Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on January 8, 2009
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2009 53(2):192-193; doi:10.1093/annhyg/men080
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
Reply
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letter by Roggli, Sporn, Case and Butnor (RSCB). I would like to begin by addressing the areas in which I am in agreement with the writers. I agree that neither amosite nor crocidolite was used in friction products in the US. I agree that the finding of elevated levels of those fibres in the lung tissues of some of their subjects indicates asbestos exposure from other sources in addition to exposure from the dusts of friction products. This is not necessarily surprising. In Hessels reanalysis of the National Institutes of Health mesothelioma study, it was noted that 10 of 12 brake workers with
Mt Sinai Hospital—Family and Community Medicine, 60 Murray Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3L9, Canada
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. Ogden Data Sharing, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and the Lions in the Undergrowth Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2009; 53(7): 651 - 655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
