Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12: D88–D89 ISSN: 1545-9624 print / 1545-9632 online c 2015 JOEH, LLC Copyright DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1006640
Letter to the Editor
RESPONSE TO LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY WEILL ET AL. “IN REFERENCE TO HWANG AT AL. ‘THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIOUS EXPOSURE METRICS FOR ELONGATE MINERAL PARTICLES (EMP) IN THE TACONITE MINING AND PROCESSING INDUSTRY”’ JOEH,11:613-624, 2014
W
e welcome the opportunity to respond to the comments by Weill et al. regarding the manuscript by Hwang at al. “The Relationship Between Various Exposure Metrics for Elongate Mineral Particles (EMP) in the Taconite Mining and Processing Industry” (J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 11:613–624 (2014). First, the main conclusion of our article that Weill et al. take issue with is specifically related to the epidemiological study that we are conducting in the Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota, and not epidemiological studies in general. We are surprised that they missed this point, given the many times that we mention this. We have an extensive description of our current study in the Introduction section, and emphasize that “The current research was carried out as part of an epidemiological study investigating the relationship between exposures to EMP during the mining and processing of taconite ore and respiratory diseases” at the end of this section. In the Conclusion section, we state that given the high degree of correlation between the various exposure metrics, the independent effects of these measures will not be identifiable. In this context, we state that a total EMP metric would be reasonable. We were not generalizing to studies of asbestiform fiber exposures, especially since our own study is focused on EMP generated in taconite mining and processing and not asbestos exposures. Their citation of asbestos textile industry exposures and comparisons of chrysotile textile and chrysotile mill and mine workers (References 1, 2, and 3 in their letter) is somewhat irrelevant to our article. However, Weill et al. are too quick to dismiss the potential health concerns from exposures to shorter fibers. While there is evidence that longer and thinner fibers pose health risks, there is also significant evidence that shorter fibers might pose risks. Stayner et al.,(1) in a study conducted in an asbestos textile plant, show that cumulative exposures to all fiber size indices, including fibers
Letter to the Editor
RESPONSE TO LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY WEILL ET AL. “IN REFERENCE TO HWANG AT AL. ‘THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VARIOUS EXPOSURE METRICS FOR ELONGATE MINERAL PARTICLES (EMP) IN THE TACONITE MINING AND PROCESSING INDUSTRY”’ JOEH,11:613-624, 2014
W
e welcome the opportunity to respond to the comments by Weill et al. regarding the manuscript by Hwang at al. “The Relationship Between Various Exposure Metrics for Elongate Mineral Particles (EMP) in the Taconite Mining and Processing Industry” (J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 11:613–624 (2014). First, the main conclusion of our article that Weill et al. take issue with is specifically related to the epidemiological study that we are conducting in the Iron Range in northeastern Minnesota, and not epidemiological studies in general. We are surprised that they missed this point, given the many times that we mention this. We have an extensive description of our current study in the Introduction section, and emphasize that “The current research was carried out as part of an epidemiological study investigating the relationship between exposures to EMP during the mining and processing of taconite ore and respiratory diseases” at the end of this section. In the Conclusion section, we state that given the high degree of correlation between the various exposure metrics, the independent effects of these measures will not be identifiable. In this context, we state that a total EMP metric would be reasonable. We were not generalizing to studies of asbestiform fiber exposures, especially since our own study is focused on EMP generated in taconite mining and processing and not asbestos exposures. Their citation of asbestos textile industry exposures and comparisons of chrysotile textile and chrysotile mill and mine workers (References 1, 2, and 3 in their letter) is somewhat irrelevant to our article. However, Weill et al. are too quick to dismiss the potential health concerns from exposures to shorter fibers. While there is evidence that longer and thinner fibers pose health risks, there is also significant evidence that shorter fibers might pose risks. Stayner et al.,(1) in a study conducted in an asbestos textile plant, show that cumulative exposures to all fiber size indices, including fibers
