[ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

Tue Apr 12 15:44:53 CDT 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Would the data then qualify as convenient and not biased by LNT/hormesis
prejudices?  'Convenient data' as contrasted with purposeful data
assembled by the designer of a study susceptible to charges of bias.

Perhaps it should be re-evaluated with additional statistical
significance arguable for the absence of bias.

On 4/12/2011 15:34, Douglas Minnema wrote:
> Sorry for being late, been offline for a few days.
> 
> No, I don't think we need to attribute this to anything more than the fact that the study had been done in a different era than today.  The healthy worker effect was an accepted explanation at the time, and no further explanation was deemed necessary.  Besides, this study was done by an operational group (Naval Reactors) that was concerned about ensuring that their workers were safe enough.  They were primarily military and civilian engineers, not a bunch scientists looking for statistical tests of the LNT, hormesis, or any other theory of the day.  Concern over the adequacy of safety programs appears to have been the norm when Adm. Rickover ran that program.
> 
> I cannot say that they did or did not recognize that there may be some significance to the results, I was not there at the time.  But my boss did note that at some point they recognized that there may be reason to publish the study so that it could be evaluated further, but perhaps they did not try as hard as we would have liked them to today. 
> 
> No offense intended, but I fail to understand why we (as a society, not individually) always try to read more into such decisions than what is actually likely to be there.  We should not be astounded that any particular group or individual failed to do what we, as Monday-morning-quarterbacks, would have done in the same situation.  As an organization, Adm. Rickover's NR is still the model that other nuclear organizations strive to achieve; but their focus was safety in design, construction, and operation of nuclear propulsion systems, not epidemiology. 
> 
>  Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
> 
>>>> "Ed Hiserodt" <hise at sbcglobal.net> 04/10/11 1:59 PM >>>
> Doug,
> 
>  
> 
> What astounds me about the study is that none of the researchers appear to
> have been surprised or amazed by the results.  You would think that one of
> the team would at one time turned to another and said something like:  "My
> gosh, the most exposed workers had a SMR of 0.74 compared to controls.
> Shouldn't we look into the potential of using radiation as a prophylactic
> for cancer?"  But instead apparently everyone just shrugged and went home.
> Assuming it is not a conspiracy, to what can we attribute this attitude?
> Apathy?  Political correctness?  Nice Government Men shaking their heads No?
> 
>  
> 
> Just curious,
> 
>  
> 
> Ed Hiserodt
> 
> Controls & Power, Inc.
> 
> Maumelle, AR
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Falo, Gerald A Dr
> CIV USA MEDCOM PHC
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 12:34 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)
> 
>  
> 
> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> Caveats: NONE
> 
>  
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrr/49/1/83/_pdf
> 
>  
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> Jerry
> 
>  
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> 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:
> 
>> -----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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNpLnDAAoJEIpOLnult3mgKp0IALHPyWW5TRW4JA7/ZgEdAXpP
KBoRb0EE2KgVdKtvVNyT/obxzahhZBm7NU/cG1gdzvumkK2QvVfhPCVdZZKkHrQz
hOQaGn3QiphpWgN1OYNtMZM0BjsFkhwSgD5hhpTfkU2ePabd3mNoC3HBwqNNtEsq
7UPPY0BUYFWy13B07ENtEwV4ZtslYgzycRBCPnI4lokALd5rqkhjPBev5DkvWg7O
qFp/elmlGiRAiKpudaRUpq7SV0h55g/yOrYN8gkN9ADHvvWqUbYytZ6YcMqGKVJl
9tMzCNye7FTRqhUpr/lIQofbAR69Dko2/1tg5Bn/eRAvzjLv8Aa/VWTB3BIiess=
=BNxO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----