Re: Cancer deficiency clusters, "U" in Workers

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

John (and all following MORE radiation need)

You observe that  lung cancer rates are higher in coast areas than mountain

states (or Iowa) - and less when exposure is  0.5 rem (5 mSv) to 1.0 rem (10

mSv) THAN EITHER ABOVE OR BELOW that dose. This supports a "U" rather than

linear (LNT) dose effect.



This differs, indeed, from Mantoski's inference, that " there is no consistent

dose response with radiation, which would suggest that radiation is not the

factor -.".

You suggest asbestos, where I infer a "U" dose effect (non LNT) to explain the

data.



References (not "speculation"):

Cameron, one of the NSWS tech Advisory Committee, (below).

Myron Pollycove PhD MD, Ludwig Feinendigen MD, Biologic and Epidemiologic

Foundations of Radiation Hormesis J Nuc Med 42(7)(9),2001.

Numerous studies catalogued by Muckerheide aand B Cohen on line.



I arranged for Pollycove to present hormesis to our skeptical classmates at UCSF

50th reunion and have carefully reviewed repeated presentations by him, Bernie

Cohen, TD Luckey, Muckerheide and others at Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

meetings, like,

THIS WEEKEND at Sheraton Colorado Springs, Y'ALL  COME! Program is at

www.oism.org/ddp. Call 520-325-2680. Cost is only $150 for 16 presentations by

Zebroski, Cuttler, Lowell Wood, etc, (2 lunches and banquet), with arrangements

to question and visit with the luminaries.                     Howard Long



"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:



> Howard,

> But if we question the validity of statistical cluster that show a higher

> increase of cancer near a power plant, it should be, and is, statistically

> probable that studies will show a statistical cluster of healthful effects

> of radiation.

>

> You noted the Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study.  It you like, I will send a

> copy of the abstract written by one of the authors of the study, Dr.

> Genevieve Matanoski.  It appeared in Radiation Research 133, 126-127 (1993).

> (I think it is important to supply references rather than speculations,

> don't you?)  Quoting the abstract:

>

> "The data clearly indicate that both nuclear worker groups have a lower

> mortality from leukemia and lymphatic and hematopoietic cancers than does

> the nonnuclear group.  All three groups have lower rates than the general

> population.  However, if the NW<5.0 or the 5.0-9.0 mSv group is used for

> comparison, than all dose groups 10 mSv and above in the NW>/= 5.0 group

> have higher mortality rates that the NW<5.0 group for both leukemia and all

> lymphatic hematopoietic neoplasms.  There is no consistent dose response

> with radiation, which would suggest that radiation is not the factor

> associated with the increase. . . . The SMRs are very sensitive to any

> changes, such as lagging, due to small numbers, so these within-group

> observations may simply represent chance variations."

>

> A couple of simplistic observations, since I am not an epidemiologist but

> feel that I can understand the basics.  First, this is a cohort study, which

> may not have any relevance to public exposures.  I guess that if you want to

> reduce your risk of cancer, you should work in Naval shipyard, since "All

> three groups have lower rates than the general population."  Second, the

> risk mortality increases at occupational exposures above 10 mSv.    Third,

> other factors that were not considered, such as asbestos exposures, may

> influence the results as they may be more important than the factor,

> radiation, that is being studied.  For example, the study indicates that the

> mortality from lung cancer for all groups was higher than that of the

> general population.  But only the non-nuclear workers had a statistically

> significant increase.  I guess you can conclude that radiation reduces the

> risk of lung cancer in this cohort.  Of course, I would rather a more

> qualified epidemiologist than I review the data.  While I admire John

> Cameron for his work, he is not an epidemiologist either.

>

> -- John

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>

> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net

> [mailto:hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 7:03 AM

> To: jjcohen

> Cc: Gibbs, S Julian; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); Radsafe Mail list

> Subject: Re: Cancer deficiency clusters

>

> Yes, Jerry,

> Such a study has been done on 27,872 nuclear shipyard workers - but until

> recently only reported as not showing expected increase in cancer.

>

> John Cameron, one of 8 members of the technical advisory committee of the

> Nuclear Shipyard Workers Study reports, "The cancer death rate of the NW>0.5

> group [those receiving an extra 0.5 rem] was over 4 std.dev. lower than the

> NNW control group [non-nuclear workers of similar ages and jobs]. This good

> news is not mentioned but the data are available in the final report."

> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/oct01/a5oct01.html

> . . .

> ************************************************************************

> 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/