“…However, in 2,328 subjects aged 30±59 years from two general population samples in Japan the prevalence of numbness was 13% in men and 29% in women [Mirbod et al, 1994]; and among 635 working-aged men who attended a Japanese health care center for a routine health check and who were not exposed occupationally to HTV, the prevalence of numbness in the ®ngers varied from 7% in service workers to 21% in craftsmen, production process workers and laborers [Iwata et al, 1987]. In occupational surveys, the prevalence of numbness or tingling of the hand or arm in workers with exposure to HTV has been reported to lie in the range of 30±80%, [Stewart and Goda, 1970;Taylor and Pelmear, 1975;Alaranta and Seppalainen, 1977;Matsumoto et al, 1977;Bovenzi et al, 1980;Miyashita et al, 1983;Harkonen et al, 1984;Pyykko, 1986;Grif®n, 1990;Koskimies et al, 1990;Letz et al, 1992;Bovenzi et al, 1994] while that in unexposed workers has varied between 6 and 21%, depending on the case de®nition [Matsumoto et al, 1977;Iwata et al, 1987;Letz et al, 1992;Bovenzi et al, 1994;]. In a study of foresters from Japan, the crude odds ratio (OR) of numbness of the ®ngers was 5.6 in vibratory tool users as compared with other workers [Matsumoto et al, 1977]; in a cross sectional survey of shipyard workers, the OR for numbness and tingling was 2.9 in HTV-exposed occupations compared with other jobs [Letz et al, 1992]; in an Italian investigation, the OR for numbness or tingling in the ®ngers and hands among stone carvers and quarry drillers was 3.5 when compared with stone workers who only performed manual tasks [Bovenzi et al, 1994]; and in gas distribution workers with the highest third of lifetime cumulative exposure, the OR for tingling or numbness was 2.3 in comparison with the lowest third [Palmer et al 1998b].…”