[ RadSafe ] AW: NSWStudy

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

Howard:

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
Betreff: NSWStudy



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.
 
Howard Long

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
	
	Dear John:
	
	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
	Linder Hoehe
	51147 Koeln
	GERMANY
	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" ?!!
	
	
	
	Rainer,
	
	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
	study.
	
	"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!"
	
	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:
	
	> John:
	>
	> 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
	> Jacobus
	> 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
	> epidemiologist,
	> 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."
	Leo Szilard
	-- John
	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
	http://mail.yahoo.com