Fibrous glass insulation and cancer: Response and rebuttal

Abstract

In response to our commentary on fibrous glass and cancer [Infante et al., 1994], three letters have been received by the journal. The arguments put forth in these letters do not lead us to alter our scientific view that fibrous glass insulation is carcinogenic. No information is given in the letters that has not previously been stated. Even though these letters raise the same diaphanous arguments, we believe that to preserve occupational and public health we must respond in detail to ensure that the contentions of the fibrous glass industry do not gain further acceptance. Thus, we respond to each letter in turn: The first by Weiss questions and distorts epidemiologic findings, the second by McConnell attempts to recant his past views on the carcinogenicity of fibrous glass and on the value of rodent bioassays in general, and the third by Hesterberg and Chase impugns our analyses demonstrating a positive cancer response in their study. Lastly, we have not debated every issue raised in these letters because of space limitations, and have centered our responses on what we consider the major incongruities and falsities in each letter. Likewise, we have been selective in citing only relevant literature, or those reports used by the industry or its consultants to support their views. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc. 1 This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.