[ RadSafe ] Re: AW: AW: Cameron's refutation of "Alara Does Work"

John Jacobus 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
> Work" 
> Rainer,
> 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
> that. 
> --- 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
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 mailing list