Re: congressional testimony by Steve Wing

["edith gbur" <egbur@adelphia.net>]

I am new on the list and don't understand why  low-level radiation healfh
effects  is again befing discussed.   In 1963 the Atomic Energy Commission
commissioned Dr Gofman  and his colleague Dr. Arthur Lamplin to study  the
threehsold level below which dosos of ioning radiation to the human body
were safe.
Edith Gbur


----- Original Message -----
From: "Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: congressional testimony by Steve Wing


> 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

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