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

[Blaine Howard]

Dr.  Long 
	Thank you for calling attention to the attempts to
assign the lower cancer mortality of the radiation
workers in the Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study to the
Healthy Worker Effect.  The NSWS was conducted
properly and overseen by a panel of outstanding
scientists.  The study was designed to eliminate the
HWE.
	I have made a study of the HWE and found, as I
suspected, that this phenomenon does not apply very
well to cancer because we don't have good ways to
screen for the development of cancer in the future. 
To support my suspicions, I found the following
interesting quotes.

“The healthy worker effect is related to cause of
death in that diseases of old age are less related to
health status at start of employment (or of follow-up)
than are diseases of young age. Since most cancers are
diseases of old age, the HWE tends to be less for
cancer than for other causes of death. In my
experience the HWE is strongest for nonmalignant
diseases of the respiratory, digestive, endocrine and
urinary systems. Many of these diseases develop prior
to age 20, so that they logically affect a person's
ability to become employed in heavy industry. The HWE
is moderate for diseases of the circulatory system,
which account for 40-50% of all deaths. I am not aware
of any consistent relation between the HWE and deaths
from external causes. In particular, automobile
accidents tend to be fatal in rural areas and
non-fatal in urban areas.”  
(HEALTHY WORKER EFFECT by Richard R. Monson , School
of Public Health, Harvard University, September 1,
1987)

“A frequent finding is that the SMR for ischaemic
heart disease (the major cause of death in Western
populations) is a little lower than the all-causes
SMR. By contrast, the all-cancers SMR tends to be
closer to the null value of 100.”   

“Also relevant is the fact that while some conditions,
such as coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus,
entail recognizable chronic clinical courses, some
other diseases (including cancer) have a typically
"silent" course until their later stages. Thus,
cancers occurring within several years of entry into a
workforce could not usually have been predicted at
recruitment, whereas cardiovascular diseases often
could have.”
(ASSIGNING HANDICAPS IN THE MORTALITY STAKES: 
AN EVALUATION OF THE "HEALTHY WORKER EFFECT"
by A. J. McMichael, Department of Community Medicine,
University of Adelaide, September, 1987)
These quotes were taken from REPORT TO THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION BOARD ON THE HEALTHY WORKER EFFECT 
Industrial Disease Standards Panel (ODP) 
IDSP Report No. 3 
Toronto, Ontario 
June, 1988
found at:
http://www.canoshweb.org/odp/html/jul1988.htm   on
February 9, 2007
	Thus, the lower cancer mortality among radiation
workers (a well established fact) should not be
assigned to a “Healthy Worker Effect”.  To do so is
just an attempt to explain away scientific results
which fail to fit preconceived conclusions.  As
scientists, we don't modify the data to fit the
theory.  We modify the theory to fit the data.  A true
scientist strives to eliminate bias, not justify it.

Blaine N. Howard, Health Physicist (retired)
--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> 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?
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing
> list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have
> read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be
> found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe
> and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>