[ RadSafe ] Shipyard worker study - NO Unhealthy Controls!

[howard long]

Cameron, on the scientific advisory panel of the NSWS, had the benefit of Ruth Sponsler's assistance in later years. This excerpt from her recent Radsafe contribution clearly indicates, from a source known to have investigated more than others commenting here, that the controls were indeed NOT from the general population, but identical workers who happened to have (found later) the SMR 1.00 . NO unhealthy control distraction, JJ.
   
           "Ruth Sponsler" <jk5554 at yahoo.com>      Subject:  Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: Shipyard worker study    To:  "Keith Welch" <welch at jlab.org>, radsafe at radlab.nl    CC:     [input]   [input]   [input]   [input]  
  
 YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true; YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false; YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.lang = "us"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = -176188549; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author = ""; YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = { lw_1171325860_0: { text: 'California', startchar: 3360, endchar: 3369, weight: 0.836952, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/state'] , metaData: { geoArea: "409583", geoCountry: "United States", geoIsoCountryCode: "US", geoLocation: "(-119.2702, 37.271832)", geoName: "California", geoPlaceType: "State", geoState: "California", geoStateCode: "CA", type: "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/state" } }, lw_1171325860_1: { text: 'welch at jlab.org', startchar: 7959, endchar: 7972, weight: 1, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address']}, lw_1171325860_2: { text: 'welch at jlab.org', startchar: 9819, endchar:
 9832, weight: 1, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address']}, lw_1171325860_3: { text: 'United States', startchar: 11787, endchar: 11799, weight: 0.952447, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/country'] , metaData: { geoArea: "1.19742e+07", geoCountry: "United States", geoIsoCountryCode: "US", geoLocation: "(-116.98218, 48.890652)", geoName: "United States", geoPlaceType: "Country", type: "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/country" } }, lw_1171325860_4: { text: 'crispy_bird at yahoo.com', startchar: 12271, endchar: 12291, weight: 1, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address']} };  YAHOO.Shortcuts.overlaySpaceId = "97546169";  YAHOO.Shortcuts.hostSpaceId = "97546168";   Keith -    Here are a few notes that I hope will be helpful -    1. The NSWS did _not_ compare workers vs. non-workers.   The reason is that there is a well-known phenomenon  in epidemiology called the "healthy worker effect."   Basically, a sample of folks who go to work every day
  and live "normal lives" is a somewhat more selective  sample than a general sample of the 18-65 y,o. total  population would be....because the general population  includes a number of individuals with significant  health or behavioral problems.  These problems that  may preclude work include physical disabilities,  mental disabilities, prisoners, addiction, and some  others.  Just as a simple example - prisoners have  higher HIV and hepatitis B  rates than the general or  working population.  A sample of workers (that  excludes prisoners) is going to be "healthier" with  respect to HIV, hepatitis B and tuberculosis because  prisoners and a large proportion of drug users were  excluded.    http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/7/1218    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16186458&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum    
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!