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

Tue Jul 4 06:50:49 CDT 2006

Floyd:

Of course, socio-economic status is a known and influential (sometimes very much so) confounder for all epidemiological health studies. 

Given however that in all groups of workers the individuals were matched also with respect to their "Job Titles" and that these are probably a fair surrogate for their socio-economic status, I would ask for more specific information before pursuing that idea further.

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

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Flanigan, Floyd [mailto:Floyd.Flanigan at nmcco.com] 
Gesendet: Montag, 3. Juli 2006 16:43
An: Bernard Cohen; Facius, Rainer
Cc: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!

I have a question on this one. I apologize for not weighing in sooner but I was on vacation for a while there and do not check my email while on sabbatical. What other common denominators were taken into account when weighing this data? I realize these data lend themselves to support of hormesis, but I would only want support which is true and clear. Is there an effect created by the socio-economic status afforded shipyard workers due to the level of compensation they received on ratio against the average income/level of health care available to the average worker in the area over that particular time line? I do not have these data so I am asking. The ex-shipyard workers I have acquaintance with all say they were very well paid and had great health care benefits. I would very much like to attribute their collective good health and what appears to be a two standard deviation improvement, to hormesis, but in all fairness, I wonder if we have eliminated all other possible contributors.

Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Bernard Cohen
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:41 AM
To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
Cc: Jim.Muckerheide at state.ma.us; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: 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>
>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/
>  
>
_______________________________________________
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/