We read with great interest "ChronicBeryllium Disease and Sensitization at a Beryllium Processing Facility" (Rosenman et al. 2005). We wish to offer some observations that will broaden the context in which this article is understood.I agree with the statement by Rosenman et al. (2005) that a limitation of the study is the uncertainty of the exposure estimates. In addition, many statements appear to be unsupported by the data provided. For example, the statement that "most time-weighted averages were below the [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] OSHA (2005) standard of 2 mug/m~3" (Rosenman et al. 2005) is unsupported by the data in the tables. Table 11 demonstrates that > 91% of the cohort had average daily weighted average (DWA) exposures > 2 mug/m~3. Table 12 presents only the highest exposures and shows 56% of the cohort members having exposures > 2 mug/m~3 and all but two cohort members exposed to > 0.2 mug/m~3. Rosenman et al. (2005) did not explain how the average exposures of the cohort exceed 2 mug/m~3 at a rate greater than the peak exposures. This same mysterious artifact of average exposures exceeding peak exposures is also present in Tables 9 and 10. The exposure-estimating process used by these authors could have introduced an erroneous bias in the data set, which causes me to question the "Discussion" and the conclusions drawn from the data.
展开▼
