Re: congressional testimony by Steve Wing

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>]

At 12:58 PM 7/31/00 -0500, Rudi Nussbaum wrote:
>
>According to one "expert's" statement Steve Wing is not qualified to
>testify about the health effects of low-level radiation. Rather than
>convincingly refute the substantive statements by Dr. Wing, whose many
>papers have appeared in top rated international epidemiological journals,
>all refereed by distinguished epidemiologists,this writer can find fault
>only with Wing's putatively "limited" training in "sociology and
>mathematical epidemiology". One cannot help but wonder about the
>professional integrity of a person who clearly did not verify his
>"facts" concerning Wing's training and who, moreover, has to resort to a
>below the belt ad hominem attack as a substitute for carefully argued
>substantive disagreements with Wing's report to the congressional
>committee.
*****************************************
May 31, 2000
Davis, CA

Pointing out the educational background of Steve Wing helps us understand
his perspective and his approach, and is not intended as a personal attack.
I have met with him on three occasions, and I believe that he is a nice
man. He is certainly bright and sincere. 

I have also pointed the flaws that I believe exist in his studies, such as
in a debate that was held at Brookhaven National Laboratory in June. These
are matters os science.

As far as his radiation effects papers having appeared in "...top rated
international epidemiological journals..." and "refereed by distinguished
epidemiologists". Two were published were epidemiological journals. We do
not know who the referees were. His other papers that he references are one
in JAMA and one in Industrial Medicine, both medical journals, and a couple
in Environmental Health Perspectives, a general environmental health
government publication, one in New Solutions, a publication I have not
seen. Publication of any paper, including my own, even in a prominent
journal, does not prove that it is flawless or that the conclusions are
correct. Likewise, publication in lesser journals does not prove a study is
flawed or wrong.

I think we have had plenty of RadSafe postings over the last two years that
have pointed out the big flaws and limitations in Wing's radiation papers
including the recent one on multiple myeloma that we reviewed two years ago
when his full report became available.  Wing has published a few times on
lung cancer in radiation workers at Oak Ridge, but apparently has never
actually studied these workers' medical records. He seems to limit his work
to using available dosimetry data and mortality records to formulate his
epidemiological analyses. This approach leaves the results open to possibly
serious distortions by untested confounders. His studies of lung cancer at
Oak Ridge ignored the cigarette smoking history of the subjects dying of
lung or other cancer, heart disease, or emphysema. Cigarette smoking can
explain all his findings. His claim that older workers are more sensitive
to radiation carcinogenesis conflict with the published results of the
atomic bomb survivor studies.

Wing's statement to Congress that the big international epidemiological
studies that show no detectable health effects from low-level ionizing
radiation in radiation workers are less reliable than his limited studies
seems illogical to me.

Otto
	*****************************************************
	Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
	Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
	(Street Address: Bldg. 3792, Old Davis Road)
	University of California, Davis, CA 95616
	E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
	Phone:(530) 752-7754, FAX:(530) 758-6140
	*****************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html