[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Ship Yard Workers - Journal Publication vs. Report/Thesis Findings Issue
Radsafe:
As one
who apparently received NRI while a preadolescent (about 1956 or 1957) from the
family pediatrician in Baltimore, I am interested in knowng if there is a
concensus among Radsafers on the risk associated with this exposure. If
the risk is significant, what should I have my current Kaiser physician be
alert to during physical examinations?
Jim
Otton
Radsafe:
In a similar fashion, the
US Centers for Disease Control [CDC] also over a period of many years
has refused to consider radiation effect research documented in Ph.D. theses
related to the adverse effects of Nasopharyngeal Radium Irradiation [NRI]
because it was not "published" in a peer reviewed journal. It appears that
research whether indicating adverse effects of lack of effects is ignored by
agencies depending on their unspoken agenda.
Concerning NRI adverse
effects, in the first case the Sandler, 1979 Ph.D. thesis at the Johns Hopkins
School of Public Health on 667 children treated with NRI at a Johns Hopkins
run clinic which had a RR = 8.6 for thyrotoxicosis [Graves Disease] with a p
value < 0.01 was ignored in reviews by the CDC and statements were made to
the contrary in CDC publications from 1994 to present that NRI had no
significant "benign or malignant" health effects based on published
studies. The Sandler, 1979 Ph.D. findings in her Ph.D. thesis at
Hopkins were reported in a 1980 Bureau of Rad Health [BRH] and HEW publication
on Radiation Bioeffects research of papers presented in June, 1979 at a BRH
sponsored conference in Bethesda, BUT the research findings of Sandler
were not considered peer reviewed and the findings of harm related to thyroid
disease conveniently never reported in a journal article. Sandler at the 1979
Bethesda conference reported the 8.6 RR for thyro! toxicosis was "highly
statistically significant and deserving of follow-up study" since it indicated
the NRI procedure appeared to have caused pituitary damage which upset thyroid
function. However, the recommendation went unheeded.
In a subsequent
Ph.D. study at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health [Yeh, awarded June
1997] of the Sandler, 1979 cohort of 583 children treated [and traceable] with
NRI and brought forward in time to document health outcomes, the 1997 Ph.D.
documented research by Yeh demonstrated per the author's own statements in the
Ph.D. thesis a highly statistically significant adjusted RR =
30.9 [ a mere 2,990% increase] for benign and malignant brain tumors
[7 cases in the treated] vs. the control group [0 cases].
Nevertheless from 1997, the CDC up to the present has continued to
maintain there were no adverse impacts of the NRI procedure in its use
on young children [and no need for screening recommendations to be issued for
adults at risk of head and neck cancer, thyroid disease, brain cancer, brain
tumors, and other adverse effects related to thyroid disease], and refused to
evaluate the Yeh, 1997 thesis. The CDC clings to its technically
insupportable [and erroneous] recommendation that there have been no
documented "significant benign or malignant health effects from NRI".
The Yeh Ph.D. findings were published in the April 15, 2001 issue of
the American Journal of Epidemiology with substantial
word-engineering to minimize the impact of the adverse findings in the
Abstract. The CDC has still, to my knowledge, not evaluated the Yeh, 2001
published results or modified its earlier "recommendations" to do nothing on
the issue related to prudent guidance to the population as risk which is of
vital importance to the 570,000 to 2.6 million individuals the CDC
has estimated in its own published research [see Mellinger-Birdsong, 1996]
received NRI treatments in the US from 1945 through 1961 [although the
treatment continued into the 1970s in some locales like Maryland where it was
exceeding popular with physicians. For those that want to estimate doses
delivered to children in this procedure, it typically involved the insertion
of a 50 mg Monel [0.3 mm encapsulated to maximize beta dose] sealed Ra-226
capsules through ea! ch nostril to the opening of the Eustachian tube for a
series of 3 to 4 twelve minute treatments. In standard medical lingo the
total "dose" would be about 2 gm-min of Ra-226. Calculations of contact doses
to the nasopharynx exceed 2,000 rad, with doses beyond the first cm of depth
falling off sharply, but still delivering substantial gamma dose which I have
published in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,
"Radium Exposure in U.S. Military Personnel", [Farber & Ducatman, Jan. 2,
1992].
It is quite clear that across the board, government agencies
tasked with radiation protection responsibilities ignore major studies and at
times the major studies and at time the most relevant research findings, if
the findings has not been published in a peer reviewed journal for one reason
or another. The so-called "gray literature" of DOE reports or Ph.D. theses
findings are simply ignored when convenient.
Stewart Farber, MS Public
Health
Public Health Sciences
[203] 367-0791
======
In a
message dated 12/21/01 9:51:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, tedrock@CPCUG.ORG
writes:
> Since when did "publish" mean peer reviewed?
John:
DOE, NCRP, ICRP, BEIR committees, et al. seem to hold to this
definition,
since they do not include this study in their reports,
although it is
clearly the best study available on the subject and was
under the same
technical direction (Arthur Upton).
Ted Rockwell