned In the second sentence of paragraph 3 we would like to suggest that the elements of the cohort definition be repeated A cohort was defined as of asbestos miners having at least 5 years of in the a group in the industry during 1950. exposure indstry and who were Only those workers who met these criteria were in- cluded in the study Page 49 suggest In the last sentence of paragraph 1 we would like to the dele- tion of the phrase which have been explained in some detail since such was deleted in the condensation explanation Dr. This publication should form the basis for future surveys Braun should be asked to establish the framework of and reports 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 study be analyzed by their experts continuing We cannot emphasize this point too strongly because nowhere in the literature today is there reported a study which is so valuable and which approximates this magnitude We agree with Doctors Cartier and Braun that a certain number of workers probably have some asbestotic fibrosis which cannot be 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 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 a Sincerely Kenneth W. Smith M.D. Medical Director