Re: NEWS ITEM OF INTEREST

[Vincent.King@DOEGJPO.COM (Vincent King)]

     So let me get this straight...
     
     The atomic bomb survivors are one of the longest large-exposure 
     populations that have been followed, and the health effects are 
     closer than ever to being completely expressed...so we need to 
     discard the data because it's...old?
     
     What, exactly, makes the dose/response data "obsolete"? If the 
     number of cancers expressed per unit of exposure is less for the 
     atomic bomb survivors than Mr. Wing would expect, should he not 
     consider modifying his conclusions, rather than throwing out the 
     data? Or would this be too scientific?
     
     Vincent King
     vincent.king@doegjpo.com
      


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: NEWS ITEM OF INTEREST
Author:  Aaron Oakley <aoakley@receptor.pharm.uwa.edu.au> at Internet
Date:    2/6/00 12:21 AM



EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 4 FEBRUARY 2000 AT 17:00 ET US
Contact: David Williamson
David_Williamson@unc.edu
919-962-8596
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Scientists: bomb survivor studies outdated as basis for radiation
protection standards 

CHAPEL HILL -- Scientists who help set standards for radiation safety rely
too much on studies of A-bomb survivors, according to radiation
researchers who analyzed the relative strengths of data from two exposed
populations: A-bomb survivors and nuclear plant workers. 

Results of the new study appear in a special section on "The Science and
Politics of Radiation Studies" in the current issue of New Solutions, a
scientific journal. 

Researchers found "an increasingly outdated emphasis on evidence about
radiation health effects based on studies of A-bomb survivors." 

In their article, Drs. Steven Wing, associate professor of epidemiology at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health,
and colleagues wrote that even occupational radiation researchers use
atomic bomb survivor studies as a standard for interpreting nuclear worker
findings. 

The practice has developed despite studies over two decades suggesting
that reliance on the bomb survivor studies may produce serious
underestimates of cancer risks among exposed populations. 

The new paper appears just after the start of the National Research
Council's reassessment of the consequences of exposure to low-level
radiation, a project that may take as long as three years to complete. It
is of special interest in light of the government's stunning admission
last week that workers at 14 nuclear weapons plants were exposed to
radiation that caused cancer and premature death. 

The authors examined why the A-bomb survivor studies have dominated the
field and maintain that studies of nuclear workers should get more
attention. They noted the influence of military and industrial interests
in such research, the problems of access to data and the difficulty of
obtaining funding. Further, they say, "researchers investigating radiation
health effects among nuclear workers will have to overcome the constraints
imposed by this scientific culture upon hypothesis generation, design,
analysis and interpretation of occupational studies." 

Nevertheless, scientific attention to nuclear worker studies should
increase in the future, they said. 

"Longer follow-up and larger numbers of deaths will increase their
statistical power and opportunities for analysis of rare causes of death,
disease latency and influences of age at exposure and other aspects of
susceptibility," the authors said. "Greater attention to historical
records at DOE (Department of Energy) facilities should allow better
measurement of radiological and other exposures. 

"As researchers and policy-makers come to appreciate the unique advantages
of studies of nuclear workers, these studies should make a greater impact
on occupational and environmental exposure standards." 

Wing has conducted studies of nuclear industry workers at Oak Ridge,
Hanford, Los Alamos and Savannah River. He is currently involved in a
study of Hanford workers and a project focusing on environmental injustice
in Eastern North Carolina. Co-authors are Dr. David Richardson, visiting
scientist at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon,
France, and Dr. Alice Stewart, professor of public health and epidemiology
at the University of Birmingham in England. 

In the same issue of the journal, Dr. Rafael Moure-Eraso presents an
historical account of the occupational and environmental impacts of
uranium mining in the Navajo nation. The policies of federal and state
governments are examined during the intense uranium mining and milling
operations that took place in the Southwest, including on the Navajo
reservation, from 1947 to 1966. 

Moure-Eraso, an industrial hygienist and occupational health policy
specialist at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, found that the
miners were put at serious risk of harm from exposure to radiation and
that there was inadequate disclosure of the hazards they faced, often with
fatal outcomes. "Uranium miners were unwilling and unaware victims of
human experimentation to evaluate the health effects of radiation,"
Moure-Eraso said. "The failure to issue regulations or apply this
knowledge caused widespread environmental damage in the Navajo nation." 


###
Note: Wing can be reached at 919-966-7416. Contact: David Williamson,
919-962-8596. For copies of the Wing paper, call Mary Lee Dunn at
978-934-3263. 




************************************************************************
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