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

[John Jacobus]

Dr. Long,
Would you also like a copy of the shipyard study
review?

--- 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?
> 


+++++++++++++++++++
“We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient — that we are only 6 percent of the world’s population; that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind; that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity; and therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
-- John F. Kennedy 

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265