[ RadSafe ] Re: AW: NSWStudy
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 6 10:47:43 CDT 2006
While I appreciate your taking on this project, I do
not feel that I have as much time as you to devote to
it. I have a few papers that reference this shipyard
and other stuides. However, I really do not have the
time to search through them. You seem to have more
resources to do this work than I do.
I feel that this is any old study that has too many
questioned associated with the data. Dr. Boice has
made an assessment of the results which no one, to the
best of my knowledge, has challenged. No one has felt
it was worth the effort to re-analyze the original
data, probably due to a lack of funding.
Again, my concern is that people who "hang their hat"
on the results do not know, or choose to ignore, the
controversies surrounding the work. I think that
there are better studes available to consider.
--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> Dear John,
> can you please share the additional papers from
> trained epidemiologists who argue that the NSYW
> study yielded invalid data.
> In the Boice commentary I could nowhere find that
> claim (rather the contrary - but if you do see it
> you might wish to quote it) and the strength of
> Strom's argument regarding the (non missing) HWE
> suffers from the same weakness which you often call
> "cherry picking" (if I understand this idiom
> Of course you have every right to personally
> consider the data from this study as immaterial, yet
> the claim that they really are should be bolstered
> with same tangible facts.
> Thank you once more for sharing the above two
> 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
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2006 22:17
> An: howard long; Facius, Rainer;
> jjcohen at prodigy.net; mike.bohan at yale.edu;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: NSWStudy
> Dr. Long,
> 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"
> --- 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > ________________________________
> > 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" ?!!
> > Rainer,
> > Most of the references material I have refer to
> > other
> > 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
> > shipyard
> > study.
> > "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
> > a
> > 'health worker effect'(Table 1). This odd finding
> > challenges the consisttency criterion(15)
> > whould be consistent across studies) and makes the
> > entire study suspect. Comparisons with an
> > control group will, of course, sho a protective
> > effect!"
> > This appeared in Radiation Protection Dosimetry,
> > 98:2,
> > 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
> > that the conclusions draw by Dr. Cameron may also
> > suspect. Of course, it you think he is right, you
> > are
> > ignoring the scientific analysis.
> > As a personal note, Dr. Cameron and I debated this
> > and
> > other points several years before he died. He
=== 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