RE: Shipyard workers and references

["jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>]

Ted,

Did the results not agree with the LNT, or was it a poorly study?  The

latter is the criticism I heard.  It makes no sense that if radiation caused

cancer deaths, and the AEC(?) and Navy wanted to set the record straight,

why would they want to bury the report?  Do you think the Navy and DOE want

to pay people for radiation-induced cancers?  That is certainly not the Navy

I served in.  They would want to proclaim to the world that their program

protected rather than harmed the workers.



Even if did not support the LNT, the fact that radiation-induced cancers

could be identified would do more damage, both finacially and politically.

Your arguement for suppression seems backwards.





--John



John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD 20715-2024

jenday1@email.msn.com (H)





Ted Rockwell wrote:



The reason that the Nuclear Shipyard Study was undertaken was in response to

the earlier, partial and poorly run studies you cited.  A great splash was

made in the Boston papers about cancer among the shipyard workers.  So the

Atomic Energy Commission and the Navy determined to do it right.  It was

assigned to the Epidemiology School at Johns Hopkins, Upton was put in

charge of the Technical Advisory Panel with other top experts in the field,

and they met periodically throughout the long period of the study, to make

it the best possible study of this large and carefully monitored population.

And it was.  The only problem was that it did not give the expected (LNT)

answer.  So they tried to bury it.



. . .



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

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.