[ RadSafe ] Serendipity

Tue Apr 12 16:38:07 CDT 2011

It's a good thing Sir Alexander Fleming did not ignore the antibiotic effect of 
the penicillium fungus because that was not what he was looking for.
Jerry Cohen

________________________________
From: Douglas Minnema <douglasm at DNFSB.GOV>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Tue, April 12, 2011 1:34:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Relative Radiation Dose chart (UNCLASSIFIED)

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