AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work" - Preemployment physicals

[Rainer.Facius at dlr.de]

Thank you John, 

these copies indeed prove your claim that in the Standard Form 93, REPORT OF MEDICAL HISTORY (rev. Oct. 1974), at least until 1994, i.e., for a substantial part of the NSYW study, the question as to a family history of cancer was included. Of course, as Robert Gunter has remarked, if this had led automatically to an exclusion of an applicant, then a rather small fraction of the population would have qualified. 

So the major question remaining is, to what extent a check in this box precluded an applicant to become a nuclear worker in the shipyards. I will try to find out what the Matanoski report has to say about that.

Until then best regards, Rainer (who will be off the office until the beginning of August)

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

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Juli 2006 15:19
An: Facius, Rainer; rjgunter at chpconsultants.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work" - Preemployment physicals

Rainer,
While I do feel it is really worth my time continuing with this discussion, I would like you to provide you with copies of MY old radiation physicals.  They show the overprint regarding family history of cancer, anemia, and cataracts.  I found them while going through my old militray medical records for information on hearing test.

If they are not attached, let me know and I will send them to you directly.

Have a good weekend.

--- John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rainer,
> As I have said, I was involved with oversight of the medical exams.  
> There were other Navy officers also involved, and their experiences 
> may have been different from mine.  Maybe the number of workers not 
> accepted for radiation work was not significant.
> Nevertheless, I would think that even the suggestion of selection bias 
> that was not corrected would call into question the original data set.
> 
> If you wish to consider my concerns as being valid, that is up to you.
> 
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> > Dear John,
> > 
> > if in fact a selection bias was operating against the assignment of 
> > applicants to a nuclear
> workplace
> > by the persistent application of such "family history" regulations, 
> > this indeed would render the NSYW study immaterial regarding health 
> > effects
> from
> > radiation. 
> > 
> > The regulations which you kindly offered so far so that I could 
> > study them do not mention family history and others here familiar 
> > with such procedures reject it as a selection mechanism possibly 
> > affecting the bulk of the NSY workforce.
> > Unless I can read documents proving otherwise, I prefer to discard 
> > it as an explanation for the improved health status of nuclear 
> > workers.
> > 
> > Kind 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


+++++++++++++++++++
e to the x, dy dx, e to the x, dx
Tangent, Secant, Cosine, Sine
3.14159
Square Root, Cuberoot, udv
Slipstick, slideroot
NCE

Cheerleaders chant from my old undergraduate college.
-- 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