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

Robert J. Gunter rjgunter at
Mon Jul 10 19:37:16 CDT 2006

My understanding of the healthy worker effect is that if you are employed,
you are more likely to be healthy.  If the study looks at two groups of
employed peoples, and finds no difference, it seems like the healthy worker
effect cancels out.  On the other hand if there is no healthy worker effect
in relation to the general population, perhaps there is some other hazard in
shipyards.  Having worked in one, I can think of many unrelated to radiation


Robert J. Gunter, CHP
CHP Consultants
Oak Ridge, TN
Ph:  (865) 387-0028
Fax: (865) 483-7189
rjgunter at
Products and Services at:

-----Original Message-----
From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at] 
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:21 PM
To: Rainer.Facius at; rjgunter at; radsafe at
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does
Work" - Preemployment physicals

My point is that there is more to the study that at
its first reporting.  As noted by Dr. Boice, the fact
that this is the only study that does not show a
"healthy worker" effect should raise concerns.  Of
course, many studies may show a bias, but this one is
beyond the pale.  Again, proof of a theory is based on
more than just one study.  In science there is a
continual search for evidence to prove or disprove a

I do think that it is interesting that this shipyard
study was not cited in the BEIR VII (Phase 2) report. 
Instead, there is reference to the Portsmouth Shipyard
report that started this comprehensive study is.  

"Rinsky and colleagues (1981) considered exposure to
anumber of workplace carcinogens in a case-control
study of lung cancer among civilian employees of the
Portsmouth naval shipyard. Asbestos and welding
by-products were found to confound the association
between radiation exposure and lung cancer risk in
this population, where radiation workers appear to be
more heavily exposed to asbestos and welding fumes
than other workers. The unadjusted lung cancer odds
ratio for workers with a cumulative dose of 10– 
49.99 mSv was 1.8 (95% CI 1.1, 3.1) compared to
with no history of radiation exposure; adjustment for
asbestos and welding fumes reduced it slightly to 1.7
(95% CI 1.0, 2.9)."

--- Rainer.Facius at wrote:

> Dear John:
> True, but frankly, NO epidemiological study,
> including the ATB survivor data, are free from
> bias/nuisance variables/confounders. Thus, strictly
> adhering to your advice would bereave us of
> essentially the whole human data base, of which the
> NSYW study represents a not insubstantial fraction
> which I would not ignore without more solid reason
> than just "may have been biased" which is true for
> all others, too.
> Kind regards
> 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: Freitag, 7. Juli 2006 17:24
> An: Facius, Rainer; rjgunter at;
> radsafe at
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's
> refutation of "Alara Does Work" - Preemployment
> physicals
> Rainer,
> If you accept that the data may have been biased,
> why do you not just move on to more relevant
> studies? 
> Science is not based on only one study.  It is a
> body of work that establishes proof.
> --- Rainer.Facius at wrote:
> >

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

Cheerleaders chant from my old undergraduate college.
-- 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