Abstract
This paper considers methodological issues involved in estimating the risks of dust-related lung diseases in coal miners in Britain, using data from the Pneumoconiosis Field Research (PFR). Exposure–response (E–R) functions for simple pneumoconiosis derived from various PFR studies are reviewed, focusing on similarities and differences in methodology and results. Results are similar where PFR data are strong. At low concentrations, where data are sparse, we conclude that best estimates lie somewhere between the key published E–R functions. We illustrate, using symptoms of chronic bronchitis and breathlessness, both the feasibility and importance of making risk estimates for other end points too. Finally, the work is embedded in a wider methodology of health impact assessment with its emphasis on model testing and representation of uncertainty.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
