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

Rainer.Facius at Rainer.Facius at
Thu Jul 6 07:11:59 CDT 2006

Dear John,

for once we appear to reach some kind of minimal consensus in that the NSYW study by now has probably been superseded by more impressive epidemiological and radiobiological arguments against LNT (and possibly even for hormesis).

Regarding the Strom paper I only mentioned it to rebut your claim that the quoted argument furnishes valid criticism regarding the overall quality of the NSYW study. The rest of the argument in this paper is irrelevant to our present exchange (although I am inclined to favour Cameron's stance - give and take some 10s of mSv). 

Kind 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

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2006 22:13
An: Facius, Rainer; hflong at; jjcohen at; mike.bohan at; radsafe at
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] In utero dose "Alara Does Work" ?!!

Thank you for your comments.  I believe, and have for many years, that this study is not a useful to cite either for or against hormesis. 

It appears obvious to me that you are addressing issues about the need to monitor to 100 mSv which is not what our original postings were about.  They were about the validity of the shipyard study.  

I will pass your comments along to Dr. Strom.

--- Rainer.Facius at 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
> 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
> Voice: +49 2203 601 3147 or 3150
> FAX:   +49 2203 61970

"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

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list