Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on September 18, 2007
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2007 51(7):646-647; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mem043
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society
LETTER TO THE EDITOR |
Reply
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
We thank Mr Walker for his interest in our paper (Creely et al., 2006) and are disappointed to learn that it failed to live up to his expectations!
Unfortunately, data collected for one purpose often fail to enlighten other people with different aims and objectives. While we sympathize with the problems in handling litigation cases, the purpose of our study was neither to find improvements to the MDHS 25 (HSE, 1999) air sampling methodology nor to make barristers' lives any easier (or more difficult). Rather, the context of our work
1 Institute of Occupational Medicine, Research Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK
2 Health & Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 9JN, UK
* E-mail: graeme.hughson@abdn.ac.uk