Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 129, 2002
© 2002 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press
Letters to the Editor |
Editorial Note
Drs Musk and de Klerk’s letter was shown to Mr Rogers, who made the following points.1. Mr Major states that he did not discuss the relative exposures between the work groups, only the difficulty of extrapolating from his measurements.
2. A ‘clear dose–response relationship’ does not validate the actual exposure values used, but the decision about exposure values of course determines the slope of the relationship, which influences the apparent relative potencies of different fibre types. Browne (2001) raised similar issues on the use of the South African data.
3. Rogers and Nevill quoted the results as an upper estimate of risk, reflecting their belief that the exposure estimates were too low.
4. The Wittenoom samples seem to have been destroyed with many others during the reorganization of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in about 1996.
Dr Hodgson was invited to comment on the Rogers and Major letter, but decided not to do so.
REFERENCES
Browne K. (2001) Correspondence. Ann Occup Hyg; 45: 327–9.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Q. GENG, I. HOLMER, D. E. A. HARTOG, G. HAVENITH, O. JAY, J. MALCHAIRE, A. PIETTE, H. RINTAMAKI, and S. RISSANEN Temperature Limit Values For Touching Cold Surfaces with the Fingertip Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2006; 50(8): 851 - 862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||