This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Original article
Respiratory disease mortality among US coal miners; results after 37 years of follow-up
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Lung cancer risk in coal miners: The need for further investigations
    • Judith M Graber, Assistant Research Porfessor
    • Other Contributors:
      • Leslie T. Stayner, Ph.D. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA; Robert A. Cohen, M.D. Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of

    We thank Dr. Morfeld for his comments on our updated mortality study of the U.S. coal miners study.[1] However, we disagree with his assertion that the excess of lung cancer we observed must be attributed to smoking alone. Firstly, despite the smoking prevalence being higher in our cohort than in the U.S. population in 1970, smokers in our population were significantly less likely to be heavy smokers (> 24 cigarettes...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Lung cancer excess risks after coal mine dust exposure?

    Dear Editor,

    I read with interest about the updated US coalminer mortality study[1]. The lung cancer SMR was slightly elevated (SMR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.00-1.18). This excess is unexceptionable because of a higher proportion of smokers at the start of follow-up in 1969/1971 (current smokers: 54%) in comparison to the US male population in 1970 (44.1%). Internal analyses showed an association of lung cancer mortality...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.