AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: Shipyard worker study - NO Unhealthy Controls!

[John Jacobus]

Without attachments.
--- John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rainer,
> Yes, the data from the shipyard study is complicated
> as there appear to be confounding factors that were
> not addressed when the report was first analyze.  I
> only mentioned asbestos as an example of one factor.
> 
> However, no further analysis was conducted as the
> Dept
> of Energy did not intend to pursue the study any
> further.  The basis of the study was to rebut an
> earlier study that implied nuclear workers at one
> facility had a higher incident of blood
> malignancies. 
> After this larger study was completed, and refuted
> the
> smaller study, DOE was not interested in funding any
> further work.
> 
> I would suggest that you read the review by John D
> Boice, Jr.in J Radiol Prot. 2001 Ded:21(4): 400-3. I
> sent a copy of this under another posting, but can
> send one to you directly.
> 
> Nevertheless, I should point out, as noted in the
> attached, the study was not intended to be based the
> general population.  It was between groups of
> nuclear
> workers and non-nuclear workers.  I expect that the
> comparison with the general population was to
> demonstrate a healthy worker effect.
> 
> 
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> 
> > Howard, (Keith),
> > 
> > The SMRs reported in Matanoski's work were
> > determined by comparison with the white-male
> general
> > population!
> > 
> > <quote>The risk of death during follow-up was
> > compared to 1970 U.S. white male lifetable
> > probabilities.<endquote> (p. 7 in 1.1
> > Introduction/Overview of: Matanoski Genevieve M,
> > Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation in Shipyard
> > Workers. DOE Contract Number: DE-AC02-79EV10095,
> > Final Report DOE/EV/10095--T2, The Johns Hopkins
> > University, Department of Epidemiology, School of
> > Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland,
> June
> > 1991)
> > 
> > The attached (PDF-file) table is an excerpt from
> > Matanoski's report and supports to some extent the
> > claim that the Non-Nuclear-Workers (NNW) were -
> with
> > respect to selected(!) diseases - less healthy
> than
> > U.S. white-male (USWM), in particular with respect
> > to "all malignancies" and within this class with
> > respect to "non-respiratory malignancies". With
> > respect to "circulatory" diseases (where
> > predominantly one would expect to see a healthy
> > worker effect), the NNW (and the nuclear workers
> > even more so) did indeed display a marked healthy
> > worker effect in dying significantly less frequent
> > than USWM. The overall mortality of NNW from all
> > causes was indistinguishable from USWM. With
> respect
> > to "respiratory malignancies", all(!) worker
> groups
> > showed an increased mortality with respect to USWM
> > which was statistically significant for all
> workers
> > pooled together and nearly so for NNW. Regarding
> the
> > nuclear workers, this is in contrast to the
> several
> > chronic radiation exposure epidemiological studies
> > where reduced mortality is observed most
> frequently
> > for lung cancer!
> > 
> > In this regard, both your and even more so John
> > Jacobus' rendering of Matanoski's data appear too
> > simplistic. 
> > 
> > Sometime ago I distributed a graph in a PDF-file
> > displaying the Matanoski data for these mayor
> > findings. If someone likes to see it he may send
> me
> > his request.
> > 
> > Best regards, Rainer
> > 
> >  
> > 


+++++++++++++++++++
“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


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather