Document gaNMxe2p14VNGLVV0bjdb9xO9

7. forma of pneumoconiosis was 6. 7%', and In lb9caies which proved not lb Have any type"hf pneumoconloeli It wan 8.3%. Cloyne considered "the mortality of the asbestos workers" to be "disturbing"* First of all. It Is obvious that the paper does not deal with the "mortality of asbestos workers", and socondly, It must bo borne In mind that all of Or, Cloyne's cases were submitted to him for study because the findings were unusual for uncomplicated pneumoconiosis. It can reasonably bo assumed that cases, including those of asbestosls, in which the findings were not considered unusual were not sent to Dr, Cloyne for examination. As a matter of fact, In the same paragraph In which he ex- \ presees concern over the Incidence rate in asbestosls, Dr. Cloyne himself points out that the'rate for lung cancer based on necropsies at the London Chest Hospital was 1.3% while the figures of the Registrar-General showed only 2,4%, He thus recognised that aufcppsles on a certain solected group of cases were not representative of the general population. It would seam, then, that notwithstanding the value of Dr, Cloyne's work, Its Importance as an index of the prevalence of lung cancer In asbestotlcs has been misinterpreted by aomo who have quoted him. All that it really shows Is the fact that in a group of 121 cases, selectsd for special study primarily because they seamed abnormal by preliminary examination, 17, or 14, 1% had lung caneer. Morowother In 1947, In tbs report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, revlowed all chaos reported botwoeo 1924 and 194b in which as - bsstosls was tho caase of death or a coexisting condition. This work was later extended to Include all such casoe reportod up to December, 1994, by 0256