AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!

Mon Jul 3 09:40:56 CDT 2006

 From Matanoski, GM (1991) Health effect of low level radiation in 
shipyard workers, Final report. Report No. DOE DE-AC02-79 EV10095; U.S. 
Dept. of Energy : Comparing Tables 3.6B and 3.6D, t he cancer mortality 
rate for the exposed was only 85% of that for the unexposed, a 
difference of nearly two standard deviations

Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

>Dear Jim,
>
> 
>
>in the data published in Matanoski's final report I cannot detect a clear cut 'protective' association of occupational radiation exposure with cancer(!) mortality. If you have not received my PDF file (MatanoskiTable3_6excerpts.pdf) with the graphic representation of these data I can send them once more so that you can point me where to look at in these data.
>
> 
>
>Kind regards, Rainer
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: Muckerheide, Jim (CDA) [mailto:Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us]
>Gesendet: Sa 01.07.2006 23:56
>An: Facius, Rainer; eic at shaw.ca; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Betreff: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!
>
>
>
>
>Hi Rainer,
>
>While I haven't followed this thread in detail, did you mean to say that the protective effect of radiation did NOT effect cancer mortaity?  IIRC, the study results show statistically significant lower cancer mortality.
>
>Regards, Jim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:   radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl on behalf of Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
>Sent:   Sat 7/1/2006 4:06 PM
>To:     eic at shaw.ca; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Cc:    
>Subject:        AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!
>
>Kai:
>
>This appears to me as an argument worth studying further although I am not in a position to do so. Ventilation and dust control measures, however, could not have made a difference given the identical mortality (within the experimental uncertainty) from cancers of the respiratory system.
>
>Furthermore, the protective effect of radiation exposure - if indeed it is a causal relation - did not materialize in cancer mortality but only in mortality from non-malignancies!
>
>Best regards, Rainer
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: Kai Kaletsch [mailto:eic at shaw.ca]
>Gesendet: Sa 01.07.2006 19:40
>An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!
>
>
>
>Rainer wrote: "other known potent cancerogenic agents were identified as
>operating at these workplaces!"
>
>Is it possible that work practices, hygiene, personal protective equipment
>etc. that was mandated as part of a radiation protection program also
>protected against the other carcinogens, while the control group had no
>protection?
>
>Ventilation and dust control measures that we use in uranium mines to limit
>radon and radioactive dust exposures will also help in reducing silica and
>diesel exposures.
>
>Best Regards,
>Kai
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Rainer.Facius at dlr.de>
>To: <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>; <hflong at pacbell.net>; <jjcohen at prodigy.net>;
><mike.bohan at yale.edu>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 11:05 AM
>Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!
>
>
>"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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
>RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>  
>