[ RadSafe ] Exposed " -had lower incidences of all cancers - " NO selection of healthy workers

[howard long]

John Jacobus, of the regulatory bureaucracy perpetuating LNT to perpetuate itself, must not be allowed this propaganda without response. 
   
  The John Hopkins study for DE, "Health Effects of Low Level Radiation in Shipyard Workers" Summary includes,"In fact, in the NW>0.5 [ 28,542 nuclear worker totaling 0.5 rem more than background for 33,352 IDENTICAL controls], the mortality is only 76% of that of the general population and is significantly lower than would be expected."
   
  Keith, NO selection out of cancer in workers or family occurred, as has been also testified here on Radsafe by participantts in that study 
   
  As Hiserodt notes in "Underexposed -What If Radiation Is Actually GOOD For You?"
  "An attempt to explain away the unusual with the usual 'healthy worker effect' was mentioned though without much enthusiam. But nothing in the report even got close to explaining the numbers printed in the report under 'Actual Data'." 
   
  Available from Free Enterprise Press in paperback for <$15, it is an amusing encyclopdia. 
  I found reference in it for Japanese studies showing increase in rabbit hormones with 14 kBq/l radon. Shall we promote radiation as the new Viagra?
   
  Howard Long
  
John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
  Keith,
Issues concerning the Navy nuclear shipyard study come
up periocially. Maybe yearly? You may want to check
the RadSafe achives.

The primary flaw with the study is that the cohort,
unexposed shipyard workers may not have been as
healthy as members of the general population. This
may be due to asbestos exposures. 

Of course, some still quote the "favorable" aspects
while ignoring the question as to whether or not it is
even a valid study.

--- Keith Welch wrote:

> Folks,
> I am not an epidemiologist and have no experience in
> that field. But 
> recently, partly due to the posts here, I have been
> wondering about 
> this. Maybe I just haven't thought it through well
> enough. It seems on 
> its face that using cancer incidence rates would be
> preferable to 
> mortality, due in part to the issue of changes over
> time in cure rates, 
> but also because it would seem to help correct for
> the healthy worker 
> effect (incidence rate is not as affected by the
> availability of health 
> insurance or treatment as mortality rate) - and
> possibly the "rich 
> victim effect", which I have not heard many people
> talk about, but 
> assume must be confounding; the difference in cure
> rates in different 
> socio-economic classes. I would suppose that could
> probably be dealt 
> with by careful cohort selection. At any rate, I've
> heard that the 
> shipyard worker study was flawed due to the
> following: (1) screening for 
> nuclear workers at the shipyards disqualified people
> with family history 
> of cancer, and (2) removal of people from nuclear
> worker status (and 
> therefore, presumably from candidacy for the study?)
> in the event they 
> were diagnosed with cancer during employment. Are
> either of these based 
> in fact?