[ RadSafe ] Re: NSWStudy
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 5 15:17:03 CDT 2006
Whether or not you cannot accept the characterization
of the shipyard study is immaterial to me. Trained
epidemiologists have questioned its results. Why are
you unable to accept this fact? Are your beliefs
clouding your ability to make an objective decision?
How is this different from those who "fear" radiation?
--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Thank you anyway for sharing your files.
> Best regards, Rainer
> Dr. Rainer Facius
> German Aerospace Center
> Institute of Aerospace Medicine
> Linder Hoehe
> 51147 Koeln
> 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" ?!!
> Most of the references material I have refer to
> 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
> "The (Navy Shipyard Worker Study) is characterized
> an unhealthy control group, making it one of the
> few studies in occupational epidemiology not to find
> '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
> This appeared in Radiation Protection Dosimetry,
> 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
> ignoring the scientific analysis.
> As a personal note, Dr. Cameron and I debated this
> 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
> > 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
> > radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does
> > Work" ?!!
> > Dr. Long,
> > The late Dr. Cameron's conclusions were debated
> > 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
"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 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
More information about the RadSafe