[ RadSafe ] Re: AW: AW: Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work"
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 30 13:36:25 CDT 2006
If there is a relationship associated with cancer and
general health, would you not expect to see the same
relationship between reduced cancer and non-cancer
effects in the radiation workers?
While I appreciate your having the same analytical
tools as an epidemiologist, I would expect that
training and experience makes one better able to
understand the data. If I had questions about
radiation exposures in space, I would come to you. I
do question your pronouncement about epidemiological
--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> Dear John:
> If in fact this hiring policy was strictly adhered
> to - in the epoch where Matanoski's study population
> was hired (I realized that other contributions here
> deny this) - suspected cancer prone workers would
> indeed have been diverted from the nuclear to the
> non-nuclear workers and that would be consistent
> with the observation that their mortality from
> cancers (and only from cancers) was above the
> reference population level.
> If your assertion pertains, I agree therefore that
> the Matanoski data would be mute regarding a
> beneficial - as well as a detrimental - association
> of radiation with cancer mortality.
> Regarding non-cancer mortality and in particular
> mortality due to diseases of the circulatory system,
> Matanoski's original data (table 3.6) DO SHOW - as
> one reasonably could expect - the proper healthy
> worker effect with the added feature of a consistent
> and significant beneficial trend with increasing
> radiation dose (see my histogram).
> The beneficial association with non-cancer mortality
> is indisputable. It is strong enough to persist even
> in the total mortality data notwithstanding the
> obvious and recognized presence of workplace agents
> leading to enhanced mortality from cancers of the
> respiratory system - which affected all worker
> groups to the same degree. How you interpret this
> association is a different question.
> Kind regards, Rainer
> BTW: My hands-on statistical expertise to analyse
> such data meets the requirements for any common
> epidemiologist. Regarding the technical expertise
> necessary to generate such data with the quality
> necessary for a meaningful analysis I rely on
> Boice's (and others) judgment that Matanoski at al.
> did an excellent job
> 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: Donnerstag, 29. Juni 2006 23:50
> An: Facius, Rainer; hflong at pacbell.net;
> jjcohen at prodigy.net; mike.bohan at yale.edu;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: AW: Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does
> In our government programs, it was directed that
> individuals with a history of or a family history of
> cancer would be evaluated for work involving
> radiation exposure. This is one reason the
> incidence of cancers for shipyard workers refueling
> and repairing nuclear ships were less than that for
> the general population.
> You had to be associated with this work to know
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> > "It was that a doctor giving employment exams
> might unconsciously have
> > directed persons of less vigorous health away from
> imagined hazards of
> > radiation exposure, to otherwise identical work."
"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