[ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

Falo, Gerald A Dr CIV USA MEDCOM PHC Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil
Sun Apr 10 12:34:16 CDT 2011

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


I have a pdf version of the shipyard study.  It's 19 MB.  I believe I got it from the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR): https://www.orau.gov/cedr/welcome_to_cedr.aspx#datacollection.  I could not find it on the website today, but I wasn't exhaustive in my effort.

There is a section where one can access the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard data:

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (https://www.orau.gov/cedr/navalshipyard.aspx

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) studies were conducted on workers at the PNS located in Kittery, Maine.
These workers have been the subjects of a number of epidemiologic investigations, particularly for lung cancer and leukemia mortality.

Use of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS) data files requires additional authorization.
Those wishing to use the PNS data files should complete the CEDR PNS release form: https://www.orau.gov/cedr/CEDR-AuthorizedUserPNS.pdf

Apparently, there was a follow up in 2008.

Cancer risks and low-level radiation in U.S. Shipyard Workers

Matanoski et al.
Journal of Radiation Research
Vol. 49 (2008), No. 1 83-91



Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP
Army Institute of Public Health

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Minnema
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 5:59 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart

Every few years this comes up, and every few years I feel the need to address these allegations.

During my last few years at DOE, I worked for the manager who had chartered and funded this project at Naval Reactors (NR).  When I asked him about why it was never published, he gave me the simple answers - (1) at the time the study was done, the "excess benefit" results were not considered to be significant - NR's reason for doing the study was to be sure that nobody was being unduly harmed and the study verified that to be the case; and (2) since it was an internal study for NR purposes, publication was not in the original scope of the project - when it was recognized that they should publish, NR was willing to put more money in but the researcher had already gone on to other projects and was not interested in working on the publications.

Case closed; no suppression, no conspiracy.

Besides, although I am not an epidemiologist I do understand the scientific method quite well.  The statistical tests one uses are based on the hypothesis one is testing.  In this study they were trying to determine if there was "excess risk" with exposure.  I suspect that many things would be done differently if they were testing for "absence of risk" or "excess benefit."  Consequently, it is not clear that one could jump to the conclusion that the study's results are valid for any purpose other than what the study was designed to detect.

I have a copy of the report in my basement, and I know there are other copies circulating around.  But since it is a full 3" (oops, 7.62 cm) 3-ring binder full of paper, I'm reluctant to offer to scan it for everybody.  If you really need it and can't find it, I'll find out what it would cost to scan it at FedEx/Kinko's if somebody wants to make a donation.

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

>>> shima <shima at piments.com> 3/29/2011 5:13 AM >>>
On 03/29/11 03:16, Doug Huffman wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Genevieve Matanowski's Naval Shipyard Workers Study, 'Health Effects of
> Low Level Radiation Exposure in Naval Shipyard Workers'
> This is the most thoroughly disappeared technical literature that I know.
> On 3/28/2011 20:00, Ed Hiserodt wrote:
>> Sandy,
>> You may recall in the Johns-Hopkins study of nuclear vs. non-nuclear
>> shipyard workers that the cohort of some 70,000 participants were paired at
>> random.  "You there, go to the nuclear ships, and you there to the
>> non-nuclear."  How could a "healthy worker affect" be possible under these
>> circumstances?  But the nuclear workers had a Standard Mortality Ratio of
>> 0.74 when compared to the non-nuclear cohort.  Not what the study was
>> expected to show.  (And probably why it was not published for almost 20
>> years after analysis of the data.)
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

More information about the RadSafe mailing list