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

howard long hflong at pacbell.net
Tue Jul 11 19:46:17 CDT 2006

"The study accomplished its purpose." Indeed! 
  More  valuable (less biased) was learning BENEFIT,
  despite the one tail test, a form of suppression.
   Thank Cameron for seeing and publicizing
  the politically incorrect.
  Howard Long 
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
As I have noted before with Dr. Cameron, there was no
concerted effort to supress this report. This report
was originally commissioned to counter the claims of
the Portsmouth Shipyard report. It was limited in
scope. It showed that there was no increase in cancer
in nuclear shipyard workers compared to non-nuclear
workers. There was no funding to go beyond this
assessment, even though there were questions about the
mesothelioma cancers. Again, the study accomplished
its purpose.

Your blaming the NCRP, DOE, etc. makes good press, but
is not based on fact. 

--- "Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)"

> Hi Rainer,
> We would have expected Matanoski to have screened
> out the NNW that were medically excluded from
> radiation work in producing the "carefully matched
> controls," but the report does not screen them out. 
> As I said before, we went to the Navy authorities
> and got an informal response that the number
> excluded were too few to effect the results. We
> didn't get anything official, but at the time we
> probably could have. I don't remember whether John
> Cameron addressed that at the time, ca. 1994-98.
> We did not get it directly, but the Navy was more
> concerned about the mesothelioma results than the
> radiation results in being concerned about the
> report getting out. It's not clear how much of a
> role the Navy played in dealing with DOE, who dealt
> with Matanoski to suppress publication, and its
> suppression by Upton in BEIR V, and since, other
> than the continuing obfuscation, including FDA, NCI,
> NIOSH and others beyond DOE.
> Regards, Jim 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl 
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of
> Rainer.Facius at dlr.de
> > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:15 AM
> > To: crispy_bird at yahoo.com;
> rjgunter at chpconsultants.com; 
> > radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Subject: AW: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Cameron's
> refutation of 
> > "Alara Does Work" -Preemployment physicals
> > 
> > 
> > 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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list