RE: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice

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

Ted,

Where is your proof that "the un-substantiated charge of selection bias in

NCRP-136 is without merit?"  Because Arthur Upton was the involved with NCRP

136 and the NSW study?  In law, the term is habeas corpus, and you have not

produced any facts, just opinions that this was a valid study.  Are you an

epidemiologist?  I know that in the nuclear shipyards, only certain workers

were selected for work on nuclear components.



Was Dr. Upton asked about the omission of this report, and what was his

response?



-- John



John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

3050 Traymore Lane

Bowie, MD 20715-2024

jenday1@email.msn.com (H)



Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:35:33 -0600

From: "Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>

Subject: RE: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice



>From Ted Rockwell wrote:



The un-substantiated charge of selection bias in NCRP-136 is without merit,

considering that the senior author of NCRP-136 is Arthur Upton, the same

person who headed the Technical Advisory Panel for the Shipyard Study.  The

whole purpose of that study was to compare two populations which were

identical except for exposure to radiation.  They were matched for

occupation, age and other relevant factors.  I know of no other study in

which the irradiated population and the controls were so well matched.  In

addition the dosimetry was especially reliable, since each individual had

personal dosimetry and there was little influence from internal radiation.

The total pool of 700,000 workers to draw from made the statistics unusually

good.  It was Upton's job to see that no factor could invalidate this

multimillion dollar decade-long study.  He expressed no concerns or

reservations about it during that long period.



When the hormetic effect became crystal-clear, the cancer data were not even

mentioned in the conclusion, and the hormetic effect on mortality from all

causes was dismissed as "healthy worker effect"--an obviously invalid

criticism.  So the report was not published in the usual way and is ignored

when reports of nuclear workers are summarized.



This is a clear case of scientific misconduct by all involved.

. . .



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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/