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

Wed Jul 5 15:43:58 CDT 2006

Dr. Cohen,
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
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> 
=== 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 