Re: [riskanal] Re: New Rad Study

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Amen Pamela! 

Pambo1@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I'm sorry I don't know the answers to your questions, but I do have some info
> that y'all might find interesting in regard to the Wing, Wolf, Crawford-Brown
> mutiple myeloma study.  Please understand that I am not trashing the study (I
> wouldn't have the knowledge to do that, anyway), just passing along the
> opinions of one of my friends who is also an environmental engineer.
> 
> My friend tells me that Crawford-Brown's "expert" report in the Three Mile
> Island lawsuit was thrown out by Judge Rambo who believed it had no basis in
> fact.
> 
> Further, he says, Wing "has designed/implemented several studies which his
> peers found flawed in some way:  the methodology was incomplete, sample
> groups were too small, contrary data was ignored, or the results did not
> support his conclusion."
> 
> In regard to the nuclear workers study, my friend explains, "You will find
> that some cancers are lower than in the general population, and some are
> higher.  Does that mean radiation lessens your chance of getting some types
> of cancer?  Using the same approach as used in the AE article, I can show
> that they do.  But the conclusion is garbage, because the sample size is too
> small, PARTICULARLY WHEN DEALING WITH CANCERS HAVING A LOW BACKGROUND
> INCIDENCE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION!"
> 
> Hmmm . . . .
> 
> Pamela Gillis Watson
> Oak Ridge, TN, DOE worker

Steve Wing and the sources DOE used to claim that "the AEC/DOE
workers" (the group) have been collectively harmed by DOE (not to say
there might be a few extraordinary conditions/cases) are
producing/using dishonest science, as described in part by Otto Raabe. 

The credible studies disprove the premise. But they were either 1.
terminated or 2. misrepresented to preclude the results from being
applied.  1. E.g., the 'high-dose' group study required by Congress,
now with NIOSH but unfunded; and the Shipyard Workers with less total
mortality and less cancer mortality in the nuclear vs the non-nuclear
compared workers, $10M of exacting 30,000+ each nuclear and
non-nuclear case-control matching, 1978-1987, with a contractor report
released under pressure with a 2-page DOE Press Release, DOE
constrained publishing, NCRP manipulated the language after the report
was approved in UNSCEAR 1994 App. A and App. B, with new funding to
Matanoski in fall '94, with no published results as of April 2000. And
2. e.g., the Cardis 95 IARC study of workers, Gilbert studies, etc. 

So DOE/Clinton-Gore now use the fabricated/falsified Wing results to
promulgate its commitment to maintain radiophobia to assure continued
funding from Congress - still abusing the workers for its own ends
(including a Gore VP shot for Richardson?)

It seems inconceivable (til I think about the record) that the rad
protectionists are defending the false premise that the workers
adverse health effects MAY be caused by radiation (esp. since they've
spent decades telling us how they have protected us from radiation
with high margins of safety).  But promoting public radiophobia
produces more funding, for public funds with NO public benefit. 

Some then argue that "the public INSISTS on higher safety margins for
radiation." It's  like a mugger saying "your money or your life," and
arguing that "I'm innocent. He INSISTED on giving me his wallet." 

And we don't take enough account of Sylvia Rambo's Daubert decisions
on the scientists in the TMI case, after the YEARS that the plaintiffs
had to make a case, they simply could not. (If anyone says that the
Appeals Court reversed, note that it was not on the merit of those
decisions. It was only on the application of the decision on the
"first ten" plaintiffs to the whole class. The other "victims"
therefore may still bring suit. )

Thanks.

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