[ RadSafe ] AW: NSWStudy
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Sat Jul 1 14:51:57 CDT 2006
If you have had enough patience to read my actual comment (and not only just the replica of Strom's argument) you would have come across my reasons to rebut that statement of Strom. :-)
Kind regards, Rainer
Von: howard long [mailto:hflong at pacbell.net]
Gesendet: Sa 01.07.2006 19:21
An: Facius, Rainer; crispy_bird at yahoo.com; jjcohen at prodigy.net; mike.bohan at yale.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl
I cannot accept, ""The (Navy Shipyard Worker Study) is characterized by an unhealthy control group- ", without reviewing evidence for that statement because it is not consistent with other info I have to date. Ranier and John J, please send me hard, original data to substantiate that claim, which could, indeed, influence conclusions.
Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
"The (Navy Shipyard Worker Study) is characterized by an unhealthy control group, making it one of the very few studies in occupational epidemiology not to find a 'health worker effect'(Table 1). This odd finding challenges the consisttency criterion(15) (findings whould be consistent across studies) and makes the entire study suspect. Comparisons with an unhealthy control group will, of course, sho a protective effect!"
Strom D J, Cameron J R, McDonald J C. Is it useful to assess annual effective doses that are less than 100 mSv. (Topics under Debate) Radiat Prot Dosim98#2(2002)239-245
Thank you for once more providing a copy of this (and the other) paper by Strom.
Inspection of the above argument and the table reproduced by Strom reveals that he backs his criticism with the one class of mortality causes, i.e., cancer mortality for which usually no reasons are provided why the employment medical should have prognostic value for cancer risk and hence would select against cancer prone applicants.
Had instead he chosen to look at those causes for mortality where the mechanism for such a selection effect is evident and which furnish the single most frequent cause (close to 43% instead of 25% ) for fatalities, i.e., circulatory diseases, he would have seen the healthy worker effect in its common size.
The validity of his above criticism therefore entirely rests upon this choice of him - and of course on his ignorance of the fact that other known potent cancerogenic agents were identified as operating at these workplaces!
Furthermore, the significant trend for non-malignancies (and all causes) between NW <5 mSv and >5 mSv, does not depend on the NNW group (although I do not want to rest an argument on this).
Thank you anyway for sharing your files.
Best regards, Rainer
Dr. Rainer Facius
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Aerospace Medicine
Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
FAX: +49 2203 61970
Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Fr 21.04.2006 19:09
An: Facius, Rainer; hflong at pacbell.net; jjcohen at prodigy.net; mike.bohan at yale.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!
Most of the references material I have refer to other
studies that Dr. Cameron refered to as well as the
shipyard worker study, and I am trying to avoid
expanding the issue. Nevertheless, the following I
think directly indicates the problem with the shipyard
"The (Navy Shipyard Worker Study) is characterized by
an unhealthy control group, making it one of the very
few studies in occupational epidemiology not to find a
'health worker effect'(Table 1). This odd finding
challenges the consisttency criterion(15) (findings
whould be consistent across studies) and makes the
entire study suspect. Comparisons with an unhealthy
control group will, of course, sho a protective
This appeared in Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 98:2,
239-245 (2002) as part of a debate. If you want a
copy, let me know.
As the data is suspect, I think that you will agree
that the conclusions draw by Dr. Cameron may also be
suspect. Of course, it you think he is right, you are
ignoring the scientific analysis.
As a personal note, Dr. Cameron and I debated this and
other points several years before he died. He
eventually said that he was not going to cite the
shipyard worker study due to the questions about it.
--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> Please, could you provide some references to
> published work where the debate counter Cameron's
> arguments has been documented.
> Also, if I remember correctly, Cameron served on the
> external referee board which closely supervised
> Matanoski's nuclear shipyard study. I find it
> difficult to imagine that he was called without
> quite some professional standing also in
> epidemiology - but of course I may err here.
> Kind regards, Rainer
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl im Auftrag von John
> Gesendet: Do 20.04.2006 22:00
> An: howard long; jjcohen at prodigy.net; Michael Bohan;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does
> Work" ?!!
> Dr. Long,
> The late Dr. Cameron's conclusions were debated and
> argued many times. He was not a trained
> epidemiologist. You are not a trained
> although you claim to have studied to be one.
"A scientist's aim in a discussion with his colleagues is not to persuade, but to clarify."
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the RadSafe