Re: The draft report on DOE worker risks

["Philippe Duport" <pduport@home.com>]

Thank you very much for this summary...
Did I miss Michael McNaughton's message?  I could not find the address for
the "bootleg copy" of this report.  Could anyone help, please?
Many thanks in advance,

Philippe Duport

pduport@uottawa.ca, or
pduport@home.com


----- Original Message -----
From: Dukelow, James S Jr <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 7:22 PM
Subject: The draft report on DOE worker risks


>
> Thanks to Michael McNaughton's kind posting of the location of a bootleg
copy of
> the National Economic Council's (?!) prelimnary draft report
_Occupational
> Illness Compensation for Department of Energy Contractor Personnel: Report
of
> Task Group I_, I have been able to begin looking at the draft report,
rather
> than just reading relatively uninformative media reports about it.  Here
are
> some preliminary reactions to the preliminary draft, dated 23 December
1999.
>
> Although the most common phrase in the report is something on the order of
> "There were no causes of death with rates greater than those seen in the
U.S.
> general population", media reports would have you believe that former DOE
> contractor workers are dropping like flies.
>
> The second sentence of the Executive Summary says, "The DOE is a
> government-owned, contractor-operated Federal government agency."  This
sentence
> is a good predictor of the logical precision of the rest of the report.
>
> There is a certain intellectual incestuousness evident. Of the 27 studies
> forming the basis of the draft report, at least 13 are written by
researchers
> associated with ORISE or the University of North Carolina School of Public
> Health or both.  Of the remaining 14 studies, 4 were performed by some
> combination of Mancuso, Kneale, and Stewart.  On the other hand, the draft
> report notes, "Although data from other radiation exposed cohorts, most
notably
> shipyard workers, were presented to the panel, the results of these
studies are
> not included in the report due primarily to the limited focus and charge
of this
> panel."
>
> The specific cancers and other causes of death for which "positive trends"
are
> reported dance around from study to study.  There is no consistent
association
> of a type of cancer or cause of death with radiation exposure over the
entire
> set of studies.
>
> One analysis that should be done on each of the data sets, but which, as
far as
> I can tell, has not been done on any of them, is a Chi-square goodness of
fit
> test of the entire data set to the null hypothesis that there is no
biological
> effect operating on the data.  This test could be done using either
general
> population, local population, or worker population data to establish the
> expected frequencies for each analysis category.  If the overall data set
is
> well-fit to the null hypothesis, then we can be properly cautious about
our
> interpretation of any "statistically-significant positive results" within
the
> data set.
>
> It is impossible to tell from the draft report, but the description of
some of
> the categories for which "positive results" or "positive trends" are
reported,
> strongly suggests the industrial strength data dredging that is obviously
> present in some of the 27 studies the draft report is based upon.  An
example is
> the report of two "sensitive age-at-exposure groups" in an Oak Ridge
population.
> They were those exposed under the age of 25 and those exposed over the age
of
> 45.  Three subsequent analyses by the same research team also reported
> "sensitive age-at exposure groups", but variously defined as over 58, over
62,
> and age 55-65.  Several positive results are for worker subgroups
excluding
> those workers exposed to plutonium, where there is no positive result
listed for
> the same group including those exposed to plutonium.  Are we to conclude
that
> exposure to plutonium is protective?  Another example reports a higher
rate of
> leukemia among Savannah River hourly workers who were employed before 1955
who
> worked from 5 to 15 years.  Again, there was no report of a higher rate
for all
> hourly workers or hourly workers employed after 1955 or hourly workers
employed
> less than 5 or more than 15 years.  What is it about all of these
conditions
> that is protective against leukemia?
>
> Appendix 1 of the draft report provides a laundry list of all of the
reported
> "statistically significant positive results or trends" in the 27 studies.
The
> laundry list does not provide citations to identify in which of the 27
studies
> each positive result is found.  No information is provided on some of the
> interesting statistically significant negative results and trends in the
data or
> on the number of overall tests of hypothesis or calculations of SMRs, etc.
done
> in each of these studies.
>
> Several times, the draft report notes that workers hired in 1944 and 1945
show
> statistically significantly higher death rates than the general public for
a
> number of disease categories.  Finally, after several of these "positive
> results", the report notes that "Because these workers were not engaged in
> military service during wartime, it is not possible to know whether or not
these
> conditions reflect occupational exposures or underlying health conditions
that
> would have excluded them from military service."
>
> The draft report states that, using the BEIR V dose reponse assumptions,
DOE
> contractor employees (with an estimated average exposure of  1mSv per
year)
> would experience an excess of 288 cancers per 100,000 workers (95% CI =
215 to
> 546) over the expected number 20,560 of cancer deaths per 100,000
individuals.
>
> The members of the panel (all federal government employees) are listed in
an
> appendix, but no indication is given of their backgrounds.
>
> The figures and tables are either missing or cobbled in the PDF file of
the
> report on the Government Accountability Project web site.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jim Dukelow
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, WA
> jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
>
> These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
> management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html