You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 73, Issue 1
  • Author response: Extended follow-up of lung cancer and non-malignant respiratory disease mortality among California diatomaceous earth workers

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Author response: Extended follow-up of lung cancer and non-malignant respiratory disease mortality among California diatomaceous earth workers
  1. Lisa Gallagher1,
  2. Robert M Park2,
  3. Harvey Checkoway3
  1. 1 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
  3. 3 Department of Family & Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lisa Gallagher, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle 98195, WA, USA; lgallag{at}u.washington.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-103362

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We will address the comments offered by Mundt and Boffetta1 on our manuscript describing findings from an update of mortality among California diatomaceous earth (DE) workers.2 We regard the sustained dose–response trends for lung cancer and non-malignant respiratory disease (NMRD) (tables 3 and 4, respectively) as the most important findings regarding risks associated with crystalline silica. The reduction of overall mortality for these outcomes, indicated by reduced standardised mortality ratios (SMR), is more likely to be a ‘depletion of susceptibles’ phenomenon than a ‘balancing out’ effect. We agree that a healthy worker effect is an unlikely explanation for the reduced lung cancer SMR. However, support for the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Response to Mundt and Boffetta

    • Contributors LG completed additional analyses to respond to letter. LG, RMP and HC contributed comments to written response.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval University of Washington Institutional Review Board.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles