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

[John Jacobus]

Rob,
This is my understandings also.  Asbestos proved to be
a significant factor as the Navy was using asbestos in
ships into the 1970s.  Since I was on two ships that
were built with asbestos insulation, I was entered
into the asbestos surveilance program.  My baseline
chest x-ray was put into storage for the 50 years.

--- "Robert J. Gunter" <rjgunter at chpconsultants.com>
wrote:

> 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
> exposure....
> 
> Rob
> 
> Robert J. Gunter, CHP
> CHP Consultants
> Oak Ridge, TN
> Ph:  (865) 387-0028
> Fax: (865) 483-7189
> rjgunter at chpconsultants.com
> Products and Services at:
> www.chpconsultants.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:21 PM
> To: Rainer.Facius at dlr.de;
> rjgunter at chpconsultants.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's
> refutation of "Alara Does
> Work" - Preemployment physicals
> 
> Rainer,
> 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
> hypothesis.
> 
> 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
> workers
> 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 dlr.de 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
> > 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 17:24
> > An: Facius, Rainer; rjgunter at chpconsultants.com;
> > radsafe at radlab.nl
> > 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 dlr.de wrote:
> > 
> > >
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 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 
> 
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
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