[ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Jerry Cohen]

________________________________
From: Ed Hiserodt <hise at sbcglobal.netAssuming it is not a conspiracy, to what 
can we attribute this attitude?
Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their heads No?

Ed,  How about FEAR. Bad things can happen to those who get the wrong answer on 
government sponsored research. Beneficial radiation effects are definately a 
wrong answer.



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:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> 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.)

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

> 

<snip>

_______________________________________________

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



_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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