In response to our commentary on fibrous glass and cancer [Infante et
al., 1994], three letters have been received by the journal. The argum
ents put forth in these fetters 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 th
e third by Hesterberg and Chase impugns our analyses demonstrating a p
ositive cancer response in. their study. Lastly, we have not debated e
very issue raised in these letters because of space limitations, and h
ave centered our responses on what we consider the major incongruities
and falsities in each letter. Likewise, we have been selective in cit
ing only relevant literature, or those reports used by the industry or
its consultants to support their views. (C) 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.