Re: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@MEDIAONE.NET>]

 From: "jenday1" <jenday1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>



> Ted,

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

> NCRP-136 is without merit?"



First, NCRP does NOT actually claim there is selection bias, it just assumes

it must exist, more by innuendo.  The actual statement is quoted in Comments

on 136 by a member of the NSWS TAP, which provides more background, at:



http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Correspondence/NCRP136/JrCcmts.htm



See the "3rd page."



>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.



Not true.  The workers went through the same qualifications.  The study

itself spent several years resolving what factors could influence

differences, and eliminating or minimizing them.  The fundamental principle

of this study over all others was/is the selection of the specific

populations used, and with such a large work force they could be very

selective to match nuke and non-nuke workers. Further, the Navy says that "a

family history of cancer could keep some qualified workers in non-nuke

work," but they also state there were few such cases (a dozen?+) no effect

in a population of 75,000 workers in the study (out of 108,000 nukes in

700,000 workers).

  

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

> response?



No response either at the March 1999 meeting at NRC, nor at the June 2001

HPS meeting in Cleveland.  As in previous years, going back to release of

BEIR V, he just kind of swallows his tongue. In one meeting, about '94, when

he was asked very directly, he responded by turning to the chair and panel,

and said only, "you know what he's talking about, hormesis" and said no

more.  Questioning the NCRP is like fighting the blob :-)



Jim

 

> -- 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/

> 



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

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/