AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 5 15:43:58 CDT 2006
Of course, if there are questions about the bias of
the data does it matter what the results are?
--- Bernard Cohen <blc+ at pitt.edu> wrote:
> 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
> >Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose
> "Alara Does Work" ?!!
> >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
> >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,
> >----- 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
> >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
> >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
> >Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> >FAX: +49 2203 61970
=== 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 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