Re: The draft report on DOE worker risks

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I think that, just as the flight attendants had to prove their case (against
the tobacco companies) in court, so should the DOE defense complex workers.
It isn't as if the health of the Hanford workers hasn't been studied -- were
all those studies just fabrications?

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
7336 Lew Wallace NE
Albuquerque, NM
505-856-5011
fax 505-856-5564
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dukelow, James S Jr <jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:20 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