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

Tue Jul 4 06:30:49 CDT 2006

Dear Bernard (and Jim):

Table 3.6.D: Deaths for 32510 NNW:
all malignant neoplasms: 876/784.60 obs/exp; SMR=(1.046,1.119,1.196)
95%CI
NNW experience a significantly higher cancer mortality than the
reference population white male.

Table 3.6.B: Deaths for 27872 NW>0.5:
all malignant neoplasms: 603/632.30;obs/exp; SMR=(0.879,0.954,1.033)
95%CI
NNW>0.5 experience a cancer mortality indistinguishable from that of the
reference population

... (at a 95% significance level)

RR(NW>0.5 vs NNW) =0.85, all this is correct but in my view not
clear-cut evidence.

Perhaps I should elaborate why I hesitate to consider this as clear-cut
(compelling/straightforward...): 

If you assume (and probably rightly so) 

(a) that not a selection bias (AKA healthy workers effect) but the other
cancerogenic agents known to be operating at these workplaces raised the
cancer mortality of ALL workers above that of the reference population

and (b) that these other cancerogenic agents affected all three worker
groups to the same degree,

and (c) you can refer to known causal mechanisms 

then you might argue that the statistical association reflected in the
RR = 0.85 displays the protective activity of the added radiation which
the NW were exposed to.

I concur that these assumptions could reasonably by made given - in
particular with respect to (c ) - the pile of supporting results from
experimental (in contrast to observational) radiobiological work which
were accumulated since Matanoski's report ...

... were it not for the data on cancers of the lung (the respiratory
system). For the one cause which is mainly responsible for the enhanced
SMR of the NNW and for which even the ICRP appears to concede that it
does not conform to LNT and for which the evidence for a negative
correlation with radiation is the largest - for this cancer the shipyard
data show NO protective association.

Most likely someone can come up with another "if you assume" to explain
this but for me these are too many "if"s to qualify as clear-cut
evidence - with respect to cancer - in the Matanoski data!

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: Bernard Cohen [mailto:blc+ at pitt.edu] 
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juli 2006 16:41
An: Facius, Rainer
Cc: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us; eic at shaw.ca; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!

>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> <mailto:Rainer.Facius at dlr.de> 
	To: <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> <mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com> ;
<hflong at pacbell.net> <mailto:hflong at pacbell.net> ; <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
<mailto:jjcohen at prodigy.net> ;
	<mike.bohan at yale.edu> <mailto:mike.bohan at yale.edu> ;
<radsafe at radlab.nl> <mailto: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/