The first posting on this topic today indicated that only the radiation exposure could be quantified. Exposure to toxic chemicals and metals could not be quantified. Therefore, for the study to achieve the (desired?) result, radiation as the only cause paradigm had to be evoked. So, what other chemicals or metals could these workers have been exposed and have any of them been shown to cause the same type of cancer? Perhaps, radiation is only a surrogate, linked by occurrence but not by causal effect. If you can't quantify exposure to other potential initiators, ascribing the cancer solely to radiation is bogus and not credible. Have the authors considered synergistic effects? It seems to me that synergy among all of the other potential villans in the chemical/metal exposures should be considered. It is so easy to recite the "deady radiation" mantra because it ..(you can fill in the blank with your own favorite ending to this thought). I will wait further judgment until I can read the original article but I am becoming leary of all of these new discoveries out of NC. Didn't the same group reanalyze the ORNL workers a while back, say about 2 - 3 years ago?
Just my own thoughts
Kjell A. Johansen
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Milwaukee
kjell.johansen@wepco.com