eLetters

80 e-Letters

published between 2003 and 2006

  • Cancer risks in a UK Benzene exposed cohort
    Peter F. Infante

    Dear Editor,

    Sorahan et al. [1] recently published the results of a cohort mortality and morbidity study of workers purportedly exposed to benzene in the UK. Despite inherent problems with their data analyses, the authors nevertheless concluded that “the study does not support claims that exposure to benzene affects risks for lymphohaematopoietic malignancies other than ANLL.” In my opinion, the discrepancies and...

    Show More
  • Measure exposure: difficult but vital
    Wenbin Liang

    Dear Editor,

    Firstly, latent period always refers to the period between the point of the time when disease occurs and point of the time when the disease is detected, while tumour induction time refers to the period between the point of the time when the component cause (can be an exposure) is satisfied and the point of the time when the disease is occurred.[1] Thus only under the extreme condition that one secon...

    Show More
  • Occupational asthma in hairdressers: no evidence of increased risk?
    Alexis Descatha

    Dear Editor,

    The paper by Nicholson et al. provides useful evidence-based guidelines for prevention, identification, and management of occupational asthma (OA) based on a comprehensive review of the literature.[1]

    Evidence statements 6 and 7 list the workers most commonly reported to OA surveillance schemes or reported from population studies to be at increased risk of developing asthma. Hairdressers are n...

    Show More
  • An absence of evidence
    Richard M Preece

    Dear Editor,

    The review of occupational asthma by Nicholson et al. [1] is comprehensive. It is an important report that is likely to be widely read: the evidence review of low back pain has, for example, been one of the most commonly downloaded articles [2]. The appearance in the principal recommendations of the authors’ unsubstantiated opinions is, therefore, concerning.

    The authors also include issues...

    Show More
  • Does genetic polymorphism modulate the urinary concentration of CC16 due to air pollution?
    Mostafa Saadat

    Dear Editor,

    Timonen and colleagues reported the association between urinary concentration of lung Clara cell protein CC16, a marker for lung damage, and daily variation in fine and ultrafine particulate air pollution in three cities of Netherlands (Amsterdam), Germany (Erfurt), and Finland (Helsinki). They found that in Amsterdam and Erfurt, there were no significant association between PM2.5 and concentration...

    Show More
  • Reply to Greenberg
    Hans Weill

    Dear Editor

    In a letter, Greenberg,[1] commenting on our paper,[2] raises a number of points with which we disagree.

    There is now a broad consensus that amphiboles are vastly more dangerous than chrysotile in their propensity to produce mesothelioma, and even a casual review of the literature indicates that where there is a continuing increase in mesothelioma rates, it is seen in countries that used la...

    Show More
  • Commentary on the editorial by Punnett (Occup Environ Med 2004;61:954-55).
    Jens Wahlström

    Dear Editor

    As Punnett correctly pointed out in her editorial,[1] we called attention to the need to determine the causes of perceived muscular tension (PMT) in our paper.[2] Unfortunately, the PMT data was only collected at the baseline of the study and not at any of the 10 follow-ups. Due to the lack of longitudinal data we could not explore the cause(s) of PMT in our analyses.

    Punnett also raises the i...

    Show More
  • Letter to Chang et al.
    John W Cherrie

    Dear Editor

    The paper by Chang et al[1] defined a Protective Effectiveness Index (PEI) as a measure of the protection afforded by gloves, whereas in reality it indicates the overall difference in exposure between two groups of workers where other important exposure factors may not be, indeed were not, the same. This raises the possibility that your readers may mistake this index as a reliable guide to glove prot...

    Show More
  • Authors' reply
    David Gimeno

    Dear Editor

    In response to our study,[1] Kivimäki et al suggested that reported sickness absence frequencies were underestimates of the total sickness absence burden in European Union (EU) member countries.[2] This concern about the veracity of these estimates led Kivimäki et al to caution policy makers to not use this data to inform policy. While we agree that more research is needed to establish...

    Show More
  • Are sickness absence frequencies in the study of EU countries underestimates?
    Mika Kivimäki

    Dear Editor

    The paper by Gimeno et al provides a comparison of sickness absence between 15 European Union (EU) countries.[1] According to this study, 14.5% of employees were absent at least one day in the past 12 months by an accident at work, by health problems caused by the work, or by other health problems. For Finnish employees, for instance, this percentage was 24%, the highest among the 15 EU countr...

    Show More

Pages