[ RadSafe ] RE: Do Healthy Workers Negate Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work"?

[John Jacobus]

Carolyn,
Sorry to hear that you find my claims unfounded. 
However, I do have first hand information.

(1) We had one individual whose white cell counts were
beyond the normal range.  Checking his medical record,
he had about four medical exams.  Three did not
require radiation exposure.  The last was his first
radiation physical, and the blood values were within
the normal range.  The physican would have evaluated
the results would have normally considered the results
acceptable, as he was one of those that was outside of
the 90% normal range, but was required to bar the
worker for future radiation work.

(2)  A worker was successfully treated for sarcoma and
was originally accepted into radiation work.  Upon
discovering his tumor history, he was removed from
future radiation work.  

There were probably about three or four more cases
that I was involved with, but we are going over work
that I was intermittently involved with 20 to 35 years
ago.  I am not saying that there was a large number of
workers who reclused from radiation work, but there
were some.  Unless corrected for, I would assume that
this aspect of the program would bias the data. This
could, in part, explain the non-health worker effect
that some epidemiologist noted. Were there other
problems with the populaiton, I cannot comment upon. 
However, it you wish to ignore these issues because
the results fit your beliefs, and accept the data as
true that is your concern. I am just arguing that bias
data should be discounted in any statistical studies.

As for Dr. Matanoski, she was presented with records
and histories.  The Navy was trying to squelsch the
reports that shipyard workers had more cancers than
non-radiation workers.  This she did.  

--- Carolyn Alvarez <jalvarez at nxs.net> wrote:

> I suspect that the claim by Jacobus is totally
> unfounded, especially in the
> time period of the study. Please have him provide
> proof.
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
> [mailto:owner-rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU] On Behalf Of
> howard long
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 12:40 PM
> To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de; crispy_bird at yahoo.com;
> jjcohen at prodigy.net;
> mike.bohan at yale.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl;
> rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU
> Subject: Do Healthy Workers Negate Cameron's
> refutation of "Alara Does
> Work"? 
> 
>  
> 
> Fellow Students of Radiation Hormesis,
> 
> Is the low CV death rate (as well as cancer death
> rate) in NSW exposed to
> >0.5 rad   evidence that selection of healthy
> workers, not radiation
> hormesis, explains the 3 years better longevity? I
> believe not. I would
> appreciate Pollycove, Sponsler and others from
> Rad-sci commenting.
> 
>  
> 
> Circulatory disease also seems prevented by
> radiation - better at high
> mountain state levels rather than low Gulf Coast
> levels. Mechanism for this
> may be inflammation, as measured by high C reactive
> protein, associated with
> heart disease at about the level 
> of high cholesterol, and a proxy measure of heart
> disease and death I
> encourage for  study because of weeks rather than
> years to measure effect.
> 
>  
> 
> Howard Long
> 
>  
> Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> Dear John:
> 
> If in fact this hiring policy was strictly adhered
> to - in the epoch where
> Matanoski's study population was hired (I realized
> that other contributions
> here deny this) - suspected cancer prone workers
> would indeed have been
> diverted from the nuclear to the non-nuclear workers
> and that would be
> consistent with the observation that their mortality
> from cancers (and only
> from cancers) was above the reference population
> level. 
> 
> If your assertion pertains, I agree therefore that
> the Matanoski data would
> be mute regarding a beneficial - as well as a
> detrimental - association of
> radiation with cancer mortality. 
> 
> Regarding non-cancer mortality and in particular
> mortality due to diseases
> of the circulatory system, Matanoski's original data
> (table 3.6) DO SHOW -
> as one reasonably could expect - the proper healthy
> worker effect with the
> added feature of a consistent and significant
> beneficial trend with
> increasing radiation dose (see my histogram). 
> 
> The beneficial association with non-cancer mortality
> is indisputable. It is
> strong enough to persist even in the total mortality
> data notwithstanding
> the obvious and recognized presence of workplace
> agents leading to enhanced
> mortality from cancers of the respiratory system -
> which affected all worker
> groups to the same degree. How you interpret this
> association is a different
> question. 
> 
> Kind regards, Rainer
> 
> BTW: My hands-on statistical expertise to analyse
> such data meets the
> requirements for any common epidemiologist.
> Regarding the technical
> expertise necessary to generate such data with the
> quality necessary for a
> meaningful analysis I rely on Boice's (and others)
> judgment that Matanoski
> at al. did an excellent job 
> 
> 
> 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: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 23:50
> An: Facius, Rainer; hflong at pacbell.net;
> jjcohen at prodigy.net;
> mike.bohan at yale.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does
> Work" 
> 
> Rainer,
> In our government programs, it was directed that
> individuals with a history
> of or a family history of cancer would be evaluated
> for work involving
> radiation exposure. This is one reason the incidence
> of cancers for shipyard
> workers refueling and repairing nuclear ships were
> less than that for the
> general population.
> 
> You had to be associated with this work to know
> that. 
> 
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> > "It was that a doctor giving employment exams
> might unconsciously have 
> > directed persons of less vigorous health away from
> imagined hazards of 
> > radiation exposure, to otherwise identical work."
> > 
> > Howard:
> > 
> > I have no means to assess the bearing of this
> suggestion in the 
> > nuclear shipyard context.
> > 
> > In my (German) experience an employer offering a
> specific open 
> > position sends applicants which first of all he
> sees fit for a 
> > specific task to a physician together with an
> elementary workplace/job 
> > description. The result of the physician's
> employment medical is 
> > conveyed to the employer in terms of:
> > 
> > "Yes or No" the applicant is fit for the specified
> job - period.
> > 
> > In this setting it is beyond the discretion of the
> physician to direct 
> > someone to another position and hence here this
> selection bias could 
> > be ruled out.
> > 
> > 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: howard long [mailto:hflong at pacbell.net]
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2006 20:05
> > An: Facius, Rainer; crispy_bird at yahoo.com;
> jjcohen at prodigy.net; 
> > mike.bohan at yale.edu; radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Betreff: Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work"
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Ranier, your careful review of the Boice
> commentary 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"You get a lot more authority when the workforce doesn't think it's amateur hour on the top floor."
GEN. MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, President Bush's nominee for C.I.A. director.

-- 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